Featured Post

Castro and the Nazis: Makes Perfect Sense

As we come up on the 50th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis, we see newly declassified German intelligence documents reporting that Fi...

Sunday, March 29, 2015

Let's Hear a Big "Yemen!" for Obama's Foreign Policy!

Disaster.

Everywhere in the world one looks, the disaster that is Obama stares back.

One can see it everywhere.

US influence in Latin America has collapsed. Even old allies such as Colombia and Chile now side with the crazies in Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Venezuela against the USA. The Castro Brothers are having a field day with the inept US "negotiators," increasing Cuba's influence in the region as they show their fellow Latins how to tame the Great Imperial Power--one in an all-fired, inexplicable hurry to "normalize" relations with the murderous regime in Havana. Thus far, Obama's only "success" in Latin America was Operation Fast and Furious which killed hundreds of Mexicans and at least two US federal agents, and fed the false narrative of "drugs go north and guns go south." The only other policy that comes close is Obama's tearing down of the US border with Mexico and its policy of admitting anybody to enter the US who wants to do so . . . assuming they will become a ward of the state and vote Democrat.

In Asia and even Europe, foes and old friends are lining up to join a Chinese led and dominated "development" bank. Russia does whatever it pleases in Ukraine and elsewhere, including terrorizing Europe's airways with unannounced flights of military aircraft, and, let us not forget, openly aiding Iran's nuclear program. All this despite Obama/Clinton's "brilliant" Red Clown Nose "Reset" Button signifying a new era of positive relations with Russia. One wonders to what year that reset button connected? China, meanwhile, expands its naval power and tries to bully its way to the top, forcing Japan to undertake a militarization not seen since WWII.

Great chunks of Africa are now embroiled in a murderous war with lunatic Islamists. Whole African villages have been wiped out by Islam's followers; thousands of girls and women kidnapped, raped, and sold into slavery by Islamic madmen who take to the airwaves to boast of their madness. Our response? A hashtag campaign. Libya, with our eager help, has gone from a quirky madhouse to a bloody charnel house. In the wake of Obama's deposing of Mubarak, Egypt has avoided a similar fate only because the Egyptian army finally stopped listening to Obama/Clinton and acted against the army's old enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, bouncing Obama's darling, Mohamed "Jews are Pigs" Morsi.

For no reason at all, Iraq has been abandoned. It now faces one of two likely fates: 1) domination by Sunni murderers; or, 2) domination by Shia murderers backed by soon-to-be nuclear Iran (we'll get back to that).

Now, Yemen. Never a nice place, historically a source of random violence, prolonged civil war, and radical Islam, but one which for a brief moment looked as if it were on the way to some sort of existence as a nation. Once proudly listed by the ludicrous Obama foreign policy "team" as a "success," Yemen now is, well, another victim of Obama's foreign policy. Iranian-backed Shia rebels have occupied Sana'a and thrown the US and the West out of the country. Iranian proxies now pose a threat to Red Sea and access to and from the Suez Canal. The only hope for some sort of recovery lies with the Saudis and the Egyptians acting to stem the Iranian tide from engulfing yet another country. Yes, folks, the very same Egyptian military that Obama sought to destroy might be the force that manages to block the Iranians in the Red Sea. It appears, as this is being written, that both Saudi Arabia and Egypt, without informing the USA ahead of time, have begun some military moves to counter the Iranian threat in Yemen.

As Iran expands its power in the region, what do we do? We conspire to let Iran have nuclear weapons. If you think the Iranians pose a danger now, wait until they have nukes--and make no mistake about it, they will have nukes if the Obama misadministration has anything to say about it. I have covered the proposed "deal" before (here, for example) and won't go over it all again; suffice it to say from all that I am hearing, it will be a disaster--there's that word, again--for America and the West. There is no clear explanation why a rushed deal is in the interest of the USA and the West. Squeeze the Iranians with sanctions and--above all--with fracked oil. Fracking will do more to curb Teheran's (and Moscow's and Caracas's) ambitions than all the "deals" worked out by John "Xmas in Cambodia" Kerry.

Our "leaders" have become so obsessed with this farcical deal, that they cannot or will not see the chaos all around them. This deal should be the lowest of the lowest priorities. This deal cannot justify the grotesque betrayal we have seen of Israel by Obama. In an unprecedented move of spite and hate, our President declassified US reports detailing Israel's nuclear deterrent. This attempt to undermine Netanyahu and delegitimize Israel's concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions is shocking and destructive. First, for the legalisms: Israel, India, and Pakistan are not signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Iran is a signatory. Second, does Israel's nuclear program pose a threat to the USA or the West? Have Israeli leaders vowed to blow Iran or Syria or anywhere else, including Europe and the US, off the map? The sort of detail released by this jaw-dropping declassification will help Iran and other mad states in their drive for a nuclear arsenal. The disclosures about Israel and the leaked details of the impending deal with Iran already have led to dark hints from the Saudis that they might have an interest in developing their own nuclear capabilities. Are we going to declassify our reports on the nuclear programs of Pakistan, India, France, and the UK, too? In the meanwhile, as predicted before watch for a budding alliance between Israel and Saudis.

We have entered an era of sectarian warfare unlike any in recent times. Obama, the Nobel Peace Prize Winner, has made the world incredibly unsafe--and it seems to be on purpose as I noted a few weeks ago,
Obama hates America and Western civilization. He wants to replace them with some sort of horrid Third World culture in which the progressive elite will be in charge.

He shares his father's dream.

72 comments:

  1. Dear Diplomad,

    Even Australia is about to join the Development bank, i'd say that our government is privately appalled at what is going on in Washington but they are too polite to say anything. Instead it seems they are quietly positioning themselves for the "post American era" in the Pacific and Asia, given Obama's actions in the rest of the world I would say that the ANZUS treaty is not worth the paper it is printed on.

    I do not think that it is a co-incidence that Australia is about to buy Japans Soryu class submarines to replace our Collins class subs, and we have seen a big increase in joint excercises recently.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What's always funny is that in that great and wonderful society that is suppose to rise up from the ashes of the one the progressives burnt down that they are suppose to be in charge. Or that the Muslims they champion with bow gracefully to their better.

    I have a feeling if, G*d forbid, it does happen they are in for a rude surprise.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I occasionally wonder how history -- if there is any history after lefties get through re-writing the history books -- will reflect in 50 years on America's first African-American president. Will they write that Obama managed, through malevolence or incompetence -- to destroy a nation that was once the hope of the oppressed world? Or will they write that he put the brakes on a rapacious band of privileged elites who were pillaging the world's resources? The latter would be the way Obama would describe it if anyone could do an in-depth interview with him rather than a puff piece. But such a description requires an enormous suspension of disbelief that even the most convinced ideologues would have a hard time maintaining. Because when all is said and done, our fundamental change will not result in the disappearance of income inequality and flooding the country with brown-skinned immigrants will not do away with perceived racial injustice. Our forefathers thought out the design of this constitutional republic much better than the redesign our current narcissist has come up with: a redesign that is based on revenge, envy and class warfare. Will historians remember and reflect this, or will they report that we burned out through over-indulgence, like the Romans before us?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The sanitized revisionist history of Ted Kennedy (D-Hades) as illustrated by the fawning at the opening of his (tax-payer funded) "institute" ain't nothing compared to how the geniuses (just ask them) are going to mollycoddle Obama's "legacy".

      Sorry. I'm from Massachusetts. I was Kennedy'd out by the time I was seven.

      Delete
    2. There will be history, F. Sure, the Left cynically believes that it's written by the winners, and the Left plans to win by fair means or foul. But it thinks that way only because it has turned its back on the most enduring history--the Bible.

      Take a long, hard look. The Bible was written by supposed "losers", yet it has endured, and will endure.

      Sure, I introduce myself as a professional swindler of the young rather than as a history teacher (I want to keep my job). But every time I open that old book, I am reminded what has kept us going all these millennia.

      Couldn't help myself, since it's Holy Week and the stores are already selling matzoh for Pesach.

      Delete
  5. Sandra C

    Such incredible madness, everywhere. I feel as if the world has fallen down the 'rabbit hole'.

    ReplyDelete
  6. As if all that wasn't dire enough, don't forget Iran's intrusion into Latin America
    http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/Data/articles/Art_20318/E_061_12_1444742692.pdf


    ReplyDelete
  7. Sgt, I really fear the time may be coming for people with anything left to lose to bug out of here. If it's somewhat sane down there, what are your immigration policies .. for fleeing Americans with college degrees, professional skills, clean credit and criminal histories, and (hopefully) some assets?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That pretty much meets the criteria for "skilled migration", we speak a dialect of English that you will almost understand so it won't take you long to find your way around. Just remember we drive on the left side of the road, unlike most of the world you persist on driving on the wrong side!

      Delete
  8. Anon: Don't worry about that last part: any assets you have will be gone before you can depart for Oz. The IRS will see to that.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Yup, F, I greatly worry about that. But future looks bleak as it is, and what is more worrying is that even as the effects of Obama's policies become more blatantly obvious and dire to any rational human being, his approval ratings rise. That suggests an electorate that will truly sink what's left of this country, even if Obama graciously leaves in 2016 - and leaves while there's anything left to leave behind.

    ReplyDelete
  10. It's too easy to make our government an object of worship. God willing, the USA will survive. The former is the important part, yet too often we focus on the latter.
    We pass more and more legislation, as though somehow we can legislate God's will into serving our purpose of propagating forward a set of values that become more and more divergent from our founding and religious values. It's insanity.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
  11. Diplomad- you should stop beating around the bush and tell what you really think. I am starting to believe that Obama is the best thing that ever happened to USA foreign policy. Pure genius. The world has had a taste of what it is like without uncle sam on the world stage. Egypt and SA fighting the fanatics tooth and nail. Europe expressing concern about russia. The french holding the line against Iran. Who would have predicted these developments? If a major conflagration is avoided for next 2 years- the world will welcome a competent US foreign policy with little american flags and red white and blue confetti. The chinese bank is worrisome; de-dollarization scares the bejesus outa me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, SISI and Egypt is fighting the fanatics however Saudi Arabia has the fanatics installed as the government. There is no difference between the Saudis and ISIS, both run according to Sharia law. And Saudi nationals have sponsored much of the Sunni fascists; Iran the Shiite fascists.

      Only SISI is fighting the Islam-fascists.

      Delete
  12. There is a legitimate conundrum concerning the civilized world vis-à-vis the Muslim world.

    Clearly we are seeing a Sunni-Shia world fight developing (well, actually it has been going on for 1400 years).

    How should the civilized world respond?

    I suggest a two-pronged approach:

    1. Encourage the sectarian fighting.

    2. Assist those favorable to a civilized society, e.g. Israel, Christians, Kurds, SISI in Egypt, possibly Tunisia Morocco and Algeria (not sure about that last one). I suspect the King of Jordan would be amenable but has a population problem of his own.

    3. Work with the Turkish military.

    4. Propagandize the women. Hey, how about that, feminists?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Maybe it is time to post this David Warren essay from a few years ago. I would say it is prescient. He wonders if Obama is Gorbachev for the US. I copied it so it would not disappear.

    Yes: a lot of people have entertained the idea, that Mikhail Gorbachev was to the late great Soviet Union, what Barack Obama is to the surviving United States — the leader who reforms so many things so quickly that his country suddenly disappears. One recalls the speed with which the first Soviet head of state to be born after the October Revolution became its last head of state. It took him about three years: just less than the time of one U.S. presidential term. (Though he had already taken three years to warm up, as General Secretary of the Communist Party.)

    Yes, it seems very astute for 2009.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The US has been around longer than that. I think it'll take more than Obama to truly defeat the US. Whenever the liberals have run amok for too long, we suffer, but we have always overcome in the end (only to let the liberals off again decades later)

      - reader #1482

      Delete
    2. Adam Smith famously said:

      'There is a great deal of ruin in a nation'

      While that is undoubtedly true, I doubt Smith ever contemplated such a well placed, determined and entrenched political effort to do so. I truly hope that Smith is right, because the world need the US to survive in the from that it was conceived and endured for so long.

      Delete
    3. I think Chesterton said that.

      Soviet Russia had a series of ethno-regional crevasses we lack. It also had a political economy wherein the entire apparatus of production was encased in one bureaucratic-authoritarian structure. We have nothing analogous. We just have a legal system and a higher education system which runs on humbug, a crapulous Washington establishment (see Hunter Biden, or the crew who were running Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac), and a political class which is one part bumbling fool and two parts crook and liar.

      Delete
    4. The distance traveled from Gen. Eisenhower to BO was a vertiginous descent. If who you recruit reflects human beings of median quality, you just have to say that's the culture and that's the quality we've been producing.

      Delete
  14. 6 years ago the world was prostrating themselves before the Enlightened One (Peace Prize Be Upon Him) in massive Coliseum and Stadia. The United States had finally joined the civilized world and overthrew the yoke of The Conservatives and their outmoded ideas.
    And now, with the wolves at the gates, those same throngs are wondering where the once great United States is to do the dirty job that the Eurozone has lost the stomach to deal with.
    Elections have Consequences. In this case, for the entire world. Hopefully We The People can overcome our momentary love of the new hotness, the history, the bling...and settle for old fashioned determination to say "no more" and ignore the whining and carping from the rest of that world about the Cowboy Americana.
    Assuming we have anyone like that in our Political Class anymore (General Odierno, where are you).

    ReplyDelete
  15. Folks, I'm from Downunder. I lived in America between 1965 - 1967 and so much admired you and your country I have been back about six times as a visitor. There is little I have not seen. However, I fear the America I knew is disappearing - and quickly

    You elected a draft dodger with matching wife, both of whom behaved as expected. Then you followed up with a couple who have massive chips on their shoulders about their colour. They behaved as expected.

    To top that off you accepted the dodger's wife as Secretary of State, and then accepted the treacherous Kerry as her replacement. Both behaved as expected.

    You are smart enough to walk on the moon yet you elect horrible people who are not like the Americans I knew and met.

    Stop it - please!
    .

    Have the

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Truer words never spoken . . .

      Delete
    2. How on earth did you omit the draft dodger W from that list of woefully bad Presidents? Three in a row, and Hellary next. Dear God!

      Delete
    3. Dearie, I see that you have metastasized with your misinformation. "W," as you refer to him, was a pilot flying an F 102 that might have gone to Vietnam except the plane was obsolescent and not designed for the air war there. I do see that your leftists credentials are intact.

      Delete
    4. "leftist": withdraw, sir! He avoided the discomfort, and perhaps danger, of Vietnam by signing up for the National Guard - less disgraceful than Slick Willie, of course, but draft dodging all the same.

      Delete
    5. Dearie...some history for you. When 'W' chose to fly the F102, those planes were flying missions in Vietnam. He chose that plane because it was in front line service. In the time he went though flight school, the plane was withdrawn from Vietnam, but was still considered a frontline interceptor to defend the Nation's airspace against intrusion by nuclear armed Soviet TU-95 "Bear" bombers (Should WW3 break out).
      On the other hand, Kerry went into the Swift Boats because there duties at the time were patrolling the coasts and did not have contact with the enemy. (Kerry admits as much in his book published in 1986). However, once Kerry got his transfer to Swift Boats, their mission had changed to direct contact river patrols. Within 4 months he found his out.
      2 Men. One who wanted front line service and one who did not. But for the changes in mission while each was training for their specific choices each of these men were sent on a path opposite of what they wanted.

      Delete
    6. If W had wanted to go to fight in Vietnam he'd have gone. He no more wanted to than Clinton, or Cheney, or Gore the "Army journalist". I suppose that W and Gore, having influential fathers, found routes of avoiding danger that were more palatable than Cheney's or Clinton's. A shower, the lot of 'em.

      Delete
    7. How on earth did you omit the draft dodger W from that list of woefully bad Presidents? Three in a row, and Hellary next. Dear God!

      dearieme, this isn't one of the alt-right latrines you usually frequent, populated with the pathological. Bush enlisted in the military in 1968, you ignoramus, and was on active duty for two years followed by three years of musters.

      Delete
    8. Do stop making excuses for that lamentable creature. He hid away from Vietnam in the National Guard. Spin it as you will, there's no escape from it. Later he sent thousands to their deaths in his stupid wars, and piled corpses by the tens of thousands. Why on earth do you defend him?

      Delete
    9. "Why on earth do you defend him?"

      Because you are wrong and parroting nonsense that is spread by real draft dodgers. I have no doubt that W joined the TANG to fly like his father did. He took his chances with Vietnam but, I strongly suspect, it was the flying that was attractive. Otherwise, he could have gone to Oxford or some other elite hiding place. Kerry actually began as an admiral's aide and transferred to Swift Boats as his political ambitions sprouted. It seemed a safe option until the mission changed. I know a couple of swift boat vets but not the ones who put paid to Kerry's ambition.

      Delete
    10. He hid away from Vietnam in the National Guard. Spin it as you will, there's no escape from it. Later he sent thousands to their deaths in his stupid wars, and piled corpses by the tens of thousands. Why on earth do you defend him?

      Do stop pretending you know anything you twaddle-meister. About 3 million of those posted in theatre during the years running from 1965 through 1972 were actually assigned to VietNam itself. Roughly 30% of the armed forces of that era consisted of career or semi-career soldiers who had at least one voluntary re-enlistment to their credit. There were north of 13 million men in the vulnerable age cohorts (those born from 1944 through 1951, which is to say that about 15% of the male population born during those years was posted to Viet Nam and roughly 40% of these were in rear echelon positions the whole time. A randomly selected youth of those cohorts had one shot in 11 of seeing combat in Viet Nam. About 55% of those cohorts had NO MILITARY SERVICE whatsoever.

      Now, kindly crawl back under whatever slimy British rock you crawled out from under.

      Delete
  16. I'm curious for insight on the Ukraine thing. I think it's been completely botched, and now we're trying to even botch it further.
    What exactly will the US tell eastern and southern Ukrainians?
    "Hey.. rejoin Ukraine... then we'll have elections.. you guys will throw the vote to a pro-Russia President... and the Kiev people will, again, run the fairly elected President out of town."

    But this is what's become of the power vacuum left by Obama's retreat of US foreign policy. Where was the US telling Kiev "we appreciate your western sentiments, but you have to make this transition democratically, or everybody's going to regret it"? Instead we just got "viva la revolucion!"

    Please somebody correct me if I'm wrong... from everything I've read, Yanukovich was fairly elected... yeah, he was probably breaking laws when in power, but as we know in the US, that's difficult to stop and is mostly accepted unless it starts to threaten elections or a constitutional showdown.

    - reader #1482

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The EU and US were messing in Uncle Samovich's backyard, now there is no appropriate response due to arrogance and incompetence.

      Delete
  17. If Dearieme is the same of that name who posted comments on Duff and Nonsense, he is no leftist. He is, however, British, and can be forgiven for accepting some of what the media on both sides of the Atlantic have told him. Many years passed, as I was duped by the Uncle Walter, et al, until my experience of the real world had grown sufficiently to allow me to see a serious gap between the what the media were telling me and what I beheld with mine own eyes. Separated by thousands of miles of water, DM and nearly everyone else must depend on the mostly leftward-leaning media.

    Happy Easter, DM. If you like, I believe that the Dip can give you my e-mail.

    Michael Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dearieme is female and a regular on alt-right sites where they sit around and flash their middle finger at blacks, Jews, and the Bush family.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps not the same "Dearieme" but if Art Deco you'll look to Diplomad's sidebar you should notice

      Duff and Nonsense

      Hardly, as I think you might absorb, 'alt-right' - & samples

      http://duffandnonsense.typepad.com/duff_nonsense/2009/06/dearieme-he-was-right.html

      https://hbdchick.wordpress.com/
      ______________

      Now it could be "somebody else & of another sex" chose the same moniker & specific non-capitalization - this is the Internet after all. I suppose we'll see. (JK)

      Arkie

      Delete
    3. hbdchick is another alt-right denizen. The alt-right is variegated in their interests. They just harbor the same set of conceits.

      Delete
    4. Dearieme is female and a regular on alt-right sites where they sit around and flash their middle finger at blacks, Jews, and the Bush family.

      Once again it seems that accuracy and logic are not your strong points.

      Delete
    5. There is no logical fallacy and that's precisely the fare at Unz Review and, in a more attenuated way, The American Conservative.

      Delete
    6. Absent (so far) Art Deco, clearly definitive evidence, and borrowing from the headers of many (Mangan's for instance) blogs "I remain unconvinced" you'll Sir be providing more than mere "I think DM girl"?

      But okay, hbd chick (as I understand) wasn't so keen on voting for either McCain or Romney. And truth be told, I wasn't too hot on either myself.

      Arkie

      Apostate (or impure in opinion) I'm left thinking you'd have ol' Arkie?
      ___________

      But, as I've stated, this is the Internet. You Art Deco taking upon yourself doing the HTTPS' of the Bona Fides Protocols?

      Good luck with that.

      Delete
    7. No clue what you're talking about at this point.

      'hbd' is short for 'human biodiversity', which is to say subscriber to a portfolio of interests and viewpoints associated with Steven Sailer, John Derbyshire, and Jared Taylor. That's an alt-right subtype. Screwball isolationists a la Ron Paul are another subtype. Goldbugs a la Ron Paul and the von Mises Institute are another subtype. Twee envionmental / localist poseurs are another subtype. Subscribers to wacky conspiracy theories (see Paul Craig Roberts) are another subtype. What they have in common is their disdain for the conventional right and their conviction that they're deep thinkers and everyone else is stupid. Nearly all subtypes are contributors to The American Conservative. Most contribute to Takimag. The Unz Review is just the eugenicists and the conspirazoids (who are particularly obsessed with Jews). Front Porch Republic would be the Wendell Berry wannabees.

      Delete
    8. Art Deco I have no option other than to whimper Uncle!

      You're correct of course. Dissent from your opinion is, What was it the Borg said?

      Oh yeah I remember.

      Bye.

      Arkie

      (Good blog Dip. I'll read as usual. Keep off the astroturf though.)

      Delete
    9. Oh. One last thing if I might Art Deco:

      "The votes were drawn from people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton or Bush. Again, for Perot to have been decisive, he'd have had to draw about 2/3 of his support from Republican-oriented voters. That's plausible. It's just that the survey research I've seen suggests that did not happen and Perot supporters did not favor Clinton or Bush by a generous margin."

      Citation or the location of the source material you've seen Sir.

      If it's not too much of a bother. GPS'll do.

      Arkie

      Delete
  18. Hey, I see that Obomber has called SISI (not ISIS) and said that Egypt can have its weapons after all, he graciously releases them, king-like. He also had the gall to remind SISI to respect different political parties AKA His buddies the Muslim Brotherhood.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Here's the link to the story

      http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2015/03/31/obama-lifts-executive-holds-on-military-deliveries-to-egypt/

      Delete
    2. I suspect the reason the hold was lifted has to do with only the Sunni nations of Egypt, Pakistan, and Turkey have credible armies (land forces especially speaking). The Saudi Army has approximately 40% Yemeni ethnicity making up its land forces.

      Turkey is busy at the moment. Pakistan - available sources admittedly are conflicting - at any rate even if Pakistani forces were mobilized to take part in a southern invasion of Yemen ... it would in my opinion, take some time.

      The Saudis, despite the noises they make, are very doubtful when it comes to anything other than the current and ongoing air campaign. Besides, they'd have to go in from the north (supply lines for one thing) and the terrain would favor overwhelmingly the defenders.

      That leaves ... Egypt.

      Arkie

      (Ahoy DM!)

      Delete
    3. I am very concerned that the Saudis are not going to make it. The Shiite eastern area is too close to Yemen and the Saudi army is suspect. Egypt might do it but they are not too strong after Obama has been harassing them. If Saudi goes, Obama will get his $10/gallon gasoline.

      Delete
    4. "I am very concerned that the Saudis are not going to make it."

      Despite the gnashing of teeth and the rending of garments by some in DC, the Saudis - at least insofar as Yemen specifically is concerned - the plump smooth-skinned hands of the House of Saud can not, will not be bothered to do anything themselves. Witness Sunni Oman for instance where the Shi'a East is concerned.

      The Iranians remember weren't around (in their present form) when "The Yemeni Troubles" first - in modern times circa the 1960s first reared its ugly head. Of course the Saudis (much like NATO) have gotten used to "us" providing their security umbrella.

      http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/060728_gulf_saudi.pdf

      But, the Saudis as yet and in the shortish term, in the neighborhood of at least two decades in my opinion, will retain their usual means to take care of problems - throwing wads of cash mostly, conserving secondarily as they did with Pakistan back in the 1970s fuel subsidies enticing the Pakis. (And recall when Musharref overthrew the Paki government of PM Nawaz Sharif '99, Sharif refuged in Saudi Arabia. So there's another chit the Saudis can call in.)

      But there's a more fundamental roadblock where the Saudis "doing what it takes" viz Yemen is concerned and that's in no small irony, partly of their own creation - Wahhabist AQAP.

      In the case of Yemen strictly, the Iranians enjoy the luxury of not having to lift a finger. Just sit back and enjoy the show. The Iranians are mostly concerned with access to the Med, they know their "active hand" is stayed so long as there's Djibouti, and Egypt's absolute requirement to keep the Suez open. The EU's too.

      Frankly (and while I too am very unhappy with the "charlie foxtrot" that is this MisAdministration's modus operandi) I am nevertheless not particularly bothered that the Saudis have been given this opportunity to learn fomenting Wahhabist Franchises is tricky business.

      Arkie

      Delete
  19. I want a great country and not something that seems weak and depressed. Why did we vote for this? What mass delusion or mass compulsion towards self-destruction have we suffered?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, you got Clinton because of Ross Perot. You got W as the result of a tie that the Supreme Court decided to break - someone had to do. You got O because the alternative was McCain. I confess that I see no excuse for retaining O: Romney was a respectable grown-up. If you elect Hellary, though, I will run out of excuses for you. But you are not alone: we elected Blair three times, a demented narcissist of little intellect and less education.

      Delete
    2. Obama learned from Blair to flood the country with new reliable voters, even if they have to be on the Dole. At least Mexicans only have one wife, mostly.

      Delete
    3. Well, you got Clinton because of Ross Perot.

      no, contemporaneous survey research indicated that Perot was not drawing disproportionately from Republican voters.


      You got W as the result of a tie that the Supreme Court decided to break -

      No, they only ruled on procedural questions re the Florida recount.

      Delete
    4. "[N]o, contemporaneous survey research indicated that Perot was not drawing disproportionately from Republican voters."

      Don't know I agree with that Art Deco;

      "With a weak running mate, and erratic behavior, Ross Perot began to drive away supporters, and in hindsight, had little chance to win. However, his campaign left a significant impact sweeping away 19 percent of the vote."

      Those votes had to come from somewhere.

      http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/his2004071992/

      Arkie

      Delete
    5. The votes were drawn from people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton or Bush. Again, for Perot to have been decisive, he'd have had to draw about 2/3 of his support from Republican-oriented voters. That's plausible. It's just that the survey research I've seen suggests that did not happen and Perot supporters did not favor Clinton or Bush by a generous margin.

      Delete
    6. Art Deco?

      "It's just that the survey research I've seen suggests that did not happen and Perot supporters did not favor Clinton or Bush by a generous margin."

      You'd allow I suppose Sir, possibly allowing 'other interested parties' well me being specific Sir, to have a link - absent an internet source the location of the library - anyway, access to that "survey research" you're alleging you've seen?

      Not saying it isn't so, just trusting as I might be inclined to verify.

      Would you not Sir agree that the 'Reagan Dictum' ... Trust but verify ... isn't, especially in these times, particularly applicable?

      Arkie

      Delete
  20. "A tie that the Supreme Court decided to break ". Umm, what? There was no tie, Bush won Florida fair and square and EVERY recount proved it. The Dems challenged a legal result in court, asking the courts to rig the recount in a manner that would favor them. Essentially attempting to steal an election through the courts. At no point was there a tie.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that the Democrats behaved disgracefully, and I can well see why the Supreme Court was reluctant to let the Florida courts decide the matter. But the voting was, within any practical error bars, a tie. That, after all, was why the Democrats thought that with a little finagling the result could come out their way.

      Delete
    2. Appears I owe an apology to Art Deco.
      ____________________

      Ordinarily I'd say "DM, as A True Scotsman you'd know (being the Academic I knew ye to be Elsewhere)

      Ye've either lost or ne'er kenned wut yun know'd in the first place;

      "But the voting was, within any practical error bars, a tie."
      ____________________

      Horseshit.

      (And *dearieme* you've given away wit little finaglin expression what you might've maintained in another circumstance.)

      *Byrnes as I recall. But anyway the voting being "within any practical error" given the Electoral trumping the Popular was and will Remain

      Horseshit by any other Name.

      http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/2000.html

      Arkie

      Delete
  21. Not only was there no tie, but also, the Court did not break a tie. They merely ruled that recounts could continue, but not just in four counties. They'd have had to recount all of Florida. Since the scam was to recount those four [D] counties, assigning votes to one column or the other, in proportion to the votes in those counties, eventually, they would have put the total over the top for the[D]. With that ruling, the Democrats knew that the jig was up, so they went to their reserve position, claiming that the election was rigged, stolen, thrown to Republicans by the Court.The actual vote on the crucial issue was not five to four, but seven to two.This is why I am no longer a Democrat. I had thought that, even though so many of their programs did not deliver the promised result, their intentions were good, so, they were the Good Guys. This was a huge shock to my naive fifty year old system. Good guys don't steal elections. There's much more to the story, but I can see from my perch in Texas, that your eyes are glazing over. So, I'll stop there. However, further details will be made available upon request.

    M<ichael Adams

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Michael's actually DM correct, admittedly the "Tale of 2000" is somewhat muddied though.

      I "think" maybe all of us here, perhaps not all but hopefully enough agree that the Sabato fellow runs The Center for Politics website is deemed 'not so partisan one way or t'other' as his totals won't be rejected out of hand - besides, I am pretty sure all will agree it's the Electoral College that counts.

      From a February 2008 post (to be found below the table)

      "Note: A pound sign (#) indicates that Al Gore lost the electoral vote in the 2000 presidential election but won the popular vote."

      http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/frc2008021901/
      _______________

      Without going into specifics I think Michael won't mind me saying, he was at the time "in the trenches" and knows from personal experience, a thing or two about 'chads' - hanging or otherwise.

      Arkie

      Delete
  22. Michael K. --- Arkie here ---

    Above at 4:15 AM then again at 8:29 PM (that last replying to you specifically)

    I offered my thoughts on your expressed sentiment;

    "I am very concerned that the Saudis are not going to make it."

    *Apparently* (Maybe) the House of Saud called in that chit I mentioned at the latter 8:29 PM entry responding to your expressed

    "I am very concerned that the Saudis are not going to make it."
    _________________

    Bearing in mind the Saudis "managed" keeping secret from the MisAdministration what seven days ago seemed - at least to the MisAdministration, "an impossible move against the al Houthis."

    (Diplomad's 2.0 getting it first - "a scoop" of sorts - I could be wrong but I don't think so. We should know within 24 hours.)
    ________________

    The port of Aden (where the USS Cole was attacked) offering the sole geography [terrain in mil-speak] under extreme duress from the Iranian backed (different from Iranian "supported") al Houthis will see a combined Egyptian/Pakistani Helicopter Assault initiated.

    The Saudis apparently having "called that Paki chit" - the Egyptians wary of (likely) opportunistic Somali Piracy as well as the Bab al Mandeb chokepoint into the Red Sea.

    Anyway, the next 72 hours will be very interesting. On TV anyway. Being there, not so much. Egyptian naval bombardment, Egyptian helicopter insertion of Pakistani ground forces. The Saudis doing ... well, I'd guess border control on their southern front something like the Turks did at Gallipoli. I doubt we'll see much of that on TV. At least in the US.

    But, however it turns out, it'll be seen in the Arab world as the fault of the US.

    The bad parts anyway.

    The "good parts" will be massaged into a Victory of Islam Over the Infidels. Or the Crusaders. Given recent events it won't matter anyway. All the cheering will be aimed at Just another victory on the inevitable march toward

    Diversity.

    Arkie

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Pakis turned them down a week ago. I guess the ante was upped. Maybe the Bomb was part of the deal. I'm still concerned about "Arab armies" as Dayan once explained.

      Delete
    2. Final time Michael K you'll ever be seeing Arkie signed down at the bottom of an (for intents and purposes as blogspot decrees) otherwise anonymous comment.
      ____________

      The Pakis have had some *nominal number* of troops in SA participating in the annual (since Musharraf got kicked out - '98) Samman 5 exercises (Paki & SA exclusively) doing - if you've ever Michael K been "privileged" to do *interoperability training/maneuvers*

      Art Deco will of course label me "hater&or stupid" but since this is the absolute last, wtf. (Part of this Michael K you can figure out for yourself - tides/currents: Gulf of Aden, Bab al Mandeb Strait, Red Sea ... The Moon [not 'Moonbeam Gubner of California Jerry Brown but what the Apollo Missions aimed at achieving ... Peace Be Upon The NASA Program]

      In short (normally I might use the Latin "In Brevis" but I recognize here I will get burnt) but anyway

      the Saudis enjoy a fairly short window as the Pakis [main force] are scheduled to leave 4/19. Turkey as mentioned above remain busy and thus, are of no help in the foreseeable future.

      Egypt however (Sisi does have some problems in the Sinai but *unusual help* eg > the Moon or whatever .. can't never say explicitly as these things tend but ... those "minor" Sinai thingies can be covered)

      But the main thing of the moment is Yemen. And there's only a fairly short "launch window" to take care of the problem from the south. And it will have to be done very quick - likely while our hemisphere is dark.

      Any otherwise will result in the Pogo Quandary for the Saudis

      "We have met the enemy and he is us."

      Arkie

      Or, the status quo. Forgive the Latin Art Deco.

      Delete
    3. "(Reuters) - Yemeni Houthi fighters and their allies seized a central Aden district on Thursday, striking a heavy blow against the Saudi-led coalition which has waged a week of air strikes ..."

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-yemen-security-aden-idUSKBN0MT0G820150402
      _______

      'While it's dark"

      Delete
  23. Thu Apr 2, 2015 5:53am EDT

    You mentioned Somalia Arkie and I was surprised. What else is our media not telling us?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/02/us-kenya-security-militants-idUSKBN0MT0WK20150402

    ReplyDelete
  24. Robert of OttawaApril 2, 2015 at 5:36 PM

    Obomber announced that a framework of an agreement has been worked out with Iran - words to come later. Hahahaha!

    ReplyDelete
  25. https://www.blogger.com/profile/05811784594425834599
    _____________________________

    Art Deco April 2, 2015 at 8:57 AM

    "The votes were drawn from people who would have otherwise voted for Clinton or Bush. Again, for Perot to have been decisive, he'd have had to draw about 2/3 of his support from Republican-oriented voters. That's plausible. It's just that the survey research I've seen suggests that did not happen and Perot supporters did not favor Clinton or Bush by a generous margin."
    ________________

    Which evidence on at minimum three times above "Hotshot" you've been asked for/ given the opportunity to present.

    .... .... .... .... .. ..

    Awaiting patiently ... ... ...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. snore, snore maybe some more snore

      Delete
  26. snore .. snore .. snore some more et cetera et cetera

    ReplyDelete
  27. That is an extremely smart written article. I will be sure to bookmark it and return to learn extra of your useful information. Thank you for the post. I will certainly return.

    ReplyDelete