Day: June 21, 2008

What If Iran Was To Retaliate

For months, maybe years, there is been a ever increasing crescendo of chest thumping because of something Iran has proposed to do, that being the development of nuclear technology.  Of one side says it is for the approaching need of more energy and the other is determined to say that it is because they, Iran, want nuclear weapons.  Now you be the judge of what side is really telling the truth.  That argument has been played to death.

All I want to do is offer up what , if anything, the Iranians would if they were truly attacked in one way or another.

But increasingly military analysts are warning of severe consequences if the US begins a shooting war with Iran. While Iranian forces are no match for American technology on a conventional battlefield, Iran has shown that it can bite back in unconventional ways.

Iranian networks in Iraq and Afghanistan could imperil US interests there; American forces throughout the Gulf region could be targeted by asymmetric methods and lethal rocket barrages; and Iranian partners across the region – such as Hezbollah in Lebanon – could be mobilized to engage in an anti-US fight.

Iran’s response could also be global, analysts say, but the scale would depend on the scale of the US attack. “One very important issue from a US intelligence perspective, [the Iranian reaction] is probably more unpredictable than the Al Qaeda threat,” says Magnus Ranstorp at the Center for Asymmetric Threat Studies at the Swedish National Defense College in Stockholm.

Analysts say Iran has a number of tools to make good on those threats and take pride in taking on a more powerful enemy. “This is not something they are shying away from,” says Alex Vatanka, a Middle East security analyst at Jane’s Information Group in Washington.

“They say: ‘Conventional warfare is not something we can win against the US, but we have other assets in the toolbox,’ ” says Mr. Vatanka, noting that the IRGC commander appointed last fall has been “marketed as this genius behind asymmetric warfare doctrine.”

we can only hope that none of this is academic and that sanity will be returned to the international scene, but in case it does not, then be prepared for whatver will happen.  Peace!  Out!

Could Blackwater Have A New Gig?

Mia Farrow, the actress and activist, has asked Blackwater, the US private security company active in Iraq, for help in Darfur after becoming frustrated by the stalled deployment of a United Nations peacekeeping force.

Ms Farrow said she had approached Erik Prince, founder and owner of Blackwater, to discuss whether a military role was either feasible or desirable.

She acknowledged that many people might have reservations about Blackwater being involved in Darfur – the company’s men were involved in the fatal shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians last September – but said the threat of violence to refugees meant all options had to be explored.

Mr Prince hasraised the possibility of a role in Darfur for security companies.

Ms Farrow, who represents Dream for Darfur, a human rights group, and other lobbyists this week lambasted the UN Security Council for its “shameful” failure to halt killings in the Sudanese province.

The activists, who claim China has used the threat of its Security Council veto to prevent tough sanctions on its ally, urged the UN to stand up to Khartoum in the deployment of a 26,000- strong force. They said the Sudanese government had abused its right to approve contingents in an effort to ensure only relatively poorly trained and equipped African troops were assigned.

Clean Coal?

ut exactly what is the technology?

The cleanest coal plant in North America is operated by Tampa Electric, in the middle of rural Florida. They call it clean because they don’t burn coal exactly – they mix it with water and oxygen and convert it into a gas.

According to company president John Ramil, gasifying coal allows the company to remove pollutants like sulphur, nitrogen and soot, which virtually eliminates acid rain.

“And you can do it much cleaner than with the conventional coal technology,” says Ramil.

That’s the good news. But here’s the problem.

“There is no such thing as clean coal,” says James Hansen, NASA’s expert on global warming, who says all coal plants, even TECO’s, still emit millions of tons of carbon dioxide – the most threatening greenhouse gas.

“There is no coal plant that captures the carbon dioxide and that’s the major long-term pollutant,” says Hansen.

But if carbon dioxide pollution is the problem with clean coal, many scientists believe there is a solution. They believe it’s possible to recover most of the carbon dioxide and store it underground.
The idea is called “capture and sequester,” and a global race is on to learn how it should be done. One Norwegian firm is storing tons of carbon dioxide in rock caves beneath the North Sea. America’s efforts to sequester carbon have stalled. The Department of Energy planned to fund a plant, but pulled all funding when the price grew too high.

Here is an idea whose time has come and long since gone.  STOP IT!

Obama And Public Financing

In his first press conference since announcing he was turning down public funding, Barack Obama reinforced his argument that the campaign finance system is broken, fractured by huge spending by outside groups bankrolled by special interests.

The presumptive Democratic nominee says his 1.5 million donors represent a real grassroots campaign. “What we’ve built frees ourselves from special interests,” he said, unlike Republican John McCain’s operation, which Obama said is based on big donors and lobbyists.

But let us be realistic–If McCain had been wiser and hired younger staffers instead of the older ones using a tired old 1950’s strategy, then he would be rolling in dough and he would opt out of the public financing of campaigns too.

McCain camp says that Obama cannot be trusted because he changed his mind on public financing, but this is lame BS coming from a man how was against torture before he was for it or against tax cuts before he was for it or offshore drilling or….well the list goes on and on….

Apparently the McCain camp has only personal attacks to cover the thinness of their issues.

Obama And FISA

In the beginning there was light and Obama’s opposition to FISA and then the evil political snake came to call and offered the magical apple of power. He was against it before he was for it–sound familiar? Read his statement.

“Given the grave threats that we face, our national security agencies must have the capability to gather intelligence and track down terrorists before they strike, while respecting the rule of law and the privacy and civil liberties of the American people. There is also little doubt that the Bush Administration, with the cooperation of major telecommunications companies, has abused that authority and undermined the Constitution by intercepting the communications of innocent Americans without their knowledge or the required court orders.

“That is why last year I opposed the so-called Protect America Act, which expanded the surveillance powers of the government without sufficient independent oversight to protect the privacy and civil liberties of innocent Americans. I have also opposed the granting of retroactive immunity to those who were allegedly complicit in acts of illegal spying in the past.

“After months of negotiation, the House today passed a compromise that, while far from perfect, is a marked improvement over last year’s Protect America Act.

“Under this compromise legislation, an important tool in the fight against terrorism will continue, but the President’s illegal program of warrantless surveillance will be over. It restores FISA and existing criminal wiretap statutes as the exclusive means to conduct surveillance – making it clear that the President cannot circumvent the law and disregard the civil liberties of the American people. It also firmly re-establishes basic judicial oversight over all domestic surveillance in the future. It does, however, grant retroactive immunity, and I will work in the Senate to remove this provision so that we can seek full accountability for past offenses. But this compromise guarantees a thorough review by the Inspectors General of our national security agencies to determine what took place in the past, and ensures that there will be accountability going forward. By demanding oversight and accountability, a grassroots movement of Americans has helped yield a bill that is far better than the Protect America Act.

“It is not all that I would want. But given the legitimate threats we face, providing effective intelligence collection tools with appropriate safeguards is too important to delay. So I support the compromise, but do so with a firm pledge that as President, I will carefully monitor the program, review the report by the Inspectors General, and work with the Congress to take any additional steps I deem necessary to protect the lives – and the liberty – of the American people.”