Via WaPo (here):

UNITED NATIONS — After several months of grueling diplomacy, the U.N. Security Council on Wednesday imposed a fourth round of sanctions on Iran’s military establishment — a move that the United States and other major powers said should prompt the Islamic Republic to restart stalled political talks over the future of its nuclear program….

This is seemingly good news, but the details prove otherwise.  For instance, it’s a known axiom that sanctions against Iran are unlikely to motivate Iran much if China and Russia weren’t on-board completely, yet….:

…The administration did succeed in preserving support from China and Russia, although only after assuring them that the measures would not impair their ability to continue trading with Tehran…

Not only will Russia and China continue to trade at will with Iran, but Russia will continue to help Iran with nuclear plants and military technology (via BBC here):

…Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stressed the missiles were not subject to the limits set by the UN on cooperation with Iran.

He said Moscow was in talks on building further nuclear reactors in Iran….

Theoretically the sanctions will hurt large business interests in Iran to put pressure on the Iranian government to come back to the table for negotiations.   But this only allows Iran more time.  They have been quite successful for several years now in extending a hand as if they are willing to negotiate, only to use that outreach to delay the international community from acting.

In reality, these sanctions seem to be both completely ineffectual and designed (intentionally or not) to allow Iran back into playing the delay game with the international community while they continue their nuclear plans.

On each Memorial Day, I try to research at least one individual act of courage to remind myself  about the nature of those we’ve lost.

This year, I read about a 19 year old, who sacrificed himself to save his fellow soldiers.  While on patrol in Iraq, their Humvee came under attack.   His job, manning the 50 cal machine gun on top of the vehicle is critical to their success.  This day however (whole thing here):

…While Private McGinnis was manning the M2 .50-caliber Machine Gun, a fragmentation grenade thrown by an insurgent fell through the gunner’s hatch into the vehicle. Reacting quickly, he yelled “grenade,” allowing all four members of his crew to prepare for the grenade’s blast.  Then, rather than leaping from the gunner’s hatch to safety, Private McGinnis made the courageous decision to protect his crew. In a selfless act of bravery, in which he was mortally wounded, Private McGinnis covered the live grenade, pinning it between his body and the vehicle and absorbing most of the explosion. Private McGinnis’ gallant action directly saved four men from certain serious injury or death….

Born on June 14th, 1987, Private First Class Ross A. McGinnis lost his life to save others on December 4th 2006, in a place very far from home, because we asked him to go.

There are those that would say this doesn’t matter all that much since we shouldn’t be in Iraq in the first place.  There are others who would argue strongly that even if you disagree, soldiers like this one are protecting our lives and our freedoms.

For me, not all wars are about saving our freedoms.  Not every use of the military…. well, even most uses of the military, does not qualify as “protecting” Americans.  Like all countries throughout history, our military is a foreign policy tool that we don’t like to use.

For me…. it’s not about protecting me or protecting our freedoms, it’s a simple as this:  our country, through our elected representatives, asked this child to go to war.  He went.

Yeah, that’s enough for me.

As has been widely reported today, two female suicide bombers attacked train stops in Moscow (via the Economist here):

TWO terrorist bombers on the Moscow metro killed at least 37 people and injured 102 in the morning rush hour on Monday March 29th. The first explosion, which killed 22 people and injured 12, struck just before 8am at the Lubyanka metro station, a few hundred feet from the Kremlin and next to the headquarters of the Federal Security Services, the successor to the KGB. The second bomb went off at Park Kultury, by the main circular road in central Moscow, killing at least 15.

The Russian security services said two female suicide bombers from the north Caucasus were responsible….

This seems to be a continuation of hostilities between Russia & Caucasus as Russia continues it’s movements to secure the sphere of Russian influence within eastern Europe.  Many former bloc countries have tried to maintain independence from Russia and Russia has responded.  In some cases, political and economic pressure could be enough, in other cases the military is being used as a foreign policy tool.  Right or wrong, all military objectives are just foreign policy goals through a military vehicle.

What does this have to do with equal rights?  To be honest I’m not sure, but reading Slate made me think I was wrong.  Under the category of “I don’t know what to think about this” Slate had two articles today: The Glass Ceiling for Female Terrorists & a reprint of an article asking if female suicide bombers get 72 virgins here.

While I do agree with the basic premise that Islamic fundamentalists treatment of women is horrendous & I believe firmly the world should be able to judge those countries which force women to be fully subjugated to men, I also believe the timing for these more lighthearted attempts at satire was not chosen wisely.

Please don’t misunderstand – I’m against almost all censorship (depends upon how you define censorship for me to say against “all”) & would never think I should be able to impose my beliefs on their editing decisions.

But as a value statement maybe we should ask: Was this a good idea considering innocents were just slaughtered for doing nothing more than trying to get to work?

As has been known to happen in estranged sibling relationships when parents pass, the passing of former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung might have sparked a revival of talks between North & South Korea.

The current President Mr. Lee has taken a much harder line with North Korea than Mr. Kim (here):

…In the months before his death, the Nobel Peace laureate accused Seoul’s conservative government of backsliding into the traits of the military dictatorship he helped topple in the late 1980s. These scathing attacks were deeply embarrassing to the government because of Mr Kim’s stature as a leading architect of South Korea’s vibrant democracy…

But the differences between the two Presidents might be decreasing (here):

…his widely criticised policy of promoting political and economic exchanges with North Korea may be about to be revived, albeit in limited fashion, by one of its fiercest critics, the current president, Lee Myung-bak. Partly as a consequence, a new sense of tentative optimism is lightening the gloom on the Korean peninsula.

The South’s Mr Kim was the foremost proponent of engagement with North Korea as a means to bring lasting peace to the peninsula—what became known as his “sunshine” policy….

While (here):

…His government has voted in favour of a United Nations resolution condemning North Korea’s human-rights record and lent strong support to international efforts to impose comprehensive economic sanctions against the regime in Pyongyang. Mr Lee insists there will be no big dollops of aid until North Korea starts disarming, as it promised under a 2005 deal. Yet he has welcomed news that a delegation from North Korea will attend Mr Kim’s funeral.

That delegation appears to be part of a new approach by North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il. After provoking the world’s wrath and economic sanctions by conducting a nuclear test in May, he is suddenly exuding friendliness…

It’s certainly natural to be skeptical of North Korea’s moves and intentions, but this is something to watch.  If in the coming months real overtures or changes are made in the current relationship on the Korean Peninsula, it could be a sign that North Korea is trying to reach out to normalize relations with the international community which has always been North Korea’s main goal.

As FBI negotiators backed up by several naval warships attempt to secure the release of an innocent hostage on the open ocean, the terrorists are now making demands.

AP (here):

A Somali in contact with a pirate leader says the captors of a U.S. sea captain want a ransom and are ready to kill him if attacked.

How about – if you leave the hostage unarmed, we won’t kill you?

While watching the Sunday news shows, Fox News Sunday, This Week with George Stephanopoulos, as well as Real Time with Bill Maher.  The commentary of those representing Mr. Obama’s opinions reminded me of utopia.

As with many people, I first learned the word Utopia as a small child in grade school.  As we have all learned, utopia is that wonderful society where crime, pestilence, incivility, and all the bad things that humans seem prone to do disappear. Shortly thereafter however, we learned that this society is fictional.

That was apparently true until these past week’s events.

To begin with; the facts.

Mr. Obama went to the G20 conference this past week to discuss the current ongoing financial crisis.  & while he gave a great speech about it’s highlights and togetherness, each item we asked of our international allies was denied.  The only thing that seems to have happened is an overall agreement that all countries need to attack this problem (as if this were needed to begin with) and an increase in the strength of the IMF with pledged funds.

Secondarily, Mr. Obama used some time this weekend to deliver a stirring speech about a world without nuclear weapons.  This of course took place while North Korea and Iran continue to openly disregard non-proliferation treaties and feckless UN resolutions.  North Korea even took this opportunity to test Mr. Obama by test launching a long range missile they have recently developed.

Mr. Obama’s response was to ask for yet another UN resolution, as if somehow the mere fact he became President will change North Korea’s known behavior.

However, according to the pundits that presume to speak for Mr. Obama there is absolutely nothing to see here but the great things that took place.  Their two main points seem to be:

First, the world likes us again.  It doesn’t matter so much what took place at the G20, all the world leaders who hated Mr. Bush loved Mr. Obama.  Additionally, he got agreement on the IMF.  Sure, it was only pledged money and none of it really exists yet, but there’s agreement to help poorer countries around the world as well as their own.

Second, since the President’s goal is that of a world without nuclear arms, he is acting accordingly.  It doesn’t matter that North Korea and Iran are acting in defiance because the President is pushing our goal of a world without nuclear arms.  Remember, you can hug people with nuclear arms…

Both of these points are clearly without thought and merit.

The first point about being liked is just disgustingly childish.  Also, getting countries to agree on working to solve a crisis they have already been working on seems comparable to getting them all to agree the world is round.  Sure, if agreement is the goal, then you have accomplished your goal, but I’m unsure what usefulness comes from having agreement that already existed.

The second point though, is concerning. Mr. Obama’s point is that we will reduce are arsenal in conjunction with Russia to make the world a safer place.  As if Russia, the US, the UK, and other rational countries having nuclear weapons is even remotely analogous to the irrational regimes of Iran or NK having them.

This is like saying a cop operating a pistol is the same as a person with known mental problems operating a pistol.  There are currently only two countries on the earth looking to get nuclear weapons while simultaneously proclaiming their intent to use them.  Having a belief that disarming Russia or the US will help this situation seems naive.

Additionally, if our populace actually began to act as if we didn’t need defenses because we believe the world is something it’s not, we are surely surrendering our freedom just as if we had capitulated to the crown all those years ago.

My only hope is that POTUS and his staff understand that history will always prove war to be the norm and not the exception.  As much as we’d all like to live in a world where we don’t have to fear tyrants and dictators threatening other countries’ security, this is not the world that exists now.  Nor will any reasoning based on an understanding of history, should we expect this world to exist.