Not so long ago it looked as if Russia wanted to carve out for itself a key role as mediator in the Middle East conflict. The Kremlin began by inviting the extremist Hamas party to talks in Moscow in March. That was followed by a cash injection for the Palestinian Authority after Western governments suspended their aid following Hamas' election victory.
But in the current conflict in Lebanon the Kremlin has surprised many observers by its reticence. Apart from calling for an immediate ceasefire, President Vladimir Putin has not said anything of significance for weeks on the fighting between Israel and the militant Lebanese group Hezbollah - although his remarks would have a wide reach in the Islamic world.
Independent Middle East experts in Russia are convinced that Moscow's position on the conflict in Lebanon consists of having none at all.
'Moscow is trying to be a mediator between radical Islamists and the rest of the world, but in reality can achieve nothing,' Alexei Malashenko of the Carnegie Moscow Center said.
Malashenko noted that Russia's position on international conflicts is usually diametrically opposed to that of the United States. At the UN Security Council, the Russian position so far has been that only a resolution serving Lebanon's interest can end the conflict.
In the past Russia has also usually supported Israel's enemies. Syria and Iran are key customers for Russian armaments and at the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July, Putin succeeded in having remarks criticizing Syria and Iran for backing Hezbollah kept out of the final declaration.
But the parallels end there. Hamas and Hezbollah no longer appear on Moscow's list of international terrorist organizations and anger is growing in Russia over Washington's attempts to 'democratize' the Middle East, which it sees as sowing the seeds of further tensions in the region.
In surveys, every second Russian names Israel or the US as responsible for the current fighting in Lebanon, with only one in seven seeing Hezbollah as the instigators. Despite Russia' reserve on the hostilities, Russia is expected to support the UN resolution on Lebanon and the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.
'In the end Moscow has no interest in being internationally isolated over the Middle East,' Malashenko says.
A lovely example of invective--and not a swearword in there.
The know-nothing, empty-suit, blue-blood Ned Lamont is now the Democrat party's poster boy. He's sort of a John Kerry, but without the Purple Hearts (and he actually inherited most of his fortune from his own family).
Don't hold back, tell us what you really think of him.
Lamont follows in the great tradition of his uncle, Corliss Lamont, who was a courageous pacifist during the rise of the Nazis, just as Little Neddy has been heroic in his adamant appeasement of the Islamo-Nazis.
And it was impossible to miss some of the Jew-baiters standing behind Little Neddy at the podium last night as he celebrated his landslide (4 percent) victory over a prominent senator of Jewish heritage, e.g., Jesse "Hymietown" Jackson and Al "Interloper" Sharpton.
There's something very French about the modern Democrat party ... or is that Vichy French? It's the party of Jim Moran; John Dingel; the late, great Cynthia McKinney; Robert Byrd ("the Conscience of the Senate"); former elder statesmen Fritz Hollings; and, of course, Joe Kennedy Sr. The party of Harry Truman — strong on defense and the first to recognize Israel — is dead. It's now the party of Henry Wallace. Blue-bloods have replaced blue-collars. And Lamonts have replaced Liebermans.
Republicans should be ecstatic. The Democrat presidential field was already running left. Now it will run at sprint-speed. The 2008 presidential election is shaping up to be a 1972 rerun. Even Hillary Clinton, former counsel to the Black Panthers, doesn't measure up. "Oh, the times, they are a changin ...."
Posted by: Mike ||
08/09/2006 14:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Not Vichy, Copperheads.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copperheads
The Vichy were forced by circumstances to cooperate, but the Copperheads believed in supporting slavery and the other precepts of the Confederacy. Even when the label was applied to them, like the modern left, they wear it proudly.
#2
The Vichy were forced by circumstances to cooperate...
BS. The French were offered union with Britain -- so that the French colonies could stay in the fight, and that the French navy could join with the British. They opted out, and in fact made it quite clear they preferred the Nazi boot to "getting too close" to the Brits.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/09/2006 15:03 Comments ||
Top||
Joe Lieberman said that if he wins reelection as an independent, he'll still caucus with the Donks, and there's no reason to doubt that he meant what he said. However, the Instapundit notes that Lieberman (see news article at the link) was sympathetic to Jim Jeffords when Jeffords made the jump back before the war.
You also have to wonder how long a sincere, believing Orthodox Jew can pretend solidarity with the viciously anti-Semitic elements that seem to have taken over his party. Plus, if he beats Lamont in the general election despite the party turning on him in such spectacular fashion, I can't imagine he'd feel like he owes them anything.
It wouldn't surprise me if Lieberman, if he wins in November, were to announce that he won't caucus with either party.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/09/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
If Lieberman switched parties, he'd be the most liberal Republican in the Senate. And that's saying something, when we have people like Lincoln Chafee and Olympia Snowe in the party. Lieberman would out-RINO every other Republican senator in office.
Liberman has some principles, unlike that slut Jeffords. Lieberman may have to run as an independent, but the donks will welcome him with open arms into the Senate Caucus when he wins in November. They need every vote they can get. He those profitable committee assignments to take care of keeping the constituents in the pork.
As for the Jewish part, when Jewish voters start voting Republican, I'll not be surpised to see Jewish politicians run as trunks. But that day is far away. Don't ask me to explain why. That's for TW and LH.
#4
1. He wouldnt fit to well into the GOP caucus (thought I dont know hes THAT much more liberal than Lincoln Chafee) The GOP can offer commit assignments as well. If he stays in the Dem caucus, Id expect him to be even more independent of it than in the past.
2. Some Jews do vote Republican. Many if not most Orthodox Jews do, and even among non-O theres a considerable group that vote GOP. I personally know a Jewish House GOP staffer, and have a friend whos a stockbroker and longtime GOP, a donor I think. OTOH, its my strong impression that most Republican Jews (some of the Orthodox aside) lean toward the RINO-centrist-neocon-McCain end of the GOP spectrum.
There are also Jewish independents.
And increasingly most Jewish Dems, aside from the Upper West Side lefties, and a few others, lean new Democrat Clintonian politics - the kind of outlook that would have been VERY acceptable in the Republican party in the 1950s and 1960s
While I consider myself a third way Clintonian Democrat, I dont know that I can speak for the mass of Clintonian Jewish Democrats, as I am to their left on economic issues, and a tad to their right on cultural-social issues. They are reluctant to go GOP for the same reason other upper middle class soccer mom voters are - theyre scared of the religious right. My motives have more to do with my beliefs in economic justice. A John McCain could be very appealing to them - but so could a Hilary Clinton. Again, not for quite the same reasons as for me.
#5
The word I get from my friends in CT and NY is that Leiberman is something of an opertunist. Some of the liberal positions he's taken are at odds with the Orthodox Jewish community and is done to placate wealthy Dem liberal doners.
If he were to switch parties, I could easily see him becoming more conservative.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/09/2006 11:24 Comments ||
Top||
#6
If he were to become more conservative, I could see Lamont winning.
#7
Assuming he wins in November, the more interesting question is which party caucas he affiliates with?
The donks have disowned him.
For instance, Jeffers hangs with the donks.
Posted by: Captain America ||
08/09/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#8
He has said that he'd caucus with the Democrats. Of course, this morning Kos is demanding that Harry Reid remove Joe from all his committee assignments (which Harry can do as minority leader). If the Dhimmis did that, I think Joe would become a true independent. He might choose to caucus with neither party (assuming he wins in November, which he won't).
As noted the Repub candidate is a total loser -- he's got this leee-tle gambling problem. Thanks for playing, back into obscurity you go.
Unfortunately, I think we're going to see Senator Ned Lamont, just another rich boy who inherited his money from grandpa and decided to buy himself a Senate seat.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2006 17:17 Comments ||
Top||
#9
Joe's campaign should have been 'Even a stopped clock (Bush) is right twice a day, and I know what time it is.'
#10
LH, it's my belief that the "Religious Right" is given waaaaay to much clout by the MSM in order to "energize the masses" in response to ANYTHING the Republicans do. I disagree with the President on stem-cell research but I do have some moral issues with using embryos. I live in the heart of the Bible Belt and have lived here most of my life. The vast majority of people here who identify themselves as Christians DO NOT want any type of Theocracy. They are people with certain moral principles but do not want laws forcing their morals on others just as they don't want laws forcing other people's lack of morals on them. They believe things have moral consequences. They don't hate homosexuals and certainly don't fear them (the definition of homophobic is fear of homosexuals) but they also don't want that lifestyle forced down their throats. They prefer for most things to be up to the individual. No doubht there are some religious leaders who would like to see a theocracy. They are the vocal ones. You don't see them being elected to public office. I recall Cher telling homosexuals to vote against Bush if they wanted to remain free. This type of bullshit has got to stop. Both on the Far Right and the Far Left. My 2 cents.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/09/2006 20:17 Comments ||
Top||
#11
Hey DB - everyone's gotta have a straw-horse to beat.
Okay, IÂ’m calling it. ItÂ’s over. Ned Lamont has won the primary. . . . the hard reality is that the voters have spoken, and their message was loud and clear: thereÂ’s no longer room for Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Party. And alas, tonightÂ’s result will reverberate through the November elections and into the 2008 presidential campaign. ItÂ’s really much more than just a single primary in a single state; itÂ’s a shot across the bow of moderate Democrats everywhere. And so, whatever further ramifications this result might have, thereÂ’s one thing it definitely means, one result that is officially cast in stone, as of today:
I am no longer a Democrat.
Hope your resolve lasts.
I’ve been calling myself a Democrat since I was ten years old, . . . In recent years, I’ve seen the “base” of the Democratic Party drifting away from sense and sanity, and at the same time, I’ve felt my own ideological compass pulled somewhat to the right by world events. Yet I remain profoundly uncomfortable with the Republican Party for a variety of reasons, and I’ve never much liked the idea of being an “independent,” considering it — with all due respect to those who wear the label proudly — something of a cop-out in many cases.
You might consider becoming a member of the libertarian wing of the Publican party. We're not all the same, you know. You can be a Publican and be particularly concerned about your civil liberties — which is pretty distinct from the ACLU approach. We're concerned about many of the same issues as Dummycrats; the distinction is that we try not to go overboard on them. Teddy Roosevelt was the original conservationist, for instance, long before it turned into The Environment™.
So IÂ’ve continued to cling to the label of Democrat, and to the hope that the party would somehow save itself from the tired orthodoxies of its interest groups and the execrable excesses of its far-left wing. IÂ’ve shaken my head at the irrational policies and irresponsible rhetoric coming from so many corners of the party, comforting myself with the thought that while Dennis Kucinich may be a nutjob and Al Sharpton may be a charlatan and Howard Dean may be an idiot and Dick Durbin may be, well, a dick, at least thereÂ’s still Joe Lieberman.
The lone voice in the wilderness, the last surviving Jackson Democrat. Notice the divergence between him and his 2000 running mate. That's the evolution of the Democrat party in a nutshell.
Lieberman stood for just about everything good in the Democratic Party, while shunning most of the bad. He was — he is — an honest, decent and rational progressive, a moral but not overly moralistic man, a loyal but not blindly loyal Democrat. He agreed with the party most of the time, but he was willing to disagree when he felt his collegues were wrong. He was also willing to challenge liberal orthodoxies when they needed to be challenged, a rare and crucial trait. . . . But he was — he is — usually right, especially on the big issues, particularly the global war on terrorism and the conflict in Iraq.
The Dems as they are today were made in 1968. The wind that filled their sails came out of Vietnam. Today's party is the McGovern wing, writ large.
Perhaps, I told myself, despite the ascendancy of Nancy Pelosi, the Deaniacs and the Kos Kidz, perhaps Lieberman’s side could still somehow win the struggle for the party’s soul. As long as that hope remained viable, I could continue to be a Democrat. A “Lieberman Democrat,” I called myself, and I was proud.
The Dems are a party that's driven by a vague ideology. They want to be Social Democrats, but Social Democrats are (Second International) Marxists. Marx is still, despite 60 or 70 years of effort on the part of the educational establishment, held in low regard in this country. That Marxist undercurrent has become more evident with the rise of the McGovern kiddies and grandkiddies. We're the world's leading exemplar of capitalism, and they're the anticapitalist counterstream. Anticapitalism translates into anti-Americanism. That's why the abhorrence for flag displays and other patriotic symbolism. Beneath the surface of Social Democracy there's the idea of the managed state, which isn't the ideal of individual liberty and personal accomplishment.
But now the voters have spoken. Lieberman may still consider himself a Democrat — he says that, if elected as an independent, he’ll vote to organize with the Dems, and I believe him — but the Democrats don’t consider Lieberman a Democrat anymore. That’s the cold, hard truth of today’s results. He’s been kicked out of the “big tent” because his loyalty wasn’t blind enough, because his conscience wasn’t pliable enough.
They weren't quite able to do the Yezhov thing on him, but he's become a Trotskyite.
HeÂ’s been replaced by the shiny new millionaire who said all the right things to win over the hearts and minds of the netroots. The war in Iraq is wrong, wrong, wrong; President Bush is bad, bad, bad; and Joe Lieberman is a traitor, a traitor, a traitor. ThatÂ’s the undeniable message that Democratic voters from my home state have sent out across the land this fateful day.
He's been read out of the party, purged. Unless he wins in November, of course. Then it'll be all in the past.
Well, if thereÂ’s no room in the Democratic Party for Joe Lieberman, then thereÂ’s no room in it for me. So IÂ’m done. IÂ’m out. See ya later. Sayonara.
Posted by: Mike ||
08/09/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Welcome to the Real World, Brendan. Yes, being a leftist sucks.
#2
Just read an interesting comment on the Ynetnews in response to the WaPo diatribe about Israel avoiding taking out HA launchers.
First of all:
Journalism is long dead. Esp. American journalism. It's just another business, like any other business that only exists because suckers exist.
Sucker-based businesses probably comprise 60% or more of the US economy.
Secondly:
As an old-style leftist, I'm absolutely disgusted with the New Left - all style, no subtance. And a dusgusting style at that. What used to be a movement for equitable distribution of economic output and political power and social progress has become a weird subculture of neurotics, gays, over-educated idiots, bored and sate European pseudo-intellectuals and their
Yank followers, typically
empty-headed poseurs like Mr. Ricks.
It's got its own "intellectual" fashion waves, such as intellectual sadomasochism in the form of Arab fetishism and Antisemitism in the form of Anti-Zionism. The worst offence one can commit against these new leftists is to bore them.
Holocaust is no longer relevant to them and BORING. Hence, Jews are boring. The Arabs are exciting -they blow themselves up and riot on the streets.
I disagree that 60% of US economy comprising of a sucker-based business, probably 15% would be a more realistic figure and with What used to be a movement for equitable distribution of economic output and political power and social progress--it was always a movement for redistribution of economic output and political power as I had the opportunity to observe its implementation from within. There was nothing equitable about it, nor could I observe any signs of social progress, whatever that is supposed to mean.
Everything else this poster nailed right smack on the head.
#3
The MSM will spin this as the end of conservatism, capitalism, etc., and America is poised to finally grow up and be just like Western Europe.
They will have gotten it wrong, of course. This primary just lost the Dems whatever chance it had of winning over the middle in 2006. Doesn't exactly advance their cause.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/09/2006 6:17 Comments ||
Top||
#4
This is a sad day for the Democratic Party; in fact, pathetic. It's a sad day for America, too.
But it's a great day, a triumphant day, for Islamic terrorists: for them, Lieberman's defeat is a solid datum that confirms for them that America really is losing the will to fight and that they will-- soon perhaps-- succeed in getting us to slink home from Iraq in defeat, with our tails between our legs.
On this day, weakness and stupidity have triumphed.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/09/2006 6:18 Comments ||
Top||
#5
"But it's a great day, a triumphant day, for Islamic terrorists"
Connecticut has its Zapatero moment.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/09/2006 6:25 Comments ||
Top||
#6
10% of the population never had the balls to fight. They rely on their betters to protect them while they scream and fling feces. Those are who voted for Lamont in the Democratic primary. I predict Lamont will lose the general election, even in a bloodless, pussified state like Connecticut where the Republican candidate could be the idiot bastard of John Kerry.
Posted by: ed ||
08/09/2006 8:27 Comments ||
Top||
#7
twobyfour, great comment. Nailed a number of issues.
1. Teddy Roosevelt was no libertarian. Id be interested in a TR Republican. McCain looks more like that than any libertarians.
2. Jackson (Scoop) was no libertarian either. He was a friend of the Labor movement. I resent that Lieberman was beaten by a billionaire, with the support of Conn coast snobs, but that hardly means Id be comfortable in a party that still despises organized labor.
3. Mr Loys article misses two things. A. Joe isnt finished - hes running as an independent Democrat, and may yet win. B. Theres one bane he doesnt mention - Hilary. She may not be as gentle as Joe, but despite that, or because of that, shes still Kos' worst nightmare.
4. For now, put me down as an independent leaning Democrat. Whether that will change to Democrat leaning independent will depend on the events of the next 2 years.
#9
Lieberman is a maniac liberal on every issue. He is a flipflop artist witness his algore fiasco. He does have sanity attacks on national security. This makes him interesting to me but anathema to anti-semites and self-haters in the dhimmicrat party;
#10
"They want to be Social Democrats, but Social Democrats are (Second International) Marxists. Marx is still, despite 60 or 70 years of effort on the part of the educational establishment, held in low regard in this country. That Marxist undercurrent has become more evident with the rise of the McGovern kiddies and grandkiddies. We're the world's leading exemplar of capitalism, and they're the anticapitalist counterstream. Anticapitalism translates into anti-Americanism. That's why the abhorrence for flag displays and other patriotic symbolism. Beneath the surface of Social Democracy there's the idea of the managed state, which isn't the ideal of individual liberty and personal accomplishment"
Youve got the ass backwards. The Social Democrat - Labor movement wing of the Dem party is the Truman-Humphrey-Scoop Jackson wing. I know, I was there, when the Coalition for a Democratic Majority was formed, and we had BOTH the Podhoretzs and other future Reaganites AND members of YPSL (the Young Peoples Socialist League) and SDUSA (Social Democrats USA). The McGovernites despised the AFL CIO, and not all of them did so just for reasons of foriegn policy. Read the McGovernite leaning Guide to American Politics of those years - its bitter at Nixon, but more so at labor type Dems, its heros are clean, middle class WASPY types from Iowa. Thats where Michael Barone came from, by the way (The almanace - i have no idea if hes from Iowa)
What youre missing is the division within the American left (and the European left too, btw) between anti-communist social democrats (generally, but not always, non-Marxist) and fellow traveler/progressive/democratic socialist types who were sympathetic to communism - some were Marxist/socialist but some were bourgeoie more interested in pacifism/atheism with little real interest in the material advancement of the working class. The class split was 1948, the Truman wing vs the Henry Wallace wing. Now the McGovern movement took BOTH the non-working class elements from the Wallace wing, the more left unions (like the west coast longshore, the drug and hospital workers, and some others) and combine that (in uneasy coalition) with bourgeois "progressive" students, berkeley types, etc who had at best a superficial interest in Marxism, and no interest in the labor movement or working class politics.
That coalion does seem to be back.
But its not the only uneasy coalition. The Podhoretzs and many of the Scoop Jackson Dems became Reaganites, and neocons, as is well known. But they are still, I think, profoundly uneasy in the GOP, and the GOP of George Will and William Buckley is profoundly uneasy with them. The GOP liked them cause they won elections, as paleocons couldnt. With an electoral defeat staring them in the face, they will have problems. They have themselves split into the harder line folks at National Review, and the mainstream neocons at Weekly Standard. The latter are behind McCain, who makes many old line Republicans nervous. We shall see how they do.
The new Democrat movement was an odd combination of Humphrey type Social Democrats (those who never became neocons) and Southern democrats who were never all that pro-Labor, including some newly pragmatic former McGovernites, like the Clintons. Just as "nation-building" splits the GOP, free trade tends to split the new Democrats (the Clintonian wing for it, the old labor types - perhaps best represented recently by Gephardt - are against it) The new democrats captured the Dems by winning - the lossed of the last few years have weakened them.
These are difficult issues, but to analyze them properly one needs to start with a well grounded historical analysis. Not all welfare state advocates were social democrats (see Lloyd George) not all Social Democrats, even in the era of the 2nd international, were Marxists (see Fabians, etc) And even the descendents of the 2nd international have divided in many complex ways, which dont map well to the current debate over american foreign policy. REAL social democrats, were able to see how Communist societies crushed free labor unions. Real Social democrats can see how socially reactionary Islamofascism is. Real Social Democrats can see that China has emerged as a Dickensian capitalist hell.
A good example of a third wayer with genuine Real Social Democrat roots is Tony Blair.
#12
There is no third way. It's a myth. There is capitalism and there is socialism. One can argue about the merits and relative importance of each, but to say there is another alternative is Unicorn sighting.
#17
If Leberman wins the election it will be good for the country as it will show that even when presented with the full-left wing agenda American voters said no. Then Lamont will take the heat for being a billionare who bought an election.
Look, im unhappy with last nights result sure, and it may well lead me one step further away from my lifelong allegiance to my party, and thats NOT a happy thought - like when you start to think that counseling WONT help your marriage, and you need to talk to a lawyer.
But thats quite apart from my views on the history of socialism, social democracy, welfare statism etc. The comments i responded to were just ignorant, and flew against both my historical knowledge and my personal experience, and that is something up with which I will not put.
#23
Heh. Michael Moore is feeling his oats after last night's Lieberman loss, and he's got words for poor, helpless Hillary:
"To Hillary, our first best hope for a woman to become president, I cannot for the life of me figure out why you continue to support Bush and his war. I'm sure someone has advised you that a woman can't be elected unless she proves she can kick ass just as crazy as any man. I'm here to tell you that you will never make it through the Democratic primaries unless you start now by strongly opposing the war. It is your only hope. You and Joe have been Bush's biggest Democratic supporters of the war. Last night's voter revolt took place just a few miles from your home in Chappaqua. Did you hear the noise? Can you read the writing on the wall?"
Welcome to your new masters, Hillary... LOL!
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/09/2006 15:47 Comments ||
Top||
#24
Moore is a certified Putz.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/09/2006 15:57 Comments ||
Top||
#25
My reading on the Social Democrats is similar to that of LH.
Love the connection between marital counseling, divorce and your present conflict with your party ;-)
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/09/2006 17:21 Comments ||
Top||
#26
As someone who is fed up with both parties (I've never been a registered Democrat OR Republican, and won't change any time soon), this nation has lost its political underpinning and needs to make some significant changes. The Looney Left is taking one party to the dung heap. The spendthrift Republicans are undermining their party to the point of collapse. Both parties need to grow up and stop acting like two-year-olds. Unfortunately, I don't see much hope for that. I'm beginning to think my only option is to buy 40 acres in the mountains and a couple of truck-loads of ammunition.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/09/2006 22:57 Comments ||
Top||
#27
LH's cringing in pain - his entire worldview as an accepted member of the Donk party was rejected. Give him a couple days to recover
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 23:08 Comments ||
Top||
#28
#23 Dave - Moore publicly threatens the Hildebeast?
He'd better stay out of parks at night and triple his bodyguards.
Just sayin', 's all....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/09/2006 23:11 Comments ||
Top||
If there is one bedrock conviction underlying President BushÂ’s foreign policy, it is that freedom is the desire of every human heart. Bush repeats the phrase at every opportunity, and it is the premise of his push for democracy in the Middle East and elsewhere: Given a free choice, it is assumed, people will choose freedom and the political system best suited to foster it.
The problem with BushÂ’s freedom rhetoric is that it appears to not be true. Hezbollah and Hamas, and the populations that support them, desire the destruction of Israel above all, and are willing to endure warfare and dysfunctional societies to bring it about. The Sunni insurgents in Iraq want power more than anything else, and are willing to kill and maim to gain it. The Shia militias, in turn, desire revenge against the Sunni.
Don't confuse the evil of a few, and their people to induce delusion in others, with the yearning for freedom. And let's define freedom in this context: the wish to be left the hell alone. Ahmadneijad, Nazrallah, Kimmie and others have no love for freedom, but put a bullet in each of them and there's a decent chance that the rest of the folks suffering under them would certainly want to be left alone.
An evangelical Christian, Bush couches his belief in the universal hunger for freedom in religious terms. He often says that freedom is GodÂ’s gift to humanity. But it sometimes seems that he neglects what, for a Christian, is a central event in understanding human motivation, the Fall. Pride and hatred and fear are as likely to drive human behavior as any hunger for freedom.
And while, all things being equal, people surely prefer to live in freedom than under a dictatorship, culture ensures that things are never equal. Someone living in a tribal or traditional culture will view the world differently, and have different values, than an atomized individual in the West. He might value sexual purity more than freedom, thus insisting on the repression of women. He might value his religious conviction that all of the Levant should be Muslim-controlled over freedom and life itself. He might hate the dishonor of foreign occupation more than he loves anything.
Different cultures value different things, and failing to understand what a particular culture desires can lead to many policy disasters. However, people said much the same thing about South America thirty years -- wasn't ready for freedom and would never be, and that the combination of repressive Catholicism, indigenous culture, Spanish authoritarianism, and backwards economies would forever doom them to authoritarian regimes. Best you could do is let enlightened commies run the place. Today? All but a couple countries are representative, democratic republics. And even if the people elect goofs we don't particularly like (e.g., in Brazil or Chile), it's their decision and they have the ability to change it. Not ready for freedom? Seems like they were, when they were finally given the ability to choose.
For all these reasons, Hezbollah seems to have a better understanding of human hearts, at least in its part of the world, than the president of the Unites States does. This doesnÂ’t mean that Bush should abandon the liberalizing thrust of his foreign policy. A democratizing Middle East offers the best alternative to the violent, dictator-plagued region of today. But his administration would be well served to focus on the particular instead of the universal, and talk more of the messy compromises and disappointments that are inevitable on the path to a better Middle East, even if we eventually get there.
So the writer agrees with the Bush administration on the strategy, he just doesn't like the tactics. My suggested tactic is decapitate Hezbollah, wreck the present Syrian regime and permit a series of unexplained, unfortunate accidents to happen in the gasoline refineries serving Iran. Wonder how fast Lebanon would get her freedom then?
It would be nice if James Madison were by default the world’s favorite political philosopher. He’s not, because the human heart is more complicated — and twisted — than President Bush acknowledges in his rhetoric.
#1
My suggested tactic is decapitate Hezbollah, wreck the present Syrian regime and permit a series of unexplained, unfortunate accidents to happen in the gasoline refineries serving Iran.
#1
Yeah, well I remember after Oklahoma City, the MSM spent months on white underclass males with a media fixation for 'militia'. Then they were more than willing to group and stereotype a whole lot of people based upon one event. Now they seem to have difficulty connecting the dots on the numerous actions from other people.
You must be from back East Mr.ryuge, NYC isn't it? The name of the Rag you linked to is actually called the SF Comical as it hasn't been a serious newspaper since at least 1945.
Bernard Lewis is said to be the greatest living Western scholar of Islam, someone with deep sympathy for the Muslim world, without forgetting its dark side. Writing in the Wall Street Journal online edition today, Lewis now expresses deep concern over an apocalyptic Iran armed with nukes.
It seems increasingly likely that the Iranians either have or very soon will have nuclear weapons at their disposal Â… The language used by Iranian President Ahmadinejad would seem to indicate the reality and indeed the imminence of this threat.
Would Â… the Â… fear of mutual assured destruction, restrain a nuclear-armed Iran from using such weapons against the U.S. or against Israel?
...The phrase “Allah will know his own” is usually used to explain such apparently callous unconcern; it means that while infidel, i.e., non-Muslim, victims will go to a well-deserved punishment in hell, Muslims will be sent straight to heaven. ... the threat of direct retaliation on Iran—- is … already weakened by the suicide or martyrdom complex that plagues parts of the Islamic world today…
... Mr. Ahmadinejad and his followers clearly believe that this time is now, and that the terminal struggle has already begun and is indeed well advanced. It may even have a date, indicated by several references by the Iranian president to giving his final answer to the U.S. about nuclear development by Aug. 22.
What is the significance of Aug. 22? ... This, by tradition, is the night when many Muslims commemorate the night flight of the prophet Muhammad on the winged horse Buraq, first to “the farthest mosque,” usually identified with Jerusalem, and then to heaven and back (c.f., Koran XVII.1). This might well be deemed an appropriate date for the apocalyptic ending of Israel and if necessary of the world.
It is far from certain that Mr. Ahmadinejad plans any such cataclysmic events precisely for Aug. 22. But it would be wise to bear the possibility in mind.
This is alarming. It seems clear that other nations should be ready for some kind of Iranian strike on August 22. The best current guess is that Iran does not yet have a nuclear device, based on the public record, although Tehran could have the ingredients of a dirty bomb. IranÂ’s neighbors, like the Saudis, are beginning to arm themselves with anti-missile systems. They should put themselves on high alert very soon.
It is even possible that Iran may send a team of suiciders with a dirty radioactive device to Lebanon, to place in the path of Israeli troops. There is no foolproof defense against such a move – they could simply load up a small ship or plane with a simple device. However, there is no evidence in the public record that the Iranians have actually tested a radioactive device, though they could have exploded a mockup. If there is any Iranian attempt to strike at Israel or US forces, it would be a nuclear asus belli . The Iranian regime would be rapidly destroyed, and achieve its eagerly-sought martyrdom, taking along innocent bystanders.
Ahmadinejad may be mad, but heÂ’s cleverly mad. TodayÂ’s Iranian proxy war on Israel was cleverly designed, both strategically and tactically. The mullahs may therefore wait a few years until they have their nukes all lined up. August 22 comes once a year, and 2006 may not be the time they choose. Or they might fire their long-range missiles at Tel Aviv or even Jerusalem on August 22. GPS-guided missiles could be devastating. However, no doubt Israel has make it unmistakably clear what kind of action would trigger massive retaliation. The Syrians at least are not eager for martyrdom.
Hitler overreached when he attacked Russia. Ahmadinejad may also overreach. It fits his malevolent paranoid style. The big question today is how many people he will take with him if he does overreach.
If the Bush doctrine of nuclear preemption is ever justified, it would be in cases like this. But there are no easy answers. We are just lucky to have a tough-minded administration in Washington, and not the flabby thinkers of the Carter and Clinton years.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/09/2006 09:38 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[7 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
MAD doesn't apply since there is just one side that's going to get destroyed. Maybe "suicide by police"* is a better analogy.
* When someone purposely provokes the police into killing him with the intent of suicide.
#2
The reason MAD breaks down as a strategy here is because one side does not care if it gets destroyed. People have sneered at MAD for being madness, but it was a rational strategy against an opponent who shared a similar view of the possible outcomes - we both had the same evaluation function, to use the game theory term. If Ahmadinejad is the apocalyptic nutjob he appears to be then we have a completely different game.
Maybe it is time for Herman Kahn to do an update to 'On Thermonuclear War' for the new strategic situation. Yes, this would require re-animating the dead, but isn't that why we have DARPA and the Internet?
#3
I would suggest reviving Dulles' Massive Retaliation doctrine. You so much as touch us with a WMD, then you as a nation or sponsor of a WMD-using terror organization will cease to exist.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/09/2006 13:19 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You so much as touch us with a WMD, then you as a nation or sponsor of a WMD-using terror organization will cease to exist.
That's the problem, the enemy doesn't care if we nuke them. Ahmadinutjob thinks being destroyed will summon the Islamic messiah to save them and bring about the end of the world. Threats don't work against a guy with a death wish.
Posted by: Steve ||
08/09/2006 13:34 Comments ||
Top||
#6
I'm not talking about threats. I know that the West will lose a city or > 10^7 people to a biowar attack sometime in the next few years. I just want to make sure that there is nothing left of the attackers or their civilization afterwards. I want the policy and targeting to be in place. I don't want there to be any hesitation when the moment comes.
#8
The first round will probably be states. The second will probably be the civilization.
Put yourself in Roosevelt's shoes in 1941 or Wilson's in 1917. There is a terrible war going on. You need to intervene and end it, but the American people are too divided to get involved. The people you need to fight are barbarians really -- crude and greedy. Sometime soon, they are going to come and try to take a chunk out of your ass. Until that time, you won't be able to rally the American people. So you sit tight and wait for a Lusitania or Zimmerman Letter or Pearl Harbor. (IMHO, Roosevelt probably thought that the attack would be on the Philipines or something in the North Atlantic. PH was a miscalculation, but obviously worked to his advantage.)
Losing a city will give us the will to destroy a state. The second attack will give us the will to finish the job.
#10
Which is why I will once again recall Mrs. Davis' splendid solution to this niggling problem.
Simply issue a statement that even a single NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) attack on American soil will result in all of the Islamic countries getting glassed over. Then sit back and watch the fun as they try to rein in a renegade lunatic like Ahmadinejad.
#11
Reminds me of a Galligar joke I hear a long time ago. Goes something like this (correct me if I'm wrong):
We should strap our ICBM to the back of RVs. It will give the soviets nightmares thinking of the average joe-blow out in the wilderness with his drinking buddies, a six-pack, and a polaris.
#12
I prefer the 'Nuke the Moon' scenario. But Mrs Davis's idea works for me too.
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/09/2006 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#13
I'm sorry to be so glum. I honestly feel that Wretchard's so called Golden Moment has passed if in fact there ever was one. That Iran is doing cloning experiments scares the pants off of me. If they are cloning, you know that they are doing recombinant DNA and gene splicing.
#15
Hmmm, I hadn't made the obvious connection from the cloning to full-on bionasties 11A5S, 'thanks' for that...
Posted by: Tony (UK) ||
08/09/2006 16:35 Comments ||
Top||
#16
Sorry, Tony. They've gotta be though. It fits in with the trends. The Iranians are looking for disruptive technologies that will negate Dar al Harb's edge in weaponry. Nukes, WiG, rocket propelled torpedoes, MaRVs, GPS guided tactical missiles, etc. The _have_ to have a bio weapons research program.
#17
I think that future Americans will be thankful that GWB attempted to bring something better to Iraq. The fact that the asshats wouldn't take it when it was handed to them doesn't devalue the effort.
I fully expect that the USA will end up killing massive numbers of these people. We will lose a city or two, but the Umma will lose 100 million. The Iraq War will allow Americans to believe that we tried everything else first.
#18
I hear a lot of people talking about *a* dirty bomb, *a* nuke, *a* city, and others saying that if they (mostly referring to Al Qaeda but sometimes to Iran) had *a* nuke that they'd use it right away. My fear is that we in fact overestimate their irrationality - that when it does happen, it won't be *a* nuke; it will be a very well chosen multiple strike. If I were Ahmadinejad and I wanted to bring about the post-apocalyptic dominance of Islam, of course I'd strike Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, but I'd certainly not neglect the heart of Christianity - Rome (yes, Protestants might disagree, but Crusade-obsessed Muslims surely wouldn't). There are several other targets that would be high on my list, if I were sufficiently sane to wait until I had more than one deliverable warhead.
#25
what's that got to do with today's arsenal/plans? Or Iran's? You lost me... If Iran had 10 nukes, and launched one or all, they'd get 20 back from Israel alone
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 20:54 Comments ||
Top||
#26
My fear is that we in fact overestimate their irrationality - that when it does happen, it won't be *a* nuke; it will be a very well chosen multiple strike.
My point is that in the only real world use of nukes, the power that did it had only two nukes. Granted no one else had any. But once Iran is known to have nukes, the rules will change. They have a window between having them and the world knowing they have them in which to use them. So that window closing puts pressure on Iran to use them before they have built a lot of them. I think they'll be burning a hole in Ahmedinajihad's pocket.
#27
Me too, NS. Once he gets two or three he will use them.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
08/09/2006 21:07 Comments ||
Top||
#28
OK - understood, and I'd have to agree that he'd use as many as they have, inasmuch we could only guess whether he had more, or had allowed them to be shipped to Jersey or Long Beach for detonation. Once you demonstrate you have nukes, are whacko, and willing to use them without fear of retribution ("protect us, hidden imam!"), then all plans are just trash
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 21:12 Comments ||
Top||
#29
I'd plant two in ships, have one in reserve on the ocean. Make demands. Detonate one. Make demands, If not met, place reserve and detonate second. Reiterate demands. Target London and NYC. Back up target?
#32
I think NS is spot on with the ship event. Assmanjohnny constantly talks about blowing ships up to close the flow of oil. But I disagree on the target. I think they will hit Israel, to free Islam of the infadels and get support and ignight fighting from all of Islam. Detonate a diry bomb in an oil tanker in a Israeli port. Then attack from Gaza, Syria, Leb. Israel will be dealing with a disaster and having to defend itself. Then we will come to their aid, of course, exposing us as lackies for jooos and turning Iraq, Afghan, and the Soddies against us. He's a nut case crazy enough to think that this could work and do it.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/09/2006 22:06 Comments ||
Top||
#33
how many Iranian tankers/cargo ships pull into Haifa or any other Israeli port?....
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 22:08 Comments ||
Top||
#34
chartered or owned or just a stray container, I'd think the Israelis would detect it before it hit port - they don't get the sheer numbers we get
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 22:09 Comments ||
Top||
#35
#29: I'd plant two in ships, have one in reserve on the ocean. Make demands. Detonate one. Make demands, If not met, place reserve and detonate second. Reiterate demands. Target London and NYC. Back up target?
Sorry that has NO chance of working, truer scenario, step one,detonate one,
step rwo, make demands
THIS IDENTIFIES YOU,
step 3 now you cease to exist
step 4, there is no step 4, any ships you may have in reserve simply vamish in a big hole in the water.
If you think this implausable, remember that when FAA realized that aircraft were being used as weapons, they ordered an IMMEDIATE GROUNDING OF ALL AIRCRAFT a thing never done before, giving ALL aircraft 30 minutes to land or be shot down will work on shipping as well.
Stating Flatly that "If any vessel aproaches the US coast, it WILL be destroyed" is a huge incentive to all ships to stop right now, those who don't are then easily identified.
Boom, instant (Relatively Speaking) sinking.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
08/09/2006 22:13 Comments ||
Top||
#36
None with Iranian flags, of course, but most tankers don't carry flags of origin rather flags of nations that charge less tax. I hope your right on the numbers of ships and containers and their ability to screen them. Israel just has to know if there is a big event such as a dirty bomb or a clean one it is aimed at them.
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/09/2006 22:22 Comments ||
Top||
#37
yep
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 22:28 Comments ||
Top||
#38
I'm cringing but wouldn't an airliner suffice and not sit there like a ship. ?
Also NS, what demands could they make ?
Seriously I'm asking what you think.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/09/2006 22:32 Comments ||
Top||
#39
Not really, an airliner is spectacular but the damage is minimal, on the scale of WMD's. An oil tanker/dirty nuke would be catastrophic on a large scale and lay a large portion of the coast and downwind area to waste. Where does Israel get it's fuel and oil?
Posted by: 49 Pan ||
08/09/2006 22:51 Comments ||
Top||
#41
Simply issue a statement that even a single NBC (Nuclear, Biological or Chemical) attack on American soil will result in all of the Islamic countries getting glassed over. Then sit back and watch the fun as they try to rein in a renegade lunatic like Ahmadinejad.
And therein lies the root of the problem - NOBODY believes the United States would actually do such a thing - least of all the Iranians or the terrorists.
#42
#39. No . I meant an airliner with like all the seats and flooras removed and some massive bomb (Dirty or nuclear) inside.
LAnd it, crash it ,blow it up low, wherever. ISn't that a viable delivery system, posssibly harder (at least the first time) to innterdict than a ship ?
Where does Israel get it's oil ?
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/09/2006 23:29 Comments ||
Top||
#43
Where does Israel get it's oil ?
from dead Paleo puppies and kittens? Don't you get the newspapers??
:-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/09/2006 23:32 Comments ||
Top||
#44
What scares the hell out of me is that Israel will face a challenge so severe it sees no way of winning. The Arabs can afford to lose many times, but Israel cannot afford to lose, even once. The actual threat of losing would be enough for Israel to "go nuclear". The result would be the launch of between 100 and 200 nuclear weapons, ranging from 50Kt to 500Kt, on the major cities of the Arab middle east. Not only would it kill several hundred million Arabs, it would make large portions of the Middle East a not very nice place to live in. I don't believe Iran would be spared. A radioactive "12th Imam" wouldn't do Islam much good, especially if Mecca and Medina were radioactive graveyards.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
08/09/2006 23:33 Comments ||
Top||
Europe 's view of the present Israeli offensive against Hezbollah as an "overreaction" and "disproportionate use of force" is rooted in relatively recent history, say progressive researchers. In 1943, Europe itself suffered from a similar Jewish overreaction to some controversial German policies, in an event known as the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, when Zionist radicals attacked the National Socialist German Workers Party that was loved by the German people for its far-reaching educational and social welfare services.
In fact, many academics who teach Peace Studies at prestigious universities believe that it was the Zionists' "disproportionate use of force" that had ruined hopes for peace in Europe and caused a humanitarian crisis that could have easily be avoided if only Jews had shown restraint and tolerance towards the democratically elected German government. Hilarious yet sad take on European and The New York Slimes coverage of the war. Check out the link for a good laugh (or cry).
#1
...that had ruined hopes for peace in Europe and caused a humanitarian crisis that could have easily be avoided if only Jews had shown restraint and tolerance towards the democratically elected German government.
I know this is parody, but that's basically what Ghandi was advocating to the European Jews before WW2.
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.
