Why the hate?

The unpopular president George W. Bush is about to leave office. He has been attacked by the media, pundits, think-tanks, comedians and by the general public. Most of this hatred and attacks on him can be summed up in one word: Iraq.

Now here is a riddle:

Can you name a single American who has done more to help the Iraqi people than George W. Bush?

The LA Times is the greatest bulwark against knowledge

On December 2, 2008 the LA Times editorial had this to say:
“Warts and all, [the UN] is the world's only meaningful bulwark against nuclear proliferation, human-rights violations, genocide and wars of conquest.”
Let’s look at each...

Nuclear Proliferation

Which nation seeking nuclear weapons has the UN been a “bulwark” against? Was it a bulwark against Saddam’s well documented seek for nuclear WMDs in the 80’s and 90’s? Yeah, the UN sent the inspectors in…but only after the US fought a war and forced Saddam to let them in! Then there were “the dark years” from 1998 to 2002 when the UN was impotent. Did the UN stem the spread of nukes to North Korea? To Pakistan? I am not an expert on which countries in the past have sought and then failed to acquire nuclear weapons, but I am guessing (in light of what I do know) that never has the UN been a meaningful “bulwark” in stopping any of them. Currently the belligerent nation seeking nukes is Iran. If anyone is on the forefront of stopping Iran, it is Israel, the country the UN continues to make resolution after resolution against (six last week). It isn’t just that the UN is not a bulwark against nuclear proliferation, but the UN seems to be opposed to the nation (albeit for other reasons) which is most interested in trying to stop Iran’s nuclear program.

Human Rights Violations

Which major human rights violations has the UN helped stop? North Korean concentration camps? Darfur’s ethnic cleansing? Oh, wait, Sudan is on the UN commission on human rights. “[In 2004] the United States ambassador Sichan Siv walked out of the Commission following the uncontested election of Sudan to the commission, calling it an “absurdity” in light of Sudan’s ethnic cleansing in the Darfur region.” That was from from Wikipedia, whose source is the following: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4898975/
So…Sudan was elected without protest or even contest to the commission of human rights at the same time it was committing genocide? How is it possible for someone to keep a straight face in declaring that the UN is “the world’s only meaningful bulwark against human rights violations” ? Ridiculous. And let me tell you, the UN is wonderful at helping the poor Chinese who are secretly killed, oppressed for their religions, or who simply happen to live in Tibet and are gunned down or imprisoned by the Chinese government. Yes, the UN is great at being a bulwark for the millions upon millions in China. How about the Somalian hell hole? Yes, I’m glad we have such a powerful and meaningful force as the UN to help those people too. I am not an expert in the DPKO’s effect on human trafficking or other current issues they are dealing with, but I sincerely hope that they are doing a better job with that than helping the people in Sudan, China, Somalia, or for that matter, in Iraq before 2003 where human rights violations were omnipresent.

Genocide

Which genocide has the UN been a bulwark against? Rwanda? Sudan? The Cultural Revolution? The Khmer Rouge’s massacres in Cambodia? Mengistu’s genocide in the late 70’s in Ethiopia? How about Saddam Hussein’s killings of the Kurds? Which one? Any of them? None. In this world any dictator, despot, military junta or even president can murder millions if he has enough manpower to do so. Now, the UN is composed of 192 (virtually all) nations. There are 3 generally recognized sovereign nations who are not members of the UN (which includes the Vatican). Genocide is therefore virtually always committed by one of these 192 nations. Does anyone ever ask how (as with human rights violations) the UN can be a bulwark against something its own members engage in? Ok, but in all seriousness, the UN includes the most poweful and richest nations. So why can’t it stop any of the genocides listed above? Could it possibly be because the UN is not the world’s only meaningful bulwark against genocide??? The UN isn’t even a meaningless bulwark against genocide. It simply isn’t a bulwark at all against genocide anywhere. In fact, there is a potential genocide that is uttered by the mouths of Iranian leaders, Fatah leaders in the West Bank, certainly by Hamas leaders in Gaza, and a slough of other radical Islamists in various Moslem nations in the mideast. They use terms like “wipe Israel off the map” and do not hide their intent. Last week in Mumbai Jews were targeted for no conceivable reason (it was not strategic to their stated goals of protest about Kashmir). This is not new for the Jews, but is merely another example of how real such a genocide could become (it’s not like genocides are rare in our world!) I hope the UN will look into that potential genocide. After all, the term “bulwark” implies a defensive or protection before the onslaught. So, it should be a bulwark particularly against potential genocide, right? I wonder what the UN is doing as a bulwark for Israel…

Wars of Conquest

Which war of conquest has the UN been a bulwark against? Saddam’s invasion of Iran in 1980? How about his invasion of Kuwait in 1991? Should we call that a UN and not a US intervention? That would be revising history drastically in less than twenty years! How about the recent Russian invasion of Georgia? The UN was a wonderful bulwark there, right?

So who is a bulwark against any of these things?

The most recent attempt by any nation anywhere to dynamically stop human rights violations, genocide and nuclear proliferation was the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 (even if the nuke-seeking happened to be currently inert). Baathist Iraq had been committing horrific violations against many rights of many humans, including the torture of many women, political imprisonment and the murdering hundreds of thousands of its own people and had been training over 2,000 international terrorists (from many countries) per year to commit acts of murder and terrorism. What has the UN ever done that is comparable to the most recent action taken by the US? The UN is not a bulwark against these four evils. It is impotent. The US is the bulwark. And guess what? The US is the fighting power of the UN. So if they ever did anything real, it would be the US anyway.
How could the editor of the LA Times, the largest paper of the second largest city in America be so naïve? I guess he (or she) is living in a dream world. I wish I were a part of that world, but alas, it’s not real. In the real world most newspapers (such as LA times) consider the invasion of Iraq in 2003 a bad and very wrong idea and consider the president who initiated it a bad president. I guess they aren't just naive. They're backwards. They oppose the actions which help eliminate actual problems of human rights violations and genocide. And yes it turns out that it’s really hard to fundamentally stop these things from occurring in a nation. But why is it wrong to stop them?

The Single Greatest Political Issue

Written September 22, 2008

I call myself a single issue voter, but the truth (as for almost everything) is not quite that simple. The issue I care about is not one you will find on a poll or a list of what are typically termed “issues” in the political realm. Additionally, I care about a number of issues (just as many as the average guy, I guess) but there is one in particular that is critical to me in both domestic and foreign affairs.

This is the issue of life. Although I don’t believe life is the greatest good to be protected by government, it is among them. Any other great good is already well protected by the US government for its citizens. I would count among these liberty and the pursuit of happiness and perhaps a few others. These are fairly stable in America. Life is another matter entirely. And life is my “one” issue.

In America the main facet of this “one” issue is abortion. There are millions of human children being murdered each year and it has become a political issue of the worst sort. For example, madame speaker lied about her religion’s official beliefs on abortion in order to tailor them to fit her political agenda. When that kind of thing occurs an issue has become far more politicized than anything ever should be.

The right to life of any American (or human anywhere) far outweighs by an astronomical magnitude the “right” of a woman (or man, except that they never have a say) to kill her child – whether pre-born or not. (If they don’t want it put it up for adoption – there are more people who want to adopt in America than there are babies to be adopted!)

Non-abortion deaths are very different – not least because they primarily concern other countries. In other words, most other facets of this “one” issue are all about foreign, rather than domestic, policy. Let me give a short preamble first.

In the last 100 – 150 years there has been a dynamic and incredible rise in the standards of living across the entire earth. Modern medicine, technology, communications, industrial and agricultural progress has increased more in that time than the increase of the same across the entire previous recorded history of the human race!

People in first world countries live like no one who has ever lived before; those considered poor in America live like kings compared to the majority of the inhabitants of the world before the 20th century. Right now even a third world country has it better in almost every way than medieval Europe. We live longer, healthier, richer lives.

The condition of more than 99% of the world for thousands of years was great poverty. By comparison, the issue of poverty has effectively ended in America. In the rest of the world it is vanishing at a rate we might call slow, but compared to the previous entire existence of man it is vanishing with peculiar rapidity.

Additionally, this decrease of poverty and increase in the quality of life for humanity has had an exponential growth rate in the last 100 years or so (as time goes on it gets better at a faster pace). In 2008 it is showing exactly zero signs of slowing down. I don’t know what the world’s collective wealth and general quality of life will be in the next 100 years, but in the foreseeable future it looks more optimistic and promising than almost any other feature of civilization.

Now, let us contrast the increase in wealth and quality of life in the last 100 years to the behavior of humanity in the last 100 years…

There was no change or major divergence from the previous 6000 years…well, you might argue there was change – an increase in the worst of human behavior (if only because there was more people?)

While wealth and the quality of life increased dramatically for nearly everyone in the 20th century, warfare, democide and oppression actually reached all time highs. (Democide is defined as murder by government – something completely foreign to America).

Well over 100 million people were killed in the 20th century as a result of warfare. The conflicts of every other century look like minor conflicts in comparison, however ubiquitous they were.

(The exceptions would be the An Shi rebellion in the 8th century China, the Mongol conquests and other wars in China in the 17th and 19th centuries which almost rival the World Wars. But if you can only find about four or five events across 6000 years that merely rival several conflicts in the 20th century, then we can demonstrably say wars (and democides) did not diminish in either rate or scale).

The 20th century also saw the most horrific and devastating democides in the history of the planet such as during Stalin’s regime and the Cultural Revolution of China under Mao, not to mention the Khmer Rouge of Pol Pot in which a full one third of the entire country of Cambodia was murdered by its government. Tamerlane would have approved, although he ‘only’ killed an estimated whopping 17 million compared to the astronomical 262 million for the 20th century’s total of democide (as distinct from the wars of the 20th century killing a ‘mere’ 100 million).

Wars, violence, democide and now terrorism are only growing at the dawn of the 21st century. Consider a slough of wars currently in Africa – Somalia, Ethiopia, Uganda, Congo. Asia has, at a minimum, conflicts in India, Pakistan, Nepal, and Sri Lanka, not to mention other brewing hotspots (for example, the Philippines). The Mideast has or has had since the turn of the century hot wars in at least Syria, Lebanon, Israel, Iraq and Afghanistan (and now in Turkey with the Iraqi Kurds). In fact, currently every continent but Australia and Antarctica has some kind of conflict (for example, Haiti in North America; Colombia in South America; and the Balkans, Russia and Georgia in Europe).

America has troops in over 30 countries specifically sent to fight terrorism in those countries (and the news sources of the ‘most free society’ with the ‘most freedom of the press’ only reports on two – Iraq and Afghanistan). There have been almost 12,000 terrorist attacks in 55 countries since September 11, 2001 (distinct from conflicts within Iraq and Afghanistan). Last month (August 2008) there were 2005 Islamic terrorist attacks in 21 countries killing people of 5 different religions. Over 1000 people were killed and nearly 2000 were critically injured.

As opposed to wars (although there is overlap here), consider a sampling of countries involved with democide, ethnic cleansing and/or having problems with terrorism: Sudan, Algeria, Chad, Iran, North Korea, Nigeria, Philippines, Thailand, Syria, Lebanon, Somalia, and Pakistan.

During the 20th century humans saw the horror of wars and attempted to stifle it in various ways at various times. Here is how they fared:

John Keegan (possibly the most important military historian today) argues that it was precisely the method Europe used to try to prevent a second version of the ‘Napoleonic Wars’ that actually caused The Great War (the most ironic backfire in history?) Europe set up a system to prevent war after Napoleon (which mostly worked for most of the 19th century). Basically, all the powers (among them Austria, Prussia, Russia, the Ottomans, France, England, the Dutch, etc.) decided that whenever one power became greater than any other, all those others would combine in alliance so that the strongest would not feel secure enough to start a war. This whole diplomatic system failed in 1914.

Then Europe tried again with the League of Nations. It began in 1920 (just after WWI) and failed when it didn’t even slow the onset of either Hitler’s war or Japan’s Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. And ironically as well, the League of Nations failed primarily because it attempted to curb Hitler in the ways it probably would have been effective to curb Kaiser Wilhelm (appeasement).

In other words…Europe set up a system to prevent war in the 19th century. After this failed in 1914 they set up a new system designed to prevent the kind of things from arising that specifically set off WWI. This new system also failed because the causes of WWI and WWII were different kinds of causes (the methods of stopping them needed to be different because of different circumstances). Do you see the pattern? After each major war (Napoleonic, WWI) they set up something to prevent the war that had just ended – but the next wars are each begun under different sets of circumstances, so their systems were destined to fail. They needed to adjust to what the world had become like; they didn’t need to set up a system they should have used before the previous war!

But after WWII the new system roughly succeeded. The Atomic Age was different.
We avoided a hot war with the Soviets through MADness. It worked to prevent at least one major conventional war (we now know that the Soviets seriously considered invading Europe for resources in the ‘80s but decided against it because they thought we might use nukes to defend our allies).

Now the Atomic Era is gone after the Cold War, and a new system is necessary.
MAD is now marginal in effectiveness for America’s current wars. How could we use the threat of nukes against terrorists? They would probably ask us to use them against the moderate Arab nations in which they often hide (because they seek to destroy those nations too!) Once again, the system we use to prevent warfare has been rendered futile.

And so we have come to our current situation: the problem of the small amount of radical terrorists who want to destroy America, Israel, moderate Muslim nations and restore the Caliphate…and then want to spread the Caliphate and their version of Sharia law across the whole earth.

The system we are using right now for the War on Terror is actually working. It has four basic facets –
1. Stopping their flow of money and capital (so far a very successful part of the war on terror)
2. Intelligence measures to discover and stop operations (hard to say exactly how successful, but clearly better now than ever for America)
3. Small teams of commandos designed to take out key cells and bases of operation (so far quite successful in nearly all of the countries involved)
4. Ending the worst state sponsors of terrorism: Iraq and Afghanistan (Iraq is now hugely successful and Afghanistan is at a turning point).

Those who want to alter this system do not understand that it is working remarkably well. Changing a working system is a patently bad idea (of course reforms and revisions are necessary from time to time as conditions change). But the fundamentals must be sound if it has largely succeeded so far. But it needs to continue in order to finish the job.

Long story short, violence, conflict, war and democide are still nearly pandemic and showing no signs of decreasing as we enter a new millennium.

My issue is ending these things by whatever means necessary – including, but not limited to force. In short, I label this issue “life,” meaning I want to promote the right to life around the world. I want those who are murdered innocently to be protected from those who want to murder them indiscriminately. I want rogue nations (such as Iran and North Korea) to feel threatened by powerful, but peaceful ones (such as America). I want genocidal regimes (such as Sudan) to feel very scared that someone will actually do something to stop them (the UN has so far been ridiculously impotent).

To me the issue of health care, immigration, even taxes or most anything else (while still important) is of secondary nature. The principles underlying things such as health care, immigration and taxes are really just issues about quality of life and wealth – which as we have seen just get better and better no matter how the government tries to slow their progress! If whatever the government legislates or mandates for health care, immigration or taxes decreases one’s personal wealth or quality of life, it will be insignificant in the long run as the progress of technology simply creates more wealth to be had and improves drastically our collective quality of life.

The same can’t be said about people being killed in vast numbers – that reality is not going away. So the issues of which the underlying principle is about preventing human deaths (such as security measures, having a strong and effective military, having a commander-in-chief who understands conflict) are examples of those I consider most important. It is not my intention to give an exhaustive list of what issues this might consist of (I’m not sure if I could!).

In a nutshell, my point could be expressed:

1. Poverty and an extremely low standard of living have been pandemic throughout all of human history.
2. Violence, democide and war have also been pandemic throughout all of human history.
3. The level of wealth and quality of life increased in a truly unprecedented way during the 20th century.
4. During that same time the level of violence, democide and war has not subsided, has not shown signs that it will subside in the foreseeable future and most of our major attempts to inhibit such things have failed.
5. Therefore, the two ‘big’ problems (poverty and war) are no longer (if they ever were) equal in consequence and significance. One of them nominally matters; one of them actually matters.
6. Therefore, what ought to be focused on by our and every freedom loving government is stopping violence, democide and war worldwide. That is the significant problem of our age.

I do not believe we should do nothing about the economy or poverty in America or around the world. But if the 20th century has shown us anything, it is that the government must focus and put its primary energies on ending war and democide, not on making our life just a little bit better each year. Let the market make us richer and live better, that’s the one that’s been doing so for over 100 years, not the government!

I hope more statesmen in America and around the world begin to concern themselves more with preventing conflict around the world than simply making us richer or better off. Let the market do that – isn’t that what we pay them for?

The Great Predatory Tyrannosaur

Tyrannosaurus Rex was too awesome to be exclusively a scavenger. But no one accepts that as a reason. For me it ends there  However, some believe the mighty t-rex just couldn’t cut it as a predator. Let’s see how it really fared. First I’ll present arguments in favor of it being a predator. Then I will propose rebuttals to the main arguments for why it is a scavenger.

Presenting the arguments for predator:

Argument from expertise
No one believes T-rex was exclusively a predator. Most dinosaur paleontologists believe they were primarily a predator, and may have scavenged when they found meat, much like lions today. However, “Dinosaur Jack” (John Horner) is the only important paleontologist who believes T-rex was exclusively a scavenger. I own and have read his book “The Complete T-rex” in which he argues why (I’ll go into detail about his arguments later as they appear). There’s more prominent scientists who disbelieve in global warming! There’s probably more music industry history experts that believe Elvis is still alive.

Argument from evolution
T-rex lived at the very end of the age of the dinosaurs, during the last part of the Cretaceous. The Jurassic, Triassic and most of the Cretaceous contained plenty of predators. But when the T-rex lived, at the end of the dinosaurs, there were no other predators in the same areas except for very small ones; there were no predators living in the same places who would eat the same size things. For example there was Coelurosaurus which weighed like 200, maybe 300 lbs tops compared to the 5 ton T-rex. A comparison could be like if wherever you find lions, the only other predator you find is one that weighs about 10 lbs or less. Obviously, the lion and the ten pounder will be eating vastly different things. In other words, T-rexes filled every predatory niche larger than "really small." Adolescents ate medium prey, and adults ate the bigger prey. They weren’t just predators, they were so good at it, they out-competed all other predators! And they didn’t just out-compete them, they out-competed them and prevented any other predators from evolving the entire time t-rex was around! It wasn’t until the mass extinction at the end of the Mesozoic - after all dinosaurs were extinct - that predators other than t-rex (and the tiny ostrich ones) again roamed the earth. Nothing but a cataclysm could dethrone the king!
No one contests or disputes that the ancestors of the T-rex (the group is called tyrannosaurids) were predators. Proponents of the idea that T-rex was strictly a scavenger must explain these points:
A) Why, during the final portion of the dinosaur age (Mesozoic) was there suddenly no predators around except ostrich dinosaurs? The excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
B) And why, after all other predators went away, did no other large predator evolve to prey upon the myriad kinds of large herbivores during the last millions of years of the Mesozoic? Again, the excellence of the T-rex as a predator provides the only logical explanation.
C) Why, after the tyrannosaurids were a very successful group of predators, did the final, most powerful one, suddenly evolve to be a scavenger?

Argument from wounds
Dinosaurs have been bitten by T-rexes and survived (a healed tail bone has been found for example), so we know T-rexes bit living herbivores who escaped. This needs no explanation; it would be incredible to believe scavengers bit herbivores without intending to eat them!

Argument from behavior (argument from poop)
T-rexes preferentially ate hadrosaurs (duckbills). We know this from analyzing their fossilized poop. They must have found duckbills easy prey (or just tasty!) because in T-rex poop there are far more bones of them than of triceratops or other contemporary herbivores (triceratopses are deadly with their horns, so this makes sense!). Scavengers eat whatever they find – they never pick and choose what kind of dead flesh, they eat all dead flesh. If T-rex was primarily a predator, the preferential eating makes a lot of sense. The idea that T-rex was a picky scavenger needs a lot of explanation.

Argument from bite
Scientists believe it would be impossible for a t-rex to not have a septic bite. The komodo dragon (and some other lizards) have this feature as well. But since this is a side effect of eating meat, it doesn’t necessarily mean that this feature evolved specifically to kill prey, right? Actually, there were little notches that seem to have been for that very reason – to capture pieces of meat so that the bite would be septic. In other words, it seems that the septic bite – which is utterly useless for a scavenger – was intentional in the design of the teeth. This makes the t-rex a little less cool to me, and even superfluous since the t-rex’s bite was so powerful that 500 lbs of meat could be ripped off (and if that isn’t killing power, what is?). I mean, why do we need the greatest and most powerful ever of all land predators to have venom?

Argument from teeth
“Dinosaur Jack” Horner discovered that they replaced hundreds of teeth per year (much like a crocodilian). Although he believes they were scavengers, in his book he never addresses this issue: why would they need to constantly be growing new teeth if they ate soft, rotting meat? They also had the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur – in fact, they had the largest teeth in proportion to its body (oversized teeth), giving it an advantage over other predators. Why do scavengers need the largest teeth of any carnivorous dinosaur? Indeed, why did the tyrannosaurids, all of whom were predators, suddenly evolve one with even larger teeth, but that doesn’t use them to kill? Why would a scavenger, eating rotting and soft meat, require a constant replenishment of teeth? Using teeth for grabbing and killing prey explains why teeth would be often torn out and lost, but as a scavenger this presents a mystery.

Argument from jaws
Scientists have designed a metal jaw that replicated what the T-rex could have done with its jaws. It was discovered that the jaws could have crushed through a car. Also, the Tyrannosaurids had an increasingly powerful bite as time went on (through changes in the skull) culminating in the T-rex with the most powerful bite. In fact, Jack Horner himself says “No meat-eating dinosaur had a more powerfully made head than t-rex…[scientists see] a lot of killing potential to it.” Why did the skull of the predatory tyrannosaurids continually evolve more and more powerful bites only to have the final tyrannosaurid (T-rex) sport the most powerful bite while simultaneously becoming a scavenger?

Argument from eyes
The eyes are in the front like a predator – and the skull was designed for good binocular vision – in fact, scientists think that the vision of tyrannosaurids progressed over time until T-rex had the best! Scavengers may need good eyes too, but the placement of the eyes implies predatory, rather than scavenger ability (a scavenger would benefit from a larger field of view rather than a focusing view like a predator’s binocular vision).

Argument by body design
There are two ways of classifying body design in animals – gracile (swift built) and robust (strong built). T-rex was built just as gracile as ornithomemus (an ostrich dinosaur). That is incredible! It means that if the quick, darting ostrich dinosaurs could grow to be 40 feet high but retained their proportions they would be similar to a T-rex! This also means T-rex was more gracile than humans – or bears. It’s not that scavengers can’t be gracile, but why does a titanic “scavenger” like t-rex need to be proportionally as swift as an ostrich dinosaur? As a predator, the necessity is obvious.

Argument by size
Towards the end of the Cretaceous herbivores evolved to be larger and larger. Consequently, their predators likewise became larger to be capable of hunting them. The T-rex itself actually evolved during its span to be larger and larger. Scavengers have no reason to increase in size in proportion to any other animals; their size is dependent upon other evolutionary factors, having no need of being in relation to the size of either herbivores or carnivores in its ecosystem. The T-rex is the last and largest tyrannosaurid. It makes sense that it evolved from earlier tyrannosaurids to be able to prey on the increasinly larger herbivores of the late Cretaceous. Remember, no one disputes that T-rex’s ancestors were predators. So, if it was a scavenger, why did it evolve to be larger than its predatory ancestors, and why did itself evolve to become larger over time if it wasn’t compensating for the larger herbivores?

Argument from neck
Its neck muscles were incredibly strong – not only stronger than all other theropods (all the bipedal, mostly carnivorous dinosaurs), but also stronger in proportion to its size than any other theropod. A carnivorous theropod has need of a strong neck in proportion to its jaws so they can work in tandem to rip huge chunks of flesh from prey (Horner himself says 500 lbs of flesh in one bite). A scavenger has no need for a supremely strong neck for ripping flesh; they eat rotting and soft meat.

Argument from nasal cavities
The T-rex had a specially designed skull with fused nasal arches which allowed it to be exceptionally strong so that it could apply huge pressure with its bites without harming itself. Scavengers, eating soft meat and not needing the force of their jaws to kill, have no need to protect themselves from the force of their own bite.

Argument from lungs
T-rex had a proportionately larger cavity for lungs than other theropods (carnivores). This ties in to the fact that it is a gracile (swift built) animal. It is designed for aerobic chases. As a scavenger is it just trying to be the first one to the carcass? Or is it because its prey runs away?

Argument of the conclusion inferred from all the other arguments
We have a slough of reasons that don’t merely indicate that T-rex was indeed a predator. They indicate that T-rex was probably the most powerful and effective predator of its size, or possibly even of any size of theropod (cetainly of any tyrannosaurid). In other words, it was not just a predator, it was a really good one. Had it been a scavenger not only would all of these reasons be evolutionarily vestigial, but there is no real indication it would have been a great scavenger - it would have been mediocore.

Countering the arguments for scavenger:

Rebutting the argument of size
The T-rexes are so large, some argue, that it needed so much energy to move and hunt it could not have possibly gotten enough through living prey. Therefore, it was not designed to hunt, but to scavenge. We don’t need science to disprove this one. Just a little logic. There were other carnivorous dinosaurs (though not many) that were larger than T-rex that nobody believes were exclusive scavengers. The giganotosaurus is a good example. Its teeth, neck, jaw muscles, and other predatory instruments were weaker and smaller than T-rex both absolutely and in proportion, yet no one believes it was exclusively a scavenger! If it, being larger than the T-rex but seemingly less capable (weaker jaw, etc.) could find enough energy by hunting to survive, why not the T-rex?

Rebutting the argument of sense of smell
Some argue that the large olfactory senses of T-rex made it a good scavenger. This is silly (or even disingenuous), because predators can benefit from a good sense of smell. In other words, sense of smell is not designed specifically for scavengers, it can be designed for predators as well. There are plenty of diverse examples today of creatures who use their sense of smell to hunt. (And scientists increasingly believe T-rex’s good sense of smell was designed for them to be good night hunters). Also as a bonus point of this rebuttal, the placement of the nostrils of T-rex suggests the sense of smell was not for dead, but for living meat. The nostrils are in the front like a predator’s, not back on the nose like a scavenger (scavengers eat soft, rotting meat which can clog up the nostrils, so scavengers evolve nostrils away from the end of the mouth).

Rebutting the argument of tiny arms
They had small arms, of no use for a predator. It is true scientists have not yet discovered the use of their small arms (though there are theories). However, a T-rex has plenty of obvious ways of hunting, killing and eating without needing its arms. And what purpose do they use if it’s a scavenger? And furthermore, there are other theropods (which are undisputed predators) with tiny forearms that are useless! If they can have small arms and be predators, why not T-rex? This is perhaps the silliest and easiest to explode argument for it being a strict scavenger.

Rebutting the argument of eyes
They had proportionally small eyes, and so some argue that maybe they couldn’t see well. This is silly. The proportion of eyes to head or body has nothing to do with the aptitude of the eyes. Blue whale eyes are smaller than a fist, which means in proportion to its body they are incredibly tiny. Yet blue whales do not suffer a lack of vision for it; animals simply don’t suffer bad eyesight because of the proportion of its eyes to its body. Bears, wolves and many other animals have small eyes to hunt with and do remarkably well. And T-rex has larger eyes than them! Besides, as stated above, the skull was designed for good binocular vision! This is almost as silly an argument as the tiny arms theory.

Rebutting the argument of speed
Because of their size and design, t-rexes could not run very fast, or possibly not at all. Predators need to be fast to catch prey, right? As stated before, the t-rex is actually more swiftly built in proportion than a bear or even a human, not to mention most other theropods. It was not bulky – in fact it was designed to be a quick walker, rather than a runner. Because of its size, a walking t-rex may have reached about 25 mph! The t-rex only has to be as fast or faster than its prey – it doesn’t have to be a runner or sprinter. The process of moving (walking instead of running) is irrelevant. How fast is your prey, and can you get it? In fact, in his own book Jack Horner says: “[t-rex has] massive legs to chase down prey.” Horner himself does not count speed as a primary reason he believes it was a scavenger.

Rebutting the argument of injury
Jack Horner also argues that if a t-rex ever fell, its own sheer weight would cripple it, and without effective arms it might be unable to right itself, therefore being forever pinned to the earth. The latter part of this point is disingenuous, because if a t-rex cannot move at all, how could it scavenge? So the real question is, should it be crippled, how could it hunt? The simple answer is, there are plenty of examples of animals today whose activities involve potential serious injury. I will take much of my response here from http://www.gavinrymill.com/dinosaurs/t-rex-hunter-of-scavenger.html
“A fall can be fatal to a giraffe and yet they frequently run. Monkeys die falling from trees but it doesnt mean they stop climbing…Injury in herbivorous dinosaurs is comparatively rare, however one quarter of all theropod dinosaur skeletons show a fracture in an arm or leg.”
Here are injuries sustained by an Allisaur:
• Fractured left lower leg bone
• Infected right foot bone
• Fractured tail
• Fractured abdominal ribs
• Fractured right rib
• Damaged claw sheath on the second finger of left hand
• Infected and fractured second and third fingers on the right hand
• The second finger of right hand twisted
• Fractured second finger on left hand
• Partial fracture in one right rib
• Infection in right shoulder
• Damage to left pelvic bone, a re-healed fracture.
Apparently, injury is just a part of life for a theropod. Why should t-rex be any different? This is not an evolved feature of the t-rex that allows it to scavenge. This is merely an inference supposing a hazardous life if it hunted.

Come on, after encountering many evolved features of why the t-rex was a great predator, we have yet to actually encounter an evolved feature that specifically denotes scavenging abilities! This is because there are none! There are only evolved features indicating it was a predator! This fact alone is a separate argument in favor of t-rex being a predator. The only evolved feature that is argued to specifically denote scavenging abilities is the sense of smell – but this could indicate that it was a good hunter as well, we could even posit it needed a good sense of smell for night hunting. Yet no single evolved feature that denotes it was a predator can reasonably be seen as a feature helping it to scavenge effectively!

My first argument was that Jack Horner is the only prominent paleontologist who believed t-rex was exclusively a scavenger and we, as non-scientists, should probably go with the super majority. Most of the arguments for t-rex being a scavenger were taken from his book or writings of people who have studied his work. However, in his book Horner reveals “I’m not convinced t-rex was only a scavenger, though I will say so sometimes just to be contrary and get my colleagues arguing.” So what have I been arguing for? Jack Horner is smart enough to know that there is too much evidence to pin t-rex down as exclusively a scavenger. And, as stated before, no one believes t-rex will pass up a free dead meal, so Horner isn’t completely wrong. But there’s just too much to say about how t-rex was an incredible killing machine. I believe she was the best that ever lived on land.
Arthur Petersen

Two Observations

On my school campus (UNT) I have spoken with people about politics and current events. One common idea presented to me is the opposition to our current wars and a belief that they are caused by the failures of diplomacy of our leaders; that if we had negotiated more or better, we could have avoided war (this is part of the foreign policy platform Obama has been running on). They lament how in our day and age with such a sophisticated and advanced civilization we still have warfare. One girl (typical of the sentiment) began by saying “I may be called anti-American for saying this…”

Now, here is the rub. She, and all the others, are not anti-American in the least. They are, in a sense, the opposite. They are far too Amero-centric. She, and the other students, cannot see that others do not think the same way we do. They do not have the same culture. They do not have the same values. They do not make the same assumptions about culture and values. They do have have the same assumptions about government. They do not resolve problems the same way we do. They are not the same. I am surprised that my fellow students missed one glaring cogent demonstration of this:

Any group of people (or government who fosters or supports such groups) who blow themselves up in attempting to murder civilians as a way of trying to get what they want from other governments and people demonstrates quite clearly that we are not in any way dealing with a government or group of people that resembles in the least the American (or civilized) way of dealing with problems. In America, we discuss, legislate and vote. They murder, murder and murder. That is why it is not anti-America to believe we should not be fighting terrorists or those governments who support them, it is too Amero-centric. Some people can be dealt with through non-violent measures (such as negotiations and sanctions) others cannot. The world does not all think like us.

The other observation is less specifically about what fellow students say. It has more to do with the “change” platform demagoguery of Obama. One gets a sense that it is very optimistic and hopeful, that “change we can believe in,” or change for the better is coming. A very warm and wonderful sentiment. I believe it is actually the opposite. It is, in some ways, cynical even. Who would label the Obama platform as cynical? No one. But here’s why I think the adjective is appropriate.

First, Barack Obama’s platform entails a radical departure from our current system. It is no surprise now that he wants to “spread the wealth around” and redistribute it. He has plans for so many new programs that he plans on an additional 800 billion (that’s just shy of a trillion, or one thirteenth our entire nation’s GDP) in new spending for them. In short, he is running on the idea that the government solves all economic problems for the individual by spending lots of money on them. I will not take a long time to make this case, but let’s assume that he is doing this (and if there is disagreement on this point, I’ll make my case for it).

I believe it is cynical to think that the richest nation on the earth, whose upward fiscal mobility and fiscal freedom for literally everyone is among the greatest, if not the greatest in the world and where the last 25 years have seen the largest expansion of wealth in the history of the world! Why would we want to radically alter these things? This vast (exponential) increase in wealth in America in the last 25 years and increase of potential and opportunity for upward mobility and economic freedom was not caused by measures and policies entailing the idea that government and government programs, rather than the individual and individual business, makes the individual’s economic situation better and solves economic problems. Again, I will not take a long time to make this case, but let’s assume that this is true (and if there is disagreement on this point, I’ll make my case for it).

So, if you believe that the individuals and individual small businesses (which employ the majority of Americans) are not able to continue this economic growth for themselves and are not able to continually, through their own work and toil, make themselves better off, then you are cynical. The two options are to believe that Obama’s version of government will solve the average American’s problem, or that the average American will solve his own problem. The cynic disbelieves in millions upon millions of Americans and believes in a few elected officials. I believe in the millions upon millions of Americans to drive our economy and to make themselves richer and better off. I am not a cynic.

Moral Murder

I was watching Dr. Who last night (the new series, season one) and there was a an alien, disguised as a human who had killed many people and planned on killing everyone in the entire world with a super-plan that was about to commence in several days. The Entire World! Ok. Now, the Doctor captured her and was going to take her to her homeworld for justice (she’s a criminal for her own species too). While they are preparing to go, she tells them that her homeworld has the death penalty and they are essentially taking part in her execution by taking her to her executors. She presents the question – “you’re now no better than me!” The Doctor (supposedly one of the most brilliant beings in the universe) is stopped in his argument. He still plans on taking her, but this causes a lot of moral debate between all of the Doctor’s companions.
This seems common in a lot of films. The hero, about to kill the villain is confronted with this moral problem that he has become no better than the villain. This seems a little ridiculous (especially in the case of the Dr. Who episode where the alien had planned to kill the entire human race!).
Here is why it is silly. Surely no one contests against the idea that someone who plans and murders the death of his wife is more guilty than someone who is driving drunk and accidentally hits and kills this same woman. In other words, no one has a problem making a moral distinction between murder and manslaughter. One is intentional, the other is not.
When this murderous alien says to the Doctor “you’re the same as me,” why do people not scoff? Clearly the Doctor would not be taking her to her death had she not murdered anyone and planned to murder billions more! After comprehending the distinction between murder and manslaughter, why do people fail to see a distinction between execution and the murder of innocents?

What we now know

July 14, 2008

I just learned of the most recent development in the war that happened on July 5, 2008.

If you are serious about the Iraq war’s justice or injustice, then these three points should be the most important things informing your judgment - if you disagree that they are the most important things to inform your judgment, tell me why…

1) A now public 1,600 page report commissioned by the Pentagon and released in March 2008 entitled the Iraqi Perspectives Project confirms that Saddam funded, trained and sponsored several anti-American international terrorist groups - including Al Qaeda. It was based on an examination of 600,000 captured Baathist documents. Much of this knowledge was available to the public before the IPP was released, but it was a larger, more complete confirmation.

2) On July 5, 2008 a secret was revealed to the public that the Iraqi and US governments had known since 2003 but could not reveal for fear that Iran or terrorists would hijack it: that 550 metric tons of enriched uranium (an ingredient in WMDs) were found at Saddam's nuclear weapons complex at Tuwaitha where UN inspectors (during the Clinton era) had apparently been deceived.
Think about that – 550 tons is a lot of nuclear material!

A) We know Tuwaitha is where Saddam had a nuclear weapons program in the 80’s and 90’s.

B) from globalsecurity.org we read that:

“As of 2002 the only positively confirmed nuclear material left in Iraq is 1.8 tons of low-enriched uranium and several tons of natural and depleted uranium. The material is in a locked storage site at the Tuwaitha nuclear research facility near Baghdad.”

C) and yet 550 metric tons were found by the US during the 2003 invasion?

D) How had the UN inspectors missed 548.2 tons of nuclear material?!?! – Obviously Saddam deceived them and us - he was still seeking WMDs right up until we invaded in 2003.

3) We have now basically won the war against the terrorists and insurgents (why else would Prime Minister Al-Maliki use the term “defeated” two Saturdays ago in referring to “terrorism” in Iraq; and why did Al Qaeda recently say they are preparing for a “last stand” after we verified that they have been reduced from 12,000 to 1200 terrorists in Iraq during the last two years; and why is Iraq now declaring we can prepare a timeline for withdrawal?) and Iraq is a democracy in better economic, social and political shape than it has been in recorded history.

Now, I am heavily biased for the war and the Bush administration. So, I will be as fair as I can in offering the supporting evidence to my argument; let’s turn to those who are on the exact opposite side of the political spectrum about these topics.

Issued on the first Thursday of June, 2008, Senator Rockefeller and the Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee wrote a report about what Bush knew before we invaded.
Needless to say, Senator Rockefeller and the Democrats of the SIC are not friends of the Bush administration and disagree vehemently with the war and Bush’s policies.

Fred Hiatt (reporter) read the report and makes this summary of it:

“On Iraq's nuclear weapons program? The president's statements "were generally substantiated by intelligence community estimates."

On biological weapons, production capability and those infamous mobile laboratories? The president's statements "were substantiated by intelligence information."

On chemical weapons, then? "Substantiated by intelligence information."

On weapons of mass destruction overall (a separate section of the intelligence committee report)? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

Delivery vehicles such as ballistic missiles? "Generally substantiated by available intelligence."

Unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to deliver WMDs? "Generally substantiated by intelligence information."

…statements regarding Iraq's support for terrorist groups other than al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information."

Statements that Iraq provided safe haven for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and other terrorists with ties to al-Qaeda "were substantiated by the intelligence assessments,"

and statements regarding Iraq's contacts with al-Qaeda "were substantiated by intelligence information.”

So...even those in the Congress of the United States who disagree vehemently with Bush and his policies are forced to conclude in a report that the reasons Bush outlined for us to go to war were “substantiated by intelligence information” before we invaded Iraq.

Now, nearly everyone who opposed the war up until recently regularly called for a unilateral troop withdrawal, despite the fact that Iraq itself never wanted us to do so.

But had we withdrawn, none of these things would necessarily be true:

1) Bush saved the world and the US from a regime that funded, trained and sponsored terrorists.

2) Bush saved the world and the US from a regime that was hiding several hundred tons of material used in WMDs (I believe only a few pounds of enriched uranium are necessary to destroy New York City).

3) Bush made it possible for Iraq to become a democracy with an exponentially increasing economy and more political freedom than ever in its history.

4) Bush ended a regime in Iraq that regularly committed the horrible tragedy of democide (murder by government of its people).

5) Bush ended a rogue nation that invaded two countries during the previous two decades out of sheer opportunism and wasn’t changing its attitude (for example, it attacked US embassies in 1999).

But thank goodness we didn’t withdraw, and Bush did accomplish all of that.

But would you prefer the world as it was, with an Iraq of oppressed and poor people, many of whom are murdered by their government which also invades neighboring countries about once a decade on whim and wastes its people’s money on international terrorist programs and WMDs?

Either way, the war is a resounding success, the good guys won and the bad guys lost (both the Baathists and the terrorists).

Radical Islamic Terrorists do not think the same way we do

Sorry I've been so busy lately I haven't had a time to post any more blogs. But that's ok, as far as I can tell nobody reads my blog, so that certainly makes me post less and not feel bad about it! Anyway, it's been five years since we've been fighting this war on terror and I personally know people who are still unaware of exactly what the "bad guys" think.

A friend of mine said this less than a year ago:

"Bin Laden issued a public statement that I wish every
American had read. Although I'm not sure how seriously it should be
taken, it listed some specific grievances he had against America,
which might be taken as possible explanations for the terrorist
attacks. It mentioned nothing about hating our freedom, a supposition
I've heard Bush and others express repeatedly."

I later found the public statement he was referring to. It was given to us on Nov 24 2002.

I had thought that one statement from bin Laden is probably not enough to really gauge where he stands in relation to "hating our freedom". But I was wrong. This one statement is certainly enough!

bin Laden never says he "hates our freedom" but this message from him is clear: "we want to kill you because you are not Muslim and do not subscribe to Shariah Law" I think Bush was actually putting it rather lightly! (And that's something Bush has often done - to the detriment of his presidency).

bin Laden's speech can be broken down and summed up like this:

First Osama bin Laden says that we as Americans are asking radical Islamic terrorists two questions which he puts as such:

"(Q1) Why are we fighting and opposing you?
Q2)What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?"

The speech then has three parts:

1) He proceeds to answer the first question.

2) Then he goes on to say why the innocent Americans of 9/11 are not in fact innocent according to him – an irrational illogical tirade of why all Americans are to blame, not just the government.

3) Then he answers the second question.

I will summarize the two questions and provide quotations from the speech.

To answer the first question he lists various attacks we have made on [Muslims], such as in Palestine and Somalia. He says we supported the Russians in Chechnya, that we support India in Kashmir, and the Jewish conflict in Lebanon. Each of these would take time for me to explain, but the long and short of it is no rational person could possibly use any of these as a basis to justify 9/11 - but I'm sure you already know that.

But to give you one example where he's right, Russia was wrong to invade Chechnya. Chechnya was one of the independent states made after the fall of the Soviets and Russia thought they should be part of Russia, so they invaded and were met with armed resistance by the Chechnans.

But from reading his list it is clear he is utterly biased. No matter what the conflict was about, the Muslims are never the "bad guys." (not surprising)

Then he says this a little further:

"Under your supervision, consent and orders, the governments of our countries which act as your agents, attack us on a daily basis…These governments prevent our people from establishing the Islamic Shariah, using violence and lies to do so…The removal of these governments is an obligation upon us, and a necessary step to free the Ummah, to make the Shariah the supreme law and to regain Palestine. And our fight against these governments is not separate from out fight against you."

Ok, lets stop and talk about this.

1) He says he wants Shariah Law – very very different from a free democracy.

2) He says our government's meddlings in the mideast cause them to attack Muslims (or maybe just radical terrorists – he's not clear who is being attacked)

3) These governments prevent the Shariah to be established.

4) They must remove these governments to make Shariah law supreme

5) The fight to make Shariah Law supreme in this area is not separate from the fight against the US

Does this begin to paint a picture for you of what he is all about? He wants a Caliphate. He wants Shariah Law. He does not want democracy, and he is willing to fight the US because he believes that we do not want Shariah Law for the mideast. He makes erroneous claims that we order certain governments (and he never specifies which ones) to attack 'them.' Apparently he's not talking about some of the most important states in the mideast who basically do follow Shariah Law like Iran who is tightly controlled by the Mullahs, or Saudi Arabia which doesn't have much freedom of religion at all.

The freedom of religion and the concept that governments should never enforce religion is one of our most cherished American principles. Bin Laden disagrees with this concept so much he is willing to use force to establish Shariah Law in the mideast, and feels that that conflict is not a separate conflict from the fight against the US.

Ok, enough about his "specific grievances." He lists many more, but I won't take the time to go into them all.

Further along he says:

"(Q2) As for the second question that we want to answer: What are we calling you to, and what do we want from you?

The first thing that we are calling you to is Islam.

The religion of the Unification of God; of freedom from associating partners with Him, and rejection of this; of complete love of Him, the Exalted; of complete submission to His Laws; and of the discarding of all the opinions, orders, theories and religions which contradict with the religion He sent down to His Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam is the religion of all the prophets, and makes no distinction between them - peace be upon them all…"

So the number one thing that he specifically wants from us and is "calling us to" is to become Muslim. Does this sound like liberation or domination? Does this sound like freedom or slavery? He is willing to kill thousands of Americans in order to force us to become Muslim!

I'm not sure where the logic in his twisted mind works - who exactly would religion that wants to kill you if you don't join? I would argue that that in and of itself is a severe "hatred of freedom."

Then he states:

"The second thing we call you to, is to stop your oppression, lies, immorality and debauchery that has spread among you.

We call you to be a people of manners, principles, honour, and purity; to reject the immoral acts of fornication, homosexuality, intoxicants, gambling's, and trading with interest…

You are the nation who, rather than ruling by the Shariah of Allah in its Constitution and Laws, choose to invent your own laws as you will and desire. You separate religion from your policies, contradicting the pure nature which affirms Absolute Authority to the Lord and your Creator. You flee from the embarrassing question posed to you: How is it possible for Allah the Almighty to create His creation, grant them power over all the creatures and land, grant them all the amenities of life, and then deny them that which they are most in need of: knowledge of the laws which govern their lives?"

He goes on to list a bunch of sins he thinks we are guilty of. I agree with some of them – for example he talks about how many drugs we consume and how low our collective level of morality is. But of course I don't believe random innocent people should be killed because many people live in sin. I don't even believe for a second that individual sinners should be killed or even forced to not sin. Such an idea goes both against my religious beliefs and the wonderful ideas that produced this great nation.

So the second thing that he specifically wants from us and is "calling us to" is to stop our immorality, etc. among us. He would strip us of the freedom to make our own laws, rather than the laws of the Shariah. He would strip us of our freedom to be who we are, to say what we want to say, to do what we want to do, to elect who we want to elect.

He wants us living in a world without the freedoms we enjoy.

My friend had asserted that "Until we understand the root cause of the
terrorist problem, we don't stand a chance of defusing it."

According to bin Laden, the way to defuse it is for us to become Muslim and institute Shariah Law in the US.

That won't happen.

So we have to change the mind of bin Laden and his ilk such that they don't want us to anymore.

That won't happen.

So we have to protect ourselves by killing them first.

That is just how simple the problem really is.

There have been ideologies of hate and death since the dawn of civilization and when they occur, there is usually no reasoning with them. They must be stopped with force. Far left America has not yet accepted this simple and true concept.

Inconsistency, Ignorance and Irresponsibility part II (Barack makes a near non-sequitor in classic Demagogue fashion)

Ok, I'll try to make this be my final knock on Obama (at least for a while) and move on to perhaps more interesting subjects. I just can't help it. He seems so rhetoric based and unfit to actually be the leader of the free world.

I heard on the news on the radio yesterday Barack Obama saying in a speech something along the lines of ‘I have news for Senator McCain: there were no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded.’ And then everyone cheered.

Mark Eichenlaub published an article in 2006 listing a mere 32 instances where former Iraqi officials or captured al-Qaeda affiliates have revealed links between Baathist Iraq and Al Qaeda. All 32 of these instances come from news sources such as CNN, PBS, the Weekly Standard, National Review, MSNBC, Radio Free Europe and others. This article can be found here: http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Read.aspx?GUID=56AA062B-34FA- 4E62-9780-E1186E65818F

Perhaps every single one of these news sources is wrong and/or every single one of those 32 former Iraqi officials/al Qaeda affiliates were lying.

But in reality, which is not where Obama lives, it is probably false to say there were “no Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq before Bush invaded.”

That’s ok. During this post I will agree with Barack Obama and concede that there were no ties between Al Qaeda and Saddam.

After all (and this would be the heart of the matter for Obama), Saddam was not responsible for 9/11.

Barack Obama is using weak rhetoric that non-substantively deals with why he feels we should pull out of Iraq.

I can infer at least two things from his statement:

1. Barack knows that Al Qaeda terrorists are in Iraq now (he used the word “before”).

2. Barack believes that fighting Al Qaeda would have been a justification to invade Iraq (he is making a statement about whether the war was justified, and by using the idea that Al Qaeda not in Iraq would make the invasion unjustified, I can deduce that if Al Qaeda terrorists had been in Iraq the war would have been justified according to Barack.)

Apparently Barack believes that invading a country which harbors terrorists is the right thing to do…but if US troops are fighting those same terrorists it is not ok to remain there to fight them.

Huh !?!?

Wait…I get it! Maybe he does mean that only invasion to fight terrorists would be ok, in which case it all makes sense now – he wants to pull out so that he then can immediately re-invade Iraq, but this time it will be justified! Now I understand. He must want to redo exactly what Bush did, but make it justified :)

Obama is dodging the real issue – whether pulling out of Iraq is correct – not whether going into Iraq was correct.

Obama knows that many Americans – perhaps most – believe that the invasion was not justified. He knows that this will win him votes. He is absolutely pandering to emotions – in this case the dislike for Bush and the war. This is not even veiled demagoguery.

The decision to continue to engage in conflict against terrorists and insurgents in Iraq should not be dependent upon whether the initial invasion was justified – it should be dependent upon the current situation.

Here is what the top Al Qaeda guys are saying about the current conflict in Iraq:

“I now address my speech to the whole of the Islamic nation: Listen and understand. The issue is big and the misfortune is momentous. The most important and serious issue today for the whole world is this Third World War, which the Crusader-Zionist coalition began against the Islamic nation. It is raging in the land of the two rivers. The world's millstone and pillar is in Baghdad, the capital of the caliphate…"

“This is a war of destiny between Infidelity and Islam."

"The whole world is watching this war and the two adversaries; the Islamic Nation, on the one hand, and the United States and its allies on the other. It is either victory and glory or misery and humiliation.”

- Text Of Bin Laden's Audio Message To Muslims In Iraq, Posted On Jihadist Websites, 12/28/04.

“So we must think for a long time about our next steps and how we want to attain it, and it is my humble opinion that the Jihad in Iraq requires several incremental goals: The first stage: Expel the Americans from Iraq. The second stage: Establish an Islamic Authority or Amirate, then develop it and support it until it achieves the level of a Caliphate – over as much territory as you can to spread its power in Iraq … The third stage: Extend the jihad wave to the secular countries neighboring Iraq. The fourth stage: It may coincide with what came before: the clash with Israel, because Israel was established only to challenge any new Islamic entity.”

- from text of Ayman Al-Zawahiri letter to Al-Zarqawi, 7/9/05.

“Finally, I would like to tell you that the war [in Iraq] is for you or for us to win. If we win it, it means your defeat and disgrace forever as the wind blows in this direction with God's help.”

- Bin Laden threatens new operations, Posted On Al-Jazirah Net, 1/19/06)

In other words, Al Qaeda is in Iraq now and in order to fight Al Qaeda we should stay in Iraq now.

Therefore, what Obama must deal with if he is elected president are Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq who wish to make Iraq a haven for terrorists who wish to spread their ideology of hate and murder.

What Obama won’t have the opportunity of dealing with if he is elected president is the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 or not.

So why does he then even mention it as a talking point against McCain?

Let me go further and say that Obama misses the real issues. He doesn’t get it. Not only is he trying to deal with the past and not the present or the future in substantive and practical ways, he apparently is unaware of one of the key rationales for operation Iraqi Freedom:

Saddam’s regime provided safe haven, training and funding for thousands of terrorists who planned for and executed attacks against the US and American allies.

In other words…

1) Iraq was a state sponsor of terrorism.

2) Fighting the War on Terror will require “ending state sponsors of terrorism”

Many people seem to have missed this concept entirely.

Below are just my summaries of the lowlights from a smattering of quotes I have collected over the years that identify the Baathists’ relationship with international terrorism.

Please take some time and read these sources carefully.

I believe a non-partisan, independent thinker with a moral compass will realize just how wrong the anti-war camp is after digesting the following.

(Below are the specific quotes these summaries are taken from)…

1. Saddam trained thousands of non-Iraqi Arab militants the 4 years immediately prior to the US invasion – these were specialized in exporting terrorism to the world.

2. This collaboration with and support for terrorists has been long standing and was more sophisticated than the training Al Qaeda had in Afganistan.

3. there was a “wave of state-sponsored terrorism that was well underway (at the time of [the US] invasion)” called “Blessed July” – the targets included London.

4. Terrorists from Iraq killed people in Israel, self-ruled Kurdistan, Iran, Italy, USA, Greece, UN aid workers of various nationalities, and of course Abu Nidal’s organization (who was perhaps the most famous terrorist prior to 9/11 when Osama bin Laden became more prominent) killed hundreds of people in over 20 countries.

5. Saddam corresponded with Baathists outside of Iraq to collaborate to kill Americans who are found anywhere in Arabia by using terrorists and other means.

6. An anti-US terror organization collaborated with Iraq and visited Saddam to show “the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests.”

7. Every “Patters of Global Terrorism” released by the US State Department since 1993 has labeled Iraq a state sponsor of international terrorism – each year Iraq “increased” its international terrorism capabilities.

8. Iraq planned for terrorists operations against US embassies sometime around 1998.

9. Al-Zarqawi – formerly the director of an Al Qaeda training base in Afganistan – ran an international terrorist training camp in northern Iraq.

[For most of these points I make I can provide several more sources than the few I reproduce below. I did not want to make this the longest blog I’d ever do. If you would like more sources for a particular point, feel free to leave a comment and I will post more.]

The Smattering of Sources.

Saddam’s Iraq trained thousands of international terrorists

“The former regime of Saddam Hussein trained thousands of radical Islamic terrorists from the region at camps in Iraq over the four years immediately preceding the U.S. invasion, according to documents and photographs recovered by the U.S. military in postwar Iraq…

The secret training took place primarily at three camps--in Samarra, Ramadi, and Salman Pak--and was directed by elite Iraqi military units. Interviews by U.S. government interrogators with Iraqi regime officials and military leaders corroborate the documentary evidence. Many of the fighters were drawn from terrorist groups in northern Africa with close ties to al Qaeda, chief among them Algeria's GSPC and the Sudanese Islamic Army. Some 2,000 terrorists were trained at these Iraqi camps each year from 1999 to 2002, putting the total number at or above 8,000. Intelligence officials believe that some of these terrorists returned to Iraq and are responsible for attacks against Americans and Iraqis… [note: these terrorists returned to Iraq – they were not in it before the war – hence international terrorism from Iraq]

- Stephen F. Hayes

“Documentation indicates that Iraq was training non-Iraqis at Salman Pak in terrorist techniques, including assassination and suicide bombing. In addition to Iraqis, trainees included Palestinians, Yemenis, Saudis, Lebanese, Egyptians and Sudanese.

Soon after September 11, 2001, two Iraqi defectors came forward, explaining that Iraqi intelligence had trained non-Iraqi Arab militants at its extensive compound at Salman Pak, an area south of Baghdad. Among the skills taught there was hijacking airplanes. One defector even drew a sketch of the area, showing a passenger plane parked in the southwest corner of a large compound.

When American marines took over Salman Pak in early April 2003, they indeed found the terrorist training camp, the airplane, and the foreign terrorists. An American military spokesman affirmed, "The nature of the work being done by some of those people we captured. ..gives us the impression that there is terrorist training that was conducted at Salman Pak." The marines "inferred" that the airplane "was used to practice hijacking," the Associated Press reported. Saddam's apologists claim the camp was for counterterrorism training, but that seems highly improbable…

The report of the Iraq Survey Group presents further evidence of Iraq's involvement in hostile activities. It includes the most comprehensive account of the Iraqi Intelligence Service ever published in open-source literature, depicting an organization that consisted of "over twenty compartmentalized directorates." Section M-14 included the "Tiger Group" - "primarily composed of suicide bombers. "It also supervised the "Challenge Project," a highly secretive enterprise involved with explosives, about which the Iraq Survey Group could learn little. Another section - M-21 - was formed in 1990 to create explosive devices for Iraqi intelligence. Its chemistry department developed explosive materials; its electronics department prepared timers and wiring; and its mechanical department produced igniters and designed the bombs.

This picture shows the substantial, longstanding involvement of Iraq's intelligence services in terrorist training and support operations, including collaboration with Islamic militants. Its activities were infinitely more sophisticated than anything that was taught to the mujahideen fighting the Soviets in Afghanistan. This underscores just how odd it is that our default explanation for terrorism has now become Al Qaeda - which did not have a chemistry department, one of countless points that distinguishes that organization from the intelligence service of a major terrorist state [like Iraq].”

- Laurie Mylroie

* * *

“Sabah Khodada [was] a former Iraqi army captain who once worked at Salman Pak. On October 14, 2001, Khodada granted an interview to PBS television program “Frontline,” stating, “This camp is specialized in exporting terrorism to the whole world.”

He added: “Training includes hijacking and kidnapping of airplanes, trains, public buses, and planting explosives in cities ... how to prepare for suicidal operations.”

He continued: “We saw people getting trained to hijack airplanes...They are even trained how to use utensils for food, like forks and knives provided in the plane.”

- Deroy Murdock

* * *

“In the Prewar Iraq documents…there is a top secret memo on how to train and use the Arab Feedaeyeens as Suicide Bombers or as the memo call them “Estishehadeyeen” which means in Arabic “Suicide Martyrs”. The Arab Feedaeyeens are definitely foreigners non Iraqi Arabs who came to Iraq from all over the Middle East and North Africa and they were greatly welcomed by Saddam regime and trained by his military and intelligence apparatus to become Suicide Bombers…This document proves that not only there were non Iraqi Arab terrorists in Iraq before the war but they were also trained by Saddam regime on how to become suicide bombers by using their own bodies, or suicide bombers using cars and motorcycles full of explosive, or even become suicide bombers using Camels carrying explosives.

These are the non Iraqi Arab terrorists that later on brought death and destruction upon the Iraqi people through many suicide bombings.”

- Joseph Shahda

Some of those international terrorists meant to harm allies of the US

“The Fedayeen Saddam also took part in the regime's terrorism operations, which they conducted inside Iraq, and at least planned for attacks in major Western cities. In a document dated May 1999, Uday Hussein ordered preparations for "special operations, assassinations, and bombings, for the centers and traitor symbols in London, Iran and the self-ruled areas (Kurdistan).

“The report reveals the former regime's plans for a wave of state-sponsored terrorism that was well underway (at the time of invasion). Codenamed "Blessed July", the attacks were to take place outside of Iraq.”

- Mark Eichenlaub

* * *

“Iraq continued to plan and sponsor international terrorism in 1999…continued to provide safe haven and support to various terrorist groups.”

- from the 1999 edition of “Patterns of Global Terrorism” by President Clinton's State Department [note that every “Patters of Global Terrorism” released by the US State Department since 1993 has labeled Iraq a state sponsor of international terrorism.]

* * *

“Abbas, a well known wanted terrorist captured by U.S. forces in April 2003, apparently cooperated with Iraq's Intelligence Service (Mukhabarat) in a joint IIS/PLF Baghdad training camp (later overrun by U.S. forces) that provided chemicals and equipment, in addition to funding and training for terrorists in bomb-making, to terrorists tasked with anti-Israel suicide missions.”

- Mark Eichenlaub

* * *

“Iraqi- sponsored terrorism has become almost commonplace in northern Iraq, where the regime has been responsible for dozens of attacks on UN and relief agency personnel and aid convoys…

“Iraqi-backed surrogates were probably responsible for two attempts to bomb the Kuwait Airways office in Beirut and another attempt to bomb the Kuwaiti Embassy, also in Lebanon. The Iraqi regime continued its war of attrition on UN and humanitarian targets in northern Iraq aimed at driving the foreign presence out of the area and depriving the Kurdish population of relief supplies. UN and relief workers were shot at; bombs or grenades were tossed at residences and vehicles; and bombs were placed on UN trucks loaded with relief supplies. In March, a Belgian official of Handicapped International was shot and killed; a local employee of the same organization was killed and six others were injured when an aid station was bombed in December…

“On 26 September, a UN truck carrying 12 tons of medical supplies was completely destroyed by a bomb attached to the fuel tank probably by Iraqi agents at an Iraqi checkpoint. The truckdriver and 12 civilians were injured by the blast. The incident illustrates Iraqi determination to reduce aid to the Kurds…

“…the PKK, which has killed hundreds of people in attacks inside Turkey and has mounted two separate terrorist campaigns against Turkish interests in Europe in 1993, has training camps in Iraq, according to press reports. Iraq supports an opposition group, the MEK, which carried out several violent attacks in Iran during the year from bases in Iraq. Baghdad also harbors members of several extremist Palestinian groups including the ANO, the Arab Liberation Front, and Abu Abbas's Palestine Liberation Front (PLF).

- Department of State Publication 10136 [a document written prior to the invasion - ABP]

* * *

“[Saddam] has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.”

- Senator John Kerry on the senate floor October 9, 2002

* * *

Some of those international terrorists meant to harm the US

“it's decided that [The Arabian Bureau-Ba’ath Party] should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements, or Asian (Muslims) or friends. Take the necessary steps.”

- Letter to “Comrade Ali al-Reeh Al-Sheik” from “The President’s Secretary” of Iraq.

* * *

“The memos and letters between Saddam Hussein's office and top IIS leadership include numerous examples of collaboration between Baghdad and anti-American Islamic terrorists…Highlights, with anomalies in grammar and punctuation intact, include the following:

"Abo Nedhal [Abu Nidal] organization." The ANO committed at least 407 murders, including grenade and gun attacks on Rome's and Vienna's international airports on December 27, 1985. These simultaneous assaults killed 19 travelers, five of them American. An ANO bomb also exploded over the Ionian Sea in a TWA jet between Israel and Athens. The September 8, 1974, blast killed all 88 aboard, including 11 Americans…

"Al-Jehad w'Al-Tajdeed." This "secret Palestinian organization," the memo says, "believes in armed struggle against US & Western interests, it also believes that Mr. President (May Allah save him) is leading the believers against the unbelievers camp.” The document adds that a representative of the group "visited the country two months ago and showed the readiness of his organization to execute operations against U.S. interests anytime."

“Egyptian imam Omar Abdel Rahman, better known as the Blind Sheik, [who] inspired the February 26, 1993, World Trade Center attack [which killed 6 and injured over 1,000 - ABP] and a 1994 conspiracy to bomb New York City landmarks, for which he was arrested and convicted. According to The 9/11 Commission Report, Rahman was spiritual leader to both the Egyptian Islamic Group and Egyptian Islamic Jihad. Ayman al-Zawahiri, a former leader of EIJ, later merged it with al Qaeda.”

“The documents include a five page roster with names, nationalities, and details on 92 people who "finished the course at M14," apparently a terrorist training regimen at an Iraqi intelligence institution. Some of these militants later conducted attacks. These foreign trainees, nearly all of whom graduated on November 24, 1990, included one Libyan, two Jordanians, two Moroccans, three Egyptians naturalized as Iraqis, three Eritreans, six Tunisians, nine Lebanese, nine Syrians, 20 Sudanese, and 35 Palestinians. This record indicates that Amer Asa'ad Melhem Mahmood and Mohammed Hasan Al-Howshary, both Palestinians, were arrested and detained at Athens Airport for two weeks while on "a mission outside the country."

- Deroy Murdock

* * *

“Abbas al-Janabai, a personal assistant to Uday Hussein for 15 years, has repeatedly

stated that there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden that included training terrorists at various camps in Iraq.”

- Mark Eichenlaub summarizing a CNN article from 2003

* * *

“Iraq continues to be a safehaven, transit point, or operational node for groups and

individuals who direct violence against the United States, Israel, and other allies.

Iraq has a long history of supporting terrorism. During the last four decades, it

has altered its targets to reflect changing priorities and goals. It continues to

harbor and sustain a number of smaller anti-Israel terrorist groups and to actively

encourage violence against Israel. Regarding the Iraq-al-Qaida relationship,

reporting from sources of varying reliability points to a number of contacts,

incidents of training, and discussions of Iraqi safehaven for Usama bin Ladin and

his organization dating from the early 1990s.”

- Report of the Select Committee on Intelligence on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq [from the CIA]

* * *

“unnamed counterterrorism officials”…said that over 30 teams of terrorists, each team consisting of 2 to 3 men had been dispatced by Baghdad in 1991 and indicated that similar attacks may take place against U.S. interests again in 1998. (Athough, those in the intelligence community were said to be split during this time period as to whether or not Iraq had already dispatched similar teams of terrorists at this point.) The men, who were disguised as businessmen, used Iraq's diplomatic pouches to move automatic weapons, explosives and timers to embassies around for planned attacks…

- Mark Eichenlaub

Some of those international terrorists did harm the US

“Over the years, Iraq has provided safe haven to terrorists such as Abu Nidal, whose terror organization carried out more than 90 terrorist attacks in 20 countries that killed or injured nearly 900 people, including 12 Americans.”

- President George W. Bush

* * *

“The New York Times reports that Abu Nidal's Fatah Revolutionary Council murdered the following 17 Americans, at a minimum: [picture deleted]”

“President Saddam Hussein has recently told the head of the Palestinian political office, Faroq al-Kaddoumi, his decision to raise the sum granted to each family of the martyrs of the Palestinian uprising to $25,000 instead of $10,000,” Iraq's former deputy prime minister, Tariq Aziz, declared at a Baghdad meeting of Arab politicians and businessmen on March 11, 2002…Between Aziz's announcement and the March 20 launch of Operation Iraqi Freedom, 28 homicide bombers injured 1,209 people and killed 223 more, including at least eight Americans…

“Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, formerly the director of an al Qaeda training base in Afghanistan, fled to Iraq after being injured as the Taliban fell. He received medical care and convalesced for two months in Baghdad. He then opened a terrorist training camp in northern Iraq and arranged the October 2002 assassination of U.S. diplomat Lawrence Foley in Amman, Jordan.

- Deroy Murdock