| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Dhimmi Watch | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog | Raymond Ibrahim | Robert Spencer |  |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
"Jihad and the Presidential Candidates: An Assessment" is a report by Winfield Myers of Campus Watch for the Philadelphia Bulletin on a talk I gave last week at the Middle East Forum in Philadelphia. Audio of the speech is available at the Middle East Forum site.
Robert Spencer is the author of two New York Times bestsellers on Islamic topics and director of Jihad Watch, a project of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. An expert on Islamic theology, law, history, jihad, and terrorism, he has appeared on virtually all the major television and radio news networks and has given seminars for the U.S. military, the State Department, and the German government. Mr. Spencer addressed the Middle East Forum on November 13, 2007 in New York City and on December 11, 2007 in Philadelphia. The following is a report on his briefing in Philadelphia that appeared in The Bulletin.Presidential Candidates and the "Forbidden Word"
by Winfield Myers
The Bulletin
December 17, 2007Whether from a desire to avoid being labeled as racist, from cowardice when confronted with the PR machine that is the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), or from slanted coverage in the mainstream media, presidential candidates of both parties take great pains to avoid commenting on jihad (Islamic holy war), even as they blame the West for terrorist acts committed against it, according to noted expert on Islam Robert Spencer.
Mr. Spencer, who runs the web site Jihad Watch and is author of seven books, most recently Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't, called jihad "the forbidden word" in the ongoing presidential campaign.
Speaking on Tuesday at a Center City luncheon sponsored by the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank headed by Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, Mr. Spencer lamented that the majority of candidates in both parties go to great lengths to avoid naming America's enemies, lest by stating that a link exists between terrorism and Islam they find themselves pummeled for their frankness.
The dilemma, said Mr. Spencer, is that while any candidate would want to avoid being called a racist, anyone speaking the truth on this matter will most certainly find himself tarred with that term. When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used the word "jihad" in a television campaign commercial, Saturday Night Live parodied it simply by inserting a laugh track into the otherwise unaltered tape, as if using the term "jihad" was self-evidently absurd. The Wall Street Journal attacked Romney in a news article for speaking the unspeakable.
Moreover, CAIR's media guide warns that some unnamed non-Muslim writers suggest the Quran teaches violence. Yet, said Mr. Spencer, none other than Osama bin Laden quoted Quranic verses that call for violence against non-Muslims in his latest video, as did on many occasions the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. "There are hundreds of passages in the Quran and the Hadiths [commentaries on the Quran] that call for violence," Mr. Spencer said, and refusing to speak of this historical fact puts the West "at a disadvantage in understanding the enemy in order to defeat them."
Although denial on this matter does presidential candidates no good, most of them act as if it does, Mr. Spencer argued. But to voluntarily refuse to examine the causes of the war is self-defeating, he said, adding that while Rudolph Giuliani and Romney are more willing to identity our enemies by name than other candidates, every candidate needs to face the problem more fully. Yet some voters, Mr. Spencer said, first adopt a policy toward terrorists and then ignore facts that contradict it. "No number of future terror attacks will shake these peoples' beliefs that Islam is a religion of peace," he said, adding that such Americans prefer to flock to candidates who won't address the real issues.
Stating that "cowardice plays a tremendous role" in the problem, Mr. Spencer said that the media share much of the blame for our silence in the face of the most dangerous threat of our time. He recounted the unwillingness of most American media to show the Danish cartoons of Mohammed that caused worldwide rioting among some Muslims when they appeared in a Danish newspaper in September, 2005. Mr. Spencer said that "essential to a free press and a free society is the right to offend and to be offended." But in the wake of the rioting, in newsrooms "the test became, could the Muslims in Denmark be offended?" When Western papers said they didn't want to offend Muslims by reprinting the cartoons, they proved themselves politically correct cowards, Mr. Spencer said.
A corollary of presidential candidates' care not to give offense is that they behave and speak as if terrorism was the fault of the West (America, Israel, and Europe) rather than actions by Muslims against the West. Candidates will recite a litany of Western sins—the CIA's overthrow of Mohammed Mosaddeq of Iran in 1953, America's support for Israel, or Abu Ghraib—as explanations for terrorist acts. The implication, Mr. Spencer said, was that, with the proper initiatives on the part of the West, "the problem will go away," as if it's "something we can fix." Such an approach fails to grasp that the problem stems from "ideological imperatives within Islam," Mr. Spencer added.
Those imperatives mean that, from Indonesia to America, there is a movement that appeals to peaceful Muslims to become exponents of "pure Islam" and calls on them to "rise up and wage war to subjugate unbelievers under Islam," Mr. Spencer said. While it's true that most Muslims are not involved with this movement, it's also true that "they're not objecting to it, either."
Mr. Spencer said that while there are indeed moderate Muslims, there is no moderate Islam, which is "not a sect or a school of jurisprudence," since every school of Islam teaches warfare and subjugation. There exists, he said, a "huge spread of beliefs within Islam, just as there is with Jews and Christians. The Islamic world is not hermetically sealed against Western influence."
But Mr. Spencer warned against wishing for a widespread "Reformation" in Islam modeled on what the Christian West experienced in the sixteenth century under the leadership of Martin Luther and others. A rallying cry of that movement was a return to what the reformers believed was a purer, more ancient form of Christianity. Yet in Islam, that has already happened under the leadership of the eighteenth century writer Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi sect of Islam practiced in Saudi Arabia. The severity of this strain rests on reliance on the earliest works of Islam, and yet, Mr. Spencer said, the ancient works of Islam are more violent than later works, which Wahhabis, following the movement's founder, regard as mere "accretions."
Mr. Spencer closed with a few policy prescriptions. He said that the U.S. government should undertake a new "Manhattan Project" to find alternative energy sources by putting the best brains in the nation to work on the problem. He also argued some of America's massive foreign aid budget is misspent, saying that in particular we should tie aid to Egypt and Pakistan to their willingness to work against the jihadists in their countries. Otherwise, Mr. Spencer said, "we're financing our own destruction."
Posted by Robert at December 19, 2007 4:54 PM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
|
Disagree about the oil Robert.
It is not a proper course of action.
There is plenty of oil. The question is price and who owns or controls the oil fields.
The market is best to determine the economy's direction, not mandating biofuel which unwarrantedly raises the cost of food.
Nuclear fuel is an excellant option.
(and if it would discomfit some Hollywood libs, then drilling for oil in Malibu)
Posted by: dgene![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/nav-commenters.gif)
at December 19, 2007 5:58 PM
Greetings:
Censorship is the tactic; self-censorship is the goal.
Posted by: 11B40 at December 19, 2007 6:02 PM
How about JW sponsor another survey?
Readers should submit the single most important question to be asked each presidential Candidate before committing your vote.
Robert & Hugh pick the top 3 and we vote for #1.
Everyone then ask that question of each candidate by letters (snail mail & email) until a responsive answer is given.
Here is my offer:
Do you, like President Bush believe that Islam is a religion of Peace?
Also, I posted and article evaluating the republican candidates at my blog 2 days ago.
The Embaraasing Republican Candidates
www.USorThemonline.com
at December 19, 2007 6:12 PM
I found this over at New English Review where McCarthy is pushing Giuliani.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/special/campaign2008
Romney says, “Many still fail to comprehend the extent of the threat posed by radical Islam, specifically by those extremists who promote violent jihad against the United States and the universal values Americans espouse” and “The jihadist threat is the defining challenge of our generation and is symptomatic of a range of new global realities.”
He’s still saying the words. I’d rather he leave “radical” off Islam and “violent” off jihad though, no qualifiers are needed.
at December 19, 2007 6:48 PM
gene, you are foolish.
Posted by: monk at December 19, 2007 7:40 PM
Stating that "cowardice plays a tremendous role" in the problem, Mr. Spencer said....
The fact that there are only five or so responses to this most important article, I think, indicates many who read and participate on this site are moral cowards.
at December 19, 2007 7:43 PM
In regard to our oil consumption problem, I think what we need is something less along the lines of the Manhattan project, and more on the lines of the Interstate Highway Program; specifically a national Electric Transit Program. This would, first, greatly expand electric mass transit in our metropolitan areas -- subways, els, trams or light rail, and commuter rail. Many of our large metro areas have no mass transit at all, and even among those who do have subways, commuter rail, etc., almost none can boast of systems anything like those to be found in most European cities. Second, our main line railroads should be electrified and improved to allow high-speed passenger trains. Again, almost every European country has electrified the majority of its rail network. And many countries have improved some of their lines to operate passenger trains at speeds of 125 to 200 mph.
Where to get the electricity? Mostly from nuclear power, altho low-pollution coal plants would also work.
A problem with some oil alternatives, such as oil from tar sands, and ethanol, is that they take a lot of energy to produce. In the case of ethanol, production is only commercially possible because of massive tax breaks and subsidies, which means that it is a misuse of financial resources. In the case of the tar sands, huge amounts of raw material have to be heated to release the oil from the matrix. At present the heat comes mostly from natural gas. and takes about 90% of the energy that is available in the oil produced -- a matter of robbing Peter to pay Paul. With more nuclear plants, electricity could provide the heat, leaving the natural gas for better uses.
at December 19, 2007 8:21 PM
Rudy remains unchanged over decades: a man of strong convictions who does not hesitate to act on them, no matter what others think.
In October 1995, he past the Arafat test with flying colors:
Arafat barged in into an international gala at Lincoln Center uninvited. He and his terrorists easily passed the front door security who did not dare to challenge them. But they did not get past Rudy. Before Arafat and his thug posse even made it to the seats they eyed for themselves, they were confronted by Rudy who called Arafat a terrorist and a murderer and told him to get out of there. This was at the time when the entire world was appeasing Arafat, one year after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Sociopaths Clinton and Albright treated him with highest state honors throughout their disgraceful administration, spending more time with him than with any other world leader, while treating the then-friendly Russia with contempt and neglect.
Rudy's predessessors Ed Koch and David Dinkins were so freaked out by Rudy's rudeness, they issued a joint statement to the media denouncing him.
We need Rude Rudy in the White House to restore honor and dignity to it and to the entire United States of America. We need Rude Rudy to unshackle the FBI, who currently even refuse to put "Islamic" and "terrorist" in one sentence, from the Political Correctness chains. We need Rude Rudy to identify the enemy, and then defeat him.
And when a Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal, who is aggressively buying into the centers of influence in the US, gave Rudy a $10 million check along with jihad propaganda, Rudy shoved the check and the propaganda right back in his royal face. Here's a candidate untainted by Saudi money or influence. No hand-holding walks here.
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 19, 2007 8:27 PM
monk:
Its not so much cowardice as it is fatigue and frustration. If you look back at comments over the past 6 months, you will see many comments touching on these points
Mitt used the word Jihad, Fred referred to appostates, Rudy telling the Saudi's to shove it, etc.
The only candidate willing to say anything about Islam per se (i.e. that Jihad has its roots in the Koran) is Tancredo, and word is that he is about to announce that he is no longer running.
Given the PC culture, the most we can realistically hope for at the moment is probably (1) a candidate who won't say stupid things like "religion of peace" and (2) secretly "gets it" but doesn't say anything publicly.
This dancing around the issue makes many of us jump to grand conclusions and strong reactions to candidates when the candidates make relatively minor pronouncements (using phrase Islamo-facism, mentioning appostates, etc.).
After 6 months or so of that, we kind of realize that no candidate is going to be Jihadwatch-caliber at least not outwardly.
Thus, the lack of response is not a sign of cowardice--it is a sign of fatigue and frustration.
Posted by: JSobieski at December 19, 2007 8:27 PM
Rudy remains unchanged over decades: a man of strong convictions who does not hesitate to act on them, no matter what others think.
In October 1995, he past the Arafat test with flying colors:
Arafat barged in into an international gala at Lincoln Center uninvited. He and his terrorists easily passed the front door security who did not dare to challenge them. But they did not get past Rudy. Before Arafat and his thug posse even made it to the seats they eyed for themselves, they were confronted by Rudy who called Arafat a terrorist and a murderer and told him to get out of there. This was at the time when the entire world was appeasing Arafat, one year after he was awarded the Nobel Prize. Sociopaths Clinton and Albright treated him with highest state honors throughout their disgraceful administration, spending more time with him than with any other world leader, while treating the then-friendly Russia with contempt and neglect.
Rudy's predessessors Ed Koch and David Dinkins were so freaked out by Rudy's rudeness, they issued a joint statement to the media denouncing him.
We need Rude Rudy in the White House to restore honor and dignity to it and to the entire United States of America. We need Rude Rudy to unshackle the FBI, who currently even refuse to put "Islamic" and "terrorist" in one sentence, from the Political Correctness chains. We need Rude Rudy to identify the enemy, and then defeat him.
And when a Saudi Prince al-Walid bin Talal, who is aggressively buying into the centers of influence in the US, gave Rudy a $10 million check along with jihad propaganda, Rudy shoved the check and the propaganda right back in his royal face. Here's a candidate untainted by Saudi money or influence. No hand-holding walks here.
Vote for Rudy and pray it is not too late.
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 19, 2007 8:29 PM
Sorry for the double-post. For some reason, I thought it did not post from the first try.
Posted by: Enragedsince1999 at December 19, 2007 8:33 PM
Robert,
I believe Huckabee might be the candidate who defines jihad in a clear way and will deal with jihad.
Huckabee says in the clip below "We also have to recognize there is a real threat to us with radical Islamic jihadism. Let's not kid ourselves, these are not people who want to make nice with us. Anybody who will kill their own children to get at you will kill your children too. That's just -- you gotta remember how serious this is. If you will strap a bomb to the belly of your own child and blow that bomb up in order to kill innocent people you don't know, then there is no limit to what you are willing to do to try to win your cause. And we underestimate the intensity in which these people are determined to take the lives of every last one of us. And it's not just Christians and Jews, even the moderate Muslims are on the target list because anybody who gets in the way of not being a part of establishing this Theocratic Utopia on earth is subjected to being annihilated. And understand that the heart of this movement goes all the way back to the seventh century, and these are patient people. We want our wars to be over in a thousand days they don't care if theirs take a thousand years or longer. Because it's not about how long it takes it's about the goal and the nonsense that I hear is that 'if we leave them alone they leave us alone" -- that's just a deadly recipe. And how are we going to fight this war. Well one of the things were going to do is that we are going to render the oil that they have irrelevant to our peace, safety, and future. I'm going to be the President, I promise you, that within ten years we're going to tell the Saudis we need their oil about as much as we need their sand..."
Here is a clip of video:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=M1HSO5UxRxo
Search about his stand on 2nd Amendment and other key issues.
Bill
Posted by: Bill at December 19, 2007 8:46 PM
Bill:
Huckabee has also made comments about the US acting "arrogantly". On foreign policy, he sounds alot like Jimmy Carter until only very recently.
Closest thing to a "blame America first" Republican if you ask me.
Posted by: JSobieski at December 19, 2007 9:30 PM
I generally agree with Robert's assessment of the current crop of candidates. I will be up-front and say none of the Dem's are even close to getting it and it looks like they will help the enemy win.
The way I think we should look at the candidates is to figure which one will get it the quickest and bring the full force of the US government and economy to bear. Like we did in WWII. I don't have a good handle on which one of them will figure it out first.
That is the kind of thread I would like the participate in. Most of the candidates have made statements of their views of Islam or what they did in the past. That is needed but extrapolatingthat into what he will do in the future is the trick.
Several have commented about the oil issue. I would like to see a candidate do something like Pres. Kennedy with the space program. Assign a goal and give a reason, simple. The bill that just pasted is micromanaging and big government telling the market what to do. The market has a better since on what can get us off oil that picking a mileage number in so many years.
Act 24:27
For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing, And their eyes they have closed, Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn, So that I should heal them.
قانون 24:27
لقلوب هذا الشعب قد نما ممل.
آذانهم يسمعون بصعوبة ، وعيونهم انهم قد اغلقت ابوابها ، خشية ان ترى عيونهم وآذانهم مع الاستماع ، خشية ان يفهم مع قلوبهم وبدوره ، بحيث انه ينبغي لي ان تلتئم لهم.
at December 19, 2007 11:58 PM
Mr. Spencer closed with a few policy prescriptions. He said that the U.S. government should undertake a new "Manhattan Project" to find alternative energy sources by putting the best brains in the nation to work on the problem. He also argued some of America's massive foreign aid budget is misspent, saying that in particular we should tie aid to Egypt and Pakistan to their willingness to work against the jihadists in their countries. Otherwise, Mr. Spencer said, "we're financing our own destruction."
Build fission plants now, and start a Manhattan Project for controlled fusion. There are at least two design schemes for fusion systems that have promise: the tokamak
and the http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606">late Robert Bussard's electrostatic/electromagnetic confinement design . Considering what we spend on energy only to have that money used against us, even at billions for a prototype plant, it would be a bargin.
The propaganda value of a highly publicized thermonuclear effort may drive down oil prices, just as Regan's Star Wars initiative helped the Soviet Union spend themselves into oblivion.
Posted by: RalphInfidel at December 20, 2007 12:16 AM
One more time:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606"> Robert Bussard's electrostatic/electromagnetic confinement design
at December 20, 2007 12:21 AM
Some of the GOP front-runners have been upfront about confronting Islam, albeit in ways different from what we like. Mitt openly talks about Jihad, and Rudy talks about radical Islam, and has the record to prove it - be it his expulsion of Arafat, or his return of that check to Talal. Tancredo is unmatched, but sadly, it looks like he's about to announce an end to his campaign.
However, with their deeds, Thompson, McCain & Huckabee have shown that they are untrustworthy on this subject. Thompson has Spence Abraham on his team, Huckabee has Ed Rollins - another pro-Islam character, and McCain, while talking about confronting Jihadists in Iraq by being the leading proponenet of the surge(something that has been shown here to be an inane policy), has also been the sponsor of the Jihadists bill of rights a.k.a. opposition to torture. Given that, these 3 deserve a solid thumbs down. Of the others - Duncan Hunter is the one who has been silent on this, while Ron Paul practically endorses Jihad.
Tancredo probably never had any chance, and given that he's now dropping out, Rudy or Mitt deserve our support. I'd like to see someone on the Dem side as well, but can't see anyone who does deserve our support.
Posted by: Infidel Pride at December 20, 2007 12:47 AM
Remember the expression "Deer in the headlights"? Unfortunately, that is a good description of our government and the politicians at the helm.
Robert is right about the timidity of the candidates. Of those clearly identifying the threat, it is Rudy G at #1 and Mitt R. at #2. The rest of them, especially the Democrats, are so far out of it that the tall grass they sought for cover is hiding them from us but not the boys with the curved knives.
The professional eco-maniacs and other watermelons have also cowed the politicians. That means drilling off Santa Barbara or Anwar isn't going to happen.
That Manhatten Project better include fuel conversion from sources such as trash. This is possible via the Fischer-Troph process that was developed about eighty years ago to get fuel oil out of coal. We are still paying for Carter's sins.
Posted by: JeromeFromLayton at December 20, 2007 12:49 AM
"Build fission plants now, and start a Manhattan Project for controlled fusion."
RalphInfidel;
How about clean burning coal and oil/gas plants, Hydro dynamic updates, Solar, Wind, Fuel Cell, Geo-thermal? This can be done, without the need for nuclear fission reactors. And done right now.
As you implied, fission needs no Manhattan project. Fusion is perhaps another 50-100 years away, a good possible research project. However, the time needed says it may be too far away as to be helpful.
At curent levels, islam's threat will outpace the time-scale needed, although fusion is somthing to look at and research.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 20, 2007 12:58 AM
Think about this. Very smart US and other country's sailors get into a metal tube and go under the oceans of the world with a nuclear power plant on board!
The technology to get off the oil 'nipple' is already here.
The will to do it is what is missing. It's called economics.
Every small town in America could have a safe small scale nuclear power supply If we want it.
I really don't have a clue as to the real attitudes of the candidates, since the media is manipulating this election to such an extent.
What we need is a grassroots internet 'debate' forum where CNN, et all gets sidestepped.
Hopefully the new movie coming out at Christmas about the black debate team taking on Harvard will remind the public what debate really is.
And the difference between debate and a press conference.
at December 20, 2007 6:28 AM
Ron Paul is a kook. I can't believe he or anyone would consider him a conservative or even a republican. Much less consider voting for him. What the hell is this guys game anyway? Is he trying to appear to be so far right that he wraps around to the left? I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for this nutjob.
Posted by: Abrog8 at December 20, 2007 9:33 AM
It appears that our presidential candidates are more concerned with their election results than the safety of the country they say they want to protect and serve. A catch 22; if they they are to bold, the media will blast them as being to radical, if they are to weak, most of us don't think they have the resolve to lead.
A very difficult problem indeed, my solution is to continue to be honest about the severity of this ongoing situation, and not become complacent
as Islam would enjoy.
Also, continue to educate the American people about how Islam's ideology works, "inaction' by us is "not" an option.
Islam has a history of allowing their own to say anything to "non-believers" until they are strong enough to rise up & conquer. Islamists only owe truth to believers "not" to infidels. Our Presidential candidates "must" understand this fact about Muslims and never forget this understated truth. As complicated as Islamic ideology may seem, it is really quite simple, and quite barbaric in nature.
Gaurding against the cancer(Sharia Law) within our USA is & must be a priority, we cannot allow cival rights to become a hinderence to our safety.We must use fairness and common sense, our next President must excel at both. Organizations, such as the ACLU must be defeated at all costs.
at December 20, 2007 1:54 PM
Islofob IS-1:
Fusion is perhaps another 50-100 years away, a good possible research project.
50 years away? Yeah, if we wait another 40 years to build the proof of principle plants.
Clean burning coal and oil/gas plants are good ideas that should be pursued. Fission is probably the cleanest high energy density power source immediately available. Fuel cells are energy storage technologies, not an energy generation technologies. Geothermal has geographical limitations, solar and wind have energy density issues that make them problematic for powering heavy industry.
Most of the essential physics of fusion have been known for the last fifty years. Usable surplus power generation from controlled fusion energy has always a problem of plasma confinement control, confinement vessel lifetime, and reactor scale; engineering problems that can be solved. The ITER program office claims its 500MW reactor design could be put on line in eight years for around $3 billion. If an international consortium thinks it can do this, we should be able twice as fast for half as much.
Bussard claimed to be able to build a proof of principle device, using a different confinement technique developed under a Navy contract, for around $200 million.
Here's some history of the ITER project, direct from the ITER site:
Please excuse the length of the "Short History".
Short History
While significant progress has been made with large fusion experiments around the world, most of which were constructed in the 80´s, it was clear from an early stage that a larger and more powerful device would be needed to create the conditions expected in a fusion reactor and to demonstrate its scientific and technical feasibility, and each of the fusion programmes around the world started to make their own design for it.
The idea for ITER originated from the Geneva superpower summit in November 1985 where Premier Gorbachov, following discussions with President Mitterand of France, proposed to President Reagan that an international project be set up to develop fusion energy for peaceful purposes. The ITER-project subsequently began as a collaboration between the former Soviet Union, the USA, the European Union (via Euratom) and Japan.
In 1988 the conceptual design work was started, followed in 1992 by engineering design. On July 21st, 2001, the ITER engineering design activities were successfully completed, and the final design report was made available to the ITER Parties. The design was underpinned by Research & Development work worth $650M, which was carried out by the ITER parties to establish the practical feasibility of the design.
The physics studies and technology developments on many fusion devices worldwide have provided a solid basis for predicting how an ITER scale plasma should behave. During the ITER engineering phase, key prototypical high-technology equipment, such as superconducting coils, remote handling systems, and high heat tolerant components, has been developed specifically and manufactured by industry and is now ready for production.
A number of changes have occurred in the Participants to the ITER project. Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Russian Federation took its place as ITER Party. The USA temporarily withdrew from the project in 1999, to return in 2003. Canada become a participant in negotiations in 2001 by proposing a site for ITER, but left the project at the end of 2003 when it was not selected. The People´s Republic of China and the Republic of Korea both joined the project in 2003, and finally India joined in December 2005.
Site selection
The process of selecting a location for ITER took a long time, and was finally successfully concluded in 2005. Canada was first to offer a site in Clarington, in May 2001. Soon after, Japan proposed the Rokkasho-Mura site, Spain offered a site at Vandellos near Barcelona, and France proposed the Cadarache site in the South of France.
Canada withdrew from the race in 2003, and the EU decided in November 2003 to concentrate its support on a single European site, for which the French site Cadarache was chosen. From that point onwards, the choice was between France and Japan. On June 28, 2005 it was officially announced that ITER will be built in the European Union, at the Cadarache site.
As part of the deal over the siting, it was agreed that Japan would provide 20% of the staff for the ITER project, and Europe would make a fifth of its procurements in Japan. In addition, the head of the project would be proposed by Japan, and Japan and Europe would work together on a "broader approach" including the other programmatic items which would be necessary to build a demonstration power plant in Japan after ITER, such as materials qualification, advanced plasma experimentation, plasma simulation, and the design team itself.
Current situation
The decision on where to site ITER allows the project to move towards its construction phase. Agreement has been reached on the sharing of the costs and the in-kind contributions to the project between the different Parties. The way is now open for the signing of a joint implementation agreement, which will allow the international ITER Organisation, based in Cadarache, to be established. This is expected to take place in late 2006, after initialling of the agreement in May 2006, which needs to be followed by ratification of the agreement by national parliaments for some governments.
The top management team of ITER has been named. The Director-General of the project will be Kaname Ikeda, formerly Ambassador for Japan in Croatia. The Project Construction Leader will be Dr. Norbert Holtkamp, a German, and former director of accelerator systems at the Spallation Neutron Source in Oak Ridge, USA. Current expectations are that the ITER Organisation should be established around the end of 2006, and following licensing, begin construction in 2008, with a view of obtaining the first plasma in 2016. This will be followed by an exploitation phase lasting about 20 years.
at December 20, 2007 2:05 PM
It appears that our presidential candidates are more concerned with their election results than the safety of the country they say they want to protect and serve. A catch 22; if they they are to bold, the media will blast them as being to radical, if they are to weak, most of us don't think they have the resolve to lead.
A very difficult problem indeed, my solution is to continue to be honest about the severity of this ongoing situation, and not become complacent
as Islam would enjoy.
Also, continue to educate the American people about how Islam's ideology works, "inaction' by us is "not" an option.
Islam has a history of allowing their own to say anything to "non-believers" until they are strong enough to rise up & conquer. Islamists only owe truth to believers "not" to infidels. Our Presidential candidates "must" understand this fact about Muslims and never forget this understated truth. As complicated as Islamic ideology may seem, it is really quite simple, and quite barbaric in nature.
Gaurding against the cancer(Sharia Law) within our USA is & must be a priority, we cannot allow cival rights to become a hinderence to our safety.We must use fairness and common sense, our next President must excel at both. Organizations, such as the ACLU must be defeated at all costs.
at December 20, 2007 2:05 PM
Those of us who appreciate the threat that is Islam - thanks to JW, et al., realize that we have minimal influence on our elected leaders to change their world views. Yes, it is a bit of fatigue and frustration that no matter what is shown in the media; the reports of children being used as suicide bombers by their own parents, young Christian children walking to school being brutally murdered, the riots in the streets over some cartoon, etc., and still, virtually none of of our "leaders" speak the truth about Islam. Every other religion, with maybe the exception of the Dalai Llama's Tibetan Buddhism, is an open, 24/7 target for ridicule and attack. Perhaps those of us who see through all the PC garbage are only preparing in our own private ways to defend ourselves because our governments are going to do nothing.
at December 20, 2007 2:34 PM
J Sobieski,
Regarding your post:
Bill:
Huckabee has also made comments about the US acting "arrogantly". On foreign policy, he sounds alot like Jimmy Carter until only very recently.
Closest thing to a "blame America first" Republican if you ask me.
Posted by: JSobieski at December 19, 2007 9:30 PM
Far far from Carter - more conservative than Reagan. View his videos on youtube. For example he is the only pol I've ever heard actually quote the Founders idea that not only was the 2nd Amendment for our protection of life and property but even for protection against a tyrannical government. Some of what Bush has done has been VERY ARROGANT such as calling Islam a religion of peace! Such as funding Hamas! Such as "how to create an insurgency" in Iraq the way his Sec Def had us go in with no plan to maintain what the war stopped - with practically forcing Iraqis to view us as occupiers - many arrogant mistakes beyond these. I'm sure you agree - you already said the surge was a failure. Search for Glenn Beck interview/videos with Huckabee for a starter. Huckabee is so far from Blame America first it is not even funny.
Bill
at December 20, 2007 3:26 PM
RalphInfidel, thanks for the info. Reading it I became curious as to why Clinton pulled us out.(please no innuendos) And why it took Bush 3 yrs to get us back in?
The best way to curtail our need for foreign oil would be to begin mass prodution of fuel cell vehicles. Just by changing the way we power our cars and trucks would put the largest crimp in foreign oil usage. Which would buy the time necessary to bring online new fission reactors, cleaner coal, and to bring fusion to fruition. After the concept reactor has been fleshed out of course. The other methods of power production, solar, wind, and geothermal are at best supplementary and don't lead to any significant reduction on foreign oil dependence. The average wind speed needs to be in the 10-14 mph range. The main problems with wind is NIMBYism and consistency. Solar needs an abundance of sunlight, easy in the desert but New England is SOL. Geothermal is rather expensive, exotic blends of metals are needed to coax any kind of longevity from the equipment. However, in those area that can support it, would be worth the price. While all these supplemental methods would contribute to the decrease in oil consumption, the auto and trucking industry should be the main target for change. It would be interesting to see how OPEC reacts. Would definitely put a crimp in their ability to spread their messages of "peace."
Posted by: Kevin at December 20, 2007 3:51 PM
Tancredo has endorsed Mitt Romney.
Posted by: alexon at December 20, 2007 5:35 PM
I heard a news sound bite from Tom Tancredo endorsing Mitt Romney. And he stated why, it made the reason he did so clear. Sad to see him step down, but he was clear why Mitt got his nod.
For me, Mitt has said much about islam, and the dems focus nearly 40% of their attack adds on him, the Huckster gets 3%. Looks like the Dems know who is a threat, who to target. Mitt is also from outside the federal government, thats change.
Ann Colter called Huckster the "J. Carter of the Republicans". Says it all.
Rudy has a lot of issues, to many for me to say he is the right guy. Secrets follow him, questionable ties, his statements and support for illegal aliens, his law firm's support work for the Mexico-Canada Nafta based superhighway, liberal Rino views, etc,etc.
I liked much of what he did during and shortly after the attacks, but would Rudy even be running, have a chance to, without 9/11? That may sound harsh, but I have little in the way of P.C.thinking and am looking at deeds, not promises.
Fred has much to say, a lot of it good, and D.Hunter also is solid on border issues.
Mitt is the best as of now, Fred and D.Hunter are also supportable. Unless new info comes forward, these three are about it.
Posted by: Islofob IS-1 at December 21, 2007 3:29 AM
RalphInfidel ;
Great post. Thanks for the data, will look into this. Remember, energy is never created, it just changes form.
Kevin;
Great post as well. A small addition, Solar produces every day, even in overcast conditions, but Wind requires moving air, dead calm and its NO power.
at December 21, 2007 4:06 AM
Kevin:
Reading it I became curious as to why Clinton pulled us out…..And why it took Bush 3 yrs to get us back in?
Both excellent questions… that we may never have answered.
Another benefit of fusion power is it's unsuitability for weaponization. It would be interesting to offer Iran proven fusion reactor technology on the condition they give up fission plants and their "peaceful" enrichment track. Refusal to give up fission plants for workable controlled fusion power generation would be a sure sign of their intentions to build atomic weapons. It's probably too late for Iran, but the same situation is bound to come up again and again.
at December 21, 2007 9:43 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: The Comments section is provided in the interests of free speech only. It is mostly unmoderated, but comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying stand a chance of being deleted. The fact that any comment remains on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch, or by Robert Spencer or any other Jihad Watch or Dhimmi Watch writer, of any view expressed, fact alleged, or link provided in that comment.)