You know what they say, third time is a charm.

From the AP:

The U.N. Security Council approved a third round of sanctions against Iran on Monday with near unanimous support, sending a strong signal to Tehran that its refusal to suspend uranium enrichment is unacceptable and becoming increasingly costly.

For the first time, the resolution bans trade with Iran in goods which have both civilian and military uses.

The vote was 14-0 with one abstention from Indonesia.

Iran’s U.N. Ambassador Mohammad Khazee told the council just before the vote that the government would not comply with the “unlawful action” against its “peaceful nuclear program.”

Come on, not even France and Germany are buying the “peaceful nuclear program” routine anymore. Even Libya, one of the non-permanent members of the council, voted for the resolution. The resolution was even co-sponsored by France and supported by Russia.

[sarcasm] We know that the UN has been very successful with its sanctions in the past. Just ask North Korea, Sadam Hussain, Syria, and Lebanon; to name a few.[/sarcasm]

When is last time you heard of an effective UN resolution? It makes you wonder what the US gets for its $1.26 Billion (2007) doesn’t it?

Also Reporting:
Michelle Malkin
Hot Air
Wake up America

I stumbled upon this during my morning tour of the net. The following Video is a guy form the UK who hits the nail on the head with an uncommon frankness. It is worth the time to watch it.

And before you say, “That is Europe, it’s not like that here” - think again. It is not so far off as you may think.

Some of my favorite quotes:

“And any concession made will be seen as a sign of weakness to be exploited further, because there is no dialog with radical Islam. It doesn’t want to be agreed with. It wants to be obeyed.”

“And before somebody accuses me again of insulting Islam, please grow up. I don’t need to insult Islam when there are already so many Muslims willing to do it for me every time they strap on a suicide belt or stone somebody to death for the crime of having a private life.”

I should probably point out that the author, Pat Condell, is not just anti-Islam. He seems to be Anti most things - any religion, the US, Israel, etc. That is his right, and I welcome him to his opinion.

This is rich, but not unexpected. Form the Associated Press:

President Omar al-Bashir said Wednesday that he would bar Danes from Sudan and told tens of thousands of people at a government-backed rally that the Muslim world should boycott Denmark because of a reprinted cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad.

“We urge all Muslims around the world to boycott Danish commodities, goods, companies, institutions, organizations and personalities,” al-Bashir told the crowd outside the Republic Palace in downtown Khartoum.

“Down, down, Denmark!” shouted the crowd. Al-Bashir vowed that “not a single Danish foot will from now on desecrate the land of Sudan.”

Who wants to go to Sudan anyway? I can’t imagine that Sudan is a hot Danish tourist spot, nor that they are a market for Danish goods.

To refresh your memory, this is all a result of the Danish newspapers reprinting Muhammad cartoons. You can read my post on it here.

There is a bit of Irony here, as there always is in these cases:

First, most of the Danes that are in Sudan are there with humanitarian aid organizations, or with the UN peacekeeping forces.

It was not clear whether al-Bashir planned to act on his rhetoric and force out the hundreds of Danes who work in Sudan, most in aid organizations, with a dozen in the U.N. peacekeeping force in southern Sudan.

Secondly, Sudan is one of the largest recipients of Danish aid.

But Sudan is one of the largest recipients of Danish aid and Danish aid groups that operate there include the Danish Refugee Council and the Danish Red Cross, which runs large projects to alleviate suffering in the western Darfur region.

Sudan received $26 million in Danish aid in 2006 and a $100 million humanitarian and reconstruction package is planned through 2009.

So I will be looking out for any Danish goods I can buy. Not that I have the least idea on what they export. In any event I guess a reprint of my favorite cartoon is in order.

Also Reporting:
Michelle Malkin

I guess Greenpeace didn’t hear the news. This from Reuters:

First they scaled the roof of Parliament:

Protesters scaled the roof of Britain’s parliament in a major security breach on Wednesday and threatened further direct action against government plans to expand London’s Heathrow airport.

Environmental protesters from the “Plane Stupid” group scaled the Houses of Parliament to mark the end of a public consultation period on a third runway and sixth terminal at what is already the world’s busiest international airport.

“NO THIRD RUNWAY,” read one of the banners they unfurled and hung down the side of the building.

Then they penetrated Heathrow’s security and hung another banner on the tail of a jet:

The demonstration followed another serious breach on Monday when Greenpeace activists penetrated Heathrow’s own security to climb on an aircraft and wrap a banner around its tail plane.

Why, you may ask, is Greenpeace so interested in blocking another runway at Heathrow?

Why, global Warming of course.

But environmental groups have joined forces with angry local residents, saying roughly doubling the number of flights from Britain’s busiest air hub would make a mockery of government pledges to reduce carbon emissions to tackle global warming.

I have already posted on the record snows over North America, Siberia, Mongolia, and China; the record low temperatures, the return of the ice caps, and the thickening of the Arctic Sea Ice. Unfortunately, Greenpeace must not be paying attention.

Who knows, perhaps we should build even more runways to combat the threatening of a new ice age!

Forbes is calling it, rightly, “The Mother of all EU Fines”:

The latest episode in Microsoft’s tempestuous relationship with the European Competition Commission ended with a bang Wednesday, as Commissioner Neelie Kroes slapped down an 899 million euro ($1.35 billion) fine on the company for not completely complying with an antitrust ruling that dated back to 2004. It is by far the largest EU fine ever imposed on a company.

Wow - I cannot even imagine that much money. That is a price tag that will pain even the cash rich Microsoft.

Here is the reasoning behind the EU’s decision:

The fine, which Microsoft will probably pay, is entirely retrospective, relating to a period of “non-compliance” before Oct. 22, 2007. It relates to the “unreasonable prices” the Commission is claiming Microsoft charged, before that date, to other software developers for access to documents that explained how they could create software that interfaced with Microsoft servers.

Between June 21, 2006, when that information was made available, and Oct. 21, 2007, Microsoft had charged software developers royalties of 0.7% on the revenues of their products that were developed using protocols the software giant had provided.

After that date, Microsoft agreed to reduce the rate to 0.4%, following directives from the Commission to charge a more “reasonable” rate. (See: “EU’s Hard Line Cows Microsoft”) But it probably knew that fines were ahead for the prior period, when it had charged a higher rate.

Microsoft is heading the same way as UK telecom giant BT. They will soon be put into a regulatory box where they are not permitted to compete with the competition. The EU needs to seriously consider these business practices before harming more businesses.

Earlier this week Canada issued an ultimatum that it would pull its 2,500 tropps from Afghanistan effective January 2009 if NATO is unable to pony up additional troops.

From the AP:

In American military parlance, it’s gut-check time for NATO in Afghanistan, and French President Nicolas Sarkozy appears ready to answer allies’ calls for more forces to fight the Taliban and al-Qaida.

As early as Thursday, Sarkozy’s top brass is to present him with a variety of options, from sending special forces to more trainers for Afghan troops, a French military official told The Associated Press. He spoke on condition of anonymity, because the decisions will ultimately rest with Sarkozy.

Sarkozy isn’t expected to announce a final decision until the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, in early April, which is shaping up as a litmus test of his commitment to the Atlantic alliance which has often had a rocky relationship with France.

The more I see about Sarkozy, the more I like him. Not just because he is pro-American. His previous stint as the French Minister of Interior have given him a keen understanding of the the significance of the War on Terror. He also has a very strong stance on Law and Order issues as seem from his stance on the Islamic Hoodlums that have been plaguing France for years.

The Global Mail in Canada has an interesting spin on this as well:

France’s decision will involve two larger strategic concerns: The ambition among French military leaders to establish a stronger European leadership role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, and the desire to win U.S. support for a European military force that could some day rival the U.S. military.

Under Chirac, France’s only military ambitions seemed to involve white flags. Now, with Nicolas Sarkozy at the helm in France, it seems a much different picture is forming. I am not so confident on the European military “someday rivaling the US military”, but having ambitions that provide extra support for the war on Terror is good for me.

I may have to take back some of the things I have said about France.

Also Reporting:
Captains Quarters

On Sunday, December 7th, 1941 the Japanese launched a surprise attack against the U.S. Forces stationed at Pearl Harbor , Hawaii .

By planning his attack on a Sunday, the Japanese commander Admiral Nagumo, hoped to catch the entire fleet in port. As luck would have it, the Aircraft Carriers and one of the Battleships were not in port. (The USS Enterprise was returning from Wake Island , where it had just delivered some aircraft. The USS Lexington was ferrying aircraft to Midway, and the USS Saratoga and USS Colorado were undergoing repairs in the United States.)

In spite of the latest intelligence reports about the missing a aircraft carriers (his most important targets), Admiral Nagumo decided to continue the attack with his force of six carriers and 423 aircraft. At a range of 230 miles north of Oahu, he launched the first wave of a two-wave attack.

Beginning at 0600 hours his first wave consisted of 183 fighters and torpedo bombers which struck at the fleet in Pearl Harbor and the airfields in Hickam, Kaneoheand Ewa. The second strike, launched at 0715 hours, consisted of 167 aircraft, which again struck at the same targets. At 0753 hours the first wave consisting of 40 Nakajima B5N2 “Kate” torpedo bombers, 51 Aichi D3A1 “Val” dive bombers, 50 high altitude bombers and 43 Zeros struck airfields and Pearl Harbor Within the next hour, the second wave arrived and continued the attack.

When it was over, the U.S.losses were:

Casualties
US Air Force : 218 KIA, 364 WIA.
US Navy: 2,008 KIA, 710 WIA.
US Marine Core: 109 KIA, 69 WIA.
Civilians: 68 KIA, 35 WIA.
TOTAL: 2,403 KIA, 1,178 WIA.

Battleships
USS Ari zona (BB-39) - total loss when a bomb hit her magazine.
USS Oklahoma (BB-37) - Total loss when she capsized and sunk in the harbor.
USS California (BB-44) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS West Virginia (BB-48) - Sunk at her berth. Later raised and repaired.
USS Nevada - (BB-36) Beached to prevent sinking. Later repaired.
USS Pennsylvania (BB-38) - Light damage.
USS Maryland (BB-46) - Light damage.
USS Tennessee (BB-43) Light damage.
USS Utah (AG-16) - (former battleship used as a target) - Sunk.

Cruisers
USS New Orleans(CA-32) - Light Damage..
USS San Francisco(CA38) - Light Damage.
USS Detroit(CL-8) - Light Damage.
USS Raleigh (CL-7) - Heavily damaged but repaired.
USS Helena(CL-50) - Light Damage.
USS Honolulu(CL-48) - Light Damage..

Destroyers
USS Downes (DD-375) - Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Cassin - (DD-37 2) Destroyed. Parts salvaged.
USS Shaw (DD-373) - Very heavy damage.
USS Helm (DD-388) - Light Damage.

Minelayer
USS Ogala (CM-4) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.
—-
Seaplane Tender
USS Curtiss (AV-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.

Repair Ship
USS Vestal (AR-4) - Severely damaged but later repaired.
—-
Harbor Tug
USS Sotoyomo (YT-9) - Sunk but later raised and repaired.

Aircraft
188 Aircraft destroyed (92 USN and 92 U.S. Army Air Corps.)

A little Cartoon I found hanging around in my e-mail archives. Seemed appropriate to mark today, the 62nd anniversary of the end of World War II.

Note: May 8th was the day the western allies celebrated the end of the World War II. The Soviets chose May 9th, but the complete end of pockets of combat in and around Prague continued until the middle to end of May. However, the official German surrender occurred on May 2nd, two days after Hitlers suicide.

The more I hear about Ban Ki-moon - the new Secretary General of the UN, the more I like. While I am under no illusion that he can change the large, inept organization into a power for good, he at least seems to be far and away better connected to reality that his predecessor.

From the AP:

The U.N. has an official stance opposing capital punishment and Ban’s predecessor Kofi Annan reiterated it frequently. The top U.N. envoy in Iraq, Ashraf Qazi, restated it again on Saturday after the former Iraqi dictator was hanged.

Ban, however, took a different approach, never mentioning the U.N. ban on the death penalty in all its international tribunals, and the right to life enshrined in the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

“Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against Iraqi people and we should never forget victims of his crime,” Ban said in response to a reporter’s question about Saddam’s execution Saturday for crimes against humanity. “The issue of capital punishment is for each and every member state to decide.”

Good for him. I hope Kofi Annon chokes on the news. This is a pragmatic and logical stance, and increases

This dose bring up a very interesting point with regards to the UN’s official stance on the death penalty. Specifically, it looks as if the majority of the UN member countries do support the deal penalty, including the largest UN members including the US, China, and Russia. If the UN is to represent the member states, then the policies of the UN should be representative of those states. I did some quick web searches, and can’t find a break down of UN member countries and their respective stance on capital punishment.

I hope Ban Ki-moon continues to show good sense. My hope for the UN went out the door with Bolton, but perhaps there is some glimmer of hope.

Also Reporting:
Hot Air
Captains Quarters

Cartoon by Michael Ramirez

H/T to Discerning Texan