Most historians (myself among them) nowadays find little to admire in the historical figure of Cecil Rhodes. His name has come to the fore during three recent centenaries (the centenary of his death in 2002; the Rhodes Scholarships, 2003; and Rhodes University, 2004). And there has been a flurry of recent interest in the pages of the Mail & Guardian, prompted by Adekeye Adebajos article A most unsavoury rehabilitation (July 21).
How might one remember Rhodes today? The claim of one M&G letter-writer (July 28) that it is elementary fact to judge historical figures by the norms and values of their time is more elementary error. The norms of Rhodess time were not absolute or monolithic, but highly contested. Rhodess imperialism may have earned him popularity in Victorian England, but it also aroused bitter hatred among his victims in Southern Africa. Ultimately, historical figures are judged according to the perspective of the beholder.
Yes, Rhodes was once revered by admiring biographers as a visionary idealist, resourceful entrepreneur, canny politician and generous benefactor. In recent decades he has been seen -- correctly, in my view -- as a crude racist and ruthless imperialist who rode roughshod over the rights of Africans as a political opportunist, callous exploiter and supreme egotist.
When President Bush said we're at "war with Islamic fascists," he was referring to Osama bin Laden and his acolytes in London trying to blow U.S. airliners out of the Atlantic skies.
But America has its own "Islamic fascists" right here at home. Once they amass the numbers, they secretly plan to nullify our Bill of Rights and religious freedoms and create their own Muslim state ruled by Islamic law. They've got a 100-year plan, but they're already making inroads.
Astoundingly, some of them head the allegedly moderate Muslim groups who protested Bush's use of the phrase "Islamic fascists." The Council on American-Islamic Relations whined that the term contributes to a rising level of hostility toward Islam. "The use of ill-defined hot button terms such as 'Islamic fascists' harms our nation's image and interests worldwide, particularly in the Islamic world," the group said in a press release.
"Our nation"? Please. CAIR really only cares about the interests of one nation -- the nation of Islam -- and its own leaders are on record stating their desire to replace our constitutional democracy with a fascist society (as we know it) represented by sharia law.
"Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faith, but to become dominant," CAIR co-founder Omar Ahmad once told a Muslim audience in Fremont, Ca. "The Quran should be the highest authority in America."
Lest anyone think he was misquoted, CAIR's own spokesman, Dougie "Ibrahim" Hooper, let it slip to the Minneapolis Star Tribune that he essentially wants the same thing: "I wouldn't want to create the impression that I wouldn't like the government of the United States to be Islamic sometime in the future."
They aren't alone:
* The former head of the American Muslim Council -- supposedly the "most mainstream Muslim organization in America" -- exhorted Muslims to turn the U.S. into an Islamic nation ruled by Quranic law even if it takes "a hundred years," according to federal court records.
* Popular New York imam Siraj Wahhaj told his flock in a taped sermon available at his mosque: "In time, this so-called democracy will crumble, and there will be nothing. And the only thing that will remain will be Islam."
* Another so-called moderate cleric, Zaid Shakir, admitted in a recent interview with the New York Times: "I would like to see America become a Muslim country."
These quislings aren't part of the fringe. They represent the Muslim establishment in America. And they are on record wishing America would be ruled by Islamic law and not the Constitution. Rest at link.
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2006 12:13 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
The only way I can put it....... START STOCKING UP ON AMMO!!!
#2
Right, armyguy. We will have to defend American values by firing into the crouds from our basement windows. God knows the PC government won't take a stand. They should be debating that Islam is not a religion, but a death cult. But, they don't debate, they profiteer, and there's no money in the WOT.
Their silence is deafening.
#3
a 12 GA Winchester Defender (18" barrel, pistol grip - 8 shell capacity of .00) makes a wonderful balance for crowd control in uprisings....home defense, of course
Posted by: Frank G ||
08/15/2006 14:14 Comments ||
Top||
#4
See ya at "Ray's "
Lol
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/15/2006 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
By Julia E. Sweig JULIA E. SWEIG is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Her most recent book is "Friendly Fire: Losing Friends and Making Enemies in the Anti-American Century."
AMERICA'S MORAL standing in the world has precipitously declined since 2001. For starters, blame the Bush administration's go-it-alone tough talk after 9/11, contempt for the Kyoto accord, war and then chaos in Iraq, secret prisons in Europe and alleged use of torture at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Democrats would have you believe that a new team theirs in Washington would change all this. Not so fast.
I'm not in the least concerned with our "moral standing," at least as perceived by the International Community. As far as I can tell, Kofi Annan and the UN have lotsa "moral standing" in their eyes, even while being blatantly corrupt, inefficient, and a detriment to actual peace. The UN's corpse count over the years dwarfs anything the U.S. has done since 9-11 just Rwanda drawfs it. Our go-it-alone tough talk was in response to a Pearl Harbor class attack on our nation, not some passing fit of pique, some girlish snit, and we face an enemy that matches Imperial Japan for fanaticism and brutality. Most of our citizens have a healthy contempt for the Kyoto Accord, and it's losing ground among those nations that previously bought into it. War and chaos in Iraq comes from fighting against a tenacious and vicious enemy, the joining of Baathism literally a form of fascism and al-Qaeda. The enemy's strategy is that if they can't rule the country with an iron fist they'll make it unlivable. The secret prisons hold secret prisoners, the heads of al-Qaeda, the masterminds, the people who blow up large numbers of innocents. I'm less concerned about their rights than I am about the safety of the the unoffending going about their lawful business. If you've got a real interest in torture, take a close look at the tactics of the enemy and contrast them with a few fake menses at Guantanamo. I think even the most hardened Islamist would rather have real blooch dribbled on him than have his head and/or genitalia cut off.
Around the world, anti-Americanism is not simply the result of anger about President Bush's foreign policies. Rather, it is deeply entrenched antipathy accumulated over decades. It may take generations to undo.
Consider the causes:
Cold War legacy: U.S. intervention in Vietnam, and covert attempts to overthrow governments in Iran, Guatemala and Cuba, among others, created profound distrust of U.S. motives throughout the developing world. Europeans also disdain these policies and bemoan the cultural coarseness of Americanization sweeping their continent.
Anti-Americanism was something that was fostered as state policy by the Soviet Union over many years. The Soviets are comfortably ensconced in the trash heap of history, despite all attempts to revive them, but that particular legacy lives on. While we were running our side of the Cold War, they were running theirs, and I fear they ran their propaganda machine better than we ran ours. Their educational system wasn't available to us to subvert, even if we could have brought ourselves to do it, which we probably couldn't. And that "cultural coarseness" that Julia's talking about is called "vitality." When Europeans come up with something vital it sweeps this country. That's how we ended up with Abba. Turtlenecks and Gauloises don't cut it when it comes to vitality, though I'm not quite sure why the Chicken Dance never caught on here.
Americans, by contrast, tend to dismiss this side of the Cold War. Gore Vidal famously referred to this country as the United States of Amnesia. We're all about moving forward, getting over it, a nation of immigrants for whom leaving the past behind was a geographic, psychological and often political act. As the last guy standing when the Cold War ended, in 1989, we expected the world to embrace free markets and liberal democracy.
That would have been a rational move on the part of the rest of the world. We don't live in a rational world, though. We live in a world where people, even in this country, want a Fearless Leader with all the answers laid out.
Power and powerlessness: Power generates resentment. But the United States has lost the ability to see its power from the perspective of those with less of it. In Latin America, for example, U.S. policies whether on trade, aid, democracy, drugs or immigration presumed that Latin Americans would automatically see U.S. interests as their own. And when denied deference, we sometimes lash out, as did Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld when he lumped Germany, a close U.S. ally, with Cuba and Libya because Berlin opposed the Iraq war.
Not precisely. Our bitch wasn't so much the opposition to the war, but the anti-American cheapshots Schroeder's administration took. We weren't happy with Cretien's Canada, either. And we lumped Germany with France, not with Cuba and Libya.
Globalization: In the 1990s, our government, private sector and opinion makers sold globalization as virtually synonymous with Americanization. President Clinton promised that open markets, open societies and smaller government would be the bridge to the 21st century. So where globalization hasn't delivered, the U.S. is blamed.
I'm not too sure where globalization hasn't delivered. The people most opposed to globalization are those who run regimes where globalization is implemented haltingly, if at all. The countries that are prospering are precisely the ones who have. Pre-globalization India was the place we used to send food for the Starving Chldren. Now they're sending groceries to the Starvin Children in Somalia or someplace.
What we stand for: Bush is wrong to say that foreigners hate us because of our values and freedoms.
That they hate us for our freedoms is a demonstrably true statement when discussing the shariah and scimitar set. It's demonstrably true when discussing backwaters like Cuba and Sudan and Syria, where iron-fisted dictatorship is the ideal. What're we discussing, Julia? Brazil? Bolivia? Kabila's Congo?
Quite the contrary. U.S. credibility abroad used to be reinforced by the perception that our laws and government programs gave most Americans a fair chance to participate in a middle-class meritocracy. But the appeal of the U.S. model overseas is eroding as the gap between rich and poor widens, public education deteriorates, healthcare costs soar and pensions disappear.
Are you tracing out why? Some things are bad ideas, but once implemented you can't undo them. Health insurance falls into that category. It wasn't until HMOs were introduced, partially in response to increased tort lawyering, that the price of a visit to the doctor started going up each and every year. Public education began deteriorating about the time we established a Department of Education. Pension benefits began disappearing when they became too generous for companies to maintain, especially while unions were dipping into them. But our laws and government programs do give Americans a fair chance to participate in a middle-class meritocracy. The country's not run by old money. The economy's powered more by first and second generation Americans.
Most recently, the U.S. government's seeming indifference to its most vulnerable citizens in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina further undercut belief in the American social contract. The immigration debates also have fostered the perception that the U.S. is vulnerable, hostile and fearful.
Katrina was a unique meeting of an historic storm with a federal government that was prepared for a storm of less than hisotric dimension, a state government that was marked by ineptitude and indecisiveness, and a city government that gave rise to the phrase Stuck on Stupid. Add in hysterical reporting by a hostile press and a natural disaster that was dwarfed by Indonesia's tsunami and Pakistan's earthquake becomes an iconic event. Perception is everything, apparently. We don't seem to spend a lot of time dwelling on the devastation wrought by the same storm on Mississippi and Alabama, do we?
Nevertheless, the ideal of the United States as a beacon of justice, democracy, freedom and human rights still garners grudging respect abroad. Despite the perverse appeal of anti-Americanism, its proliferation hurts not only the U.S. but global security. For all the resentments that U.S. leadership generates, in the absence of an appealing alternative, it remains a much-desired resource. That's why the U.S. could still get its global groove back.
If we spent less time worrying about our "global groove" and more time about doing what's right we'd be a lot better off. But I suppose we're still stuck on perception, rather than reality.
But there is no quick fix. Liberals tempted to out-Bush Bush in the battle against terrorism risk sowing the seeds of a future backlash in the developing world. The U.S. will be no less powerful in the eyes of powerless nations if Democrats win control of Congress in November. Harsh global competition isn't going away either. As a result, the wellsprings of anti-Americanism will not dry up anytime soon.
Oh. We're not supposed to compete globally at all? That makes sense. Not a lot of sense, but sense.
But anti-Americanism will begin to ebb if the new watchwords of U.S. policy and conduct are pragmatism, generosity, modesty, discretion, cooperation, empathy, fairness, manners and lawfulness.
Oh, I see. We should become more like the Euros. Lemme see, here. How to be pragmatic? Well, we could increase our support for Pakistan, despite its obvious failings and its role as a hub of terrorism. And we could not invade Arabia, since that's where the money for terrorism is coming from. Instead we could work behind the scenes, occasionally reading them the riot act in private, while in public rubbing their shoulders and jollificating with them. And generosity? We could dump a few billion into Africa to help them try and control their AIDS problem. And for the rest of it, we could profess modestly and discretely, of course how very cooperative we are, we could empathize with the ratholes of the world, feeling their pain with exquisite good manners while adhering to the letter of the law, the while making deals in private and extending our commericial interests at the expense of the local populace, kind of like La Belle France does. I guess that's not a bad idea, though I'd have to bathe a little more often than I do.
This softer lexicon should not be construed as a refutation of the use of force against hostile states or terrorist groups.
No, no! Certainly not! But we'd have to do it with modesty, discretion, cooperation, empathy, fairness, manners and lawfulness. Gotcha.
Rather, a foreign policy that deploys U.S. power with some consideration for how the U.S. is perceived will gradually make legitimate U.S. military action more acceptable abroad.
Actually, I'd rather deploy U.S. power and have it perceived as an invicible machine of destruction that will pull the house down around the ears of the world's most repressive regimes. Howzat sound?
Angelina Jolie? Oprah? How about thousands of men and women who are actually turning the wheels of commerce, keeping this country and hundreds of associated enterprises worldwide in business, making money and jobs? How about a policy that cultivates Australia, Singapore, Taiwan, Japan, Israel, and Thailand, rather than rushing to try and make friends with dictatorships and kleptocracies? Do we really care in the least what Zim-bob-we thinks about us?
And symbols matter too. We should close Guantanamo.
Bush said he's going to do that. I think it's the wrong move. Reality matters more than symbolism. And the rest of the world isn't going to say "Aren't the Americans nice, now that they've close Guantanamo!" They'll merely move on to the next bitch.
Recovering our global standing will come not only from how we fight or prevent the next war, or manage an increasingly chaotic world. Domestic policy must change as well. Steering the body politic out of its insular mood, reducing social and economic inequalities, and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels will help improve our moral standing and our security.
They pay people to be this dopy at the Council on Foreign Relations?
Posted by: Fred ||
08/15/2006 07:05 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Here's the test.
If a country suffers a major disaster who do they turn to for real substantive help?
a - the UN
b - the EU
c - the USA
Years after the disaster and an accounting takes place, who delivered on their word?
a - the UN
b - the EU
c - the USA
Reviewing back after those same years, who promised a lot but delivered nothing but showboating?
a - the UN
b - the EU
c - the USA
I'd take a good Vegas bet that Julia wouldn't pass.
#4
" a foreign policy that deploys U.S. power with some consideration for how the U.S. is perceived will gradually make legitimate U.S. military action more acceptable abroad. "
Coffee shooting out nostrils as I laugh hysterically...
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
08/15/2006 9:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Why do they hate us? Some because they envy us. Some because their "god" commands them.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
08/15/2006 10:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Every country wants the power of the US military and economy at THEIR disposal. Ms. Sweig and her bosses at the DNC propose to make that a reality.
Ms. Sweig needs some seasoning in the way the world really works. I suggest, for starters, a four year hitch in the army.
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2006 10:40 Comments ||
Top||
#8
This is the kind of crap that makes me seethe. it is deeply entrenched antipathy accumulated over decades. It may take generations to undo.
Oh, they don't like us! Mommy, make them like us!
Apparently, the goal of all American policy to make the rest of the world like us. This whole piece is so shallow and lame that I won't bother with it anymore. She got a whole book out of this crap?
#11
What gets me while I'm reading this is the "good news" pictures coming out of Iraq/Afghanistan/etc. where our troops have been. Yes, we're good at trashing stuff(tm), but it appears we're also getting better at "winning hearts and minds." Yes, little 6 year old Achmed in Iraq will remember the guns/tanks/shelling in his 'hood, but he'll also remember GI Joe handing him candy, rebuilding his school, turning on the lights, getting him clean drinking water, etc. Methinks those who hate us(tm) are only the elites of those countries (ignorant of the realities of the world) or are the ruling class(tm) who stand something to lose when we trash stuff(tm) in their country (e.g. Baathists in Iraq, Taliban in Afghanistan, Jihadis in both), not your average Joe in Ramadi, Kost or even Baghdad. Yes, even they may hate us, but I don't suspect their children will.
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 11:30 Comments ||
Top||
#12
Meant to add, even if they do end up hating us, I say piss off. We're trying to give you a right to self-determination. Not our fault you're not taking advantage of it. Jeebus, I imagine the Germans and Japanese hated us too, after WWII, eh Julia?
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 11:33 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Quite the contrary. U.S. credibility abroad used to be reinforced by the perception that our laws and government programs gave most Americans a fair chance to participate in a middle-class meritocracy. But the appeal of the U.S. model overseas is eroding as the gap between rich and poor widens, public education deteriorates, healthcare costs soar and pensions disappear.
Why then do they keep coming by trhe millions.
A case could be made that 10-30 millipon illegal mouths at the teat are screwing it up for ther rest of us , no ?
Yet they keep coming. Must be something better here.....
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
08/15/2006 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#14
On that train of thought, didn't someone here post the immigration stats for most of these countries. Something like most Euro countries were losing population to the U.S., whereas we're "importing" them by the millions. Linky anyone?
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 11:37 Comments ||
Top||
#15
Sounds like she wants Jimmy Carter back.
No fucking thank you...
#16
wants Jimmy Carter back
My first thought upon reading this steaming pile was "Too stupid to live.", but your brief description goes illustrates the point very well.
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2006 11:59 Comments ||
Top||
#17
does illustrates
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2006 12:05 Comments ||
Top||
#18
Our biggest "crimes" are:
1) Our economy is growing twice as fast as Europe's.
2) Our jobless rate is 1/2 that of Europe.
3) Our population is growing. Europe's is shrinking.
4) Our GNP per capita is 1/3 higher than Europe's.
Anti-Americanism has more to do with the failures of those countries than anything the US does or does not do. Therefore Anti-Americanism will not go away till those countries start growing again.
She is right when she says it won't change under the Dumb-ocrats.
Al
Posted by: Frozen Al ||
08/15/2006 12:20 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Sweig's thesis kinda reminds me of the parents I know who tell their kids that it's more important to be cool and popular than to be responsible, sober, chaste, and ethical.
BTW, when you get to some level of the academic-policy complex, do you get a pass on backing up your claims with facts and data?
#20
"Steering the body politic out of its insular mood, reducing social and economic inequalities, and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels will help improve our moral standing and our security."
Reads like a combination of modern Euro tranzi fantasy and DNC boilerplate.
Oops, sorry for the redundancy.
When will the RNC spend the money to run a decent info campaign that will a) show that the Dems want a society in the U.S. which is virtually identical to Euroland and b) that such a society is doomed to extinction? It wouldn't be that hard to do. And watching the Dems try to sputter and deny it would be high entertainment.
Most 'burgers get it about the connection between socialism/moral relativism/evangelicalsecularism and societal extinction, but lots of Americans need to have the dots connected. They're smart enough, if somebody would only do the connecting.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
08/15/2006 12:30 Comments ||
Top||
#21
These clowns better quit asking "why they hate us" and start asking "why we hate them."
They keep this take-over-the-world-and-subject-everyone-to-sharia shit, they might find out. The hard way.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/15/2006 12:37 Comments ||
Top||
#22
I hate them right back. Does that make us even? Goodie.
Posted by: Dar ||
08/15/2006 13:14 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Steering the body politic out of its insular mood, reducing social and economic inequalities, and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels will help improve our moral standing and our security.
A few tsk, tsk's to this very naive asanine statement:
(1) You haven't begun to see insular moods. I for one, would love to go full insular AIRT gov't (e.g. pull all "foreign aid" monies back home, shut down/militarize the borders, etc.).
(2) Reducing social/economic inequalities? PSHAW. So you'd like for all of us to live in cardboard boxes and tin huts? Or, just us "peons" who aren't enlightened, Julia. And, I call "projection" on this one. You wanna talk about social/economic inequalities? The ones who hate us the most (Saudi, Iran, N. Korea, Syria, even Russia, et al) have a TON more inequalities than we do (ruling classes vs. "real squalor living", women not being able to vote/go outside w/o a man, sentencing to death w/o trials, etc., shall I go on?).
(3) Reducing our dependence on oil? You think they're pissed off now, just wait til we actually dry up funding Saudi, Iran, et al, and subsequently, the Paki-Waki madrassahs, etc. Only the "Arab Street" hates us now. You dry up funding to Ali-Baba and his 2,000 Saudi princes and watch what happens. Of course, I'm all for this (and as a first move, get off their oil and drill our own).
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 14:06 Comments ||
Top||
#24
When I read nonsense like this, I thank God that He has seen fit to make America's enemies so stupid.
#25
They hate us? Like hell. They're jealous. They have been for a damn long time. It's been a European tradition since around our Revolution, for heaven's sake. Doesn't this "analyst" know any history at all?
We only got a bit of a break right after 9/11, but that's only because there was a genuine fear of what we might do in reply and they were hoping it wasn't aimed their way. (Sympathy my ass....they were waiting to see if we would turn the Middle East into a giant expanse of radioactive green glass. You know damn well many other countries, if they would have gotten hit with something like that and had our arsenal at their disposal, would have been readying the bombers and missiles on 12 Sep.)
If "they" hated us, they wouldn't bust their asses trying to get their kids into our universities, visit Disneyland and go shopping, and trying to see if they could manage to get a green card too. Yeah, they throw protest marches every now and then showing our President as Satan, but then they regroup afterwards at Mickey D's and Starbucks, and show off their new Levi's and Nikes.
And as "they" are aware, many of us could go live somewhere else if we wanted to. I could go to Russia and live there....I speak the language, and am married to a Russian. My kid would be eligible for Russian citizenship, and I could be too after a while.
Am I gonna do it? What the hell for??? Even my sweetie doesn't want our little mite to have Russian citizenship. He wants him to have American citizenship, like he hopes to have someday.
If this writer wanted to really do something that wasn't a regurgitation of tranzi crap from the past 30 or so years, why didn't she write about how they hate native-born Americans for not valuing American citizenship/residency like the rest of the world does? Yeah, I know, might require some work and actual thought....silly me.
#28
Doesn't this "analyst" know any history at all?
Of course not, and that's precisely the point. Any knowledge of history tells you that all the crap this "Senior Fellow" hurls at the wall is true for just about every country in the world.
You want to talk about interfering in another country's business? How about Russia in Eastern Europe? Or France in sub-saharan Africa? Or Cuba in Angola?
Globalization? Have you looked on the roads in this country? Japanese and Korean cars as far as the eye can see!
Katrina? What did the Iranians do for themselves after that earthquake they had? Or the Pakistanis? Or the Turks? And that's just earthquakes! How about France and its heatwave roasting all its elderly? Katrina was a monster storm that would have posed a monumental task for any rescue operation.
One day, around the world, the question will be posed: "Why do the Americans hate us?"
#29
In France, and more generally in Europe, our newspapers and radios and TV's are filled with this kind of analysis.
As a lot of comments point it, the US don't have to bother about this "hate".
1) The anti-Americans are jealous and mediocre people. The less they product, create, achieve in their personal life, the more they rage against America. I see this everywhere in Paris and the diverse countries of Europe I have recently visited.
2) Even if America was behaving with "modesty, discretion, cooperation, empathy, fairness, manners and lawfulness", the anti-Americans would find or invent new stupid pretexts to hate the US. Anti-Americanism is a sort of racism. As it is the case with racism, the problem doesn't lie in the people who are hated, but in the people who hate.
For me, reading the articles selected by Rantburg (and other American medias like FrontPageMagazine, The National Review, The Weekly Standards...), and the robust comments, is like breathing fresh oxygen.
She's got a point there. I was really impressed when the USAF symbolically dropped those two 500-pounders on Zarkman's head.
Posted by: Matt ||
08/15/2006 17:01 Comments ||
Top||
#31
Welcome, leroidavid. Frenchmen who don't view us as the world's greatest threat, who can discuss events and ideas intelligently and reasonably are Frenchman we LIKE speaking with. I earned my degree in French, but I have a hard time finding opportunities to use it-other than in Quebec-because I am a shameless American. I have found that the Americans the French like to speak with best are those filled with self-loathing for being American, wouldn't you say? :)
Posted by: Jules in the Hinterlands ||
08/15/2006 17:13 Comments ||
Top||
#32
We are trying to win hearts and minds. But are willing to splatter them if nessisary.
#33
One reason they hate us is there are a lot of useful idiots who believe the Marxist crap that the US (and West) could only be rich by taking from others. This provides a very convenient excuse for failed countries and failed cultures to avoid looking at their real problems and a very obvious point of US (and Western) villiany to rage against.
#34
I have found that the Americans the French like to speak with best are those filled with self-loathing for being American (Jules in the Hinterlands)
That's right. I have seen recently in Paris two examples of those self-hating Americans (both were, of course, leftists). They were likable at the beginning, but when the conversation switched to America, they just became mad ("9/11 is America's fault", "the US destroy the world", and so on...). I defended politely the US, and they calmed down. But I am sure they weren't cured.
[As for Blair's speech we talked about last day, all his "global warming, trade, poverty" is of course no more than standard PC 'clichés'. But the rest of the speech, the clear description of the worldwide danger of Islamism, was very good.]
#35
"They hate us? Like hell. They're jealous. They have been for a damn long time. It's been a European tradition since around our Revolution, for heaven's sake."
And underlying that, I suspect there's also resentment at having been rejected. Most of us are here, instead of there, because our ancestors decided "This place sucks. Let's get the Hell out of here and move to America."
And damn few have chosen to go back.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/15/2006 18:08 Comments ||
Top||
#36
Ya know, I debated on whether or not to continue using "why do they hate us?" as a frequent punchline. But the left never tires of this line of thinking, so I guess it's still in my arsenal.
Today, Rush Limbaugh has declared the UN useless. He also declared Olmert a fool and a victory for Hezbollah in Lebanon.
He also has identified the WOT as a religious war fought by religious extremists. He states that Islam has just won Somalia, continues to make gains in Afghanistan, continues to make trouble in Iraq, and has taken round one in Lebanon. He believes as I that the French will not succeed in ending Hezbollah trouble in southern Lebanon.
Rush also quoted Bush's 'we will not allow Iran to take over the Middle East' statement. Rush askes what are we doing to stop it ?
Rush has long attacked the MSM and the democrats for their false reality and their self centered solutions. Now, he goes after the lack of a winning approach in the War on Islam.
Rush can be heard daily on numerous radio stations and on the internet. He is the perfect Rantburg spokesman. His positions are consistent with red state American values. He works a radio talk show, but he could lead our army of normals against radical Islam. A position now open.
One thing is certain, Rush will not let this issue decline, and other radio personalities will follow his lead and step up the rhetoric against Islam and against the UN and these stupid meaningless ceasefires. Let's hope the administration is tuned in.
#2
So the tiny numbers of the Buchanan isolationist right are now more noticeably joining with the left.
Surprise, surprise. They wouldn't even want the US to protect Taiwan, Japan or Europe if push came to shove. All we need is right here, no reason to do anything cross out border except keep those foreigners out.
#3
I don't think so, Grom. I think Podhoretz makes a very good argument about Bush's consistency in following his prior statements. The nutballs on the left will always say that he rushed into war but those who examine the record will find that he did a creditable job of exploring alternative choices before making that decision.
Posted by: mac ||
08/15/2006 11:16 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Well mac, things are going very well in Afghanistan & Iraq, aren't they?
As to Lebanon.
Maybe it wasn't the most brilliant campaign IDF ever run, nevertheless: if George controlled his impulse to make kissi-kissi with el Jiraq for another week, USA's only ally in the Middle East would've been a lot better off.
#5
Maybe it wasn't the most brilliant campaign IDF ever run
The problem with the Lebanon war lies with Olmert, not the IDF. In the last 60 hours Olmert gave to the IDF to launch its massive ground offensive, Tsahal achieved great successes. One can only deeply deplore that Olmert stopped the IDF victorious rush. It was like castrating a bull.
Two lessons of the Lebanon war:
- the good one: the IDF is still the IDF;
- the bad one: Olmert is still Olmert.
#6
President Bush Renames the Enemy "Folks"
Most of us were thrilled when President Bush, responding to the UK Terror in the Sky plot, actually referred to the enemy as, well, what they are--Islamic Fascists.
Well, that made the Saudis, those Freakish Controlling Islamist Dictators, upset as they "warned" against our continuing to call the enemy what they are. After their not-so-veiled threat to stop helping with the WoT, President Bush bowed and obeyed.
At a press conference today, as he was just about to refer to the Islamist Fascists with whom we're at war, he hesitated for a moment, and summarily UnNamed the Enemy by calling them "[A]n extremist group of folks." Folks. Lovely.
Beware: not for dovish leftists! In the wake of September 11, there was a lively debate about the optimal mix of "hard" versus "soft" power--guns versus diplomacy, military force versus foreign aid. Thursday's foiled plot to blow up commercial jets shows that a similar divide informs the world of police work. Scotland Yard and the FBI sometimes stop terrorists by shooting them, just as the criminal justice system sometimes stops attempted murders by incarcerating the would-be killers. More often, though, violent plans are thwarted by a different sort of policing: light on force and violence, heavy on secrets and lies. Plant informants or bribe sources, figure out ways to listen and watch that the bad guys don't know about. Trick people into telling you their secrets. Get more information.
Deceit is the key to that enterprise--all good surveillance and intelligence operations depend on it. No Islamic terrorists want to tell Western intelligence services what their plans are. The only way government agents find out, short of brutalizing suspects or sources, is to trick them into giving the information away. Undercover agents and informants do that by pretending to be friends, colleagues, or even lovers. Effective surveillance programs do it by seeing or hearing things that the targets don't expect to be seen or heard. The idea is for the targets to give away information without realizing it--just like a mark gives his money to a con artist without knowing he's just been conned.
It may take weeks if not months before the cease-fire ordered in Lebanon by the United Nations Security Council is established and tested on the ground. However, one thing already is certain: The deeper causes of the war remain unchanged and could undermine the hoped-for cease-fire at any time.
Those who drafted the cease-fire resolution ignored the crucial fact that the Israel-Hezbollah duel was not prompted by classical considerations such as territory, borders or levels of military build-up. This was an existential struggle between two foes that regard the annihilation of each other as the only worthy goal.
Hezbollah, as part of a broader messianic movement, is committed to wiping Israel off the map. For its part, Israel regards that messianic movement as the most serious threat ever to its very existence and thus cannot feel secure until and unless Hezbollah is disarmed.
While many might welcome any cease-fire as a means of alleviating the suffering of civilians on both sides, a closer analysis might reveal a very different picture. The cease-fire, as structured, may well create more problems than it solves, ultimately sowing the seeds of an even larger and deadlier conflict.
As always, the latest U.N. resolution is designed to fudge the real issues. It does not provide for an immediate release of the Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah - a move that triggered the war in the first place. Nor does it echo Hezbollah's demands that Israel free Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners. It also ignores Security Council Resolution 1559, passed two years ago and calling for Hezbollah's disarmament as a step toward giving the legitimate Lebanese government a monopoly of armed forces in the country. If that looks like Byzantine chicanery, the resolution permits Israel to use force in self-defense but envisages no punishment for actions that might trigger such action in the first place.
This vagueness might enable Israel to pursue its campaign to "clean" the south from Hezbollah missile sites and hideouts even after a cease-fire has come into effect. However, it could also be interpreted by Hezbollah as an amber light for continuing some operations against Israeli units inside Lebanon. There is also no guarantee that Hezbollah will not adopt tactics employed by guerrilla forces elsewhere by accepting a cease-fire while prompting "rogue elements" to continue their attacks on the enemy. There is, of course, also no guarantee that Israel will not use covert operations to defang Hezbollah or even subject its leaders to targeted killings.
More importantly, the resolution assumes a measure of moral equality between the two protagonists, thus confirming their deep distrust of international institutions.
The biggest damage that the United Nations might do is to prevent the two protagonists from discovering each other's thresholds of pain. Throughout history, wars ended when one side in the conflict proved that it could suffer more pain than the other could. That discovery always persuaded the weaker side not only to stop fighting but also to abandon its bellicose dreams.
Because of U.N. intervention, Israel and Hezbollah would not discover each other's threshold of pain this time round. And this could encourage them to keep war alive as a low-cost option, thus weakening any argument for a genuine political settlement.
Because neither side came close to being crushed, both could claim victory based on the Nietzschean dictum that "What does not kill me makes me stronger!"
Without wishing to echo doomsayers, it is imperative to signal the possibility that the U.N. intervention could create an even bigger mess in southern Lebanon, an area of just over 1,000 square kilometers. To these are to be added between 15,000 and 30,000 men from the Lebanese National Army along with another 15,000 men in a multinational force led by France. Add to these the estimated 5,000 fighters of Hezbollah who are unlikely either to disarm or go on holiday and you may end up with an average of 50 armed men per square kilometer. Even if all the 150,000 displaced population of the area returned home, we would still have the highest ratio of gunmen to civilians anywhere in the world.
Having failed to address the root causes of this conflict the United Nations, and the so-called international community in general, should at least try to replace the logic of war on the ground with one of peace. This cannot be achieved without strong international support for Lebanese Prime Minister Fuad Siniora's democratically elected government, and its "Project for Peace," which enjoys the support of more than 70 percent of all Lebanese.
The war has displaced at least 700,000 people, almost all of them Shiites, who have been forced to seek temporary shelter in predominantly Christian and Druze towns and villages. In some cases, the incoming wave of Shiite refugees has altered the demographic balance of villages and towns, causing sectarian tension. Very soon, the displaced families would have to think about finding schools for their children and, before long, winter would threaten over half a million people in largely mountainous areas.
Having encouraged and then supported the "Cedar Revolution" that led to the creation of Lebanon's first democratic government, the United States and its allies have a moral duty, as well as a political responsibility, to lead a major effort to re-house the displaced families and start reconstruction. Failing to do that could enable the most radical anti-democratic elements to shift the battle to the political front and undermine, or even overthrow, the Siniora government.
Once again, the "international community" has stepped in to prevent war from doing its job of deciding who won and who lost. It would be even worse if the same "international community" were to prevent peace from doing its job of helping those affected by the fighting to return to normal life before it is too late.
#1
Having encouraged and then supported the "Cedar Revolution" that led to the creation of Lebanon's first democratic government, the United States and its allies have a moral duty, as well as a political responsibility, to lead a major effort to re-house the displaced families and start reconstruction. Failing to do that could enable the most radical anti-democratic elements to shift the battle to the political front and undermine, or even overthrow, the Siniora government.
What I'd really like to see (but will not) is US congress passing a law "NO $$$ for Lebanon until 1559 is implemented".
#2
Huge mistake letting the Shiites return. They all should have been pushed out and the area kept Shiite free long enough so they would settle somewhere else (like Syria).
Posted by: ed ||
08/15/2006 11:00 Comments ||
Top||
#3
War is over and the first damn thing ask for is the US to hand them money, F*CK THEM.
#4
I think the Isrealis accomplish their primary goal which was the reduction of Hezbollah rocket stores in Lebanon. This creates a window for an attack against Iran by US and maybe Israel, without the immediate fear that Hezbollah will throw 30,000 rockets down on Israel.
In the meantime, Iran won't be able to resupply the Hezbollah, because they will have their hands full. And any long-range rocket the Hezbollah have left can be taken down by their anti-missile defenses.
So Israel has won a time window. Let's see if it only needs to stretch through the 22nd.
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - While the Israeli-Lebanese ceasefire seemed to be holding on Tuesday, a storm was brewing in Israel over the handling of the war and preparations on the home front. With a huge amount of air power at its disposal and the tacit backing of America, how did Israel fail to crush Hizballah, critics are asking.
President Bush noted that while Hizballah claimed victory, in reality it had suffered a tremendous blow. "Hizballah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories," Bush said on Monday. "But how can you claim victory when at one time, you were a state within a state, safe within southern Lebanon, and now you're going to be replaced by a Lebanese army and an international force?"
According to U.N. resolution 1701, which has so far ended the Israeli-Hizballah fighting, Lebanon will deploy thousands of troops in southern Lebanon with the help of an international force to displace Hizballah. The resolution also calls for the disarming of militias and a halt to supplying weapons to anyone in Lebanon except for the Lebanese government and army and international monitors.
#1
"Hizballah, of course, has got a fantastic propaganda machine, and they're claiming victories,"
I don't agree with this point. HB's PR is pretty clumsy and ham-fisted, IMO. They have the MSM eating out of their hands, though, which is a "force multiplier" for their PR effort.
I realize my point's a nit, and probably a distinction without a difference, but I hate to see monsters like them getting credit when it's not due.
In France, a lot of medias never call the Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but rather often "the Party of God". This is no less than vindicating the Hezbonuts.
#3
I don't agree with this point. HB's PR is pretty clumsy and ham-fisted, IMO. They have the MSM eating out of their hands, though, which is a "force multiplier" for their PR effort.
Ever seen rough video or film, the stuff that was shot as-is? There are flubbed lines, missed timings, mics in the shot, etc. But a good editor can clean it up and turn it into a compelling and believable series of events.
The press has been acting as Hezbollah's editor. Unfortunately, they let some of the raw footage leak out, and the effect was ruined.
For some people.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/15/2006 18:31 Comments ||
Top||
From all sides of the political spectrum calls are being raised for the establishment of an official commission of inquiry to investigate the Olmert government's incompetent management of the war in Lebanon. These calls are misguided.
We do not need a commission to know what happened or what has to happen. The Olmert government has failed on every level. The Olmert government must go.
The Knesset must vote no confidence in this government and new elections must be carried out as soon as the law permits. If the Knesset hesitates in taking this required step, then the people of Israel must take to the streets in mass demonstrations and demand that our representatives send Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, Defense Minister Amir Peretz and their comrades out to pasture.
Every aspect of the government's handling of the war has been a failure. Take relief efforts as an example. For five weeks the government ignored the humanitarian disaster in the North where over one million Israelis are under missile assault. The government developed no comprehensive plan for organizing relief efforts to feed citizens in bomb shelters or for evacuating them.
And then there is the military failure. The IDF suffers from acute leadership failures - brought to Israel courtesy of Ariel Sharon who hacked away at the General Staff, undermined its sense of mission and treated our generals like office boys just as he decimated the Likud by undermining its political vision and promoting its weakest members.
#2
During the ups and downs and confusion the last month I sometimes wishfully hoped that Olmert and the Israeli Gubmint had perfected some kind of New Media Jujitsu which was flummoxing the hell out of the MSM and Hizzbullocks leaving the IDF to eventually roll up the Bekaa and kick ass.
Turns out Olmert and his gubmint were on the mat..
#3
No, Amers have NOT lost faith in Israel as an ally, and never will. For me, the IDF is basically saving Lebanon and even Syria from themselves, i.e. by giving them opportunities to show whether they side wid the West or domination by Tehran, with sovereignty and local democracy vs. being PC controlled local peons, or worse, for Radical Iran. Iff Radical islam can threaten Tel Aviv or Jerusalem, THEY CAN THREATEN ANY PART OF ISRAEL. WHERE ARE ISRAEL'S CITIZENS SUPPOSED TO RETREAT OR FALL BACK TO? The only thing Israels' citizens can do is either FIGHT, OR WILFULLY LEAVE/ABANDON THEIR OWN COUNTRY TO THEIR ENEMIES. IF THE WEST FAILS TO STOP RADICAL IRAN, ISRAEL WILL FIND HERSELF A BESIEGED ISLAND OF DEMOCRACY IN A SEA OF IRANIAN-CONTROLLED LANDS/PROXY STATES, PERHAPS THE LONE SURVIVOR OF THE WHOLE OF "ME DEMOCRACY". Remember, USA = West are not just fighting GLOBAL SECULARISM, GLOBAL SOCIALISM, GLOBAL GOVERNMENTISM-POLICRATISM/POLITICISM, andor GLOBAL RADICAL ISLAMISM, we are also fighting GLOBAL ANTI-DEMOCRACY, amongst other thingys. WOT > WAR FOR CONTROL OF THE WORLD, WAR FOR THE WORLD = our ultimate prize is that FREEDOM GETS TO LIVE, NOT DIE. The enemies of freedom = Lefties = Clintonism > are on ALL SIDES, EVERY SIDES, and NO SIDES to achieve their agenda.
#7
A shame he didn't show at your Tea Party last night, TW. Sorry I was so late, but Ebay called (Mrs. BA just learned about it for kid's clothes, lol). Imagine the "small talk" that would've been generated having Joe M. in our midst.
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 11:35 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I hope Mrs. BA had fun shopping. It was exactly the wrong time by JosephM's internal clock, commuting as he does from waaaay across the world in Guam. I would have enjoyed talking to him informally -- I gather the man is tied in with all the interesting happenings over there, based on tidbits casually dropped in his posts.
#9
My chances are a lot better. Olmert has a large majority. Moreover, most of his people are not established---if there are new elections, they're history.
#10
She did have fun, TW. In fact, I'm afraid I've created a monster. Takes away from my rantburg time, ya know. Ah well, you live and learn (plus, I can always break out the ol' laptop to surf RB). Tell the trailing daughters we said thanks for the cookies and scones too (as well as a big shout out to you for setting up the tea party and Mr. Wife's allowing you to see to it that it didn't get out of hand). Some RB'ers can be soooooo primitive, ya know (which is why I love RB).
Posted by: BA ||
08/15/2006 13:57 Comments ||
Top||
#11
what a mess. We need Israel now. I hope they have new elections.
#2
I'd rather have him read from notes and give a damn fine speech than to sit through a "nuanced" meandering of the sort Kerry et al specialize in, Penguin.
August 10, 06
I turned off the news today as soon as I got enough particulars about liquid explosives. I have something to say before I hear one more comment from anyone.
Say away. This is Rantburg. You can say what you want. We'll say what we want.
The day after 9/11, I wondered what our government had done to garner such wrath.
I guess we all react differently. I had no such thoughts. But ask yourself if your Mom or your Grampaw had similar thoughts on 12/8/1941. Y'see, it doesn't matter what we'd done, but what they did. Once you're in a fight, you stop asking yourself why you're in it and start asking yourself how you can win it.
A year after 9/11, I met an Iraqi who said the US had treated the Arab nations with disparaty. No Country names were mentioned. I wanted details. He smiled and politely refused.
The perceived disparity is that we usually end up siding with Israel, which is a democracy where they don't cut people's heads off and nobody has to worry about the Jewish street rising up and tearing people limb from limb.
Six months later, I met an Iraqi who told me a story of how policemen had gone out of their way to be of service to him, simply because of his ways. He said the moral to his story is that anything can happen when people come together.
The other moral is that policemen can be polite and helpful. They usually only get all nasty when you when you break laws or skirt the edge of breaking laws. But the idea of people "coming together" is one that's over-used. You can "come together" all you want with your local Aryan Nations anus, and he's still going to be an anus. All the cultural exchanges that took place between Germany and Italy and the rest of the world in the 1930s didn't stop the carnage of the 1040s. Ribbentrop and Molotov, in fact, had formally "come together" they had a piece of paper, with an official seal and everything, and they still ended up with the Eastern Front.
I met some Lebanese at their church less than a year ago and fell in love with their food, their coffee, their dance, and their family values.
But that's apropos of what? Most of the Lebs I know are perfectly nice people, most of them, I believe, Maronite Christians. But I'm also fond of Brazilians, Mexicans, and Samoans as groups, secure in the knowledge that no matter how much I like them as a group there are still some really nasty Brazilians, Mexicans, and probably Samoans. The fact that I enjoy spending time with Brazilians and Mexicans doesn't mean I favor the Brazilian or Mexican governments, and often means I don't.
Last month, a man from Syria said that Israel had 6,000 Lebanese prisoners, some women and children; and Hezbollah was the equivalent of the freedom fighters of Europe in the 2nd World War. Ive read A Man Called Intrepid. The parallel between Hezbollah and the CIA doesnt escape me.
Among those 6000 prisoners are some murderers and intended murderers. Some may be women. I doubt greatly that any of them are children. I don't have the same doubts about prisoners in Syria, however.
Im tired of being frightened to speak my mind because it concerns National Security. I love my Nation. No one is going to stop me from loving my Nation, either.
You're always free to speak your mind. It's usually a good idea to think before doing so, and an even better idea to think some concepts through. You can ask yourself why such and such an action might be taken, even though it's inconvenient or not something you particularly like.
Terrorism is not limited by venue, nor is godliness. Its a choice, every time, no matter the circumstance. These days Im getting pretty good at identifying motivations behind choices and Im going to speak my mind. If someone in this Nation has to stand up and take the punch for dissenting views, okay. Punch me, but no one can hide the truth for long.
Okay. Go ahead.
When I was a little girl, my Mom told me she could trace her lineage back to King David. I was raised more kosher than anyone else I knew. And I love monotheism because One God provides for all people, equally. As for Israel, well, let man try to rebuild what God has put asunder, but the last 50 years, whether US Citizens know it or not, have been adequate example of how and why not to.
Okay. You're Jewish. I'm not. I can trace my ancestry back to my grandaddy on both sides. I take it you don't approve of Israel's existence, perhaps on religious grounds. If now was then and Balfour came to me to ask what I thought of his declaration, I'd tell him it was a bad idea: it created a state based on religion, even as the world was becoming secular. It would have brought to my mind a state ruled by rabbis, in much the same manner Pakistan is today ruled by holy men. But now isn't then, and Balfour didn't ask me, and the rabbis don't rule Israel. It's pretty much a secular state. Without being surrounded by bloodthirsty Arabs on every side, it'd probably be moderately prosperous and not particularly powerful, knd of like Greece without the pom-poms. But it is surrounded by bloodthirsty Arabs, who've tried many times in the past to destroy it and continue trying to this day. In biblical times, they Hebrews spent a lot of time bringing the Philistines under control. "Philistines" is the Arabic world for "Paleostinians." Since Israel is an accomplished fact, I'm not in favor of dismantling it. Since they run a nice, mostly secular democracy and the local Philistines are fond of howling and car swarming and exploding without warning, I favor the Jews over the Arabs. I buy the bit about making the desert bloom. And I buy the bit about rivers of blood and pushing the Jews into the sea.
None of that is my point.
Then why'd you make it?
My point is for terrorists, freedom fighters and world leaders, alike. My point is that God does the reckoning. Its people, drunk on perceived power, who make the mistake of trying to fulfill the role of God, mustering faith that God will honor their judgments out of their own egos.
God's will assuming He exists in the form you think he does doesn't manifest itself very clearly, not even to terrorists, freedumb fighters and world leaders. Usually God's will is interpreted by holy men, and that civilized world is fighting against an interpretation that we think is manifestly wrong. And evil. You can't sit on your hands and expect God to provide. 'Tis a bromide that he helps those who help themselves. But if you were agnostic, like me, then you'd look at the West, where we have stability and individual liberty which, coupled with hard work, lead to our prosperity, and you'd look at the enemy, who thrives on instability, who regards individual liberty as an abomination, and where God takes care of the maintenance, and you'd come to the conclusion that maybe it would be a good idea to try and protect our civilizaiton from their lack thereof.
Of course, people like that have excuses for why they crossed the line and took on more responsibility than they had capability for. Sometimes the excuse is a flimsy as, This is where my party loyalties led me. Sometimes its anger and frustration over inequity and oppression.
We aren't the one oppressing the denizens of the Muddle East. It's their own governments who do it.
Lets see, popularity, monetary gain, political loyalty, or mankind which is worthy of ones soul?
My soul's not for sale. I have little concern of my nation's lack of popularity among the turban and automatic weapons set, and not much more concern over the way we're seen in Europe or in China. Doing what's right is much more important that being popular. Monetary gain? It's commerce, much of it international, that gives you a roof over your head and a full belly. Political loyalty's wrapped up with the idea of party, in which men and women argue with each other over which is the correct course for the nation to follow. Somehow in the course of all that argument a rough concensus is reached, with competing interests balanced, and then people vote over which of the parties has made the better dead. Mankind? The concept covers all of humankind, from the Esquimeaux in the north to the Indians who may still inhabit Tierra del Fuego for all I know. It's a generalized concept, just like party loyalty. Within humanity there are many, probably most who just want to get on with their lives, to raise families, thrive, and eventually die peacefully, their children and grandchildren at their bedsides. Mixed in among the many there are the few who're truly evil. I, personally, hate the evil men and what they do, but it doesn't seem like you're much concerned about them. Perhaps you should read up on them.
If you think judging your own soul is not appropriate in the arena of national security, politics, and civic-mindedness, I urge you, for your own good, consider the souls that have recently returned to God; and consider what God must think of you now. Did you do your part for peace or Country? Which leads to God and which leads to messes like WWIII?
I don't know, and from your tone, you're not sure either. You're posing poorly formed questions with no apparent answer. Suppose that God and messes like WWIII are in the same direction? My personal feeling, since I don't talk to God, is that He wants us to take steps necessary for self-preservation. And I have the feeling that God wants us to fight Evil capital letter, bat wings and smell of brimstone where it rears its ugly head. Not to fight Evil is to stand by in the fight between God and Satan. Take a side, lass!
The problems I see are either greed-based or fear-based; and it all can be resolved, if people are willing to let go of fear, greed, and vengeance.
But if they're not, then you just have to kill enough of them until the remainder do. Think it out.
Its our job, as citizens of our Country, to speak up when our government isnt representing us. And when its the world thats affecting us, its even more imperative that we speak frankly and with peace.
Frankly, yes. With peace, not necessarily. Peace at any price isn't worth anything. Ask Neville Chamberlain. Maybe they can bring it up for debate at the League of Nations.
I want our Country to stop trying to do what others have failed to do: build and maintain power over other Countries. It wont work. It never has. Its always temporary. Empires always fall. The citizens dont want it. Its too expensive and usury to serve the people.
Our country's not an Empire. If it was, our tributary states would send us... ummm... tribute. The best we can come up with for Imperial dominions are Puerto Rico and American Samoa. Maybe Guam. Rather uniquely in history, we're a powerful nation without an empire. If we give our advice to other nations, it's because we want them to be as prosperous and happy as we are.
I turned off the news because its biased. I dont care whats riding on that bias, because I already know that bias is a product of ungodly behavior. Its the fruition of misrepresentation. Its a form of control.
I'm on vacation right now, but usually I don't turn the news off. I realize that there will be biases in any news that I read or listen to. That's why I consume news from as many different sources as I can. The hard part comes in knowing which news to discount and where to look for the actual nuggets of truth. Just as revealing are the biases themselves; they reveal as much about the societies producing them as the news itself does in many cases. If you don't follow the news, then you'll be ignorant and you'll have no standing to discuss events in the world. Your own preferences — biases, we might call them — don't amount to anything without facts to back them up.
I cant stop the control trips of people, but I do know that no matter which warrior, no matter the battle, its the heart and mind where victory begins. God says to win your battles with love (or else they are not won.)
I'm not at all sure where he says that. He also says to smite the Midianites and such. When Joshua fit the battle of Jericho he didn't do it with a guitar and a smile.
If you can not do that, I know from experience, you have not given God, or Allah, enough thought; nor have you given your battle or your enemy enough thought.
I'm not convinced you've given enough thought to the battle, the enemy, or God or Allah enough thought. I think you're just chock full of opinions and wishes that the world would be one way or the other, but because you don't listen to the news you don't have enough of a factual standing to leave the subjective for the objective world.
What a shame, to traipse all over the world, upholding bullies as righteous; holding your will over situations where peoples lives are being taken from them; claiming God as your personal property and tool to use as you will on countless lives.
What a thrill, to go traipsing all over the world, to meet people of different cultures on a human level, respecting them as human beings with all their magnificent shortcomings and foibles. What grand adventure, to move goods across the globe to show up on young girls' breakfast tables with no damage. How noble, to fight and perchance to die in a worldwide battle against the forces of Evil.
Who could possibly expect God to honor the disrespect both sides of this conflict have used as weapons in a man-made war? Have you even thought about it? Do you think for one instant that you will not be judged for your own judgments?
Do you doubt that God will look upon you and see you attempting to remain neutral, a disinterested party, in a war against the minions of Satan? Do you truly believe that the men chopping heads off and splashing acid on women and burning schools and throwing hand grenades at people at bus stops are anything other than the minions of absolute evil?
Surely you are smart enough to realize that you cant do whatever your ego demands and still have Gods ear when it comes to forgiveness, no matter how much pressure you're under. No, its more like Isaiah said: repent, or be left to the reprobateness of your own mind. For some of us, those who should be guilt-ridden but dont have the guts to check their own souls, that reprobateness is insurmountable unless you change your mind. Please change your mind. Its your prerogative to do so.
And what shall we change our minds to do, Leslie? You've not given us any guidance, other than a desire for a group hug.
I beg you, for yourself, for the people you will be responsible for killing, for Gods love of the whole world: Stop, think, pray, repent and love, instead. And then, God will do what God does, without taking the skin off your back.
Until you can come up with something a little more definite than that, I'll stick with fighting evil.
My sincerest respect to all; even those who have gone too far. It's not too late to change your mind.
"I just want all of the children to be happy and for world peace. Thank you, God Bless." (wipes tears, blows kiss and puts on a plastered smile as she walks down the runway.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
08/15/2006 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#4
A year after 9/11, I met an Iraqi who said the US had treated the Arab nations with disparaty. No Country names were mentioned. I wanted details. He smiled and politely refused.
He meant we hadn't given enough cash to Egypt.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
08/15/2006 18:33 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Guess the fish aren't biting today :-)
Nice fisking, Fred. I have no idea who 'Leslie' is, but I think this was a drive-by. She won't be back.
Posted by: Steve White ||
08/15/2006 19:07 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Good Lord. If it weren't that each Jew is responsible for his/her self, I would apologize to you all for this travesty on the part of one who claims to share my faith. She completely missed the bit where the Rabbis said, "Anything is permitted in the saving of a life." By which they meant that being Jewish is not a method of suicide, however much Ms. Leslie Sutton might wish it.
#7
What a pile of misundersood rantings and absolute rotten tripe!
The Christian and Jewish God Jehovah nowhere says love thy enemies. Jehovah is a one tough, mean, vengeance-loving (He reserves that for Himself BTW), patriarchal sob. His Son, while stating that one does need to love thy enemies, is also known to have been and still be one tough, mean sob.
This is pseudo-New Age religious psycho-babble from someone who has bought into the "new Christianity" which preaches nothing except "love and acceptance" - something the Bible does not teach.
Fire and brimstone has given way to the New Age due to indoctrination and emasculation of the Protestant fundamentalism in the church and it is a sad, sad thing.
I despise such namby-pamby, wishy-washy, sorry-assed excuses for so-called Christians. Jesus sent His Apostles out with swords. God sent armies of Hebrews out with specific instructions to kill every last man, woman and child of the Israelite enemies on more than one occasion.
Grow a spine already and stop calling yourself a Christian you feeble excuse for a human being. Your culture, your psychological heritage, your geneology, your mental wiring, your genetic inheritance, and your anthropological makeup makes you and your fellow humans of our species warriors! Christianity does not deny any of these facts.
This writer reminds me of that whining symp Cindi Shitcan.
#11
And then, God will do what God does, without taking the skin off your back.
Ya' know, I just can't leave this one alone...
God does not, never has, and never will take the skin off of one of His Owns' backs. God loves His people and hates those who hate His people.
God will do what God chooses to do despite anything we might say or will to the contrary. That's why He's God and we are but His children you friggin' moron!
You place yourself, with your pathetic whinings and pleadings, in a position where you think you can convince God that because you are so much more supplicatory than everyone else that you envision that He will listen to you.
Your sin is pride (whether you recognize it or not). And "pride goeth before a fall".
#12
"The day after 9/11, I wondered what our government had done to garner such wrath."
I think I see the problem here: you wondered about the wrong thing.
Contrary to your most dearly-held liberal beliefs, the United States of America *DOES NOT* cause everything that happens in the world.
The people who attacked us, attacked us because they hate us.
They do not hate us because we have done anything to deserve their hatred.
They do not hate us because of anything we've done TO them.
They do not hate us because of anything we've failed to do FOR them.
They do not hate us because we are prosperous and they are not.
They do not hate us because of Israel.
They do not hate us because we're "stealing their oil."
They do not hate us because they are "oppressed"
They do not hate us because they are "disadvantaged."
They do not hate us because they don't get "social justice."
THEY HATE US BECAUSE THEIR RELIGION TELLS THEM TO.
It really is as simple as that.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
08/15/2006 21:16 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Of course, people like that have excuses for why they crossed the line and took on more responsibility than they had capability for. Sometimes the excuse is a flimsy as, This is where my party loyalties led me. Sometimes its anger and frustration over inequity and oppression.
Here's mine, lady. I WANT TO STAY AFUCKINLIVE!
Is that okay with you? Or would you consider that "greedy"?
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.
In the wake of September 11, there was a lively debate about the optimal mix of "hard" versus "soft" power--guns versus diplomacy, military force versus foreign aid. Thursday's foiled plot to blow up commercial jets shows that a similar divide informs the world of police work. Scotland Yard and the FBI sometimes stop terrorists by shooting them, just as the criminal justice system sometimes stops attempted murders by incarcerating the would-be killers. More often, though, violent plans are thwarted by a different sort of policing: light on force and violence, heavy on secrets and lies. Plant informants or bribe sources, figure out ways to listen and watch that the bad guys don't know about. Trick people into telling you their secrets. Get more information. 
