#1
Remember the great soft drink spermicidal contest?
It concluded that the old wives tale of Coca-Cola as a spermicide was wrong, as was the use of most sodas, with the exception of Diet Coke, that was so lethal than it was almost on a par with commercial spermicides.
Safety and Security Minister Charles Nqakula didn't help the government's public relations effort when he recently suggested that people who whine about crime should just leave the country.
Thank you Charles, appears many are acting upon your suggestion.
As much as theyve snuggled and back-patted, as much as they act like dysfunctional father and bratty son, the death of the linchpin of Latin American Communism will probably be the best news Hugo Chavez has gotten since he met his useful anti-Bush idiot dream girl, Cindy Sheehan.
Because as much as the Venezuelan ruler spouts adulation for the Cuban social model and figureheads such as Che Guevara and Castro, they are the old revolution. Cuba is the isolated Communist island that has never squeezed itself out from under the thumb of the West, focusing most of its energy on weathering the U.S. trade embargo. Though Castro survived U.S. attempts on his life, like the CIAs famous exploding seashell, his famous tumble down the stairs in old age was a metaphor for his regime. Cuba became the floating prison from which thousands of influential American immigrant businesspeople, politicians, etc., hailed, and never has ceased to be the island from which citizens risk life and limb to escape. Whereas Castro envisioned that his Communist utopia would set the gold standard for the world, he has been handily upstaged by dissidents and exiles who have, over the decades, become poster children for the fundamental thirst for liberty.
Chavez sees this as old Communism, and he is the future. He is the Bolivarian revolutionary learning from his Communist forefathers mistakes save for the fundamentally-flawed-philosophy one and thinking beyond even his own Venezuela. He is quashing opposition, press and even clergy with such slick spin to successfully delude outsiders into believing that he is a humanitarian who has perfected socialism not the power-ravenous megalomaniac who claims even Jesus Christ was a socialist revolutionary.
Chavez fancies himself the cult of personality that will eclipse the long-fading allure of Castro; he fantasizes about being the larger-than-life leader who can unite even the most stubborn and independent Latin American countries into the United States of Hugo. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
08/01/2006 14:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
A free Cuba will transform the region and cut Chavez's Bolivaren stock to junk status. Nothing will paint communism in starked relief for the local than watching the billions pouring into post-Castro Cuba virtually overnight.
#4
Sad to say, I doubt it. I think Cuba will fall into chaos post-Castro, for many years. After all this time there is no civil society left, and the mental habits of the population aren't up to running a decent country.
Any returning exiles will just be another faction, or the financiers of various factions, like it or not.
Captain Ed writes in the Washington Examiner today, lamenting that the United Nations and the world community denounce every child killed by Israel, because they hold it to a high standard; no one bothers to denounce Hezbollah for endangering children, because it's what we have come to expect from terrorists.
I think he, perhaps unwittingly, hit on the key point in one of his closing paragraphs:
If the world wants to live without terrorism, it needs to stop enabling terrorists with disproportionate criticism of civilized nations that wage war within established limits. This soft nihilism of low expectations encourages non-state actors to engage sovereign nations, knowing that the world will not allow the nations to fight terrorism effectively.
Does "the world" really want to live without terrorism? To the extent that one opinion can be ascribed to the six billion or so people on the planet, and to judge from the actions of the nations of the world, I think the answer is no. The overwhelming attitude among many peoples and many nations including the United States is that terrorism somewhere far away isn't our problem.
Hezbollah launching rockets into Israel? As Ed notes, denouncing Hezbollah is so ineffectual and pointless that some commentators don't even bother to do it anymore.
Israel killing innocents in its hunt for Hezbollah? Notice that for all the denunciation you hear on the "Arab Street", no regime is actually willing to send troops to separate the two sides. They'll complain about what's going on, and denounce the IDF as terrorists, but they won't go as far as to actually risk anything. Not Egypt, nor Jordan, nor Saudi Arabia. Not the Gulf states. (Turkey is iffy; they're hinting they may send troops, don't want to lead the operation.) Even when Syria and/or Iran send men or arms to help out Hezbollah, they do so secretly. For all their hatred of Israel, they don't deem the Jewish state's "terrorism" as bad enough to risk outright war. They'll stick to the less difficult proxy war.
Bombs demolishing trains in Bombay? It was a one-day story.
A hundred civilians dying a day in Iraq from sectarian violence and lunatics blowing up car bombs in crowded markets? Eh, we're used to it. What did Mel Gibson do today?
Go down the list - Beslan, Madrid, the British consulate in Istanbul, the Jordanian hotel bombings, Bali, 9/11, the U.S.S. Cole, the Marine Barracks in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassy in Lebanon, the U.S. Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania... terrorists slaughter people, and only among the impacted community do you hear the response, "do whatever you have to do in order to eliminate the threat." Everywhere else, it's "this is terrible, but let's remember proportionality... Let's remember restraint. Let's not let this turn into an all out war."
Hell, one could argue that the United States is making the same argument to Turkey, regarding PKK terrorists who target innocents in Turkey and then retreat to Iraq.
At some point, some group - probably ethnic - that hides, sponsors, offers material support for, cheers on, or simply refuses to intervene against a terrorist group within its borders is going to pay the price when that terrorist group commits a devastating attack. It might be the Chechnyans. It might be the Kurds. It might be the Lebanese. I'm sure you can think of other potential cases.
At some point, a powerful nation is going to wipe out a smaller nation for not taking action to stop the terrorists in its midst in a manner that will make the U.S. toppling of the Taliban look like a pillow fight. The result will be bloody and awful; but we will not be able to say we didn't see it coming.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/01/2006 14:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At some point, a powerful nation is going to wipe out a smaller nation for not taking action to stop the terrorists in its midst in a manner that will make the U.S. toppling of the Taliban look like a pillow fight.
right. We haven't really started the mano y mano fighting yet. But once we do it will be bloody. These cowardly liberals who prevent reasonable actions from weeding out the bad guys early - as always- will cause millions of innocent to be killed. Stitch in time, as my dearly departed mother used to say.
#2
Totally agree - I thought we might see it with the Russians after Beslan, but for reasons that are beyond my mere divining, they didn't go postal. Sooner or later, it's going to happen, and the appeasers and moral relativists will have a huge amount of blood on their hands.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/01/2006 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
I learned today that is was Colin Powell and Cap Weinberger that talked Reagan out of destroying the Hellz Boolah after they killed our fine Marines, and that the French were ready to go too since they also lost 60+ paratroopers.But it was one of Reagan's regrets that he let them talk him out of it.
The moral: What you can do today, don't postpone till tomorrow. Or the price you pay may increase manifold.
#1
And terms of battle pressured Bush1 from taking Baghdad, in 1991. The Coalition needed Saudi bases and conditions were imposed to get them. Iran had half the population then, and the Russians were new friends. And Saddam had nothing but retreating deserters.
Hey! My surprise meter's working! It didn't even twitch at his name being connected to letting our enemies live!
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/01/2006 9:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I learned today that is was Colin Powell and Cap Weinberger that talked Reagan out of destroying the Hellz Boolah
Redemption is possible for past mistakes. We all make them. The beauty of democracy is that it can be self-correcting. Islamic countries have little room for self-correction as is evidenced by the islamofacists living in the 7th century. There is an opportunity today to correct the mistakes of the past. Go hard on the Hezzies. Destroy them and their ability to spread terrorism. Be hardline with the two-bit tin horn dictators of Iran, Syria, and North Korea. If we are not, we will repeat the mistakes of the past and have to live with these mistakes in the future. That is not the legacy to leave our children and our children's children.
#2
The U.N. is nought but an aggregation of totalitarians and transnational socialists. ITHO, the two things standing in the way of world socialist government are 1) private health care in the U.S., which allows Americans to be less dependent on their government than any other people in a developed country, and 2) private gun ownership by Americans, which acts as a check on government power unique in developed countries.
If you dig a bit, you can see how much effort from around the world is focused on eliminating these two situations, and how the U.N. is the lens focusing these efforts.
The U.N. should be booted from NY and moved to Brussels, and we should get out ASAP.
As an American, I will not suffer to be judged or regulated by dictators and socialists.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/01/2006 6:28 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"The U.N. should be booted from NY and moved to Brussels, and we should get out ASAP."
Better yet, why don't we just shut the damn thing down, period! Declare it in violation of its original charter, revoke all U.N. Diplomatic Immunity and arrest the fuckers. Prosecute!
This article just confirms what I have believed for some time now, the Muzzies are going to leave us no choice but to exterminate them.
By the time the majority reaches a consensus on this, I hope there are people with the backbone and means to carry it off.
#4
If I was in charge, I would declare the US was pulling out of the UN. All diplomatic immunities are revoked in one month's time, although new ones can be applied for through that diplomat's national embassy (don't fucking count on it being approved either). Funding would be immediately halted. All US troops in UN rolls would be sent to Iraq. The land the UN is on would be seized and the building bulldozed to the ground.
#8
The building needs to be demo'd, according to Donald Trump, and who knows NY real estate better than him?
I've thought for a while that the UN would do better by being located in a third-world capital somewhere. I like Dar-es-Salaam, though Lagos, Ascension, or Manila would work. It'd do the effete some good to see the third-world up close and personal, and why reward the diplomats of the thug-world with all expenses paid in NY?
Maybe Chittagong. Nah, the RAB would never tolerate it.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/01/2006 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#9
I was in it a number of times 94-96. It was a dump.
This is not to say that it will lose the war, or that the war was unwinnable to start with. But if it keeps going as it is, Israel is headed for the greatest military humiliation in its history. During the Yom Kippur War of 1973, Israelis were stunned by their early reversals against Egypt and Syria, yet they eked out a victory over these two powerfully armed, Soviet-backed adversaries in 20 days. The conflict with Hezbollah--a 15,000-man militia chiefly armed with World War II-era Katyusha rockets--is now in its 21st day. So far, Israel has nothing to show for its efforts: no enemy territory gained, no enemy leaders killed, no abatement in the missile barrage that has sent a million Israelis from their homes and workplaces.
Generally speaking, wars are lost either militarily or politically. Israel is losing both ways. Two weeks ago, Israeli officials boasted they had destroyed 50% of Hezbollah's military capabilities and needed just 10 to 14 days to finish the job. Two days ago, after a record 140 Katyushas landed on Israel, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told visiting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice he needed another 10 to 14 days. When the war began, Israeli officials spoke of "breaking" Hezbollah; next of evicting Hezbollah from the border area; then of "degrading" Hezbollah's capabilities; now of establishing an effective multinational force that can police the border. Israel's goals are becoming less ambitious while the time it needs to accomplish them is growing longer.
It is amazing how much can be squandered in the space of three weeks. On July 12, Israel sat behind an internationally recognized frontier, where it enjoyed a preponderance of military force. It had deterrence and legitimacy. Hezbollah's cross-border raid that day was widely condemned within Lebanon and among Arab leaders as heedless and provocative. Mr. Olmert's decision to respond with massive force enjoyed left-to-right political support. He also had a green light from the Bush administration, which has reasons of its own to want Hezbollah defanged and which assumed the Israelis were up to the job.
But it seems they are not up to the job. The war began with a string of intelligence failures: Israel had lowered its alert level on the northern border prior to the raid; it did not know that Hezbollah possessed Chinese-made antiship missiles, one of which nearly sank an Israeli missile boat off the coast of Beirut; it was caught off guard by the fierce resistance it encountered in the two Lebanese villages it has so far attempted to capture. Such failures are surprising and discouraging, given that Israel has been tracking and fighting Hezbollah for nearly a quarter-century.
Harder to understand is a military and political strategy that mistakenly assumes that Israel can take its time against Hezbollah. It cannot. Israel does not supply itself with precision-guided bombs; it does not provide its own cover at the U.N. Security Council; it does not have 130,000 troops at risk in Iraq of an uprising by Moqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. It should be immensely worrying to Israel's leaders that Iraq's Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is calling for an immediate cease-fire. Ayatollah Sistani--unlike, say, Kofi Annan--is the sort of man who can get George W. Bush's ear.
Israelis have compounded that mistake with an airpower-based strategy that, whatever its virtues in keeping Israeli troops out of harm's way, was never going to evict Hezbollah from southern Lebanon, just as airpower alone did not evict Saddam from Kuwait in 1991. The law of averages, however, guaranteed that over the course of 5,000 bombing sorties one bomb (or two or three or four) would go astray.
Last night in Tel Aviv, Mr. Olmert delivered another blood, tears, toil and sweat speech; the Israeli cabinet later approved a stepped-up ground war, the scope of which remains to be seen. Meanwhile, Ms. Rice left Jerusalem for Washington with a different idea: "I take with me an emerging consensus on what is necessary for both an urgent cease-fire and a lasting settlement. I am convinced we can achieve both this week."
Timelines are colliding here; agendas may follow. Israel has a prime minister who talks tough. What remains to be seen is whether he can act fast.
#1
So the WSJ editorial board is openly shilling for Hezbollah now. Those who write for the WSJ oped board can't possibly be stupid enough not to realize that's the impact of this piece.
#2
Yeah, Bret Stephens, formerly of the Jerusalem Post is openly shilling for Hezb'Allah. I think he realizes the impact of this article is to give Olmert and Paretz a swift kick in the pants, because that is what they need. Even though Perets makes it clear that we aren't allowed to criticize.
There is no case to be made that Israel is winning this war, only that Israel has not yet lost it and still has time to win if it gets its act together.
#3
Bret Stephens made some unfortunate remarks at the Davos meeting around the time that Eason Jordan was exposed. He's been 'moving and shaking' with the big money, i.e. Soros and the Saudis, for some time now.
#4
Yup, and I dumped on him here for it and his cute dinner with the German diplomat. But that doesn't mean he's in the tank for Hezb'Allah or that this analysis is incorrect.
Once again, it looks as if another Western nation (if I may be allowed to classify Israel as Western) utterly lacks the will to take out the big hammer.
Somewhere in the first couple of chapters of On War, Clausewitz tells us there are only two ways to defeat your enemy: physically annihilate him or break his will to fight. So far, it appears the Israelis aren't attempting either path.
#6
NS, you're right - it doesn't mean he's wrong. What I worry about is that NONE of the western countries seem willing to actually fight for our won cultural, economic and political survival in the face of these classic ongoing attacks by barbarian tribes at our edges.
#7
I agree, dreadnaught. But I also worry about the fact that so many are wanting Israel to do what we ALL need to be doing. I've been in Israel - it's about the size of New Jersey, folks. That's it. Time for the bigger countries either to step up to the plate or admit they are surrendering.
#8
Just for the sake of argument, lets just imagine for a moment a worst case scenario, and the goat boinking tribes of Allan actually defeated Israel. If a Dunkirk rescue effort were to unfold, please name if you will, the nations that would provide transport, sanctuary, and citizenship.
#11
Another thing I have talk to everybody that I know of around my neighborhood even the Bush haters and all have said that Israel needs to put a deep smack down on the hizzys.
#12
What gives with this defeatist claptrap of late? Does anyone remember how Israel was caught off guard in the opening days of the Yom Kipur War in Oct. 1973?
For an upbeat assessment that includes links to the pessimists, see here. Check for periodic updates and chuck the negativity BS.
I'm with you 100%. It's hard to get folks in the USA to understand the seriousness of this, but in a country where the rockets are literally raining down, I thought that sheer self-preservation would kick in and get the Israelis to fight in a serious fashion. Attriting rocket lauchers is fine, but Hizb Allah will just get new ones.
Of course, it is possible that these yahoos are such fanatics that the only way to break their will IS to literally annihilate them (a la Japan 1945).
#14
What gives with this defeatist claptrap of late?
Nothing is wrong with defeatist claptrap if someone is being defeated. Do you think Israel is winning?
And Israel is not being defeated on the battlefield. It appears that Israel is defeating itself because it has a political leadership that adopts a strategy d'jour...or two.
And the consequences for Israel and for us of their defeat will be monumental. We need to do everything we can to prevent it. And so does the Israeli leadership.
Israel can win this thing. Easily. If their political leadership has the will. They appear not to. That's why leaders get tested early and why 2009 will not be a pleasant year, whoever wins in the previous November.
It's one thing to encourage as Horowitz did today and another to shill as this article does. The folks at the WSJ oped understand exactly what they are doing.
#19
I don't think NS is being defeatist, just pessimistic. A trait I share at this point.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/01/2006 12:44 Comments ||
Top||
#20
pessimistic is fine, and prudent.
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/01/2006 13:01 Comments ||
Top||
#21
People whose job is to track financial markets fully understand the consequences of this type of pessimism in the op ed of an American paper.
Translate this to high school. "This is not to say that Miss Popular WILL lose the title of homecoming queen, but if she keeps eating like she did yesterday,s he is headed for the greatest public humiliation in history.
#22
NS has a point about Israel's political will and the PR defeat she is suffering from of late.
However, anyone who thought world opinion would side with Israel is whistling past a graveyard.
As for taking the gloves off, exactly. It is basically the USA, UK, Israel, possibly India, Australia, and Japan (and throw in a few Eastern European nations) against the Islamist-Fascists and their enablers among the Leftist-besotted nations and communities, including our own Leftists.
#23
The world was prepared to let Israel have its way with Hezb'Allah after the kidnappings. It was a PR victory at that point. If they'd turned in victories, they'd still have the edge in the PR battle. But they didn't and Hezb'Allah capitalized with that manufactured Cana incident under the direction of Mr. Green Helmet. It is this wasted opportunity that has made me so upset.
#24
What's interesting is that TradeSports doesn't even have a market going on any of this, unless I missed it in a quick check. They had markets during the Iraq invasion. People aren't sure anymore how serious any of this is, I think.
Now, there isn't the groundswell of pushback against the Islamacists I would like to see. OTOH, people are beginning to realize this isn't Grenada or the Brits vs. Argentina on a windswept island, either. I think it's going to have to get very bad and overt before public opinion will rise up against Islamacist agression (including how they've taken over e.g. many aspects of the UN).
#25
"Israel can win this thing. Easily. If their political leadership has the will."
Easily??? Nimble, respectfully I disagree? To say that Hezbollah is a formidable opponent is a colossal understatement. Furthermore, politically speaking, it will be impossible to end this conflict with any perceived humiliation on either side. No amount of will can erase that fact. IMO, given all the other complexities, that makes it the exact opposite of easy.
#26
I don't share the pessimism. Do you really think that these rampaging backwater monkeys who don't have anything to offer except hate, anger, blame, murder, and false belief in a KKK like superiority are going to do anything other than just get a bunch of people killed for no purpose whatsoever?
Here's an article to burst the pessimistic bubble. grownups meet
Remember, survival is an instinct. Israel is starting to act in terms of survival and so will we.
#27
A formidable opponent with no artillery, no air, no armor? Sure they have well laid out positions and tunnels and training and, you're right, it won't be easy. But neither should it be terribly difficult, nor should the outcome have ever been in question as it now is.
#28
pshaw. How is it in question? Has Israel stopped worrying about civilians yet? Has it used NBC's? Then they haven't lost yet. This isn't the 20th century anymore. Israel is fighting for survival and I'll bet Fred's tip jar that the Israelis won't just lay down and die. History's on my side - not yours. Pick up a Bible now and again and you might get a better clue what they are capable of.
#32
I told you so. The problem is the Israel Political and Military department(just hearing the quotes from Halutz seems he is kid bragging but dont delivering).
This reached this stage starting with Rabin/Peres if you know MEMRI is from an Intelligence officer that got out protesting the delusional kumbaya vision that were propagated. Then came Barak and the retreat from buffer zone a self inflicted defeat, a treason to many Lebanese, emboldened Hizb and was a loss of inteligence assets. Then Sharon trading 400 prisioners for 3 death soldier bodies and one apparently corrupt Israeli and
Gaza retreat without any agreement.
This was supported by the majority of media establishment and Israel vote.
This is why i say that the problem is much more deep than just Olmert and the squezzed Peretz.
#33
That's a fair point, anon. I may have to eat my hat on this one, but I'm just not sniffing any weakness on Israel's resolve. To the contrary - I'm not going to be surprised if they smash on through.
Lot's of folks and the entire MSM counting on them not having the will. No matter how many people tell me it's true, I'm just not seeing that.
#34
The article makes the same points I and others were making over the past weeks. So just because the author has been repeatedly wrong in the past, doesn't mean he cannot be dead-on for once. "stopped clock" and all that applies.
1) You cannot expect this to go with airpower only. Ground units needed to be involved from day one in deep actions across Hezbollah's defense zone. Israel's political leadership did not do this, assumed they could use airpower only, pinprick assaults on the ground and keep casualties to a minimum. This is probably a residual effect of the "peace protester" mentality of the DM and PM and the last actions in Lebanon of the IDF - their "Vietnam". Now they are paying for their timidity with rocket attacks on their citizenry, and their troops will be battling and dying in larger number than had they acted earlier and more decisively.
2) You need to strike with Force Majeure - that is, to hit extremely hard at the weakest point of the enemy. Israel's political leadership has put troops in piecemeal, and wasted the impact they could have had. Read FM 100-5 or the USMC similar field manual on Operational Combat.
3) Telling the truth isn't defeatist - its the only way to victory. And truth is truth no matter where you find it. Unpopular opinions and analyses, if they are well formed and well informed, are the most valuable but usually the hardest to accept. I agree that Israel had some major intelligence failures - but the worst failure of all was the failure of the political leadership to command the military to act decisively and hit hard while it would have had immense impact.
4) Time is NOT on Israel's side. They needed to do a 48-72 hour prep from the air to isolate and degrade Hez forces, interdict the supply lines, etc. Then launch a massive invasion - including recon-in-force up to the Litani in places. This would "stampede the herd" as it were, and completely disrupt Hezbollah. Instead, they have allowed time and space for Hezbollah to reform and regroup repeatedly, and the lack of direct ground troops has lead to the civilians staying put to hide from airstrikes instead of fleeing the advance of an armored column (far more humane than dying as Hezbollah human shields in Israeli air attacks).
5) Indecisiveness. Israel squandered the opportunity by hesitating and doing things in fits and starts instead of acting in a decisive and forceful manner. The hokey-pokey with the occupation of Hezbollah towns, the inability to decide to clear a deep security zone along the border, the on-and-off air campaign, the lack of counterbattery capability, the call up of cadre but not combat troops...
It all smacks of martial incompetence on the part of the political leadership of Israel. They have squandered too many opportunities - the chance for a decisive strategic victory is slipping away, surely as the sun sets on every additional delayed day in the campaign. Only heroics and blood of the troops of the IDF and some bold actions by the military leadership can salvage this.
I told you this a while back and it still stands: a decisive ground campaign from Tyre to the Golan along the Litani will be the only way for Israel to achieve victory. Had they done that in the second week of the conflict, it would be over with by now.
Call me defeatist? Go ahead. But I challenge you to come up with a better interpretation in light of all the warnings and predictions made that have been on the money so far. Politicians and others may want to spin this a different way, but anyone that is tasked with the defense of their nation and the blood of their troops would be pretty pissed with the results so far, were they to be put in the position of an Israeli military commander. Yes they have accomplished some things and are starting to cover the ground - but not nearly as much as they could have and should have.
Israel must follow through, and the political leadership must learn the lessons they were taught early in the conflict, eternal military lessons that every military knows but politicians seem to repeatedly forget.
Surprise. Concentration. Tempo. Audacity.
Alternately, in the immortal words of Nathan Bedford Forrest:
"Get there first-est with the most-est"
Notably Israel has achieved none of these - no surprise, spread operations preclude concentration/impact of forces, tempo has been lethargic and sporadic on the ground and sporadic in the air, and they have shown little audacity in operations.
I had more to say but need to get back to the job.
#35
I'd agree Olmert has said the right things fairly consistently. It just hasn't been backed up by others like Peretz and Kaplinski and the evolution of action has been pretty slow. I certainly hope the train is now on the tracks and rolling. We all need a big victory and lots of dead Hezbers.
#37
Don't forget that all of the same was said about Iraq - much of it true. We should-have/could-have done lots of things differently - but the end result is that Saddam will hang and there is a democracy in Iraq.
I've been taken astray from my original point. It's one thing for rantburg members to post concerns, etc - but quite another for the WSJ op-ed to feed the hopes of the jihadis that the western world will lose their will. What happens, is it gives them false hope that they can just keep killing us and we will not have the will to fight back. It's bad because it is not true. When pushed far enough we will fight and we will fight to win. The war in Iraq would have been over a year ago with lots fewer dead if they MSM hadn't kept that hope alive in their deranged brains. What will happen is that they will keep pushing and each time we will become a little more ruthless and a little less civilized as we fight back. One step at a time - we will lose our patience and the end result will be more bloodshed than was necessary if we nipped it in the bud early on. 60 million dead in WWII. 50+ thousand killed at Gettysburg in ONE DAY. The idea that the Americans or Jews are just going to allow ourselves to be terrorised by these barbarians is not correct. It's time to make that clear to these terrorists so they can begin to grasp what will happen when they finally push too far. I agree that the political will is lagging right now, but a few more big terrorist attacks and eventually we'll get into the survival mode. Don't kid yourself that we won't.
#38
I agree 2b - the bleatings of the MSM, the apologists for Western Civilisation and other fifth columnists are limiting the options that we have to stop this.
When the next big terrorist attacks occur, all that's going to be left is the mediaeval response. Someone really ought to point this out to the people that are going to be at the sharp end of that response...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/01/2006 18:11 Comments ||
Top||
#39
apologist (n.)
A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution
#40
2b - Check your figures. Only 5000 KIA at Gettysburg in 3 days. Think your WWII numbers are off, even including civilian deaths. Casualties != Deaths.
Oldspook - I think a reason for the lack of a grand advance here is that the strategic need is different. The IDF doesn't want to bypass Hezbollah as they would a regular army - they need to kill as many of the terrorists as possible. Breaking up the units means the cadres can reform. Remaining in contact bleeds them white. The longer they stay in position in the south, the more losses they take.
#41
Check the map. Israel forces from Kyriat Shmona and other localities near western Golan could have advanced West to cut Hizb and another pince will reach near Tyre and move East. Then another towards Bekaa. This is what were done in 1982 except that the Tyre force went to Beirut.
#42
You know people, I was sure that the Oslo accords are the end of Israel. All these "strategic/tactical" analyzes are a pile of bull. Even if the desired results are not accomplished now, Arabs will provide us with another opportunity. The only important thing is that Israel no longer afraid of collateral damage.
#44
I admit I were puzzled by the Israeli leadership somewhat, and understand OS concerns. But there are some factors that may shed some light on the Israeli strategy.
1. Israel has been caught by a surprise. They neglected intelligence in the past several years as the HA is concerned--mainly the HA prep of the battlefield and logistics. I think they expected a different stratagem played by Iranian puppet masters and their intel was directed more in that direction. Not saying that Iran won't pull a fast one, yet, I think their strategy has several facets and HA attack was only the first card in the deck.
2. The previous 2 weeks, beside attacking the "hot" targets, were spend on gathering the intel needed for ground offensive. That means weapons delivery points in specific locations and the entry/exit points of underground structures. If the ground offensive started without previous mapping of these locations, the price paid may have been too high.
3. The Qana incident was a PR disaster for Israel, at least in the short term, but gave a pretext for announcing a break in aerial bombardment. The usage of terms "aerial activity" was a master move, because the enemy may have interpreted it as they wanted to and disregard their security while trying to resupply. I think Israel got the data it needed to start the ground offensive without going blindly into many traps HA prepared in the last 6 years.
To a degree, one can say that Israelis "muddled through" up to this point and were rather reactive than proactive. But the blank spots in the intel had to be bridged over--to put in place an effective millitary strategy to crush the HA scourge.
#45
Figures as soon as I say they lacked audacity, they finally show some. And re: US in Iraq - there was certainly a lot of audacity and operational surprise shown early on, and a fast op-tempo, which was lost when Bremer and his guys decided to sit on thier hands instead of immediately declaring and enforcing martial law and dragooning the old army into service. So early bold and hard moves are no guarantee of a hard and lasting victory.
Sometimes you just have to grind.
Don't take my comments on Israel as being completely pessimistic: there is still room for major victory, but its going to be a harder than it would have been earlier; the opportunities were far better.
The good thing is that Israel seem to, in cavalry terms, have found their "seat". Now if they can push the tempo, and keep sharp jabs coming at Hezbollah to keep them off balance while Israel goes after their logistics (Bekaa) and leadership - they can pull off a major win.
There are other things afoot that will come to light soon as well.
As far as current action, they mirror the ones I called for in a post here a while back. There are a few key roads and chokepoints that Israel needs to hit, and the launchpoints and targets are pretty obvious to someone that analyzes the map, and plots the Hezbollah hardpoints against roads and villages.
The world is presently at its most wicked. It is beyond human help. It requires only a nudge to implode and prepare for the divine ruler, the Saheb-ul-Zaman (the Mahdi, the Lord of the Age) to come and set it aright. It is the sacred duty and privilege of every Muslim to do all he can to hasten the death of the old world and the birth of the global Islamic Ummeh. Thus goes the thinking of Irans ruling mullahs and their hand-picked president Mahmood Ahmadinejad.
It seems like the old millennialism thinking, a belief held, in one version or another by major religions. Indeed it is, with one terribly alarming difference. This time around, a group of believers with tremendous resources are intent upon forcing the issue, making the conditions so dire that it leaves the reluctant Saheb-ul-Zaman no choice but to appear and assume his universal reign. The belief in supernatural intervention to set the world aright is scriptural to major religions, including Islam. The Jews have been earnestly supplicating the Lord for the Messiah to come; the Christians are impatiently awaiting the second coming of Christ; and, the Zoroastrians are convinced that Saoshayant is the one who shall come, defeat the trouble-making AhrimanSatanand make the creatures again pure.
Up to this point millennialism was a belief and a hope. No one ever aspired to or had the means of making the anticipated events come about. The matter was in the hands of God. The Muslims perennial prayer recited every day, posted in mosques and even on bumpers of vehicles has been, O, Saheb-ul-Zaman, hasten your coming. The prayer for the advent, thus far, has been limited to passive supplications of the faithful.
It is a well-established fact that beliefs are potent impetus to action. If you believe your home is about to be burglarized, you secure the house and take other precautions. If you, under the influence of cocaine, believe that a bug is burrowing into your skin, you may take a knife to your own body and try to dig the imaginary bug out.
Hence, it is shortsighted to dismiss the mullahs as a bunch of lunatics who are out of touch with reality and that they have no intention of doing catastrophic mischief to compel the Mahdis coming. Maybe some arming of the Iraqi Shiites, a little support for Hizbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Palestinebut no, no major idiocy. After all, they are rational people and in touch with reality. Any large scale troublemaking spells their doom as well. Thus goes the rationalizationthe greatest risky tranquilizer of the mind.
Rationalization, compounded by complacency and denial, can be deadly, particularly when the adversaries have different realities. To the fanatic mullahs ruling Iran Sahaeb-ul-Zaman is an absolute reality and his promised advent is irrevocably ordained. This is their reality and their belief and they have every intention of leading their life according to them.
It is foolish for the non-Muslims to dismiss the mullahs and the Bin Ladens as a bunch of fringe lunatics who are going to go away simply by wishing it. The Islamist reality is that the non-Muslims are the ones who deserve to be done away with; they are the ones who have refused to submit to the summons of Allah for much too long; and, it is time for the faithful to get rid of them. This makes for a lopsided contest. The non-Muslims are passively wishing that the nightmarish surge of Islamism is only a temporary fringe phenomenon doomed to die on its own, while the other side is marshalling its huge destructive power to accomplish its aim by eradicating the non-Muslims.
The cabal of fanatical mullahs ruling Iran has lost its patience, not only with the unbelievers, but also with the Mahdi as well. They aim to force his arrival. The mullahs believe they have the means to make it impossible for the Mahdi to tarry any longer by causing unprecedented death and destructionconditions deemed essential for his coming. The world must hit the very bottom, before the Savior of the world comes to the rescue, so they firmly believe.
The question is: What does prudence demand? Clearly wishing the problem to go away is not a very effective solution in the same way that wishing for the Saheb-ul-Zaman to come has not been. Reasoning and negotiating with the mullahs and their ilk hold very little, if any, lasting promise. There are always the easy ways of denial and appeasement. We are very good at both practices. No, the Muslims have been around for ages. They make some troubles from time to time. But they really are not all that bad and dangerous. Well get along. If we have too, well even let them live by the Shariatheir stone-age laws in our midst. Well be reasonable and they will come around. Well just have to get along. So goes the line.
One problem: The other side doesnt think this way. The Islamofascists dont believe in the notion of Live and let live. They believe that the earth is Allahs and it has been sullied by the heathens, the unbelievers and the kafir for far too long. Now that they have the means, they aim to make the world to their design and bring about the final solutiona nasty reminder of not too long ago Nazism.
Is this alarmist, or even hatemongering? You dont believe Muslims can be that intolerant and hostile toward non-Muslims and that theyll never go to the extremes? You know Muslims personally in your neighborhood or your work place and they are nice people? The nice Muslims you personally know are presently small minorities in alien lands. They have to be nice, and they may indeed be nice. Yet, when the main force of Islam surges forward, these nice folks will either have to join it or be swept aside like the rest of the resisters.
The concern is not with individual Muslims who live as solid citizens in democratic societies. They may have developed a taste for the freedom democracy bestows or have simply learned to tolerate it. Our concern is with the gathering Islamic storm from the heart of Islamdom. To truly appreciate Islam, you must experience firsthand Islam in power. Take a quick trip to the lands of the Muslims and find out for yourself how horribly they treat the non-Muslims, even the, People of the book, Jews and Christians. Try to have a Bible study group or build a church in Saudi Arabia and discover the benevolence of Islamic rule.
The world is a laboratory where the experiment with Islam shows irrefutable results. To the extent that Islam rules any society, that society is stagnant, backward thinking, repressive and violent. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents the cutting edge for the newly petrodollar invigorated Islam. It is determined to complete its task of ending the world of Dar-ul-Harbthe non-Muslim world to be warred uponand establishing the Dar-ul-Solh, or Dar-ul-Salamthe Muslim world of the Ummeh under the rule of the Mahdi. If achieving this aim hinges on the conflagration of the Third World War, the mullahs are happy to make it happen
Hat tip African Crisis; see below for the site owner comments, in bracket. [I am an admirer of Horrowitz. Since he was a communist insider himself, in the USA, he understands how communists and their terrorist buddies work. He knows their psychological tactics. He is quite correct in asserting that all this damned PACIFISM is going to lead to defeat. Its not defeat in the traditional sense... it is defeat through being too weak willed to fight a deceitful enemy. The enemy then gets to prepare and he'll be on the attack again...
I am delighted that so far, the war goes on, and each day that it carries on is good. I don't want to see a cease fire. Let the Israelis sock it to the terrorists.
I note that quietly, the US Forces in Iraq have increased because deaths there are double what they were in January 2006. Clearly the new Iraqi Govt can't hold them off.
I hope the Israeli war can carry on for much longer - months if need be. I hope the morons like Condi Rice and the Political Left are unable to bring about a cease fire soon. What these bastards need... these terrorists... is to be killed outright.
In Rhodesia and South Africa, surrender to the terrorists was the wrong thing... but a stupid Western world foisted that on us. I hope that with the USA and Israel getting ever more embroiled in these festering wars in the Middle East that eventually some kind of common sense (or DESPERATION) will prevail and people will realise that these wars will never go away until they are fought to the logical conclusion.
Look at the Gulf War in 1991. Did Americans learn NOTHING? Learn from that. The good American General, socked the living crap out of Saddam's troops, and the US Army was on the verge of slaughtering ALL OF THEM... when the idiots on high decided to stop the war. That was one of the dumbest moves ever. Now... 15 years later... the USA is still fighting in Iraq.
Some scumbags... just need to be killed. Its that simple. Until you blow their brains out... they won't stop with their nonsense. But I watch as the quagmire of war in the Middle East grows... and it will continue to grow until the idiots at the top start thinking in BOLD and DECISIVE TERMS. But then... to achieve that... you must not get all soppy... and start crying over the poor dead terrorists. You may need to leave fields and cities full of the DEAD behind you as you fight your way forward. If the leaders continue to wimp out and continue to be wishy washy... the slow killing will go on - for decades if need be. Western leaders currently are only prolonging the suffering of everyone by lacking the backbone to fight these scum without giving quarter. Remember Churchill? "We shall fight them on the beaches, and in the streets..."? That's what you need... to fight THEM without giving quarter... to strike fear into their hearts... to never let up until they are smashed to a pulp and they cannot recover from it. This is how you win wars, and how you bring about a TRULY LASTING PEACE! All other strategies are just a complete waste of time, and will only lead to even greater suffering for everyone concerned. Jan]
By David Horowitz
The United States and Israel and every sentient being in the path of the Islamist crusade are teetering on the brink of a massive defeat in Lebanon and thus in the war on terror. Lest it be forgotten, this is a war that began with the Ayatollahs revolution in Iran in 1979 which established the first radical Islamic state whose masters war cry was Death to America and the establishment of a global Islamic empire. Nearly thirty years later, Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons and its imperial war is now being waged on Irans Lebanese frontier by its Hezbollah proxy. One month into the fighting which began with the attacks by Hamas and Hezbollah on the state of Israel, the scenario for the Wests defeat in this phase of the war is quite obvious and quite simple.
The appeasers of Islamofascism, who have been calling for a ceasefire and bewailing civilian casualties in Lebanon and Gaza, will succeed. Hezbollah will agree to turn over its arms to the pro-Hezbollah Lebanese army. The pro-Hezbollah UN will establish a security zone on Lebanons southern border to keep the area clear of non-government militias, of which the Hezbollah militia is the only one. The credulous in the Western camp will greet this as a victory for the peacemakers. But exactly the opposite will be the case.
According to a recent poll in Lebanon eighty percent of the Lebanese Arabs support Hezbollah. In other words, just as Hamas, which was created by the same Muslim Brotherhood that spawned al-Qaeda, is now the Palestinian government, so Hezbollah will emerge as the government of Lebanon. The Lebanese army will become the new Hezbollah militia. Only it wont be a militia. It will be the terrorist army of a sovereign power, with the right to openly negotiate its arms deals with Syria and Iran. The next battle with Iran, in other words, will be World War III.
In fact, the next battleground in the spread of Shiia fascism is already in progress and aflame. It is Iraq, where Irans Shiia armies are already in the field under the command of the sheik of Sadr City, the America-hating cleric Moqtadar al-Sadr. Al-Sadr, it should be noted, is alive and in the field because the appeasers in this country, beginning with the Democratic Party but extending into the Bush State Department, stymied the first battle of Fallujah and the Bush offensive generally when al-Sadr was trapped in Najaf and could have been killed and his militia destroyed. The Bush administration had to delay the Fallujah attack until after Kerrys defeat in the November 2004 elections in order to avoid the political complications that would have attended the battle in the midst of an election campaign. By then Sistani had staged a "peace march" and going after Sadr was off the table.
But the first battle of Fallujah is only one of many defeats inflicted by the appeasers and abettors of Islamic imperialism in the West. The aid to the enemy within the Western camp has taken many forms, beginning with the hysterical and reckless attacks on the commander-in-chief of Americas forces as a liar and murderer, and the source of the terror that the Islamists create. Are there terrorists in Iraq? There were none there before George Bush created them. Is Hezbollah a Nazi army? Its because the Jews occupied Palestinian lands. Of course, this is two lies in one. All Israeli occupation is the product of four aggressive Arab wars against Israel. When Israel withdraws as in Lebanon it is attacked. The source of the terror in Lebanon, as in Iraq, is to be found in the Koran and in the despotisms of the Arab Middle East. But the appeasement camp cannot face the reality that its enemy is implacable and its hatred uncaused by anything its targets Jews, Christians, infidels have done.
The division of America is the greatest threat to our ability to prevail in the War on Terror and the Left knows this and is incited by it. America is not divided enough for the American Left, which is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies.
Those who in the midst of these wars clamor for ceasefires with an implacable foe, those who call for withdrawals that would leave sovereign states in the hands of the terrorist forces, those who decry civilian casualties caused by the only forces in this war who do not target civilians, those Blame-America-Firsters who exploit the Abu Ghraibs on our side and not their atrocities, those whose hysterical fear of the conflict we face takes the form of pathological denial and projects the rabid hatred of the enemy for us onto our own commander in the war, are destined to have a lot to answer for before this conflict is over.
"The division of America is the greatest threat to our ability to prevail in the War on Terror and the Left knows this and is incited by it. America is not divided enough for the American Left, which is now in full purge mode in Connecticut, where it is attempting to bring down the one statesman in the Democratic Party who might re-unite this country in the face of its enemies."
How was your week? I spent mine with Randi Rhodes, Stephanie Miller, and Al Franken, and it was fabulous. No, really. I stumbled on the local progressive talk station last week, and the commentary left my jaw on the floorboard of my car so often, I couldnt manage to turn the station. My jaw was actually in the way of the radio dial.
Maybe thats the business model. Pack the airwaves with enough crazy and listeners find themselves unable to escape. I learned many things this week.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I've read stuff by Mary Katherin Ham before, and she was sane, lucid, and quite logical. Now I'm worried about her, LOL. The article is very funny, but I think she's gonna need an industrial-grade scrub-down - steel wool I think - to bring her back to full functionality.
You know you're in for a wild ride when Franken, who's now stumping for some Senate seat or something equally inane, is the realtive voice of reason.
Sheesh, this was supposed to "make it" on the air?
#2
Maybe thats the business model. Pack the airwaves with enough crazy and listeners find themselves unable to escape.
Heh! The reason Howard Stern is successful is because their target audience enjoys weighty topics such as flatulation and Lesbian sex. Even high-profile sponsors are ambivalent to adolescent messages delivered in a vulgar format as long as it sells. Air Americas topics tend to attract their own unique demographic. That might explain why their local-spots sponsors in every market mainly consist of Head-shops, Used-record outlets, and Adult Book stores.
#4
hate to admit it, but they may be onto something with the whole "Mann Coulter"..Never understood what folks have found attractive about her. She comes across in whatever pics I've seen of her as a poorly dressed transvestite.
At the very least, someone should offer her a sandwhich.
#5
hate to admit it, but they may be onto something with the whole "Mann Coulter"..Never understood what folks have found attractive about her. She comes across in whatever pics I've seen of her as a poorly dressed transvestite.
Well to each his own. At the risk of sounding crude, I'd still hit that.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
