<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>RadioActive Chief &#187; Defense Matters!</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.radioactivechief.com/?cat=48&#038;feed=rss2" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com</link>
	<description>Stronghold of the VRWC in northwestern Moody County, South Dakota</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 30 Dec 2014 06:48:38 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=4.2.38</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Cold War-II Notes</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2664</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2664#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Mar 2010 05:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Insecurity]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2664</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A number of articles have been posted from the former leaders of the COMBLOC during the former Cold War have been coming up lately that seem like that same old deja-vu all over again. Putin: Russia to build new strategic bomber Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Monday that Russia will build a new strategic bomber, [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A number of articles have been posted from the former leaders of the COMBLOC during the former Cold War have been coming up lately that seem like that same old deja-vu all over again.</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100301/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_russia_medvedev_1">Putin: Russia to build new strategic bomber</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said Monday that Russia will build a new strategic bomber, a move that comes as the nation tries to upgrade its aging military arsenal.</p>
<p>Putin said in televised remarks that work on the bomber must follow the development of a prospective stealth fighter, which made its maiden flight in January and was hailed by the government as a big step in military modernization efforts.</p>
<p>&#8220;We won&#8217;t limit ourselves to just one new model,&#8221; Putin said at a government meeting that focused on military aviation. &#8220;We must start work on a prospective long-range aircraft, our new strategic bomber.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>A few things come immediately to mind.</p>
<p>Firstly, this development is taking place in spite of continuing bumps in the reconstruction of the post-Soviet economic and technical infrastructure.  In spite of the cost, the ex-KGB Putin has decided that this is the direction to go&#8230;and logically&#8230;who is there to aim these new weapons platforms at&#8230;but the United States?</p>
<p>Secondly, note the comment&#8230;&#8221;We won&#8217;t limit ourselves to just one new model&#8221;, as Obamamerica lurches sloooooooowly towards the F-35 which is going to be ready at some undetermined point in the future, and is supposed to be used by the Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps in spite of the widely diverse demands from the different service branches.  Combat aircraft have to do more than just fly, but the Obamamaniacal defense wonks are incapable of figuring this out.</p>
<p>Thirdly, and obviously, they are simultaneously going to beef up and improve their strategic bomber inventory with a new plane.  Our plans?  Er&#8230;what plans?<br />
Meanwhile, there is this love note from those paragons of respecting human rights who hang out in Beijing:</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6200P620100301">China PLA officer urges challenging U.S. dominance</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>China should build the world&#8217;s strongest military and move swiftly to topple the United States as the global &#8220;champion,&#8221; a senior Chinese PLA officer says in a new book reflecting swelling nationalist ambitions.</p>
<p>The call for China to abandon modesty about its global goals and &#8220;sprint to become world number one&#8221; comes from a People&#8217;s Liberation Army (PLA) Senior Colonel, Liu Mingfu, who warns that his nation&#8217;s ascent will alarm Washington, risking war despite Beijing&#8217;s hopes for a &#8220;peaceful rise.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>ChiCom military rise?  Like for instance their planned drive to build a 600-ship blue-water &#8220;People&#8217;s Liberation Army Navy&#8221;, complete with aircraft carriers, as just ONE example that comes readily to mind.</p>
<blockquote><p>&#8220;As long as China seeks to rise to become world number one &#8230; then even if China is even more capitalist than the U.S., the U.S. will still be determined to contain it,&#8221; writes Liu.</p>
<p>Rivalry between the two powers is a &#8220;competition to be the leading country, a conflict over who rises and falls to dominate the world,&#8221; says Liu. &#8220;To save itself, to save the world, China must prepare to become the (world&#8217;s) helmsman.&#8221;</p>
<p>&#8220;The China Dream&#8221; does not represent government policy, which has been far less strident about the nation&#8217;s goals.</p></blockquote>
<p>You can believe as much of that as you wish, but the Chief isn&#8217;t reassured&#8230;ever hear of the old &#8220;good cop, bad cop&#8221; game?</p>
<p>On a slightly different but still diagnostic note, comes this post-Olympic item from Russia:</p>
<p><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100301/ap_on_sp_ol/oly_russia_medvedev_1"><strong>Medvedev demands resignations over Olympic flop</strong></a></p>
<blockquote><p>President Dmitry Medvedev demanded Monday that Russian sports officials step down over the country&#8217;s dismal performance at the Winter Olympics in Vancouver.</p>
<p>Russia, a traditional winter sports powerhouse, won just 15 medals â€” with only three golds â€” in one of its worst performances. Officials said before the games that 30 medals and a top-three finish in the medal standings was the target.</p>
<p>Russia placed 11th for golds and sixth in the overall medal count.</p>
<p>In televised comments, Medvedev said if those responsible for preparing the athletes don&#8217;t resign then the decision will be made for them. He did not mention anyone by name.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8230;&#8221;but we know who you are!&#8221;</p>
<blockquote><p>In nine Winter Olympics between 1956 and 1988, the Soviet Union failed to top the medal standings only twice, finishing runner-up on those occasions.</p>
<p>Medvedev lamented that Russia &#8220;has lost the old Soviet school &#8230; and we haven&#8217;t created our own school â€” despite the fact that the amount of money that is invested in sport is unprecedentedly high.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>YIKES!  It&#8217;s a good thing that Stalinist type purges are out of style over there (at least for now), or there might be a new GULAG Olympic Sports Center in say&#8230;Novosibirsk or someplace equally salubrious.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2664</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Reagan &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; Chickens Come Home to Roost!</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2587</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2587#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Feb 2010 06:08:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Science & Technology]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2587</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Development programs for this started as part of the original Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed &#8220;Star Wars&#8221;. In spite of rabid criticism from the usual claque of progressive scientific and political activists who declared the task to be an impossibility, the results are bearing fruit: A prototype airborne battle laser system that shoots down ICBM&#8217;s? [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Development programs for this started as part of the original Reagan Strategic Defense Initiative, nicknamed &#8220;Star Wars&#8221;.  In spite of rabid criticism from the usual claque of progressive scientific and political activists who declared the task to be an impossibility, the results are bearing fruit:  A prototype airborne battle laser system that shoots down ICBM&#8217;s?  You betcha!</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1111660620100212?type=marketsNews">U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>A U.S. high-powered airborne laser weapon shot down a ballistic missile in the first successful test of a futuristic directed energy weapon, the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said on Friday.</p>
<p>The agency said in a statement the test took place at 8:44 p.m. PST (11:44 p.m. EST) on Thursday /0444 GMT on Friday) at Point Mugu&#8217;s Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division Sea Range off Ventura in central California.</p>
<p>&#8220;The Missile Defense Agency demonstrated the potential use of directed energy to defend against ballistic missiles when the Airborne Laser Testbed (ALTB) successfully destroyed a boosting ballistic missile&#8221; the agency said.</p></blockquote>
<p>What does this system actually do?</p>
<blockquote><p>The airborne laser weapon is aimed at deterring enemy missile attacks and providing the U.S. military with the ability to engage all classes of ballistic missiles at the speed of light while they are in the boost phase of flight.</p>
<p>&#8220;The revolutionary use of directed energy is very attractive for missile defense, with the potential to attack multiple targets at the speed of light, at a range of hundreds of kilometers (miles), and at a low cost per intercept attempt compared to current technologies,&#8221; the U.S. Missile Defense Agency said.</p></blockquote>
<p>Nothing succeeds like success!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2587</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>3</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illegal Pelosi Travel Documented</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2569</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2569#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 03:43:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Misc. Gov't Stuff]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Uh....something!]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2569</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[U.S. Military Serving as Chauffeurs, Babysitters for the Pelosi Kids: Receipts That Will Blow Your Mind The documents included in this posting were all obtained through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act): Update: Judicial Watch provided separate documents from an earlier FOIA request which show that &#8220;most, if not all&#8221; of the flights did indeed have [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-military-serving-as-chauffeurs.html">U.S. Military Serving as Chauffeurs, Babysitters for the Pelosi Kids: Receipts That Will Blow Your Mind</a></strong></p>
<p>The documents included in this posting were all obtained through FOIA (Freedom of Information Act):</p>
<blockquote><p>Update: Judicial Watch provided separate documents from an earlier FOIA request which show that &#8220;most, if not all&#8221; of the flights did indeed have the Speaker aboard. This is being researched and, until complete, corrections are noted below.</p>
<p>Update II: Commenters provide links to <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/451512p.pdf">DOD 4515.12-R &#8220;DoD Support for Travel of Members and Employees of Congress</a> and <a href="http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/451513r.pdf">DOD 4515.13-R &#8220;Air Transportation Eligibility&#8221;</a>, both of which  indicate any travel by the Speaker&#8217;s adult &#8212; non-dependent &#8212; children and grandchildren is off-limits.</p>
<p>Update III: <a href="http://www.mudvillegazette.com/033252.html">An article at Mudville Gazette</a> offers additional useful information.</p></blockquote>
<p>The mere posting of comments about SanFranNan Pelosi&#8217;s running abuse of military aircraft and crews for her personal and family gratification is one thing&#8230;actually viewing the paper work, reciepts, charge sheets, passenger lists, etc. gives an entirely different perspective on the situation. Don;t take the Chief&#8217;s word for it&#8230;<a href="http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2010/01/us-military-serving-as-chauffeurs.html">check it out for yourself</a>!</p>
<blockquote><p>Meet the Pelosi family! Using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, Judicial Watch uncovered thousands of pages of travel documents related to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s use of military aircraft.</p>
<p>What hasn&#8217;t been revealed thus far is that military aircraft are being used to shuttle Pelosi&#8217;s kids and grandkids between DC and San Francisco time and time again, which appears to be a violation of the appropriate rules (see above). Put simply, the United States Air Force is serving as a multi-billion dollar chauffeur- and baby-sitting service for Nancy Pelosi&#8217;s kids and grandkids &#8212; presumably because commercial travel is beneath the families of the autocrats.</p>
<p>But this couldn&#8217;t be a waste of resources because the U.S. military really isn&#8217;t engaged in any other significant activities around the world.</p></blockquote>
<p>Yeah, right.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2569</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mugged by Reality?</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2541</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2541#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 02 Feb 2010 06:34:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2541</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Obama seeks money for nuclear weapons work President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world&#8217;s stockpile of nuclear arms. The administration on Monday asked Congress for more than $7 billion for activities related to [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100202/ap_on_re_us/us_nuclear_lab_budgets_1">Obama seeks money for nuclear weapons work</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>President Barack Obama is seeking increased funding for nuclear weapons research and security programs next year, even as his administration promotes nonproliferation and has pledged to reduce the world&#8217;s stockpile of nuclear arms.</p>
<p>The administration on Monday asked Congress for more than $7 billion for activities related to nuclear weapons in the budget of the National Nuclear Security Administration, an increase of $624 million from the 2010 fiscal year.</p></blockquote>
<p>Few except for hard-core anti-nuke peaceniks would seriously submit that the U.S. should totally abandon its nuclear weapons capability.  Such being the case, this is essential to insure the capability to maintain a credible nuclear deterrence.</p>
<p>Like cans of food, thermonuclear devices have a shelf life&#8230;after a period of time they lose their effectiveness due to the effects of radioactive decay of tritium.  They need to be remanufactured.  At that point, it is also necessary to update the  systems of the weapons using state-of-the-art-electronics, which also improves the command/control/security of the devices.  It&#8217;s been some time since we did this, and the shelf life limits are approaching.</p>
<p>Obama, in spite of a presumed gut-level dislike for nuke weapons, (like who in their right mind would love them!) recognizes the reality of this necessary process.  As noted also, the same techniques, equipment, and personnel are also required to do the job if further weapon reductions are negotiated with Russia and the ChiComs, so the peaceniks have at least that consolation.</p>
<p>At last&#8230;this is something that the Chief agrees with the administration on&#8230;if it actually is cleared through Congress and implemented.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2541</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>PC vs. Army:  Army Loses, Again</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2412</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2412#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Dec 2009 04:06:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WW-IV / 10th Crusade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2412</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[A amazingly good report from NPR: Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops As part of the new American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines must work first to protect the Afghan population. Given the choice between killing the enemy or risking civilian lives, they have been willing to let the enemy [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A amazingly good report from NPR:<br />
<b><a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=121330893">Rules Of Engagement Are A Dilemma For U.S. Troops</a></b></p>
<blockquote><p>As part of the new American counterinsurgency strategy in Afghanistan, soldiers and Marines must work first to protect the Afghan population. Given the choice between killing the enemy or risking civilian lives, they have been willing to let the enemy go. NPR&#8217;s Tom Bowman was in Afghanistan earlier this year and witnessed troops grappling with the dilemma of whether to shoot.</p></blockquote>
<p>Go to the link for the actual interview, and for its transcript.</p>
<p>This shows the insanity of sending U.S. troops into a combat environment, and then tying their hands.  This is what happens when politicians,  lawyers and military bureaucrats are given plenary authority over the warriors.  It didn&#8217;t in Korea and Vietnam, and it won&#8217;t work now.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s no way to fight a war. </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2412</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>UK Defense Minister Hits B.O.&#8217;s Afghan Dithering</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2325</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2325#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 06:10:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Insecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Across the Pond]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2325</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan It&#8217;s GOT to be bad when even the IngSoc government thinks B.O. is too squishy on the war. Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan. Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6646179/Bob-Ainsworth-criticises-Barack-Obama-over-Afghanistan.html">Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan</a></strong></p>
<p>It&#8217;s GOT to be bad when even the IngSoc government thinks B.O. is too squishy on the war.</p>
<blockquote><p>Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.</p>
<p>Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.</p>
<p>A â€œperiod of hiatusâ€ in Washington &#8211; and a lack of clear direction &#8211; had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.</p>
<p>Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obamaâ€™s â€œditheringâ€ on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.</p>
<p>But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US presidentâ€™s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.</p></blockquote>
<p>&#8220;It ain&#8217;t that pretty at all.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2325</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Navy SEALS Do Job: Get Hung Out to Dry</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2322</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2322#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 25 Nov 2009 05:41:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Counterterrorism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obamanation = Abomination]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WW-IV / 10th Crusade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2322</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq â€” the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,576646,00.html?mep">Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges for Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq â€” the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.</p></blockquote>
<p>Just to refresh your memory, this is the handiwork of the Islamoterr in question&#8230;note the burned and mutilated [American] bodies hanging from the bridge girder:</p>
<p><img class="aligncenter size-full wp-image-2323" title="0_61_112409_fallujah" src="http://www.radioactivechief.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/0_61_112409_fallujah.jpg" alt="0_61_112409_fallujah" width="320" height="240" /></p>
<blockquote><p>The three, all members of the Navy&#8217;s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment â€” called an admiral&#8217;s mast â€” and have requested a trial by court-martial.</p>
<p>Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named &#8220;Objective Amber,&#8221; told investigators he was punched by his captors â€” and he had the bloody lip to prove it.</p></blockquote>
<p>Awwwwww.  Poor baby.  Refer again to the above picture.  If there was any justice in this situation the IslamoterrÂ  should have been whacked while &#8220;resisting capture&#8221;.</p>
<blockquote><p>Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is SO wrong.  We take the best of our best, send them out to do a mission and capture a known and identified terrorist combatant.  They do so, and the perp complains (after he had been turned over to Iraqi custody) that he got punched during the course of events.Â  What happens next?</p>
<p>Why what else, given that this is the dayÂ  of the B.O. administration granting the full panoply of legal rights of an American citizen to the killer (by beheading!) ofÂ  American reporter Daniel Pearl, and who also happened toÂ  lead the planning for the 9-11 attack?Â  The feckless wonders of the <del>U.S.</del> Obamanation Navy bring the SEALS up on charges!</p>
<p>IMAGINE THE VERY WORST THINGÂ  THAT I COULD SAY TO COMMENT NEGATIVELY ON THIS LEGAL ABORTION.</p>
<p>NOW, <strong>CONSIDER IT SAID!</strong></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2322</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>A Modest Proposal&#8230;</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2309</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2309#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 04:03:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Across the Pond]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2309</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The Brits are starting to position themselves for their next election cycle. This is part of that positioning from the opposition Conservatives Tories to pull British forces out of Germany British forces will pull out of Germany for good, nearly 70 years after the Allied victory in World War Two, as part of a Tory [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The Brits are starting to position themselves for their next election cycle.  This is part of that positioning from the opposition Conservatives</p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6617358/Tories-to-pull-British-forces-out-of-Germany.html">Tories to pull British forces out of Germany</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>British forces will pull out of Germany for good, nearly 70 years after the Allied victory in World War Two, as part of a Tory defence &#8220;revolution&#8221; being drawn up by Dr Liam Fox.  </p>
<p>The Shadow Defence Secretary told The Daily Telegraph that ending Britainâ€™s 25,000 strong military presence on the Rhine would be part of a fundamental reorganisation of Nato forces designed to free troops for military operations outside Europe.</p>
<p>The decision would close one of the unfinished chapters of the last war that saw the British military go from occupying force in the ruins of Nazi Germany in 1945 to guarantor of German security against the threat of Soviet invasion during the Cold War.</p>
<p>The announcement of what would be a major reassessment of Britainâ€™s role in European defence came just 24 hours after the European Union surprised Westminster by handing responsibility for its diplomatic relations to the Labour peer Baroness Ashton.</p>
<p>Dr Foxâ€™s decision to call time on Britainâ€™s military links with Germany is a signal of his determination to force through a â€œwholesale recasting of our foreign and defence policyâ€.</p>
<p>He also called for the public to be told the truth about the â€œcost of defeatâ€ in Afghanistan, including Britain being relegated to â€œthe third divisionâ€ of world politics.</p></blockquote>
<p>What a concept!  Why don&#8217;t WE do this?  Do we REALLY need to still have a military presence in GERMANY any more?  I doubt we&#8217;re worried about an incipient Nazi coup.  Also, the threat of Soviet tanks from East Germany rolling through the Fulda Gap is obsolete.</p>
<p>IMHO, Dr. Fox has an excellent idea, that should work for us too!  </p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2309</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>B.O. Hardly Working on War</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2294</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2294#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:41:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[National Insecurity]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WW-IV / 10th Crusade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2294</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Let&#8217;s see&#8230;B.O.&#8217;s had the information and proposals from HIS selected commanding combat General since August. It&#8217;s now November. Meanwhile the conduct of the war continues to stagnate, our local allies hold their breath as they wait to decide whether and/or when to jump ship, and any potential local allies take another look at the possibilities [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Let&#8217;s see&#8230;B.O.&#8217;s had the information and proposals from HIS selected commanding combat General since August.  It&#8217;s now November.  Meanwhile the conduct of the war continues to stagnate, our local allies hold their breath as they wait to decide whether and/or when to jump ship, and any <em>potential</em> local allies take another look at the possibilities of making an accomadation with the Islamoterrs.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/19/AR2009111900904_pf.html"><strong>White House aides: No Afghan decision before Thanksgiving</strong></a></p>
<blockquote><p>President Obama will not announce his decision on sending more troops to Afghanistan before the Thanksgiving holiday, senior aides said Thursday.</p>
<p>The news came as the president greeted 1,500 troops at Osan Air Base in South Korea, just before boarding Air Force One and heading back to Washington after an eight-day trip to Asia.</p>
<p>Obama and his top military and diplomatic aides have been deliberating for months over how to proceed in Afghanistan, where the United States and its partners have sought for eight years to defeat the Taliban and deny al-Qaeda a safe haven from which it can plan and launch attacks.</p>
<p>Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and NATO commander in Afghanistan, has stated that without the deployment of up to 40,000 additional troops within the next year, the mission &#8220;will likely result in failure.&#8221;</p></blockquote>
<p>Plenty of time for global junketing, complete with his 70 car motorcade, but forget about the troops being left to wither on the vine while B.O. continues to dither.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2294</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Islamo U.S. Army Shrink Goes Whacko, Whacks 12</title>
		<link>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2204</link>
		<comments>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2204#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2009 05:37:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Chief]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Defense Matters!]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Islamofascism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[WW-IV / 10th Crusade]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.radioactivechief.com/?p=2204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Suspected Gunman in Custody After 12 Killed in Rampage at Fort Hood An Army psychiatrist who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas that left 12 dead and 31 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night. The news that the [&#8230;]]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong><a href="http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,572305,00.html">Suspected Gunman in Custody After 12 Killed in Rampage at Fort Hood</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>An Army psychiatrist who reportedly feared an impending war deployment is in custody as the sole suspect in a shooting rampage at Fort Hood in Texas that left 12 dead and 31 wounded, an Army official said Thursday night.</p>
<p>The news that the suspect, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, was alive and in stable condition came as a sudden reversal of early reports that the gunman was among the dead.</p>
<p>&#8220;I would say his death is not imminent,&#8221; Lt. Gen. Bob Cone said. Col. Ben Danner said the suspect was shot at least four times.</p></blockquote>
<p>Dang!  Survived four bullets.  Too bad.</p>
<blockquote><p>The rampage was believed to be the deadliest at a U.S. military base in history. The exact motive wasn&#8217;t clear, though Hasan, a Virginia native and a Muslim, reportedly was against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and had been the target of harassment for his ethnicity.</p></blockquote>
<p>The Chief has experienced harassment in a military setting.  It can be a real annoyance, but certainly survivable without taking out frustrations by attacking his fellow sailors.</p>
<p><strong>UPDATE:  <a href="http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_FORT_HOOD_SHOOTING_SUSPECT?SITE=FLTAM&amp;SECTION=HOME">Troubling portrait emerges of Fort Hood suspect</a></strong></p>
<blockquote><p>His name appears on radical Internet postings. A fellow officer says he fought his deployment to Iraq and argued with soldiers who supported U.S. wars. He required counseling as a medical student because of problems with patients.</p>
<p>There are many unknowns about Nidal Malik Hasan, the man authorities say is responsible for the worst mass killing on a U.S. military base. Most of all, his motive. But details of his life and mindset, emerging from official sources and personal acquaintances, are troubling.</p></blockquote>
<p>According to the reports he had a problem with some of his fitness reports, and apparently had some sort of problems dealing with patients.  That may or may not have any significance, but the following does raise some concerns: </p>
<blockquote><p>At least six months ago, Hasan came to the attention of law enforcement officials because of Internet postings about suicide bombings and other threats, including posts that equated suicide bombers to soldiers who throw themselves on a grenade to save the lives of their comrades.</p>
<p>They had not determined for certain whether Hasan is the author of the posting, and a formal investigation had not been opened before the shooting, said law enforcement officials who spoke on condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to discuss the case.</p></blockquote>
<p>Wonder what it takes to get investigated these days. (Probably bad-mouthing B.O.!)  They probably couldn&#8217;t proceed due to fears of being caught &#8220;profiling&#8221;.</p>
<blockquote><p>One of the officials said late Thursday that federal search warrants were being drawn up to authorize the seizure of Hasan&#8217;s computer.</p></blockquote>
<p>They can hack out anything that&#8217;s there&#8230;even stuff that had been erased&#8230;of course, that doesn&#8217;t mean that anything about it will ever see the light of day. For instance, the IMMEDIATE response was that this was no way terrorism.  </p>
<p>Uh&#8230;how could they know, if there had been no previous investigation?  Also, IMHO, a terrorist is as a terrorist does.  One does NOT have to have an official notarized al Qaida membership card to be a terrorist.  By MY reckoning, this sure seems like terrorism to me! </p>
<p><strong><a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/6511591/Fort-Hood-shooting-Nidal-Malik-Hasan-said-Muslims-should-rise-up.html">UPDATE II:  Fort Hood shooting: Nidal Malik Hasan &#8216;said Muslims should rise up&#8217;</a> </strong></p>
<p>Maybe some of this has to do with being harassed:</p>
<blockquote><p>Col Terry Lee, a retired officer who worked with him at the military base in Texas, alleged Maj Hasan had angry confrontations with other officers over his views.</p>
<p>Maj Hasan was reportedly fighting orders to be deployed to Iraq at the end of the month, claiming that he was the victim of harassment and insults because of his Arab background and his faith&#8230;.</p>
<p>&#8220;He was making outlandish comments condemning our foreign policy and claimed Muslims had the right to rise up and attack Americans,&#8221; Col Lee told Fox News.</p>
<p>&#8220;He said Muslims should stand up and fight the aggressor and that we should not be in the war in the first place.&#8221; He said that Maj Hasan said he was &#8220;happy&#8221; when a US soldier was killed in an attack on a military recruitment centre in Arkansas in June. An American convert to Islam was accused of the shootings.</p>
<p>Col Lee alleged that other officers had told him that Maj Hasan had said &#8220;maybe people should strap bombs on themselves and go to Time Square&#8221; in New York.</p></blockquote>
<p>This is in side of an Army community&#8230;is it any wonder that this might get a negative reaction?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.radioactivechief.com/?feed=rss2&#038;p=2204</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
