Well It Seems To Be Unanimous

All THREE of the Dixie Chicks suffer from Hoof in Mouth Disease.

First came Natilie Maines with her now infamous

"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

Then in interviews over the newly released
"Taking The Long Way", which now sits on the Billboard Charts in Top Country Albums at #69 , Martie Maguire said,

" "But over the years, and especially since country music's turned into this redneck thing, it's become kind of a negative. I think for a while, a lot of artists were doing great things that ... were broadening the audience so that country was cool. ... So it makes me sad that it's kind of reverted back to a place that I'm not that proud of, and this is coming from a true country fan. I can't listen to the radio right now."

So it appears that Natlie is ashamed to be lumped together with Bush, by being from the same State, Martie is ashamed to be lumped together with rednecks and wants fans that are cool (does anyone recall Barbara Mandrell's song, I Was Country When Country Wasn't Cool?), andNOW Emily has stuck her foot down her throat with an unthinking statement about The View

Dixie Chicks' Emily Robison Apologizes to 'The View'

Thursday , May 25, 2006

By Michael Starr


Robison was quoted in Time's Dixie Chicks cover story as saying the group takes its politics very seriously - and how it asks itself, "What would Bruce Springsteen do?"

"Not that we're of that caliber, but would Bruce Springsteen do 'The View'? " Robison said

What difference does it make? One might ask what they say or think about Some Talk Show? It's real simple.

The comment infuriated the show's co-hosts, since "The View" gave The Dixie Chicks their big break in 1998. On Tuesday's show, Joy Behar tore the Time magazine article to shreds

We have some sayings down home about folks like this.

"Forgot where they come from"

"Think they are too good for Home folks"

I'd say the shoe fits and I hope the Chicks get to enjoy the taste of leather.

PS "While Taking The Long Way" Sits on the Billboard Top Country Albums Chart at 69,

Toby Keiths last album White Trash With Money which peaked at #2 is now sitting at #4 on Top Country Albums, I will be updating this post as the Dixie Chicks album climbs until it peaks.


J. Freedom du Lac in Dixie Chicks Leave Their Old Country says

Despite the excess fingerprints, the album holds together exceptionally well -- save for the inclusion of "Bitter End," an ill-fitting Celtic waltz with a chorus ("Farewell to old friends/Let's raise a glass to the bitter end") that seems to have been designed specifically for future pub singalongs. Either that, or a kiss-off party for the Chicks' former fans.

I'd say it was the later JF, to paraphrase Zell Miller, the Fans did not leave the Dixie Chicks, the Dixie Chicks left the Fans, and told them to F^&% Off.

I sure don't think they really mean "Freedom, Understanding, Truth & Knowledge." , and anyone who ever bought that lame story, can be excused, they are not mentally competent, and more to be pitied than scorned.

|

Break Point
By George Friedman
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
A government has been formed in Iraq. It is a defective government, in the sense that it does not yet have a defense or interior minister. It is an ineffective government, insofar as the ability to govern directly is at this point limited institutionally, politically and functionally. Ultimately, what exists now is less a government than a political arrangement between major elements of Iraq's three main ethnic groups. And that is what makes this agreement of potentially decisive importance: If it holds, it represents the political foundation of a regime.

If it holds.

If it holds, the rest is almost easy. If it doesn't hold, the rest is impossible. Therefore, the fate of this political arrangement will define the future of Iraq and, with that, the future of the region -- and in some ways, the future of the American position in the region. It is not hyperbole to say that everything depends on this deal.

The deal that has been shaped is about two things: power and money. First, it addresses the composition of power in Iraq -- defining the Shia as the dominant group, based on demographics, the Kurds next and the Sunnis as the smallest group. At the same time, it provides institutional and political guarantees to the Sunnis that their interests will not simply be ignored and that they will not be crushed by the Shia and Kurds. In terms of money, we are talking about oil. Iraq's oil fields are in the south, unquestionably in Shiite country, and in the north, in the borderland between Kurd and Sunni territory. One of the points of this arrangement is to assure that oil revenues will not be controlled on a simply regional basis, but will be at least partially controlled by the central government. Therefore, at least some of that money will go to the Sunnis, regardless of what arrangements are made on the ground with the Kurds.

The Sunnis got this deal for a simple reason: Their insurgency made them impossible to ignore. First, the insurgency forced the Americans to recognize that their initial inclination, de-Baathification, also meant de-Sunnification of Iraq, and that the price for that would be painful. Second, the insurgency threatened Iraq with partition and civil war. Any such partition would have made Iran the dominant power in the region, something that would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia and the other governments in the Persian Gulf. The Saudis were no friends of the Baathists in Iraq, but the thought of partition -- and of only the United States to provide security against Iranian influence -- forced them to mobilize Arab support for the Sunnis. The insurgency was the Sunni leaders' prime bargaining chip, and they played it well.

Now there is a twofold question that must be faced. First, in response to the deal that has been made, can the Sunni political leadership move decisively to end the insurgency, or at least reduce its tempo? And second, is it willing to do so? The implications are significant: If the insurgency continues, the entire political agreement will cease to be meaningful to the Americans, who are sponsoring and, in effect, guaranteeing the deal. Moreover, if Sunni insurgents continue to target Iraqi Shia, the quietly vicious counterattacks that the Shia have carried out will surge. The Sunnis blow things up; the Shia come quietly and kill their enemies. If the sectarian violence continues, it will mean there is no political foundation, no government and no change in the situation in Iraq. In that case, the United States will have to choose between remaining and mitigating a chaotic situation, or leaving and letting events run their course -- which also means leaving an open field for Iranian ambitions. From the American point of view, this agreement has to work. And everything depends on the Sunnis.

Core Assumptions and Brass Tacks

Insurgencies don't simply float in the air. It isn't a question of just loading a car with explosives or setting up an improvised explosive device. Someone has to obtain, store and distribute explosives. Someone has to train people to build the device. Someone has to communicate with others without getting caught. Someone has to recruit new insurgents without being detected, and without allowing enemy agents to slip in. Someone has to provide security. And all of this has to happen somewhere, in a geographic space.

That space has been, for the most part, the villages and urban neighborhoods of the Sunni Triangle. The insurgency has been rooted there, the insurgents are known and their presence is protected in those neighborhoods. They are provided with food and shelter, and the village and neighborhood network warns them of enemy approaches. Mao Zedong said once that revolutionaries must be to the people as the tongue is to the teeth: If the support of the population is withdrawn, the revolution collapses.

At the heart of this political settlement, then, is the expectation that -- in return for political and financial concessions -- the Sunni leadership will order the insurgents they do control to cease attacks, and will order the population to withdraw support from the insurgents they don't control. In other words, the Baathist and nationalist insurgents who are linked to the Sunni leadership would halt operations, while the jihadists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- who have their own set of needs and goals in the region -- would either halt operations themselves or have the shield of the Sunni community withdrawn. The insurgency would not just end suddenly, but would decline fairly rapidly as recalcitrant troops were squeezed out of the Sunni region.

Given this dynamic, we would expect a surge of violence from elements who oppose the political agreement in Baghdad and see themselves being squeezed out. Their hope will be that the violence, particularly against the Shia, will trigger a Shiite response and cause the settlement to collapse. But the success or failure of that gamble will hinge on the answer to the core question: To what extent does the Sunni leadership control the insurgents? We assume that it is not total control, and we assume that there are elements among the Sunni leadership who oppose the political deal.

But the central assumption is that the bulk of the leadership has bought into the deal and, therefore, that the bulk of the insurgents will follow their lead. There also is an assumption that the bulk of the Sunni population will follow these leaders and withdraw support for remaining insurgents. Now, these insurgents could enjoy some lingering support among the public, and they could coerce others into protecting them. This would lead to a short but intense struggle within the Sunni community that, given the correlation of forces, ultimately would result in the defeat of the diehards. They would hang on -- waging a campaign that would be painful but not decisive, increasingly marginalized and ineffective.

This is the likely path, but it assumes two things. The first is that the political wing that has negotiated this agreement is able to assert control over the bulk of the Sunni population. In other words, one assumes that the Americans and Shia have been negotiating with the right people. If not, then the political settlement will not end the insurgency, and the violence will continue. We do not see this as the likely problem, however: The leadership ought to be able to deliver the bulk of the Sunni community and therefore reduce the fighting, if they want to.

The real question is whether they want to. As we said before, the insurgency is the only bargaining chip the Sunnis have. It was because of the insurgency that the Sunnis were not completely bypassed by the Americans and Shia. If they stand down but retain the ability to resume their offensive, the political deal can hold. But if, by standing down, the Sunnis demoralize their forces or permit intelligence on the location of weapons caches and personnel to diffuse to the Americans or Shia over time, the Sunnis could find themselves in a position from which they no longer can enforce the agreement.

So the key calculation for the Sunnis is this: If they stand down, can they maintain a credible force that is ready to serve their political purposes?

The demand that Iraq's various militias disarm has been focused on the Shiite militias. But at the end of the day, the Shia are the dominant force in the Iraqi government: If their militias were integrated into the military and security structures, they still would be available to serve Shiite political purposes. If, on the other hand, the Sunni militias were disarmed or integrated into the Iraqi military and security structures, they would lose their force and their leverage.

Obviously, this is why the defense and interior ministers have not yet been designated. It is not really about the individuals to be named, as their power will be circumscribed by the Cabinet. The issue is not the ministers themselves, but how the ministries will be run. More accurately, since it is these ministries that will control Iraq's military and internal security forces, the question that must be answered is how these forces will be configured. The Shia do not need guarantees. The Sunnis do. So the architecture of these ministries -- and the constitution of military and police units -- has everything to do with Sunni security.

There is a chicken-or-egg problem. The Sunnis do not want to begin standing down their forces until structural guarantees are in place. The Shia -- and in this case, the Americans -- are not going to give those guarantees until they see that the Sunnis can and will control the insurgents. They will not both confirm the Sunni position in the ministries and continue to endure the insurgency. They want to see steps toward the insurgency being controlled. The naming of the ministers is more symbolic than real, but the ministries themselves are very real. The Sunnis cannot be both in the army and making policy and still be waging an insurgency.

Other Considerations

There also is a real question as to whether the Shia want the agreement to work. Certainly the Iranians would like another go-around in order to increase not only the power of the Shia in general, but of those Iraqi Shia who are close to the Iranians. A civil war would increase Shiite dependence on the Iranians, since they would need weapons and political support. The Iraqi Shia do not seem to have much appetite for Iranian ambitions at the moment. They will dominate the government; they do not need to obliterate the Sunnis at the cost of a long civil war. They have most of what they want. Still, there are those in the Shiite community who are ambitious to displace the current power structure, and who see civil war as the way to achieve this. They are the ones who will continue with operations against the Sunni community, hoping to prevent a stand-down by the insurgents. The Shiite leaders, therefore, have a similar (though smaller) problem to the Sunnis'. They can contain the more aggressive and ambitious Shia. But Iran's ability to destabilize their community is the wild card.

This points up another dynamic as well. The United States and Iran have been engaged in a seemingly incomprehensible round of meetings, non-meetings, threats, offers of accommodation and so on over Iraq and nuclear weapons. Each side has made strange noises, given contemptuous shrugs and pulled fierce faces at the other. One would think that war was imminent. In fact, the opposite is true: Each is trying to avoid war by appearing fearsome and slightly nuts. The Americans want to scare the Iranians away from destabilizing Iraq's Shiite community. The Iranians want to make one last run at the Americans to maximize the power of the Shia -- and particularly that of their allies -- in the Iraqi government.

The Americans obviously want a settlement. And the Iraqi Shia want one. They are less dependent on Tehran than it might appear, and it seems they are prepared to follow through. The Sunnis, all doubts and worries aside, have every reason to want a settlement, and it is unlikely that they will get a better one. Certainly there are Sunnis who don't want a settlement, but it seems to us that they can be dealt with if the Sunni leaders want to deal with them. At this point, the only alternative to this settlement is civil war -- and it is hard to see a major player who benefits from a civil war, even if plenty of minor ones might.

For the Americans, the deal at hand is the exit strategy from the war. As violence declines, the United States can draw down its forces and begin concentrating on the question of what it plans to do in Afghanistan, the next item on the agenda. On the other hand, if the agreement in Baghdad blows apart, there is little point in American forces remaining in Iraq. With 130,000 troops, the United States could not contain a civil war; the forces could only take casualties, while achieving nothing. The ideal outcome would be a drawdown culminating in a residual force of, say, 40,000 troops based outside of heavily populated regions.

This goal is not unreachable at this point. It is possible to recoup the poorly played American hand, to some extent. But the fate of the political deal is not within U.S. control. The outcome depends, first, on the Sunni leadership and its desire and ability to suppress the insurgency. It depends, second, on the Iraqi Shiite leaders' ability to dominate their community and resist destabilization by Iran. And it depends, finally, on the Iranians accepting the current situation without surging forces covertly into Iraq.

In other words, the United States has become, to a great extent, a bystander. Washington can make whatever guarantees it wants, but the calculus by all sides now is whether they can secure their interests with their own resources. At this point, the United States is growing less and less relevant to the outcome in Iraq, though it remains urgently interested in what that outcome will be.

If we had to guess, we would say that the political arrangement should work, more or less. But we don't have to guess. It is now nearly Memorial Day. The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency -- or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful.

Thus, we are at a break point -- at least for the Americans.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.

Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Geopolitical Intelligence Report? Send them to www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php

|

Not Ready To Make Nice

Today is May the 23rd and the long hiatus of the Dixie Chicks, comes to and end, with the release of their new album Taking the Long Way
, though to my mind if the idea was a fresh start and regain their former position it would have been better to have named this album Taking the Wrong Way

The last few years have not been kind to the Chicks.
One can see that readily enough in Billboard

Once the darlings of country, the Chicks lost many fans?and the support of country radio?after a 2003 incident in which Natalie Maines made a relatively innocuous comment about President Bush from a London stage. The group has finally re-emerged stronger, more defiant and more creatively ambitious than ever.

That more defiant--than ever is the crux of the whole matter.

Just peruse their Chart History 2003 "Landslide" in Adult Contemporary was their last #1 hit back in 2003 then they pretty much dropped off a cliff.

2003 "Godspeed (Sweet Dreams)" Hot Country Singles & Tracks #48 2003

Then a 2 year absence until in 2005 "I Hope" Hot Country Singles & Tracks #54 and Pop 100 #92?

The single pre-releases of this new album have been equally dismal.

There are reasons for this. We had an interesting debate last night on this subject over at Big Lizards in Maines Vs. Texas, what I am doing here is revising and extending my remarks there.

Country radio disses Dixie Chicks

'Nice' barely scrapes top 40; follow-up faltering

Monday, May 22, 2006; Posted: 9:37 p.m. EDT (01:37 GMT)
Dixie Chicks are not ready to back down (2:14)

Manage Alerts | What Is This? NASHVILLE, Tennessee (Billboard) -- Disappointing airplay for the first two singles from the new album by the Dixie Chicks exposes a deep -- and seemingly growing -- rift between the trio and the country radio market that helped turn the group into superstars.

The first single, "Not Ready to Make Nice," peaked at No. 36 on Billboard's Hot Country Songs chart, beginning its descent after just seven weeks. The second single, "Everybody Knows," is now at No. 50, down two places in its fourth week. (Watch the Chicks try to reposition themselves -- 2:14)

"Not Ready to Make Nice" performed only slightly better at adult contemporary radio, peaking at No. 32 on the AC chart and falling off after six weeks.


By picking the defiant "Not Ready" as the first single, they've reopened a wound that was particularly deep for country radio fans, and left many country programmers with the burning question: Why on earth would the band choose to do this?

After hearing the album, WKIS Miami program director Bob Barnett says he was "excited about the opportunity to introduce some great Chicks music to the listeners." But the group's decision to come with "Not Ready" as the lead single left him "stunned, especially in light of the fact that, when asked, programmers and consultants that listened to the project were virtually unanimous in saying we should put the politics behind us and concentrate on all this other great music we were hearing."



Barnett played the song for a week, but pulled it after listeners called to say it sounded like the Chicks were "gloating" or "rubbing our noses in it," he reports. "We didn't need to pick at the scab any longer."

That is it in a nutshell, they will have to transition out of Country Music, because the have in effect told Country Music Fans, We don't Want You, We don't Need You, and We don't even LIKE You.

At KNCI Sacramento, California, the Chicks' music weathered the 2003 controversy only to be pulled as a result of Maines' new Entertainment Weekly comments, coupled with poor scores in local music tests.

"When an artist says that they don't want to be a part of that industry, it made our decision a no-brainer," program director Mark Evans says. "There are too many talented new artists dying to have a song played on country radio, so I'd rather give one of them a shot."

To top everything that has gone on over the last three years for many Country Fans this next time may have been the last straw,

For band member Martie Maguire, the controversy was a blessing in disguise.

I'd rather have a small following of really cool people who get it, who will grow with us as we grow and are fans for life, than people that have us in their five-disc changer with Reba McEntire and Toby Keith," Maguire said. "We don't want those kinds of fans. They limit what you can do."

Now Toby Keith and the Dixie Chicks have a History, but I don't see any reason for Martie to put down Reba McEntire.

Except one maybe. My opposite number in a debate on Big Lizards made a big deal about the new album being #1 on Amazon, but I pointed out that in my opinion if you REALLY want to gauge the success of a Country album you will look at the Sales figures not on Amazon, but on WalMart.

On the WalMart Website in the top 100 best sellers on the fist page which has the top 30 best sellers, you will find Miss Reba at #s 1,2,3,6,7,21,22,23,24 & 25.

I might have over looked them and if I did it was not an intentional mistake, but I could not find a single Dixie Chick album WalMarts Top 100.


Note: I can't find the page I was on last night and I REALLY regret not having a URL to source, but I will stand by the above figures even though the ratings and the format on the WalMart Website have changed a lot. I did a search for the Dixie Chicks there and then clicked on a "Top Sellers" link on that page. Darn it next time I will save the link anyway no matter how easy it was to find

In any event the slur towards Reba McEntire was not necessary, unless the intent was to burn all bridges.

In AllAboutCountry an article stated.

The Chicks will perform on "The Late Show with David Letterman" tonight. AND, they will be featured on "Good Morning America" every morning this week (starting this morning), and ending with their performance of three songs live in Bryant Park in New York City, on Friday morning.

Which means the studio is pulling out all stops to the album's position in the Charts, BUT

Ironically, the Dixie Chicks are NOT involved at all, with "The 41st Annual Academy Of Country Music Awards" on CBS-TV tomorrow night...even though it airs on the same day that the new Chicks CD is released...and therefore are essentially competing with The ACM Awards for media attention. Coincidence? Hmmmm...

They make the transition to another Music or they are no longer the Dixie Chicks, but the Dead Ducks.

Like I said in the beginning of this post if the idea was to return to their former status and they WERE at the very top, This album should not have been named Taking the Long Way, but Taking the Wrong Way.

UPDATE
I just saw todays USA TODAY in the plant cafeteria. Say what you will, USA TODAY is a very popular Flyover Land News venue. The Frontpage has a noticeable absence of the Dixie Chicks BUT it does have a lead in for American Idol. ;-)

So I headed over to the Life section. No Dixie Chicks, American Idol AND todays Hot Story on Music?

Opening night with Madonna: The inside scoop

Madonna kicked off her Confessions Tour Sunday night at The Forum in Los Angeles. USA TODAY's Edna Gundersen was there to give you the inside scoop.
The music: The beat-crazy energy seldom flags in a highly polished two-hour show subdivided into Equestrian, Bedouin, Never Mind the Bullocks and Disco sections, though it's the heady pulse of dance music, fortified by a sharp band, that dominates throughout. The rhythm-driven bonanza plucks nine of its 22 songs from Madonna's sweaty Confessions on a Dance Floor album, and the new tunes hold up well live, especially Sorry, Jump and I Love New York. Latter-day hits eclipse classics, with the shimmery Ray of Light and boisterous Music easily outshining a tinny Lucky Star. Madonna is as fit vocally as physically, effortlessly nailing tender passages or a demanding upper register after strenuous bump-and-grind workouts.

STIRRING UP CONTROVERSY: Catholic League angered over crucifixion act during concert

Not the Stirring up controversy, I was expecting.
The Dixie Chicks do not seem to be impacting on Americana with a Bang, but a Yawn.

I FOUND the Link from last night!
Recommended Music
Albums by related artists. to Dixie Chicks. So by going to Dixie Chicks and the clicking on Recommended Artists is how I ended up on a page dominated by Reba McEntire.

I am beginning to wonder if I have stumbled into an alternate Universe at times. I just finished looking over an article by J. Freedom du Lac in the Washington Post. Dixie Chicks Leave Their Old Country
This part threw me for a loop.

Especially if you're listening to the album's centerpiece single, "Not Ready to Make Nice." The song opens as something of a dirge, with Maines quietly cooing: "Forget? Sounds good/Forgive? I'm not sure I could." It unfolds slowly, almost politely, but there's no mistaking the group's mood once the defiant chorus kicks in: "I'm not ready to make nice, I'm not ready to back down/I'm still mad as hell . . . can't bring myself to do what it is that you think I should."

Take that , Toby Keith!

But wait, there's more on what's likely to stand as one of the best songs of 2006.

Say what? one of the best songs of 2006 a song that as a single PEAKED at #32 in Adult Contemporary and #36 in Hot Country Songs????

How bad does a song have to bomb before this author would not think of it as "one of the best songs of 2006"????????

|

North Korea: Missile Tests and Regional Impacts
This just in my email box from "Strategic Forecasting, Inc."
By Rodger Baker

North Korea has done it again. A week after it tested seven missiles, including the long-range Taepodong-2, a resolution condemning its actions has stalled in the U.N. Security Council (UNSC), South Korea is criticizing Japan for hyping the launch, Japan is openly discussing changes to its constitutional military restrictions, and the United States is asking China to use its negotiating capabilities to bring some stability to the situation. If North Korea was largely marginalized leading into July, it is now once again the center of attention -- and controversy.

Defying repeated warnings from the United States, Japan, South Korea and even Russia and China, North Korea launched not one but seven missiles, early July 5 local time. Most were short- or medium-range Hwasong or Nodong missiles; the first launch was timed to coincide with the Independence Day launch of space shuttle Discovery in Florida. But it was the third missile, the long-range Taepodong-2 -- believed to be capable of striking Alaska or Hawaii -- that garnered the most attention.

Pyongyang accomplished quite a bit with the July 5 launches. First and foremost, it has shocked the world with multiple tests while managing to avoid a military confrontation with the United States. It has been able to gauge the effectiveness of improvements in its ballistic missile program -- particularly with the short- and medium-range models that pose a more significant threat to regional security than the Taepodong-2. And it has once again exposed and exploited rifts in Washington's Northeast Asian alliance structure.

Moreover, with disagreements stalling any actions against North Korea at the U.N. Security Council, it is China that appears poised to gain the most from Pyongyang's actions.

Taepodong Failure and U.S. Relief

North Korea had placed the Taepodong-2 on its launch platform more than a month prior to the test launch, as if posing it for U.S. spy satellites and reconnaissance aircraft. Several times, Japan or others announced that a launch was imminent, and each time there was a corresponding cry for restraint, and increasingly overt threats from the United States and Japan -- including calls to shoot the missile down in midflight or even strike it before it left the launchpad.

When the Taepodong-2 finally lifted off, at shortly after 5 a.m. local time, it produced more of a fizzle than a bang. The missile didn't fly over Japan. It didn't place a satellite into orbit. It didn't fulfill a bold, unofficial threat by Pyongyang and land off the coast of New York. In fact, it flew within parameters for just 40 seconds, before either breaking up or suffering engine troubles and veering off course. It landed in the waters between North Korea, Japan and Russia a few minutes later.

The failure was quickly labeled by international media, observers and U.S. officials as an embarrassment to the North Korean regime and a demonstration that Pyongyang lacks the wherewithal to pull off a successful test or to threaten the United States. The additional six missiles were written off as little more than upgraded, inaccurate, short-range SCUD missiles. The initial condescension towards North Korea's technical capabilities was coupled with condemnation of the tests and contradictory recommendations for follow-on actions.

But not all the details of the missile's flight path are clear. According to some reports, the missile performed normally for some 40-42 seconds, burned out and fell into the ocean. Other reports suggest a catastrophic failure, fragmentation of the rocket or a fire. Some estimates put the total flight time at around two minutes, while the South Koreans have said total flight time was seven minutes -- during which the missile traveled 499 kilometers from its launch facility.

Given the available information, it is very likely that the missile suffered system damage during the most critical and stressful part of the launch. This is certainly the picture the United States is projecting, and apparently with some relief. In the weeks leading up to the launch, Washington had touted the strengths of the U.S. missile defense system, moved tests forward on the calendar and warned that the option of shooting down the Taepodong-2 was clearly on the table. The failure of North Korea's missile, however, kept Washington from having to make the difficult decision of whether to carry through with that threat and shoot it down in flight.

There were real reservations about acting on those threats. First, while Washington has confidence in the missile defense system, that confidence is not 100 percent. If North Korea had fired its missile and a U.S. intercept failed, it would be the U.S. Defense Department and the Bush administration with pie on its face. More importantly, such a failure could undermine whatever psychological deterrent the missile defense system currently provides.

But perhaps even more troubling for Washington was the prospect that a strike against the North Korean missile would succeed. First, there is a question of where the intercept would take place -- and where the debris would fall. But the second question is how North Korea would respond. Pyongyang has one key consideration in its actions: ensuring regime survival. North Korea structures its defense force and projects a prickly personality in order to dissuade the United States or others from attacking. But Pyongyang knows that its capabilities are limited and that, in a war with the United States, it ultimately would lose.

Though it feels threatened by Washington, the North Korean leadership does not view launching an offensive war as a logical act. North Korea is outgunned and outclassed by the United States; launching an invasion of South Korea or an attack on Japan or the United States would be a surefire way to ensure regime change in Pyongyang. If Washington shot down its missile, however, the North Korean elite might view that as a guarantee of imminent U.S. military action -- and Pyongyang might strike out at its neighbors to inflict as much pain as possible, seeking to disrupt any U.S. invasion or attack plans.

But even barring such a reaction, allowing its missile to be shot out of the sky by the U.S. military would trigger significant stresses for North Korea -- both within the elite and from the broader military and society. The regime would question whether it could maintain cohesion and stability without retaliating. For Washington, then, either a failure or a success of the U.S. missile defense system could lead to open hostilities in Northeast Asia. The best thing Washington could have hoped for was that North Korea's missile would fail -- even before the button would have had to be pushed for the intercept.

And Pyongyang knew this as well.

A Scrubbed Launch?

There is some possibility that North Korea intentionally scrubbed the launch. On the one hand, simply putting the missile away after leaving it on the pad for more than a month would have been viewed as capitulation -- and that could have weakened the internal cohesion of the regime. A launch became necessary practically as soon as the missile was rolled out (unless Washington had given in to Pyongyang's calls for bilateral talks).

But on the other hand, while North Korea has always walked close to the line, it has been very careful not to cross it. A successful Taepodong-2 test could have shifted the strategic calculation of Japan or the United States toward North Korea. Tokyo already had warned that if any part of the Taepodong-2 fell on Japanese territory, it would be considered an act of war. And while Washington has been relatively lax toward North Korea, aside from rhetoric and the occasional economic lever, all bets would be off should North Korea demonstrate the ability to pose a concrete threat to the U.S. mainland.

For Pyongyang, a controlled launch failure presented a better outcome than risking an accident or simply putting away the long-range toy. A picture-perfect satellite launch would have been the best outcome, but it is questionable whether North Korea actually believed it would be able to pull one off. After all, few space programs have ever managed to develop new systems without many failures along the way.

Other Missiles and Regional Tensions

Whether Pyongyang failed to succeed or succeeded to fail, the Taepodong-2 was not the only missile launched that morning. There were many motives behind North Korea's additional launches. First, everyone was already expecting a Taepodong-2 launch; if Pyongyang had launched only that rocket, the psychological impact already would have been discounted. There would be little leverage. Second, if the North Koreans knew they would scrub the Taepodong-2 launch, they would want to demonstrate a variety of capabilities to cover for the failure.

Finally, and more significantly, North Korea is intending again to trade its missile launches for concessions from its neighbors and the United States. If a moratorium on missile tests is coming anyway, this launch represented a final chance to assess improvements to North Korea's missile systems, particularly as the country so rarely tests its ballistic missiles. Testing six short- and intermediate-range Hwasong and Nodong missiles -- the real bulk of North Korea's missile force -- would allow the country's military to learn more in a single day about their own capabilities and upgrades than they had in the entirety of the preceding decade.

It is these overlooked missiles that are the true face of North Korean missile technology. Pyongyang's Nodong missiles have the capability of reaching most of Japan, including U.S. bases in Okinawa. North Korea has more than 100 of these mobile missiles, making them an extremely valuable commodity. And its short-range Hwasong series can strike anywhere in South Korea and potentially parts of Japan.

The combination of short-, medium- and long-range missile tests helps to explain the political intent behind the July 5 launches. Dividing any coalition that forms against it has been a key aspect of North Korean foreign policy. The regime in Pyongyang has played skillfully on the differences in strategic thinking of trilateral allies Japan, South Korea and the United States. The current diplomatic spat between Tokyo and Seoul over the extent to which North Korea's missile tests should be dramatized is a key example of just how easily these rifts are exploited. The time and effort the United States is expending to convince the world that Washington and Seoul are on the same page is another.

Stalled at the Security Council

In the UNSC discussions, Russia is expected to abstain from any resolution to punish North Korea -- but China well might veto one, so Tokyo and Washington are delaying any vote on the issue. But though Moscow is not actively joining in attempts to have North Korea sanctioned, Russian authorities have found it difficult to conceal their frustration with Pyongyang. What is clear from initial statements, particularly about the safety of Russian ships and aircraft in the missile test zone, is that the North Koreans never bothered warning Russia before lobbing missiles off its coast.

Amid all of this, China appears to be the least fazed by the North Korean tests.

But China also may have had prior notice about the launches. Initial comments credited to U.S. Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill suggest that China was notified about the tests before they occurred. Officials in Beijing have countered that they were told of the launches a few hours before North Korea formally announced them -- but still days after they actually had taken place. Either way, the Chinese once again have found the world turning to them for a solution.

Given the Security Council deadlock, China is the only viable path to negotiations with North Korea. In fact, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Bolton has said the Security Council vote was delayed so that diplomacy through China could continue. Washington and Seoul both have called for Beijing to talk to Pyongyang, and the Chinese already had conveniently arranged for a relatively high-level delegation to visit North Korea.

For China, the missile launches have reinforced Beijing's importance to the United States and even Japan. Neither Washington nor Tokyo is prepared to strike back at North Korea militarily -- over either the missile tests or the ongoing nuclear crisis. Both have opted for sanctions and attempts to isolate North Korea, but these paths require the assistance and participation of South Korea and China. And even if Seoul were fully on board, China would remain as North Korea's primary lifeline. China can undermine any U.S. efforts to isolate or punish Pyongyang -- or it can facilitate dialogue.

In the weeks leading up to the missile tests, Beijing had proposed various ways to restart the stalled six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program -- talks from which both Washington and Pyongyang had basically walked away. As the primary coordinator and host of the talks, Beijing has leverage with all the participants -- but China found few takers (aside from South Korea) for its recent proposals. All of that changed, however, when North Korea actually tested the missiles. Washington sent envoys to Beijing and held out the possibility of bilateral talks with Pyongyang (which North Korea has demanded in order to discuss economic sanctions and frozen assets) on the sidelines of the six-party discussions.

While it is not certain that China facilitated the North Korean missile tests, it does seem that Pyongyang was certain the tests wouldn't trigger China to turn on it. If Beijing were truly upset, it could make that rather clear to North Korea in very painful ways. It hasn't. Rather, the Chinese have called on all parties to return to dialogue -- dialogue facilitated by and benefiting China. Meanwhile, North Korea is sitting back and studying the deadlock at the U.N. Security Council, the cracks in the U.S.-South Korea-Japan alliance, and the fact that the world's attention has again turned back toward Pyongyang.

Conclusion

North Korea considered its 1998 Taepodong-1 launch a brilliant success. Only two years later, Pyongyang had gone from being an international outcast and sidelined nation to the center of diplomatic activity -- with normalized relations across Europe and with Canada and Australia. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il hosted then-South Korean President Kim Dae Jung in Pyongyang for the first ever inter-Korean summit in 2000. North Korea gained economic and diplomatic ties and began to break past the constraints of a relationship that had been based primarily on U.S. pressure and Chinese handouts.

Pyongyang sees the same sorts of benefits in its future this time around. It has grown expert at creating artificial crises, from which it reaps economic and political benefits in exchange for merely maintaining the status quo.

In recent years, Washington has attempted to simply ignore North Korea rather than giving in to its temper fits. After all, if a kid in a toy store holds his breath while demanding that a parent buy a new toy, doing so only encourages the behavior -- whereas waiting for the kid to pass out and then start breathing again puts the kibosh on the temper fits. Or at least, that is the theory.

But North Korea always has an extra ace up its sleeve: geography. If the issue were only between North Korea and the United States, Pyongyang would have been ignored into submission years ago. But while its Taepodong-2 failed, its regional missiles proved quite effective. And neither Seoul nor Tokyo can feel as confident as Washington that North Korea really won't do something too crazy if left to stew in its own isolation. When Washington turns a deaf ear, Pyongyang pokes Tokyo and Seoul -- and when they cry out, the United States is drawn back in.

And until a new option is found to be effective, it seems that Beijing is destined to benefit -- as the only voice that can soothe the savage North Korea.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.







Distribution and Reprints
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com. For media requests, partnership opportunities, or commercial distribution or republication, please contact pr@stratfor.com.

Do you have a friend or acquaintance that would benefit from the consistent actionable intelligence of the FREE STRATFOR Weekly Geopolitical Intelligence Report?

Send them to www.stratfor.com/subscriptions/free-weekly-intelligence-reports.php to sign up and begin receiving the Stratfor Weekly every Tuesday for FREE
Technorati Tags:North Korea:South Korea:China:Russia:Japan:Taiwan

|

I Want To Cut Off The Head Of The Democratic Party And Drive a Stake Through It's Heart.

Though, truth be told that, as enticing as it seems is not my first choice.

What I would prefer is a Constitutional Amendment to Section 2 of the 14th Amendment

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

To read:

Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of Citizens in each State. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

I find it beyond any possible expectations that the framers of the 14th Amendment ever considered that a Census of Citizens of Other Nations would determine the Balance of Power in the House of Representatives and sway the Count in the Electoral College to any extent, much less the degree it now does, some two dozen or so Seats and Electoral Votes.

I was very pleased to see at least ONE politician come forward on this issue as I wrote in a previous post. Burns: Illegal immigrants shouldn't be counted in Census in much greater detail.

In addition I find it very distasteful that Illegal Aliens are counted in the Census effecting the Political Alignment of Power, while the oldest Inhabitants of the Continent are to be ignored.

The Constitutional Amendment is what I would prefer

BUT if it should FAIL?

I very much want to see politicians justify such a position, whether it be holding the Bill up in Committee, or voting against it in the Committee of the Whole.

I want them to STAND UP AND BE COUNTED in the crudest betrayal of the Voters and Citizens of this Nation.


I want the result of such actions to be that the Electorate rises up in justified rage and,

Cuts OFF the Head of the Democratic Party and Drives a Stake Through It's HEART

Blogs that Trackback to this Post:
Illegal aliens entering from the North, too from Right Truth

What about illegal aliens and/or terrorists entering the United States through the Northern border? We don't need to put all our border patrol eggs into the Southern border basket. But just for a few minutes let's lighten up and have

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

|

The Open Trackback Alliance XXVIII
For your listening pleasure while you browse

"Der er et yndigt land" (There Is A Lovely Land)

Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager
Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer
Adopted: 1844

"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.

When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not



Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK

I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "

I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".




When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a Statement of Purpose
Now upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.

And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.

For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.

And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.

As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.

The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the

OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE

This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.

In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech.

Sign the Petition NOW!

JEG opstille hos Danmark!

44162 Total Signatures 0:38 AM CST 22 May, 2006 We can do better pass the word~!

From Agora a call to Support the Manifesto online by signing another Petition, why not sign both?


MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "

Blogs that Trackback to this Post:

On Monday
Ray Nagin and the Bush FEMA Snow Job from Planck's Constant

Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)

|

What Makes Anyone Think It Was A Mistake?
One of the most common memes lately is how the first demonstrations in support of Illegal Aliens, and some aspects of the later ones were mistakes.

Immigration Activists To Snatch Defeat From The Jaws Of Victory
One constant in the immigration protests this year has been the ability of the activists to sabotage their own position. With the White House and the Senate poised to deliver most of their agenda, they overreacted to the House proposal and staged a number of demonstrations that proved so provocative that it undermined their allies in both places. Many of these protests specifically targeted George Bush, although he opposed the House bill and had worked for normalization for years.

My opinion of that reaction, is that those who hold it have not reflected upon the origins of these demonstrations.

What makes them think it was a mistake?

As I pointed out in Pinko De Mayo

All we have to do is look at the main organisation that organised these demonstrations

ANSWER
{ I used red fonts here because it is so appropriate}

AMSWER is a MARXIST organization, whatever gave anyone the idea that such a body cares about improving the life of individual people? The Hundred Plus Million slaughtered by Marxism over its reign? The shining example of the New York Times Star Reporter who covered up the HOLODOMOR Genocide in Ukraine under Stalin and who is reported to have said, when asked how he could justify his actions if not as a Human Being, then as a Journalist,

"The deaths of a few tens of millions of peasants are of no consequence, when weighed against the Future Victory of the Revolution"??

You think I exagerate??

Christopher Hitchens lays this out perfectly in

Anti-War, My Foot The phony peaceniks who protested in Washington

""International ANSWER," the group run by the "Worker's World" party and fronted by Ramsey Clark, which openly supports Kim Jong-il, Fidel Castro, Slobodan Milosevic, and the "resistance" in Afghanistan and Iraq, with Clark himself finding extra time to volunteer as attorney for the genocidaires in Rwanda. Quite a "wide range of progressive political objectives" indeed, if that's the sort of thing you like. However, a dip into any database could have furnished Janofsky with well-researched and well-written articles by David Corn and Marc Cooper—to mention only two radical left journalists— have exposed "International ANSWER" as a front for (depending on the day of the week) fascism, Stalinism, and jihadism.



The group self-lovingly calling itself "United for Peace and Justice" is by no means "narrow" in its "antiwar focus" but rather represents a very extended alliance between the Old and the New Left, some of it honorable and some of it redolent of the World Youth Congresses that used to bring credulous priests and fellow-traveling hacks together to discuss "peace" in East Berlin or Bucharest. Just to give you an example, from one who knows the sectarian makeup of the Left very well, I can tell you that the Worker's World Party—Ramsey Clark's core outfit—is the product of a split within the Trotskyist movement. These were the ones who felt that the Trotskyist majority, in 1956, was wrong to denounce the Russian invasion of Hungary.

One of the primary tenents of Marxism in the Past was

"The capitalists would begin to suffer from a falling rate of profit.

? The workers would therefore be ?immiserized?; they would become poorer as the capitalists struggled to keep their own heads above water.

? The poverty of the workers would drive them to overthrow the capitalist system ? their poverty, not their ideals.

The problem was Capitalism did not cooperate and the workers condition improved. OOPS.

So they altered the their definitions

A Polish born American economist and a Marxist, Baran is the author of The Political Economy of Growth (Monthly Review Press, 1957). In it, for the first time in Marxist literature, Baran propounded a causal connection between the prosperity of the advanced capitalist countries and the impoverishment of the Third World. It was no longer the case, as it was for Marx, that poverty ? as well as idiocy ? was the natural condition of man living in an agricultural mode of production. Rather, poverty had been introduced into the Third World by the capitalist system. The colonies no longer served the purpose of consuming overstocked inventories, but were now the positive victims of capitalism

America being the most successful o the Advanced Capitalist Countries, naturally gets to bear the total burden of blame,

No, I do not believe ANSWER made any mistake at all in how the demonstrations were presented to the American Public,

For them to have made a mistake, would imply their purpose was to improve the lot of those marching, instead of stirring up Class Conflict in pursuit of their own political goals.

What happened in France last Fall, does not suit their aims, they would prefer to see that level of Class Struggle and Revolution HERE

The Great Cox & Forkum illustrates and alternate version of this Duality of Purpose in

Meeting of Minds

"[T]he left's attempt to capture the pro-immigration side of the argument creates a false alternative, with both sides taking for granted the false premise that the effect of immigration is to destroy America and merely disagreeing on the desirability of this outcome."

**This was a production of The Coalition Against Illegal Immigration (CAII). If you would like to participate, please go to the above link to learn more. Afterwards, email the coalition and let me know at what level you would like to participate.

|

They Are So Crusader Armies
Yes we have heard so many times about the Crusader Armies the West (US) has sent to the Mideast.

Jihad Against Jews and Crusaders

No one argues today about three facts that are known to everyone; we will list them, in order to remind everyone:

First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic, the aim is also to serve the Jews' petty state and divert attention from its occupation of Jerusalem and murder of Muslims there. The best proof of this is their eagerness to destroy Iraq, the strongest neighboring Arab state, and their endeavor to fragment all the states of the region such as Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Sudan into paper statelets and through their disunion and weakness to guarantee Israel's survival and the continuation of the brutal crusade occupation of the Peninsula.

All these crimes and sins committed by the Americans are a clear declaration of war on Allah, his messenger, and Muslims. And ulema have throughout Islamic history unanimously agreed that the jihad is an individual duty if the enemy destroys the Muslim countries. This was revealed by Imam Bin-Qadamah in "Al- Mughni," Imam al-Kisa'i in "Al-Bada'i," al-Qurtubi in his interpretation, and the shaykh of al-Islam in his books, where he said: "As for the fighting to repulse [an enemy], it is aimed at defending sanctity and religion, and it is a duty as agreed [by the ulema]. Nothing is more sacred than belief except repulsing an enemy who is attacking religion and life."

Text of Fatwah Urging Jihad Against Americans

The Arabian Peninsula has never--since God made it flat, created its desert, and encircled it with seas--been stormed by any forces like the crusader armies now spreading in it like locusts, consuming its riches and destroying its plantations

When these claims are uttered there is usually sputtering, equivocation, and attempts to deny.

I am here to say that in my opinion, that is the truth.They Are So Crusader Armies.

But in the true historical sense of the Crusades, and not the bilge that is the common perception.

I believe it was Will Rogers, who once said, "It is not what folks don't know, that's the problem, it's what they do know that ain't so."

The Crusades are a case in point of misinformation and Historical Revisionism.

In a nutshell, for those who have never bothered for themselves to explore that era of History, let me relate, what I believe the perception is.

The Imperialistic, Aggressive, European Christians invaded the Peaceful Advanced Civilization of Islam, incurring the lasting wrath of Islam for which we as the linear descendent's, should feel shame and make amends.

Total HOGWASH.

Islam came out of the Arabian Peninsula and preceded an campaign of Conquest, Pillage and Plunder lasting over a thousand years.

First the conquered the MidEast and Northern Africa, which were Christian and Jewish as I recall? Also Persian, Zoroastrian, and Eastward to the Indian Subcontinent, which was Hindu. A point little thought of is that the alternate name for what is now Afghanistan is Hindu Kush, which translates into English as Hindu Slaughter, the last vestiges of the previous Culture were recently destroyed by the Taliban. That Culture was not the only one destroyed by the Peaceful advance of Islam, but we are here more concerned, with the effects on Europe.

After the MidEast, and Africa, the Muslim Empire crossed over into Spain, the Conquest of Spain and Portugal took some ten years.

The Muslim Armies then began the Conquest of France until turned back at theBattle of Tours by Charles Martel. To give an idea of the extent of their advances let's look at a map of France.

As you can see that was not a minor incursion.

Over the next four hundred years, the Muslim Armies ravaged Europe. They conquered Sicily after a campaign of some 75 years (Sicilians always were tough it seems). The plundered the Mediterranean seacoast and the Italian Peninsula at will, at times ranging as far north as Switzerland and Pillaged Rome itself.

These crises were aggravated by the rise of another foreign menace, the Arabs or, as the Middle Ages Italians called them, the Saracens: these newcomers, sailing from their bases in Northern Africa, had conquered Sicily and had began a steadily penetration in Southern Italy. Infiltration of band of pirates brought terror in the territories around Rome. Under Pope Paschal I (817-824) all the spoils of the holy martyrs were transferred into the walls. But this move did not prevent a groups of Muslim to predate the St. Peter's Basilica itself, which was outside the ancient walls, sacking it in 846. In 852 Pope Leo IV commissioned therefore the construction of another wall around an area on the opposite side of the Tiber from the seven hills of Rome, which has since been called the Leonine City.

Now let us proceed to the next century, when the Caliph of Eqypt ordered the total destruction of ALL Christian Churches in the Muslim Empire, including the Church of the Holy Sepulcher the Holiest Shrine in Christendom.

October 17, 1009 Jerusalem's Church of the Holy Sepulcher Destroyed

by the Staff or associates of Christian History Institute.
? Copyright 1999-2005. All rights reserved.

In the year 1009, al-Hakim, the Caliph of Egypt, ordered the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem destroyed. Workmen obeyed; and Yahia ibn Sa`id, an Islamic historian, wrote: "...the holy deed commenced on Tuesday, the fifth day before the end of the month of Safar of the year 400 of the Egira." Converting from the Muslim calendar would place the destruction on or about this day, October 17, 1009.

In the reign of Caliph Al-Hakim (996-1020) all churches and synagogues were looted and demolished or converted into mosques. For a while they were allowed to be rebuilt but in 1058 all churches were closed. Persecution continued throughout the centuries and the number of Copts grew fewer and fewer. At the time of the Muslim conquest there had been twenty five million Christians with forty five thousand churches and monasteries but by the beginning of the nineteenth century they had fallen to one hundred and fifty thousand with two hundred and fifty partially destroyed churches.

Finally all pilgramiges were stopped. Which would be like a Western Power having control of the MidEast denying Muslims access to Mecca.

That is what gave birth to the Crusades. They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world. At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense

.

So that was the Origin of the Crusades, not a War of Aggression, but a responce to an unrelenting War of Aggression.

That phase of history last a few brief Centuries and when they passed, what was the result? About 4 centuries on unstopped Conquest, Pillage and Plunder of Eastern Europe, until the Muslim Armies were defeated at the Gates of Vienna in 1683.

The Crusades were a little over two centuries of Christain Victory in a thousand years of Conquest by the Muslim Empire.

As I quoted above, " At some point, Christianity as a faith and a culture had to defend itself or be subsumed by Islam. The Crusades were that defense.", and today the West is again under threat and attack by Jihadist Militants/

At some point a Culture has to defend itself.

Here is a map of the areas Conquered by Islam, if placed a grain of rice on the areas of Crusader Reconquita in the MidEast it would problem cover them.

Here is a grahic representation of Global Jihad via

Expansionism of Radical Islam at The Reality Show

And here is some eye opening graphical evidence of what we face at home from THE ATHEIST JEW with Time To Qualify My Ideology Again

They Are So Crusader Armies

|

The Open Trackback Alliance XXVII
For your listening pleasure while you browse

"Der er et yndigt land" (There Is A Lovely Land)

Words by: Adam Gottlob Oehlenschlager
Music by: Hans Ernst Kr?yer
Adopted: 1844

"Derer et yndigt land" was first performed for a large gathering of Danes in 1844, and became popular quickly with the Danish people. It was adopted later that year by the Danish government as a national anthem, but not the sole national anthem. This anthem is on equal status with "Kong Christian",which is both the national and royal anthem.

When the Danish anthem is usually performed or sung, the first verse is played in its entirety, then it is followed by the last four lines of the last verse. (This is true whether the lyrics are sung or not



Recentlty I have been posting music to Illustrate the Diversity of America, this week I have a different motive to express Solidarity with DENMARK

I maintain my Support of Denmark, and will later today, post links to and my thoughts about a Danish Editorial "We are being pissed upon by Per Nyholm "

I think I shall title my Post, "There is no "But" in "Freedom of Speech".




When I first started upon my journey through the blogverse I created a Statement of Purpose
Now upon reading it, one can realize that I did not hold to every detail of that original statement, but from it's basic premise, I have never swayed, in my belief that the Blogs are in fact the Committees of Correspondence of the Second American Revolution.

And that it is a Revolution of Information, no longer can we afford and allow elite gateways to control what we can see, hear and discuss.

For I believe that those bloggers who find their way, here and in particular from the Blogs associated with Sam.

HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY.

Some of us are more Serious, some of us are more lighthearted and some post the common ordinary things that make one smile and recall that Life without the simple things to treasure is meaningless.

And it is important that all have a platform from which to speak.

As I understand this process you can link to this post and trackback to this post on ANY subject or post you think important. It is open. I will repeat this every Monday.

The Committees of Correspondence welcomes your intelligent comments. And also welcomes you to join the

OPEN TRACKBACK ALLIANCE

This week I also have shortened my usual introduction for a more inportant message.

In it's struggle for Freedom of Speech.

Sign the Petition NOW!

JEG opstille hos Danmark!

44039 Total Signatures 01:35 AM CST 15 May, 2006 We can do better pass the word~!

From Agora a call to Support the Manifesto online by signing another Petition, why not sign both?


MANIFESTO: Together facing the new totalitarianism
Created by Mark Jefferson on March 1st, 2006 at 5:42 pm AST

After having overcome fascism, Nazism, and Stalinism, the world now faces a new totalitarian global threat: Islamism.
We, writers, journalists, intellectuals, call for resistance to religious totalitarianism and for the promotion of freedom, equal opportunity and secular values for all. "

Blogs that Trackback to this Post:

On Monday
Extreme Makeover in Rockland? from Tor's Rants
La stampa Israeliana attacca Liberazione from Camelot Destra Ideale
Linkfests for May 15, 2006 from Linkfest Haven
Screwtape 2006: The Democratic Outlook from Adam's Blog
Iranian Insurgents from 123beta
Best Work of American Fiction of the Last 25 Years from third world county
Do You Want to Win or Lose? from Blue Star Chronicles
Does this blog need a facelift? from Sed Vitae
Will anyone outside of Minnesota notice or care? from The Florida Masochist
Men are not mind readers from Planck's Constant
Tonight's Speech: Baby Steps from The Amboy Times
Making The Army Of Reconquista from Strong As An Ox And Nearly As Smart

Y'al come back now, Y'heah? ;-)

|

Could America, Really Be The Lost Tribe of Israel?
Everyone knows it is an article of Faith in some regions that America is in the grip and controlled by the Worldwide Zionist Conspiracy.

Just ask any member of al-Qaeda, citizen of France, bureaucrat of the UN, or EU functionary.

They will explain how the Zionists are in control of Bush, Cheney, the Pentagon and that if it were
not for that, America would heed the advice of
more "Lucide et Sophistique" European Intellects, abandon its foolish support of Israel and usher in an era of World Peace.

Usually the story is about sinister machinations in the Halls of Power and the Towers of Capitalism.

But I heard something tonight that rang a clarion call inside my mind.

Forget all the above, nothing about Commerce, Geopolitics or Worldwide Zionist Conspiracies can explain why in recent times two of THE most popular names in America for baby boys have been

Jacob:: Seed of Israel, Patriarch of the Jewish Race

and

Joshua: First Judge of Israel who commanded the
conquest of the Philistine Nations.

Sinister cabals of influence can accomplish many things but to influence how vast numbers of couples name their sons? No that comes from the Cultural Archetypes, the Ancestral Psyche of a People.

Could America really BE the Lost Tribe of Israel, made manifest in the flesh in the Present Times?

Could al-Qaeda and the others be correct, but not in the way they think?

You come up with an explanation for the prevalence of these names in young baby boys in America.

Top 10 Baby Names

Linked to

OTA Weekend at The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

|