You can't tune in to an Arabic channel nowadays without coming across analysts, former politicians and ex-generals moaning and groaning about America and the West. Their views almost always paint the Middle East as a terminal victim of neo-imperialism, corporate greed and raw aggression.
In the world of the professional pundit we are always the innocent bystanders. The conflicts besetting this region are not of our making, they say. Everything is America's fault. Few ever come up with viable solutions.
To be fair the US government deserves much of the anger directed towards it for its ill-thought out Mideast policy. A recent BBC poll that sought the opinions of 26,000 people in 25 countries indicates 49 per cent feel the US plays a mainly negative role in today's world. Surprisingly, attitudes in Germany, France and Indonesia were least favourable.
But here's an interesting snippet. Some 57 per cent of Americans disapprove of the way their government handled the Iraq war. Okay. So we know that Washington has blundered over Iraq but this shouldn't mean that everything America and its allies propose is automatically perceived as negative.
Posted by: Steve White ||
02/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[13 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
To be painfully frank, if America and the West were to dump us we would soon be saying 'Come back, all is forgiven'.
If we no longer had the benefit of US satellites, for instance, our communications would be cut. If the West stopped supplying spare parts, our planes would be grounded; our hospital equipment left to rust.
Moreover if we work towards harming the US economy, in the end we will only be harming ourselves since our own economies are inter-related and inter-dependent and especially since our currencies are pegged with the dollar.
#3
Pull the US Navy off the high seas for a couple of years and watch world trade sputter as piracy becomes a major international business once again shutting down major exports, like oil. You think major naval projection is in the budgets of most major, let alone minor, countries?. Guess who'd be hit hardest first? File under "What have the Romans ever done for us?"
#6
The only thing stopping a Pax America policy is the unhealthy dogma that Americans should work at being liked. Who gives a F@#$? Those nukes have been drawing dust for too long.
#7
A recent BBC poll ... indicates 49 per cent feel the US plays a mainly negative role in today's world.
And these would be the neary half the people who are below average?
As for being loved, if you run down the roster of the UN, you will find that roughly half the member countries are run by dictators, pimps and kleptocrats. (Take the Human Rights Commission. Please!) I'm proud to be hated by the likes of them.
#9
Khalaf Al Habtoor seems to know what he's doing businesswise, but the lunatics want just what he warns about. They desire to split their Arab masters from the west, and rein in the chaos. Maybe this is like the first muzzie to get it, kinda like the first lefty to get it, Lieberman.
It is hard not to feel a desperate anger at last weeks news. Nine British Muslims have been arrested on suspicion of plotting to behead a British Muslim soldier, as a traitor to Islam, and to show a videotape of the act on the net to terrify us.
In the same week Policy Exchange, the think tank, has published a poll-based study that shows young British-born Muslims are far more alienated from mainstream society than their parents. Of British Muslims aged 16-24, 37% would prefer to live under sharia in Britain, 37% would like to send their children to Islamic state schools and most incredibly 36% think Muslims converting to another religion should be punished by death. Young British Muslims who say they admire organisations like Al-Qaeda, which are prepared to fight the West amount to 13%. For British Muslims aged over 55, the figures are much lower, at 17%, 19%, 19% and 3% respectively. What is truly alarming is the collective yawn with which this information was received by the British
#2
I am sorry to say Icerigger may be right. So, thousands of years of history given away to savagery and with nothing in return but the enslavement of our women and the destruction of all art, all science and all hope.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/05/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
"Professionals fighting in Chechnya may be better, but they certainly didn't defeat local separatists and foreign Islamists. Rather, Russia corrupted Chechnya back into its fold."
That's the recommendation? Uh, no, Russia, we don't admire your model of corruption in everyday life. It depresses your quality of life and disintegrates public trust in justice or law enforcement.
"Its leader, Chechen Prime Minister Ramzan Kadyrov, commands a feared militia and keeps Chechnya quiescent by rewarding loyalists with federal largess and by brutally suppressing rivals."
Now as far as the brutality angle, you may have a good point there...
#2
alexei is way off in a few respects. First, the ruskies had no problem going genghis on the chechens, due to our pc sensibilities in the US that would never fly. Second, the ruskies never dealt w/a duplicitous national media. Third, as I recall the chechens actually kidnapped a ruskie general and pulled off some tactical victories. Last, the U.S. has never lost a war through military incompetency or lack of soldiership. His examples of Korea and 'Nam hold no weight. Both were political failures on our part.
I agree we should be more brutal on the sand weasels - hell yes, every guy in uniform whose dealt w/the tribal arab knows what they respect. (hold'em by the nose/or the ballz and kick'em in the ass) The problem is our droolers in congress and around the world who have never stepped foot over there and buy into the Abu Ghraib/Haditha horse shit would go nuts on GWB if we unleashed the wolves. We're still trying to speed up the arab to western post-industrial revolution enlightened thinking while most of them are still thinking in terms of carts and donkeys.
#3
The lesson to learn is that it has more to do with killing 15% of the population and turning another 20% into refugees. At that level of destruction, warm bodies are in short supply.
Posted by: ed ||
02/05/2007 21:34 Comments ||
Top||
#4
maybve we should follow russian tactics from afghanistan too
#5
#4 - great point. Plus, how long were the Ruskies in Chechnya? Still there to some degree keeping the peace? I'm kind of ignorant on all the dates/times of battles there etc. I stopped following that thing in 2001.
A driver is stuck in a traffic jam on US 95 South, just outside of Washington. Nothing is moving north or south. Suddenly a man knocks on his window. The driver rolls down his window and asks, "What happened; what's the hold up?"
"Terrorists have kidnapped Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, John Kerry, and Nancy Pelosi. They are asking for a $10 million ransom. Otherwise, they are going to douse them with gasoline and set them on fire. We are going from car to car, taking up a collection."
The driver asks, "On average, how much is everyone giving?"
"About a gallon."
You are an avid RBer if you saw the punch line coming about halfway through. It's a bit dated, so feel free to update it by adding names. I added Nancy's name to save everyone the effort! :-)
This test only has one question, but it's a very important one. By
giving an honest answer, you will discover where you stand morally.
The test features an unlikely, completely real situation in which
you will have to make a decision. Remember that your answer needs to
be honest, yet spontaneous. Please scroll down slowly and give due
consideration to each line. And most of all, answer
honestly.
THE SITUATION
You are at the New Jersey Shore.
There is chaos all around you caused by a tsunami.
This is a disaster of catastrophic proportions.
You're a photojournalist working for the New York Times and you're caught in the middle of this epic disaster. The situation is nearly hopeless. You're trying to shoot career-making photos. There are cars, coolers, beer bottles and people swirling around you, some disappearing under the water. Nature is unleashing
all of it's destructive fury.
THE TEST
Suddenly you see a man in the water. He is fighting for his life,
trying not to be taken down with the debris. You move closer.
Somehow the man looks familiar. You suddenly realize who it is. It's
former Vice President Al Gore. At the same time you notice that the
raging waters are about to take him under forever. You have two
options .. you can save the life of this distinguished Senator, or you can
shoot a dramatic Prize winning photo, documenting the death of one of
the nation's most powerful men.
THE QUESTION
Here's the question, and please give an honest answer.
Would you select high contrast color film, or would you go with classic
black and white?
Posted by: john ||
02/05/2007 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Redacted by moderator. Comments may be redacted for trolling, violation of standards of good manners, or plain stupidity. Please correct the condition that applies and try again. Contents may be viewed in the sinktrap. Further violations may result in banning.
#6
Classic b&w of course, john dear. Only b&w could give the pic the proper timelessness such a weighty moment and subject deserves. The contrast of light and shadow, the tender shades of grey, they reveal what is concealed by overexuberant colour, which colours so quickly fade with time, leaving nothing worth having. (We are shooting on a manual SLR, are we not? After all, when a digital encounters raging sea water, the magic blue smoke tends to escape.)
I've been known to make a comment or two on German politics, and everyone comments about French politics, Sheamp Ulealing2367. Why should an Indian stay mum on the more egregious American personalities? Besides, it was a joke.
#7
SU2367: John kicks ass. You? well...... we don't really know, since you don't pick a nym and stay with it, do you? I call that a cowards way of throwing rocks and running.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/05/2007 20:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I'd b&w as well........it just captures the moment. As to the original article I'd like to submit Patti Murray (Dork - WA), Barbara Boxer (Commie - CA), & Cynthia McKinney (Retard - GA). Oh what the hell, they can also have Sen Byrd (KKK - WV).
A Bears player named Muhammed seemed to be greeted with pretty loud boos when the team captains were introduced last night. I could not find a single article mentioning that this morning. Were they something other than boos or are we being treated to the silence of the journos?
#5
They were discussing this over at Hot Air, but that article has over two hundred comments, so you'll have to do a find on "boo". Short answer is the same that Slinesing Angomolet1065 and Spot gave.
But you weren't hallucinating, if it's any comfort.
#8
Gosh, and to hear concern like this at RB. It would just warm the left's hearts. LOL
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
02/05/2007 12:38 Comments ||
Top||
#9
When Bledsoe was up here, he used to think it was "Dreeeeeewwwwwww".
Actually, it was "Booooooooooooo".
I think he had it figured out by the time he left Buffalo...
#10
Being a Panther's fan, I can confirm, that they are saying MOOOOSE. I miss Mushin being a Panther. A good player and a genuinely good guy. My dad asked if he was a Muslim last night, I don't know, but it seems the NFL superstar lifestyle is the antithesis of a muslim lifestyle so I would guess not. If he is, I bet it's in name only. Kind of like, I'm a catholic, but haven't been to a mass in years.
#11
There's always been a few players with names or nicknames like this that may appear to be getting booed, but the crowd is chanting "Moose", "Deuce" or even "Foo" (that last bit for Fuamatu-Ma'afala).
The only time you can be sure the crowd is actually booing is when Terrell Owens is involved. :-)
Posted by: Dar ||
02/05/2007 16:22 Comments ||
Top||
#12
I remember Baltimore Orioles fans chanting "BOOOOOG" when Boog Powell came to bat.
I kinda like Moooose! He's a good player, and appears not to suffer from Terrell Owens' Disease. He's been in two Super Bowls, and his team lost both times--hope he's not jinxed.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/05/2007 16:56 Comments ||
Top||
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
From the "Environmental News Network":
"Science Is Solid on Climate Change, Congress Told."
"The science is solid," says Louise Frechette, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations.
"The science is solid," says Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
"The science is really solid," says TV meteorologist Heidi Cullen. "The science is very solid."
And at that point, on "Larry King Live" last week, Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, remarked: "Heidi says the science is solid and I can't criticize her because she never says what science she's talking about."
Indeed. If the science is so solid, maybe they could drag it out to the Arctic for the poor polar bears to live on now that the ice is melting faster than a coed's heart at an Al Gore lecture.
Alas, the science isn't so solid. In the '70s, it was predicting a new ice age. Then it switched to global warming. Now it prefers "climate change." If it's hot, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's cold, that's a sign of "climate change." If it's 53 with sunny periods and light showers, you need to grab an overnight bag and get outta there right now because "climate change" is accelerating out of control.
The silliest argument is the anecdotal one: "You only have to look outside your window to see that climate change is happening." Outside my window in northern New England last week, it was minus 20 Fahrenheit. Very cold. Must be the old climate change kicking in, right? After all, December was very mild. Which was itself a sign of climate change. A few years ago, the little old lady who served as my town's historian for many decades combed over the farmers' diaries from two centuries ago that various neighbors had donated to her: From the daily records of 15 Januarys, she concluded that three were what we'd now regard as classic New Hampshire winters, ideal for lumbering or winter sports; eight had January thaws, and four had no snow at all. This was in the pre-industrial 18th century.
Today, faced with eight thaws and four entirely snowless Januarys, we'd all be running around shrieking that the great Gaia is displeased. Wake up and smell the CO2, people! We need to toss another virgin into the volcano. A virgin SUV, that is. Brand-new model, straight off the assembly line, cupholders never been used. And as the upholstery howls in agony, we natives will stand around chanting along with High Priestess Natalie Cole's classic recording: ''Unsustainable, that's what you are.''
As we say in the north country, if you don't like the weather, wait five minutes. And if you don't like the global weather, wait three decades. For the last century or so, the planet has gone through very teensy-weensy warming trends followed by very teensy-weensy cooling trends followed by very teensy-weensy warming trends, every 30 years or so. And, even when we're in a pattern of "global warming" or "global cooling," the phenomenon is not universally observed -- i.e., it's not "global," or even very local. In the Antarctic, the small Palmer peninsula has got a little warmer but the main continent is colder. Up north, the western Arctic's a little warmer but the eastern Arctic's colder. So, if you're an eastern polar bear, you're in clover -- metaphorically, I hasten to add. If you're a western polar bear, you'll be in clover literally in a year or two, according to Al Gore.
And, if you really don't like the global weather, wait half-a-millennium. A thousand years ago, the Arctic was warmer than it is now. Circa 982, Erik the Red and a bunch of other Vikings landed in Greenland and thought, "Wow! This land really is green! Who knew?" So they started farming it, and were living it up for a couple of centuries. Then the Little Ice Age showed up, and they all died. A terrible warning to us all about "unsustainable development": If a few hundred Vikings doing a little light hunter-gathering can totally unbalance the environment, imagine the havoc John Edwards' new house must be wreaking.
The question is whether what's happening now is just the natural give and take of the planet, as Erik the Red and my town's early settlers understood it. Or whether it's something so unprecedented that we need to divert vast resources to a transnational elite bureaucracy so that they can do their best to cripple the global economy and deny much of the developing world access to the healthier and longer lives that capitalism brings. To the eco-chondriacs that's a no-brainer. As Mark Fenn of the Worldwide Fund for Nature says in the new documentary ''Mine Your Own Business'':
''In Madagascar, the indicators of quality of life are not housing. They're not nutrition, specifically. They're not health in a lot of cases. It's not education. A lot of children in Fort Dauphin do not go to school because the parents don't consider that to be important. . . . People have no jobs, but if I could put you with a family and you could count how many times in a day that that family smiles. Then I put you with a family well off, in New York or London, and you count how many times people smile. . . . You tell me who is rich and who is poor."
Well, if smiles are the measure of quality of life, I'm Bill Gates; I'm laughing my head off. Male life expectancy in Madagascar is 52.5 years. But Mark Fenn is right: Those l'il malnourished villagers sure look awful cute dancing up and down when the big environmentalist activist flies in to shoot the fund-raising video.
If "global warming" is real and if man is responsible, why then do so many "experts" need to rely on obviously fraudulent data? The famous "hockey stick" graph showed the planet's climate history as basically one long bungalow with the Empire State Building tacked on the end. Completely false. In evaluating industrial impact, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change used GDP estimates based on exchange rates rather than purchasing power: As a result, they assume by the year 2100 that not only South Africans but also North Koreans will have a higher per capita income than Americans. That's why the climate-change computer models look scary. That's how "solid" the science is: It's predicated on the North Korean economy overtaking the United States.
Could happen. Who knows?
But that's the point: Who knows? You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.
However, it would make a dramatic difference to the lifestyle of the "climate change" jet set. Which is why, even before latest new IPCC doomsday scenario was released, the Associated Press was running stories like: "New Climate Report Too Rosy, Experts Say." The AP's "science writer" warns that even this "dire report" is the "sugarcoated version." It's insufficiently hysterical, in every sense.
You were brought up a devout Muslim. What made you turn against the religion?
I knew no better than to follow the path my parents had laid out for me. I didnt question it seriously until after 9/11. Bin Laden defined the world into Muslims and non-Muslims, and these had to either be converted or killed. I asked myself where I stood after I saw the pictures of people jumping out of the World Trade Center. As a Muslim I had to ask if I agreed with that. I was saddened to see Bin Ladens citations were from the Koran and were consistent with the Islam I grew up with. It is just that we were passive until then. Now we had to take sides. I had completed a political science degree and could no longer use ignorance as an excuse. I had to make my own path.
The 9/11 attacks made you renounce your faith but radicalised other Muslims. Why?
The 74 per cent of Muslims under 24 who said in a survey that women should wear the veil and want Sharia law to be introduced have gone for the consistency that Bin Laden offers. Others have taken my path. Liberal society hasnt paid attention to what has been happening. Radical Islam was dismissed as a fringe movement but what starts small can grow. When you look at some Arab Islamic countries, radical Islamists are in the majority. Why do we kid ourselves it cant happen in Europe?
#1
Nice to see Hirsi getting some publicity. There was a nice article in both the NYTimes and WaPo yesterday about her.
Her position at AEI gives her a good 'in' with the media. Also the fact that she is very pretty might help get her a frequent commentator position on CNN or FOX.
#4
Lest we fergit, CNN > HUNT FOR BIN LADEN > Osama surrounded by Party boyz [paraphrased] - "We will use any means necessary to bring about the death and destruction of the USA", or words to that effect. ALSO, NEWSJOURNAL > Osama is still believed to has possessed a large number of SUITCASE NUKES [1000-ton approxi yield?] from the Russian black market/network, of which SEVERAL WERE COVERTLY FORWARD DEPLOYED TO THE USA, WAITING FOR THEIR DAY OF DETONATION. All together now, wid feelings, " THEY'RRREEE HEEEERRREEE"!?
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.
BY MARK STEYN Sun-Times Columnist
