I just can't resist looking in on old Brad now and again. For a socialist moonbat he's actually not too bad of a guy, especially when compared to the rest of his peer group on the left side of the blogosphere.
Crusader (a Rantburger - see Rantburg Responds - Have I Been Pummeled?) wanted me to buy into the idea that it was acceptable to use the term âhellholeâ because it really meant something positive: âThe underlying principle that most on the right use to determine what is and what isnât a âhellholeâ is whether basic human rights (free speech, the right to vote, freedom of religion and freedom FROM religion) are afforded to its occupants (regardless of gender and race) and whether the government of the occupants was formed by free and fair democratic elections.â My view, however, is that one doesnât enter into a discourse where one is expected to use âhellholeâ or âtrollâ simply because someoneâs come up with a nifty affirmative redefinition for an otherwise derogatory term especially since the term is meant to apply to entire nations (hellhole) or entire viewpoints (troll as a term for Arab perspectives).
Let us take Crusaderâs point about rights, however, and apply it to Zeâevâs comments. If we accept Zeâveâs point that a Jewish State and its survival may indeed be incompatible with our western liberal ideas about how states ought to be - does that mean Israel is presently at risk of becoming a âhellholeâ? What if being a âhellholeâ is the means by which a Jewish State (a state of Jews run by Jews) can survive? Then how are the opponents of âhellholesâ (and they mean Arab States if that is not yet clear) to feel about Israel? Or are we to accept the implications of Zeâveâs point for Israel (but certainly then too for other States) that we might not wish to brandish all nations negatively just because they do not fit into our preconceived ideas of ideal nationhood? In short must the political nature of Israelâs Statehood match western preconceptions if the upshot of such is that it will cause a Jewish State to cease to exist? What if the only way for a Jewish State to exist entails a kind of racialist bias in terms of government decision making?
#1
The man and his admirers are hopeless. His precondition is that Israel has no right to exist, because a Jewish state is by its very nature evil. He refuses to acknowledge that ending Jewish rule would have real and deadly consequences for those now living there, and for Jews throughout the world who would once again have no refuge from persecution. I've posted arguments there several times, but I'm afraid the only difference between him and the trolls who spew their bile here is the calm and reasonable tone he adopts. Otherwise his first principles are equally inept and immovable. There is no point arguing -- he's only pretending to listen.
#2
Any and all, feel free to read what Trailing Wife considers to be "arguments" as well as the responses to said arguments (see in particular her comments on the post "Making the Inconceivable Obvious - Israeli Power, Palestinian Survival.") Pay particular attention to how Trailing Wife responds when asked (more than once by more than one)to specifically address the substance of the post instead of selling her own wares. Everything Trailing Wife states about my views about Israel and the Jews embarrasses Rantburg.com for it belies someone lacking a ... will to truth. Who is the one pretending to listen Trailing Wife? I suggest it is you.
In truth, I'm making honest inquiries and offering bold opinions but unlike many, I have not drawn any final conclusions. Defending Israel - blindly - is not in the interests of Israel.
#3
Defending Israel - blindly - is not in the interests of Israel.
TW defends nothing blindly, just look through the history in RB, she is a defender plain and simple. Questioning Isreals right to exist is just flat stupid and deserves the attacks they get. So now some ass will want to debate the 6 million killed, oh wait, that happening and we know how rational that guy is. Isreal is there to stay, its up to the Arab states to see if they can get along or have their Arab states removed.
Posted by: 49 pan ||
01/18/2006 21:56 Comments ||
Top||
#4
For those of you who don't like Dennis Miller, who is not Jewish, you may want to reconsider after reading his brilliant comments that follow. Please pass it on to your
friends.
For those who don't know, Dennis Miller is a comedian who has a show called Dennis Miller Live on HBO. Although he is not Jewish, he recently had the following to say about the Middle East situation:
"A brief overview of the situation is always valuable, so as a service to all Americans who still don't get it, I now offer you the story of the Middle East in just a few paragraphs, which is all you Really need.
Here we go:
The Palestinians want their own country. There's just one thing about that: There are no Palestinians. It's a made up word. Israel was called Palestine for two thousand years. Like "Wiccan," "Palestinian" sounds ancient but is really a modern invention. Before the Israelis won the land in the 1967 war, Gaza was owned by Egypt, the West Bank was owned by Jordan, and there were no "Palestinians."
As soon as the Jews took over and started growing oranges as big as basketballs, what do you know, say hello to the "Palestinians," weeping for their deep bond with their lost "land" and "nation."
So for the sake of honesty, let's not use the word "Palestinian" any more to describe these delightful folks, who dance for joy at our deaths until someone points out they're being taped. Instead, let's call them what they are:
"Other Arabs Who Can't Accomplish Anything In Life And Would Rather Wrap Themselves In The Seductive Melodrama Of Eternal Struggle And Death."
I know that's a bit unwieldy to expect to see on CNN. How about this, then: "Adjacent Jew-Haters." Okay, so the Adjacent Jew-Haters want their own country. Oops, just one more thing: No, they don't. They could've had their own country any time in the last thirty years, especially two years ago at Camp David. But if you have your own country, you have to have traffic lights and garbage trucks and Chambers of Commerce, and, worse, you actually have to figure out some way to make a living.
That's no fun. No, they want what all the other Jew-Haters in the region want: Israel. They also want a big pile of dead Jews, of course --that's where the real fun is -- but mostly they want Israel.
Why? For one thing, trying to destroy Israel - or "The Zionist Entity" as their textbooks call it -- for the last fifty years has allowed the rulers of Arab countries to divert the attention of their own people away from the fact that they're the blue-ribbon most illiterate, poorest, and tribally backward on God's Earth, and if you've ever been around God's Earth, you know that's really saying something.
It makes me roll my eyes every time one of our pundits waxes poetic about the great history and culture of the Muslim Mid east. Unless I'm missing something,
the Arabs haven't given anything to the world since Algebra, and, by the way, thanks a hell of a lot for that one.
Chew this around and spit it out: Five hundred million Arabs; five Million Jews. Think of all the Arab countries as a football field, and Israel as a pack of matches sitting in the middle of it. And now these same folks swear that if Israel gives them half of that pack of matches, everyone will be pals..
Really? Wow, what neat news. Hey, but what about the string of wars to obliterate the tiny country and the constant din of rabid blood oaths to drive every Jew into the sea? Oh, that? We were just kidding.
My friend, Kevin Rooney, made a gorgeous point the other day: Just reverse the numbers. Imagine five hundred million Jews and five million Arabs. I was stunned at the simple brilliance of it. Can anyone picture the Jews strapping belts of razor blades and dynamite to themselves? Of course not.
Or marshaling every fiber and force at their disposal for generations to drive a tiny Arab State into the sea?Nonsense. Or dancing for joy at the murder of innocents? Impossible. Or spreading and believing horrible lies about the Arabs baking their bread with the blood of children?
Disgusting.
No, as you know, left to themselves in a world of peace, the worst Jews would ever do to people is debate them to death.
Mr. Bush, God bless him, is walking a tightrope. I understand that with vital operations in Iraq and others, it's in our interest, as Americans, to try to stabilize our Arab allies as much as possible, and, after all, that can't be much harder than stabilizing a roomful of super models who've just had their drugs taken away.
However, in any big-picture strategy, there's always a danger of losing moral weight. We've already lost some. After September 11th our president told us and the world he was going to root out all terrorists and the countries that supported them. Beautiful. Then the Israelis, after months and months of having the equivalent of an Oklahoma City every week (and then every day) start to do the same thing we did, and we tell them to show restraint.
If America were being attacked with an Oklahoma City every day, we would all very shortly be screaming for the administration to just be done with it and kill everything
south of the Mediterranean and east of the Jordan.
Please feel free to pass this along to your friends. Walk in peace! Be Happy! Have a wonderful life!
#7
By the way, I echo Mr. Stroud's invitation. Check out what I wrote on his site (see his archives in November and December of last year), and what he writes, and decide for yourselves. I wouldn't want it said, by those whose opinion I respect, that I asked you to take my statements on faith alone.
I never have visited that site before, and after reading his post on "Interpreting Ahmadinejad's Anti-Zionist Comments", I don't think I ever could again.
Ahmadinejadâs rhetoric is certainly repugnant but the nation is in no way - at present - a danger and its history of pragmatism suggests that it will not likely become a danger provided its territorial integrity is not compromised by an misguided U.S. and or Israeli intervention aimed as âsavingâ us all from a dangerous âIslamofacist menaceâ.
I did not make that up. Iran's not a danger, everybody go back to sleep and don't worry a bit, no matter what the EU 3 say.
Brad, you owe trailing wife an apology. I read the comments she posted on that article you mentioned. She did address the topic and answered questions that were asked of her. You simply didn't like the answers she gave. "willtotruth" indeed.
#9
don't invite Brad to grace RB again - Willtotruth was outed as a bigotted liar and troll
Posted by: Frank G ||
01/18/2006 23:26 Comments ||
Top||
#10
Let's deal with the other side of the coin, shall we?
Yasser Arafat was Leonod Brezhnev's personal bitch. There would not be a "Palestinian" Authority save for the Soviet Union and their admirers in the EU. Were it not for the USSR, Arafat would be a joto giving head for a hand full of dates.
As the Israel's right to exist: Isreal exists and their have armed forces capable of defending their land from the legacy of Arafat.
They hold free elections something the "Palestinians" have never done and they have a free wheeling capitalist economy, something "Palestinains" will never understand under their current regime.
The Israeli nation has EARNED the right to exist and that is fully and completely compatible with western ideas.
Now, if you will excuse me, I need to go read the Bible and pray for Israel
"It was what made this E.U. Three approach so successful. They [Britain, France and Germany] stood together and they had one uniform position."
-- German Chancellor
The Iran Charade, Part II
Rather than face the consequences of action before a group of apocalyptic madmen go nuclear, Europe's leaders are congratulating themselves for doing nothing in unison.
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/18/2006 13:56 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11132 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bar keep, plz move to aisle 4
Posted by: Captain America ||
01/18/2006 13:58 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Without a trace of irony, it is very becoming that Europe will fall under the gunsights of Iran's missile program first. Kicking and screaming, they have struggled to snatch this defeat from the jaws of victory. They deserve it.
#3
Since Iran cannot physically invade Europe, the Euros are left with the bizarre situation. "Well, if they just nuke *one* of our cities, is that acceptable? How about two?"
They are so marginalized that this is not as ridiculous as it sounds.
#4
We should've known that Europe was finished when we had to save their bacon twice last century.
This time, we should sneak in there and build underground bomb factories, then after the muzzies take over, we bomb their schools and check points and such on a daily basis. Would be fun to watch, wouldn't it ?
#5
Or just fire cruise missiles or TLAMs at random city target coords and at random times. Keep 'em steppin' lively. We could make a game show or lottery thingy out of it.
#7
Hey, buggers, I live in Europe. Had to leave all my guns in Texas. Lots of natives would use 'em if they had 'em. How do we get some arms smuggled over this way?
Posted by: ST ||
01/18/2006 18:34 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Hmmm. I think revisiting the Olde Way might work. First you get your pitchforks and torches organized, then you hang the wankers who think you shouldn't be armed (use the Mussolini Model Methinks), then call home and use UPS.
"buggers"? Ahem. If you don't mean 'Burgers, then we have a serious problem, lol. ;-)
Global strike constitutes a bolt-out-of-the-blue attack, a capability that has been developed wherein the President could order an attack within hours.
Since at least the middle of 2004, U.S. long-range bombers and submarines have been on alert to carry out an attack on weapons of mass destruction targets that could potentially threaten the United States. At Strategic Command (STRATCOM) in Omaha, the global strike plan has been written and refined. The choreography for bomber and cruise missile attacks has been arranged. Actual targets have been selected, and WMD activity is monitored, resulting in constant revisions of the choreography.
In May, I wrote that the plan also includes options to use nuclear weapons. But the attractiveness and feasibility of the new global strike planning is that a disarming blow can theoretically be delivered with conventional weapons alone.
The post-9/11 National Security Strategy, published in September 2002, codified preemption, stating that the United States must be prepared to stop rogue states and their terrorist clients before they are able to threaten or use weapons of mass destruction against the United States and our allies." Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld directed the military in 2002 to create the capability to undertake "unwarned strikes" in crisis situations.
If Iran continues to defy the international community and manufactures nuclear weapons materials, and if U.S. intelligence detects peculiar movements or actions associated with nuclear facilities or, say, Iranian arming and alerting of its ballistic missile or fighter force, CONPLAN 8022 could be implemented to strike at the activity.
Given that the justification for preemption and for the global strike capability is to prevent "another 9/11," this time one with WMD, it wouldn't be relevant whether the United States was confident that it knew where ever last gram of Iran's weapons were. The focus would be against Iran's ability to deliver a WMD. The objective would be to forestall another 9/11. A strike that halted preparations for attack and set back the program so that it was no longer an immediate threat would be a success under the Bush administration's plan.
This is why commentators who warn that the United States does not know where all of Iran's nuclear capabilities are missing the point. Under global strike, the objective wouldn't be to "disarm" Iran: It would be to stop it.
But equally those who froth that a strike is imminent don't get it. Sure, the President spoke of an "axis of evil" after 9/11 but since then many realities have sunk in: The U.S. is overwhelmed in Afghanistan and Iraq, U.S. allies are as skeptical as ever regarding the use of force and even the government is more modest about what it "knows" after the intelligence failures since 9/11.
Someday, though, the President might indeed order a global strike. The argument on the part of the government would be that a preemptive strike on Iran was last ditch and defensive. Perhaps those who are opining about the subject should stop going around in circles about irrelevant claims and address the real program and its real justifications.
We are overwhelmed - politically. I can already hear the comparisons to the justifications for invading Iraq and how we got it wrong. With the elections coming up soon, the GOP will not want to go down that path again any time soon.
Posted by: Yosemite Sam ||
01/18/2006 10:38 Comments ||
Top||
#3
you can shoot the WMD installations, and you will neutralise the ones you know about.
but it won't solve the problem or win the war.
and they will hide some and you won't find them.
The war can only be won by neutralising radical islam.
This is an ideological war. I would spend billions training imams and pressuring the mullahs to subtly move in the right direction.
#4
anon1: The war is both military and ideological. We can't retrain the imams--not directly. We can and must work harder on the PR end, but we need more Arabic/Farsi/Turkik/etc speakers and a few decades. In the meantime we have a few problems that are likely to require tools that go bang.
Posted by: James ||
01/18/2006 11:26 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Stopping the nukes buys more time to reform Islam. And it might discourage the Iranians form restarting the project if they realize we have 10 years to develop new technology to whack them next time.
I doubt Islam can be "reformed" in less than 120 years, enough time that no one is alive who remembers the glorious days of UBL. Sort of like it took 120 years for the U. S. to get over the Civil War.
"it won't solve the problem or win the war"
Name the one battle in WWII that solved the problem or won the war.
"they will hide some and you won't find them"
They don't have them yet, and we won't stop watching. You don't build uranium processing plants and thousands of centrifuges in a garage and operate them on batteries.
"The war can only be won by neutralising radical islam."
And WWII was only won by neutralising Nazi politics?
"This is an ideological war."
They're all either ideological or pure greed for power/resources (e.g., Saddam taking Kuwait).
"I would spend billions training imams..."
Iran is not giving us that much time.
"reform islam and it's game over"
Islam is not giving us that much time either. Your strategy may have had some merit a few decades ago, but that was before Islam got its hands on WMDs.
Treating the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear ambition as a hot potato, the European trio of Britain, Germany and France have decided to pass it on to the International Atomic Energy Agency and from there to the U.N. Security Council.
"Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," says Germany's new Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
The truth, however, is that the trio's talks with Iran, which lasted three years, started at a dead end. And the Europeans knew that those talks would get nowhere. The talks began when Iran admitted that it had been lying to the IAEA and violating the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty for 18 years, but promised not to do so again.
Legally speaking, Iran should have been referred to the Security Council at that time. The Europeans rejected American demands to that effect and decided to forgive Iran for its past sins.
In exchange, they asked Iran, in the words of then French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin, to give them "something with which to silence the Americans." De Villepin had devised the scheme as a means of exposing what he called "the follies of American policy" as had been manifested in Iraq. He suggested that Iran be dealt with "the French way," which meant negotiations and compromise rather than knuckle-rapping or worse.
The Iranians welcomed the European offer because it did three things for them. First, it removed the threat of military action which, at the time, appeared to be serious. Second, the deal isolated the United States. Finally, it gave Iran time to speed up its nuclear program, whatever its ultimate goals.
Believe it or not, the Iranians were honest throughout the talks. They said they were prepared to give that "something" needed "to silence the Americans" in the form of a voluntary and temporary suspension of Iran's uranium-enrichment activities. They did not promise a permanent ban and made it clear that they would not relinquish Iran's right, under the NPT, to enrich uranium for fuel.
Interestingly, the European trio, presenting the deal as "a triumph for soft-power diplomacy," never demanded that Iran submit to a permanent end to uranium enrichment. The trio were anxious to be deceived, and were deceived by their own illusions rather than any chicanery on the part of Iran. All they were interested in was to score a point against Washington.
Even now the trio are not asking Iran to permanently forgo its right to enrich uranium. They cannot do so because the NPT recognizes that right for all nations. To make matters more complicated, the trio are now forced to deal with a much tougher Iranian partner in the person of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose political discourse is based on a dream of Iran as a major power on the global stage.
Having called the Europeans "nothing but corrupt midgets," Ahmadinejad would be the last person to let them dictate to him. He is also convinced that the United States, bedevilled by its internal divisions, has missed the opportunity to use the threat of military action against Iran. As a result, Ahmadinejad is actively seeking a diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans, plus escalating tension with the United States. He believes that he can take on both Europe and the United States and win. And if he does, he hopes he will emerge as the unrivalled master of the Islamic republic and the de facto leader of the Muslim world.
When Villepin and his British counterpart Jack Straw, plus their German colleague Joschka Fischer, initiated the talks with Teheran, they must have known that Iran had taken the strategic decision to develop a nuclear "surge capacity" as one of the three pillars of its National Defence Doctrine enacted in the early 1990s. The Europeans could not have been as naive as to believe that the Islamic republic would abandon that pillar in exchange for diplomatic niceties and an invitation to join the World Trade Organization. Incidentally, the so-called "incentive" of inviting Iran into the WTO is no longer relevant because Ahmadinejad regards the WTO as "a club of thieves and plunderers" and preaches "self-sufficiency" rather than trade as the centrepiece of his economic doctrine.
The Europeans are not prepared to acknowledge that the problem is not about uranium enrichment but about the nature of the present Iranian regime. More than 20 countries, from Argentina to Japan, and passing by Germany and Ukraine, enrich uranium without anyone making a fuss. The Iranian case is causing concern because few are prepared to trust the present leadership in Teheran not to embark upon some tragic mischief in the name of its Khomeinist ideology.
European-style appeasement, partly motivated by a desire to pull faces at Washington, has encouraged the most radical faction in Teheran and helped to bring Ahmadinejad to power. All the diplomatic gesticulations that are likely to follow will only compound that effect. The Islamic republic has had three years in which to prepare for whatever sanctions the Security Council might impose. It has also signed oil and gas contracts worth more than $70 billion with China, and arms and industrial contracts with Russia exceeding $30 billion, to make sure that at least one if not both would veto any harsh resolution against Iran.
The Khomeinist regime is one of those regimes that will not stop until they hit something hard. Why should they when they can pursue their objectives cost-free? Soft power may work only if it is backed by hard power.
And Europe has, once again, made it clear that it would oppose even the threat of hard power being used against Iran.
As things stand, all those concerned in this carnival of absurdities have reason to be happy: The Europeans get rid of the hot potato; the Bush administration finds a diplomatic fig leaf to cover its lack of an Iran policy; the Russians sell their arms; the Chinese get their oil and gas; and the Islamists in Teheran accelerate whatever mischief they might be up to in the nuclear domain.
But the problem of what to do with an awkward Iran in a new Middle East will remain unresolved.
#1
Well, I can't say it's much of a surprise, there've been so many - most wearing the same label: Mfg in France
But an engineered crisis - a schoolyard scheme of blind hatred and jealousy - with no thought about how to stop it, once rolling...
He hears the silence howling --
Catches angels as they fall.
And the all-time winner
Has got him by the balls.
He picks up Gideons Bible --
Open at page one -- Old Charlie Monique she stole the handle and
The train it wonât stop going --
No way to slow down.
Shitstorians born after the dust settles will look back upon this time and boggle.
#4
The trio were anxious to be deceived, and were deceived by their own illusions rather than any chicanery on the part of Iran. All they were interested in was to score a point against Washington.
I don't buy it. I've been convinced for a while that the EUros (France, in particular) actually want Iran to get the bomb. In their view: it would humiliate us and severely constrain our military options (win/win), it would be the ultimate leverage against Israel, and they believe they can buy off or deflect any threats aimed at them.
I truly believe they are duplicitous enough to do that, and I believe my view passes the Occam's razor test better that the view that they were sincere but got fooled.
#5
European-style appeasement, partly motivated by a desire to pull faces at Washington, has encouraged the most radical faction in Teheran and helped to bring Ahmadinejad to power.
Didn't their mommas tell them not to make faces because they might stick that way? Europe's startled look of horror as Iran starts dictating policy to them will be priceless. Effing morons.
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.
