Voting Present on World War III

Back when Barack Obama was still only the President Elect, he deemed it appropriate to call Iran's nuclear ambitions exactly as it is: unacceptable. And with nearly two years of talking about, conversing with and discussing in general we're still waiting to see exactly what it is about Iran getting the bomb that is unacceptable to Obama.

Perhaps everything up to Iran having a fully functional, tested and used bomb is acceptable.

But what about Russia?

In recent weeks Russia has decided that it will assist Iran's nuclear ambitions. This in clear understanding of Iran's two-faced "It's for peaceful purposes..." / "We have every right to build nuclear weapons..." stance. There can be no doubt that given the opportunity, Iran will develop nuclear weapons and will have no problem either using them directly or indirectly to target their enemies.

The most obvious side of this is that Israel -- now pretty much alone thanks to Obama -- will be forced to either launch a preemptive attack or in the face of developed nuclear weapons defend itself. In either scenario, Israel comes out looking bad. This gives Russia and all other anti-Israeli countries the perfect chance to come down hard on the Israelis.

But there's one thing on face value that doesn't make sense...

Iran is an Islamic republic which means that it will be first and foremost an ally to Muslim interests. Russia is presently engaged in a longstanding conflict with rebels within Chechnya, a largely Sunni Muslim population. It is no secret that the Muslim population within Chechnya despises Moscow. Even secularist Chechen rebels have been steadily converting to Islam.

Which begs the question... why would Russia arm the friend of it's enemies?

On face value, it makes no sense for Russia to help the Iranians become a nuclear superpower with the ability to launch nuclear attacks either directly or by proxy. One of the clearest targets of the Muslim population would be Russia itself who is responsible for what is perceived as Muslim genocide in Chechnya.

Now it doesn't make sense until you consider the possibility that Russia actually wants to be a target.

Now, I'm the first to admit that this has the obvious stench of conspiracy theories. But if you think about it, Russia is not happy with its status as a largely has-been superpower. The Russian government is not in a position to do en masse what it would do before, which is take whatever it wants by force.

But just as the United States had carte blanche to invade Afghanistan after 9/11, a Russia that has been the victim of a nuclear attack would have nothing stopping it from wiping out its Chechen foes. It would also have every justification to then invade Iran who would be seen as the face of the nuclear weapon itself.

Taking over both Chechnya and Iran, would certainly light a fire under every Muslim dominated country including the 93% Muslim Azerbaijan and 89% Muslim Turkmenistan. And any action by these countries against Russia -- either directly or through rebel activities -- would give Russia justification to invade both.

And that is the only thing standing between Russia having 100% complete control over the oil-rich Caspian Sea.

With Barack Obama being quite obviously a moral relativist, he would likely argue that Russia's actions in face of nuclear devastation are largely justified when compared to the United States' response to 9/11. After all, who could honestly see Barack Obama taking the United States to a gunfight with Russia? He would much rather find an excuse not to get involved.

But this of course would turn into a series of conflicts throughout the Middle East drawing in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO member Turkey. And any attack against Turkey would obviously draw in the United States, Europe, Great Britain and Canada.

And boom... you've got World War III.

Obviously this seems hard to believe. But when you ask that one question of why Russia would supply the friends of its enemies with means to produce nuclear weapons, it all comes down to what opportunities it could present Russia. And having control over the near majority of the world's oil supply might just be too great a temptation for the financial strained Russia.

The only real preventative measure would be for Barack Obama to do something other than stand up on the world stage and vote present.

I'm not holding my breath.

If the Afghanistan Wikileaks prove anything...

...it's that conspiracy theorists are really going to have to stretch their imagination to keep believing that 9/11 was an "inside job".

After all, if 90,000 secret documents about a war that was started during the Bush administration can so easily get leaked to an online gossip mill, you'd think we'd have seen at least 1 document indicating that the US government staged 9/11 as well... you think?

I certainly won't miss Mr. Margolis... not in the least.

Eric Margolis always struck me as somebody who is certainly intelligent but unfortunately also willfully blind to facts in order to maintain his well-documented position.

Case in point, last week I was listening to the John Oakley show on AM640. Mike Stafford is presently sitting in for John and was interviewing Eric about the whole Omar Khadr/Guantanamo Bay affair. Eric was certainly well-informed about many aspects of Omar Khadr's path to imprisonment. He even claimed to have met Omar's father Ahmed Said Khadr while Ahmed was still very much involved in aid-related projects.

Margolis sited Ahmed's relief work as being the primary reason he didn't believe that Omar Khadr could possibly have been involved in any resistance movement or military activities. However, anybody who has spent time looking at the news surrounding Omar would most certainly have seen the now famous images of Omar with an AK-47 assault rifle in the background or Omar assembling an improvised explosive device.

You can even watch the episode of 60 Minutes that demonstrated this quite clearly.

Now, I have a hard time believing that Margolis with his well-informed positions would have missed this bit of information. So, the question really is, why does he ignore it?

The same as anything else when it comes to political posturing: ideology

Eric certainly has a right to his opinion. He certainly has a right to believe that the war in Afghanistan is a sham or some kind of shell-game devised by George W. Bush to get control over the Middle East in order to lower oil prices. He has the right.

But, truth is a... well... we know what it is. And obvious facts are obvious facts. Eric can claim all he wants that Omar Khadr is a victim that would never have been involved in military activities. However, I've never been convicted with drug dealers. I've never been shot at as part of a gang. And I've never been arrested at violent G20 protests. Why? Because I don't associate with those groups.

Omar was arrested in a structure where resistance fighters had gathered. And when the dust had settled, he was one of only two people who could have lobbed the grenade that killed US Sgt Christopher Speer. Video shows him playing with detonation cables and land mines. Can't say that any of those situations would be something your average Canadian would be a part of.

As such, I can hardly cry for Mr Margolis as he says good-bye to the opinion column he wrote for the Sun media. He's cried that his ouster is simply a matter of right-wing zealots trying to hush him.

I simply call it quality control.