Obama's UN Speech Supported the State Dept's Benghazi Lie

Slowly the facts are coming out about what happened during the Sept 11 attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi. This attacks were initially blamed on some video that muslims rioted over because they were told by their peers that the video insulted Mohammad.

In reality, proof is coming out that the Government knew from the start that the attack on the US Consulate was a terrorist attack and not some video protest that turned tragically violent. Take a look at the following timeline, keeping in mind that right from the start, they knew this was a terrorist attack (See the full timeline here which includes numerous other instances where the video was blamed):

• 11 Sept
• During the day - Protests in Egypt over the Mohammad video
• In the evening - Attack on US Consultate - Ambassador killed
• Later that evening - Attack on CIA Safe House - Two Americans killed
•  Hilary Clinton blames video for violence
• 16 Sept
• Susan Rice Makes TV show rounds and blames the video
• 25 Sept
• Obama makes his speech at the UN

President Obama, surely knowing that this was a terrorist attack, still pushed the video lie in his speech to the United Nations.

There are no words that excuse the killing of innocents. There is no video that justifies an attack on an Embassy. There is no slander that provides an excuse for people to burn a restaurant in Lebanon, or destroy a school in Tunis, or cause death and destruction in Pakistan. - Link

President Obama's entire UN speech reinforces the lie created by Hilary Clinton and his State Department, that the deaths of 3 Americans were the result of some video that nobody saw. His UN speech only mentions terrorists once, and that is in reference to Iran. Instead, he refers to the terrorist attack on the US Consulate as some mere violent religious outrage. The President was right in that there was no video that justified an attack on a US Embassy. However, terrorists do not have to justify their actions.

Now the President's UN speech might not matter just yet, but once Congress hears evidence from Administration officials who have direct knowledge of what actually happened, everything the President, Secretary of State Clinton and other Administration officials said about this attack will become an issue. Even more so if it turns out that lies were made to protect Obama's reelection. At the very least, Obama's speech was a full two weeks after the attack. All of the relevant Administration officials would have been aware of the facts or will have been told a lie agreed upon by others high up in the Government.

This growing scandal might even bring down the Obama Administration. Even better if it ends Hilary's 2016 run for the White House. As it stands, both persons were very likely fully knowledgeable of both the facts and the lies put forward.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama to Third World: No Electricity for You!

President Obama has demonstrated his hate of the coal industry before by declaring his intention to bankrupt it. However, for the moment, he is unable to attack the domestic coal industry like his fellow Democrats in Congress would like, given that their efforts would only kill thousands more jobs if they could get their way. And given the current recession, job destruction will just hurt them that much more come election time in November.

This however, does not stop the Obama Administration from attacking the coal industry abroad. And leave it to Obama's team of activist advisors to find a way how to do it, by coming out against coal fired power plants in the third world.

NEW DELHI: Close on the heels of the inconclusive end to the Copenhagen Accord, the US government has stepped up pressure on the World Bank not to fund coal-fired power plants in developing countries.

In a letter sent to the World Bank, a copy of which is with TOI, United States Executive Director Whitney Debevoise said, "The Obama Administration believes that the Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) have a potentially critical role to play in the future international framework for climate finance, and, in particular, to assist developing countries in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions and strengthening their economies' resilience to climate risks.'' - The Times of India

This is a pretty big F.U. to the third world, which were pretty big supporters of the President. I am not sure what they were expecting to get from him, other than to make them feel better. One way to make their lives better is to give them power. With that comes communication, light and refrigeration with will improve the quality of life as well as extend the working day. Obama however plans to make it much harder to develop the third world by taking away their most likely source of power, coal.

For starters, coal is the mail source of fuel for power plants in the US. Much US electricity is made using coal power. Take a look at this Electricity Flow diagram for 2007. Coal is the largest fuel source for electricity production. Remember that it is domestic and not imported coal.

Coal is not simply chosen as a fuel source for any old reason. It is chosen because often it is the only viable choice to make. The other main choice also a fossil fuel, being natural gas. Gas is much greener than the others, but as for actual 'green' choices, most locations have none. Really, unless a region has a viable location to place a dam for hydro power, then they have no green options. There is nuclear, but I do not see the US being real excited about building nuke plants throughout the third world. (The sliver on the bottom left is the contribution that renewable energy makes in powering America.)

So is the Obama Administration fighting to keep the world's poor in the dark? It sure looks that way. And that is a shame as giving the poor power is one of the major requirements for getting people out of poverty and countries into the modern world.

There is one more thing to keep in mind:

* The U.S. is, after all, the Saudi Arabia of coal. We have more than 200 years of coal reserves at our current burn rate. There are 440 coal-fired plants across the nation, with proposals to build 153 more in 42 states over the next decade, at a cost of $137 billion, to provide electricity to 93 million homes and support our energy-guzzling lifestyles. - Time

So, not only can the US help modernize the third world by helping to give them power and light. The US can also profit in the process. This way, everyone wins.

This is poor policy. Instead of cutting off coal, the US should strive to make coal greener. At least until there are some viable alternatives to choose from. At the moment there are none and that means that the world's poorest are left sitting in the dark.

-------------------- --------------------

Labor Union Demands No New Technology!

So, how bad can unions be for America? Very bad. Take this demand from the International Longshoremen's Association:

Technology proved the key obstacle to efforts by the ILA and USMX to negotiate a two-year extension to the current six-year contract, which expires Sept. 30, 2010. The ILA’s 200-member wage scale committee rejected a management offer Wednesday in a vote described as unanimous. No new talks have been scheduled.

James Capo, chairman and CEO of United States Maritime Alliance, said he was disappointed by rejection of what management considered a “fair and very generous offer.” But he said employers won’t yield to ILA demands to halt the introduction of labor-saving technology at ports.

“Our members are adamant that they are not going to allow the ILA to basically veto technology. If that happens, we’re all dead,” Capo said. “We cannot and will not agree to that position, ever.”

The ILA demanded a freeze on introduction of new technology during the contract extension. The ILA’s executive vice president, Harold Daggett, who plans to seek the union presidency in 2011, was especially vocal on the issue, saying he wanted to prevent the spread of automated terminals like the one APM Terminals opened two years ago in Hampton Roads. - Journal of Commerce

Is it any wonder why labor unions are so unpopular:

Gruesome new poll numbers on public support for unions--the percent who say they "mostly hurt"the U.S. economy jumps from 39% in 2006 to 51% last month, for example. .... Tom Edsall calls them "horror show numbers" and wants an explanation! Hmmm. I wish I could say "card check"--the labor plan to avoid secret ballots when organizing--but that isn't the most visible of the roles unions have played recently. - Kausfiles

Here is a look at the type of work these unions are protecting by denying the introduction of new technology:

-----

-----
(Direct Link: Longshoreman I.L.A. Local 1349 Part 2)

This is straight out of the third-world.
-------------------- --------------------

Polio - A Muslim Disease

During President Obama's speech in Cairo this week, he mentioned the following concerning polio:

Today I'm announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life. - White House

But wait, Polio was all but headed for complete eradication, until Muslims f*cked it up.

In 2006 only four countries in the world (Nigeria, India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan) were reported to have endemic poliomyelitis. Cases in other countries are attributed to importation. - Wikipedia

AND:

A major factor in the failure of polio immunization programs is opposition by Muslim fundamentalists. In Pakistan and Afghanistan, the Taliban have issues fatwas opposing vaccination as an attempt to avert Allah's will, and as an American plot to sterilize Muslims. The Taliban have kidnapped, beaten, and assassinated vaccination workers and officials. In February 2007, physician Abdul Ghani, who was in charge of polio immunizations in a key area of disease occurrence in northern Pakistan, was killed in a terrorist bombing. In July 2007, a student traveling from Pakistan imported the first polio case to Australia in over 20 years. - Wikipedia

To compare the US has been the driving force to eradicate polio, having its last natural case in 1979. The Western Hemisphere was declared Polio free in 1994. I am not sure how much more we are expected to do. After all, the extremists are not going to join any partnership with the US to eradicate polio. After all, if a child dies, regardless of receiving and medical aid, they use the death as an opportunity to blame the US for it. This is just one more reason to fight the Taliban. Modern society is simply not compatible with their beliefs.

What is needed is to force the Muslim world to educate their populations. And by education, I do not mean memorizing the Koran.

-------------------- --------------------

Obama Agrees: UN Blames US for African Condom Shortage!

A couple of years ago the Bush Administration decided that out of all the money being sent to Africa, that he wanted American donations to be used to teach Africans to avoid getting AIDS by learning the ABC's (Abstain, Be Faithful, Use Condoms) Well the UN and other NGOs were a little pissed off that the US decided to add some conditions to the money they were handing out like it was free water. Take this sob story:

"A lot of the family-planning associations in Africa refused the terms of the gag rule and they lost funding, they lost technical assistance and they lost contraceptives,'' said Wendy Turnbull, a senior policy research analyst with Population Action International in Washington. - Bloomberg

Oh please. Two questions here:

1. Where the hell is there own Government?
2. Where the hell is the rest of the world?

As I pointed out in my previous post on this subject 'UN Blames US for African Condom Shortage!' even though the US is not interested in paying for free condoms for all of Africa, what about letting the rest of the world give some money to help Africa. Where the hell are they? Where are their own Governments?

Not only that, if these people are too cheap to buy condoms for themselves then maybe they deserve to get AIDS. Really, if they are too cheap to buy them, and we know that money is not an issue because AIDS is spreading through Africa because of prostitution, then what makes anyone think that they are going to put these free condoms on?

Presently too many people in Africa are having sex without condoms. This is a clear sign that people either do not know about AIDS or don't care about getting AIDS. If they knew about the dangers of unprotected sex and high-risk sex there is no way that any sane person would have unprotected sex. It would be worth it to them to spend a couple of cents it would cost to buy a condom.

Concerned that people in Africa cannot afford a condom? That is a load of Bull as one of the main ways that AIDS is spreading through Africa is through sex with prostitutes. If the guy can afford to buy a prostitute, he can also afford to buy a condom. Perhaps the UN does not want to educate the Africans to the point that they could be that self-reliant not to mention being RESPONSIBLE adults.

The situation is made even worse by the UN giving away condoms all over Africa. They have destroyed the commercial condom market leaving Africans no alternative source of condoms. Then again, if you do not bother to teach people why they should be wearing these things, they are not going to need one anyway. - 29 Aug 2005

Maybe the prostitutes should price in the cost for a condom. You know why they can't, because the truck drivers will instead visit the prostitutes who will let them have sex without condoms. This all goes back to education or in the case of Africa, the lack of education. Now comes our new President:

President-elect Barack Obama will reverse U.S. family planning and AIDS prevention strategies that have long linked global funding to anti-abortion and abstinence education, a public-health adviser said. - Bloomberg

So Obama is all for showering Africa with US-funded condoms. Maybe these should have the US Flag and 'A Gift from the People of the United States' printed on them like the other donated goods we shower on Africa.

Amazingly, the story notes success in Bush's program:

The emphasis on abstinence and fidelity, ``has been shown to have demonstrable success in Africa,'' said Valerie Huber, executive director of the National Abstinence Education Association in Washington. ``It would be more than unfortunate if that policy was changed.''

Both Republicans and Democrats have indicated support for the focus on abstinence and education that goes along with PEPFAR, which has also been shown to reduce the spread of HIV in countries such as Uganda, Huber said.

``If the president-elect wants to be science-based in foreign sex-education policies, it would be wisest to continue this way because it's shown to be effective,'' she said. - Bloomberg

Giving away condons to Africa is not going to make the African AIDS problem go away. Look at Washington, DC. Its AIDS rate would be the third-highest in the world, if it was its own country. As I noted a couple years ago:

One suggested way of combating this epidemic in Washington, DC is to distribute free condoms like they do in Africa. However, in Africa, the issue for many is one of access and the ability to afford condoms, as well as being an education issue. This would not be the case for those living in Washington, DC. They are just being lazy, careless or just don't care. But if people living in DC are too lazy to buy a condom, what makes anyone think that they will not be lazy enough to use one? Or maybe, not using condoms is just another part of black culture? - 4 May 2006

Well, in addition to a shortage of global donor money, there is also a shortage of peacekeepers. One Finnish news editorial suggested that Finnish peacekeepers be replaced with condoms. Has anyone in Africa contacted them yet about the offer?

Note: Personally, I am in favor of condoms. What I am against is subsidizing the whole world's condom supply. What next? How about some cheap booze so that these guys get more opportunities to use these condoms? It seems that there is no line drawn when it comes to helping people avoid any sort of responsibility. How is it that so many people can find money to buy what they want (liquor, prostitutes, mobile phones, expensive shoes, etc...) and then scream poverty when they need to pay for other stuff. Enough. Maybe the answer is less aid and not more. Take this economics expert from Kenya:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Shikwati, the G8 summit at Gleneagles is about to beef up the development aid for Africa...

Shikwati: ... for God's sake, please just stop.

SPIEGEL: Stop? The industrialized nations of the West want to eliminate hunger and poverty.

Shikwati: Such intentions have been damaging our continent for the past 40 years. If the industrial nations really want to help the Africans, they should finally terminate this awful aid. The countries that have collected the most development aid are also the ones that are in the worst shape. Despite the billions that have poured in to Africa, the continent remains poor. - Spiegel

Government Aid can be a good thing, if used properly. The aid going to Africa is not helping. Maybe it should just be given directly to the people to decide on their own what it is that they need. However, I think it best if we just stop. Let the Africans help themselves.

Previous:
UN Blames US for African Condom Shortage! - 29 Aug 08
Is Black Culture behind the DC AIDS Epidemic? - 4 May 2006

-------------------- --------------------

Update: South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion

Here is a video on the violent farm deaths happening in South Africa that I covered earlier this year here. One expert interviewed claims that the murders are suggestive of a genocide of White farmers in South Africa. So it is not just South Africa's quiet acceptance of Zimbabwe's violence against it's people that the South African Government needs to account for, but also their treatment of their own people.

------------------

Link - Farm murders in South Africa Part 1 of 2
------------------

More than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered over the past decade of peaceful majority rule in South Africa. - BBC

------------------

Link - Farm murders in South Africa Part 2 of 2
------------------

Video was found at Theo Spark here.

Previous Post:
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
------------------

China's African Genocide Trifecta

China is once again in the news for playing an important supporting role in continuing instability in Africa. This time for attempting to supply Zimbabwe's renegade Government with a shipload of weapons while that Government refuses to disclose unfavorable election results. Here is a statement that the Chinese have released no the matter:

The Chinese Foreign Ministry issued a statement in a fax to the Reuters news agency saying that China and Zimbabwe have normal trade relations, that the Chinese government takes a "prudent and responsible" position on arms deals and that it does not involve itself in the internal affairs of other countries. - CNN

Prudent and Responsible eh? The trick in being able to say something like that is that they are not being any less 'prudent and responsible' than they normally are at home. Oppression in Tibet? Nope, that is just some more prudent and responsible actions on their part. We in the West just don't recognize it as such. Shame on us. So lets take a look at some other past Prudent and Responsible actions China is and has taken in Africa's recent past

Darfur, Sudan:

China has emerged as the primary supplier of weapons to the Sudanese government, providing fighter jets and as much as 90% of light weapons used in the conflict. Human rights advocates and opponents of the Sudanese government portray China's role in providing weapons and aircraft as a cynical attempt to obtain oil and gas just as colonial powers once supplied African chieftains with the military means to maintain control as they extracted natural resources. According to China's critics, China has offered Sudan support threatening to use its veto on the U.N. Security Council to protect Khartoum from sanctions and has been able to water down every resolution on Darfur in order to protect its interests in Sudan. - Wikipedia

Rwanda:

It was during 1993, in the year that the Arusha Accords were negotiated, that a project began to import into Rwanda a huge number of machetes and other agricultural tools. The purchase of these tools took place in eighteen separate deals, and by companies not usually associated with agriculture; the same companies had made no imports in either 1991 or 1992. As well as machetes they imported razor blades, nails, hoes and axes, screwdrivers, scythes, saws, spades, knives, pliers, pincers, scissors, hammers, and shears. These tools came into the country under government import licenses headed "eligible imports". The overwhelming majority of the tools were imported from China. As an illustration of the sheer volume involved, the total number of machetes imported in 1993 weighed 581.175 kilos and cost US$725.669: there was an estimated one new machete for every third male in the country. - The book "Conspiracy to Murder: The Rwandan Genocide" By Linda Melvern

Of course they only needed enough machetes for a third of the male population given that they were planning to kill off a good portion that wasn't going to get machetes. You might wonder why didn't they import guns instead? Well follow the link and read into the next page which describes how the purchases were paid for with World Bank aid money, which the World Bank never noticed was being so openly diverted until much later on.

Now we have China helping Zimbabwe:

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. - Guardian

There are also some reports that armed Chinese soldiers have been spotted in Zimbabwe. They are surely up to no good.

The question is, how long is China going to be allowed to get away with this? This is the kind of world China wants. The rest of the world should forcefully reject their actions. Boycotting the Chinese Olympics is one way to do that.

Previous:
China Supplying Zimbabwe with a Shipload of Weapons - 18 Apr 08
IOC: We support China's Oppressive Regime, So Should You - 17 March 08
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela - 8 Jan 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico - 21 Sept 07
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

---------------------

China Supplying Zimbabwe with a Shipload of Weapons

As if there weren't already enough reasons to protest the Olympics being held in China already, it now comes out that China has sent a shipload of weapons to Robert's Mugabe's Zimbabwe.

A Chinese cargo ship believed to be carrying 77 tonnes of small arms, including more than 3m rounds of ammunition, AK47 assault rifles, mortars and rocket-propelled grenades, has docked in the South African port of Durban for transportation of the weapons to Zimbabwe, the South African government confirmed yesterday. It claimed it was powerless to intervene as long as the ship's papers were in order.

Copies of the documentation for the Chinese ship, the An Yue Jiang, show that the weapons were sent from Beijing to the ministry of defence in Harare. Headed "Dangerous goods description and container packing certificate", the document was issued on April 1, three days after Zimbabwe's election. It lists the consignment as including 3.5m rounds of ammunition for AK47 assault rifles and for small arms, 1,500 40mm rockets, 2,500 mortar shells of 60mm and 81mm calibre, as well as 93 cases of mortar tubes. - Guardian UK

Once again this makes the Chinese look really bad, especially since they approved the shipment long enough after Zimbabwe's election to know that Mugabe was killing the election results, results which still have not been released.

The An Yue Jiang is seen anchored outside Durban harbor, South Africa on April 17, 2008. Photograph: AP - Guardian UK

The news of this shipment broke when the ship arrived in South Africa to be unloaded. This is because Zimbabwe is a landlocked country with no seaport of its own. So you might think that South Africa would prevent the shipment from transiting through their country considering that Mugabe appears to be getting ready to stay in power after losing the election, and has a proven track record of using force. But with this being morally bankrupt Africa, the President of South Africa, sees not problem in giving an assist to a person committing crimes against humanity:

CAPE TOWN, South Africa: South Africa will not intervene to stop a shipment of Chinese-made weapons from reaching Zimbabwe, even though the political situation in the neighboring nation is "dire," a government spokesman said Thursday.

Spokesman Themba Maseko said as long as administrative papers are in order, South Africa cannot intervene to prevent weapons being transported through its territory to its landlocked neighbor, despite concerns about mounting tensions in Zimbabwe. - International Herald Tribune

This is par for the course for South Africa turning a blind-eye to the actions of its neighbor. At least there are others in South Africa with a sense for right and wrong and they are in a position to at least delay this shipment:

Union refuses to unload Zim arms ship - DURBAN - Opposition to a shipment of arms being offloaded in Durban and transported to Zimbabwe increased on Thursday when South Africa’s largest transport workers union announced that its members would not unload the ship.

SA Transport and Allied Workers Union (Satawu) general secretary Randall Howard said: “Satawu does not agree with the position of the South African government not to intervene with this shipment of weapons.

“Our members employed at Durban Container Terminal will not unload this cargo neither will any of our members in the truck driving sector move this cargo by road.” - The Citizen

In addition a team of lawyers are in court arguing that South Africa is wrong to have approved the movement of these weapons to Zimbabwe. South Africa's President has gotten lots of criticism for not doing more to end the crisis in Zimbabwe, mainly by ending his shielding of Mugabe. Now, he has been flushed out as an active accomplice. Serves him right for playing such an irresponsible game.

This shipment should truly impress on everyone that Mugabe needs to go, perhaps by force if necessary. (He seems to have no problem with using force himself.) The man has run his country into the ground and appears ready sacrifice everyone to stay in power.

So far there has been no criticism of China but there certainly should be. China is the main power defending the criminal regime in The Sudan as they commit genocide in Darfur. In addition to standing up for the Sudan in the UN's Security Council, China is also Sudan main weapons supplier. Surely, the world is not interested in China following the same path with Zimbabwe. China is looking to showcase what a wonderful country it is by its hosting of the Olympics. How did they ever expect to accomplish that while playing host with blood on their hands.

Previous:
South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion - 23 Jan 08
Iraq, Zimbabwe, Mexico and Venezuela - 8 Jan 08
Anchor Countries - 27 Sept 07
Iraq, Zimbabwe and Mexico - 21 Sept 07
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

-----

Two Faces OF Europe's Military - Chad Edition

My previous post (here) covered European comments about how eager the EU was to deploy their 'Rapid' Response Forces while completely ignoring a need for additional troops in Afghanistan, which while being a NATO Operation, includes countries that have contributed troops to the EU's Rapid Response Forces.

As it turns out that Afghanistan is not the only mission that the EU has been trying to ignore. They have had a peacekeeping force on the ground in Chad but it too is in desperate need of reinforcements, which the EU has been having trouble to fill.

AN “EMBARRASSMENT”, says a diplomat of the delays over a European Union peacekeeping mission to Chad. It is eight months since France's foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said there was an urgent need to stabilise Chad's border with Sudan, and to protect refugees from Darfur. Since then EU members have squabbled over who should provide troops, kit and helicopters—and who should pay the bills. Military chiefs proved “very cautious about casualties”, comments the diplomat.

This week deployment of the 3,700-strong EUFOR was postponed yet again, because of rebel attacks on Chad's capital - Economist

At the very least, the EU is sitting on troops ready to deploy, despite calls for troops from two separate missions, one of which they are in charge of. Oddly enough, it seems that the Europeans took on this mission more so to show up the US, which they believe should not be active in the area. Now that they did take the mission, they don't know what to do next and they don't have the benefit of being able to blame the US for their failure.

So Europe is slowly learning (just give them a couple hundred more years) that it is not so easy to solve other country's problems. They have been blaming problems in Afghanistan on the US, claiming that what is really needed there is more 'Nation Building' and not fighting. This then forms the excuse why they are not sending troops there. But funny how there is no mention of Nation Building for Chad.

No matter, the EU sucks at Nation Building. Take the training of police forces for Afghanistan. That is a very important part of Nation Building. Germany has failed spectacularly in that task which has directly impacted progress in Afghanistan.

There is another problem with Nation Building as a solution in Afghanistan. That is that the taliban want to turn the clock back on society and Nation Building would result in a society that is the complete opposite of their world view. In one respect the taliban terrorists are now fighting against Nation Building in Afghanistan. So one could claim that the EU's demands for Nation Building is itself one of the causes of instability in the country.

I had also pointed out that by failing to fully fight the taliban in Afghanistan might result in Europe being forced to fight greater threats later on. Just today comes word that al qaeda in Afghanistan has decided to step up operations targeting Germany. Had Germany been more willing to fight in Afghanistan, then there might be less decision-makers on the loose to decide to target Germany.

Note: I found the Economist article quoted above from coverage at EU Referendum here. They also have commentary on this issue in their post titled "Another failure unrecorded"

Previous:
The Two Faces OF Europe's Military Might - 6 Feb

**

South Africa - Zimbabwe in Slow Motion

Everybody knows what a disaster Zimbabwe is. Many who can flee the country already have, with a good portion of them going to South Africa. What most people do not know, is that South Africa is headed down the very same path:

As probably the whole world knows by now about Robert Mugabe and the White Farmers in Zimbabwe, probably very few know that the exact same thing is happening in South Africa. The only difference is that the practise of seizing farms is on a much smaller scale, and the media keeps relatively quiet about it, and so does the Government. - Anamnesis

It is not easy to find stories about land reform in South Africa, other than a couple of them that heap praise on the process, which it very well might deserve, as long as your comparing their process to how land reform being done in Zimbabwe. But I did find this one story confirming the violence:

More than 1,500 white farmers have been murdered over the past decade of peaceful majority rule in South Africa. - BBC

And they aren't just being murdered; They are often first tortured and then butchered to death. This story and others have comments from blacks encouraging South Africa to speed up the 'reform' more along the lines of how Zimbabwe has proceeded. Seeing how well that has worked for Zimbabwe, it makes me wonder just how smart the Government of South Africa really is. Sure Apartheid is over, but it makes no sense to destroy an industry in the spirit of 'reform'. What kind of reform is it anyway? In almost all cases, the land is lost to all practical farming use once it is taken away from the professional farmer. Often the recipient often does little to farm the plot. Even if some do, they are only working a small piece of the original farm and they will produce little more than what is needed for home use. Land 'reform' is also destroying businesses that were providing employment and salaries to local workers and turning those workers into new slaves, tied to the land that has been given to them.

Africa can be great, but first they need to stop looking back constantly. While something has to be done to help lift the black populations of 'colonial' Africa out of poverty, it makes no sense to punish the whites in the process and by that I mean that they should not dismantle the farms. Instead they should try to build on their success. How about starting more farms with the workers being shareholders of them? (How about making the mine workers shareholders of the mines they work.) How about more vineyards? Along with that there is a need to build up an education infrastructure. Land does not make a person a farmer. Education, knowledge and experience does.

Previous:
Why is the UN Pleading for Food for Zimbabwe? - 2 Aug 07
Zimbabwe photos - Land reform - 22 Aug 06

More links:
Land Reform, Africa - Wikipedia
South Africa, Agriculture - Wikipedia

Nigeria Lottery Scam Live (Video)

This is not only a great commercial, but a great example of how stupid many people are for not using a little common sense and reason when presented with a situation that one would hope is true, but in all reality cannot be true at all:

- Video Link -

Than again, who knows, it can be real. All of the people scammed in these emails thought so, at least a little. Surely, there is 'lost' money out there and from what I have seem, there is lots of it. Many people believe these scams to be true thanks partly to the high rate of corruption and 'stolen' fortunes in the third world. However, these people ALWAYS have other people that they can turn to in order to get the money moved to their secret bank accounts. They also have the means to move the money that is just not available to you and me, such as hidden inside diplomatic pouches. (From stories I have heard, at least one shipment involved truckloads of cash moving back into Eastern Europe under diplomatic pouch.) Another thing to keep in mind is that these people do move the money out of the countries they steal it from.

As part of my job, I sometimes see problems like this from the other side and by that I mean I see people who are trying to document that they are the owners of bank accounts and other assets worth millions and in at least one case a family dealing with claiming over a billion dollars in assets left behind by brothers from the Middle East who had since died after setting up corporations to hold the assets for 'safekeeping'. However, in every case it is family members who are involved in trying to reclaim the money. (This often happens while the thief is alive, with the others attempting to hijack the family's jewels.) One reason is because they knew of the existence of the money in the first place. Really, like who does not know that Putin is looting billions from Russia. And he is not showing up at a bank counter in Switzerland to deposit it. He has others managing his loot. They will be the first in line to steal it if the opportunity arises, and they are not going to need your help.

"YOU SAVED MY LIFE AND BANK FUNDS" - 25 July 07
The 'Rose Household Textiles' Nigeria Scam - 21 Dec 06

- -