For those of us who sometimes find ourselves having doubts about our President, here is an excellent piece worth every minute it takes to read it.
This is from a man, Bruce Vincent, from Montana who received an award from the President.
He writes: I've written the following narrative to chronicle the day of the award ceremony in DC. I'm still working on a press release but the White House press corps has yet to provide a photo to go with it. When the photo comes I'll ship it out. When you get done reading this you'll understand the dilemma I face in telling this story beyond my circle of close friends.
The moment with the President in the Oval Office was incredible. I want to protect the memory because it was an intensely private moment between two men. At the same time I'd like to share it on a broader scale because I'd like others to know what I know about the man sitting at the desk in the Oval Office. For now, I'll just tell it to you folks.
I've debunked this nonsense before. Somalia is a country the United Nations made up (invented). It has now devolved back into it's constituent parts. Two thirds is stable but poor (Puntland and Somaliland). The other third is a basketcase, not least because various parties are fighting over the goodies that come from international recognition.
The rational response is to recognize Puntland and Somaliland and ignore the southern third, rather than the current focus on the southern third and ignoring of P+Sland.
It won't happen any time, becuase it would mean recognizing the UN made another monumental f@@kup resulting in thousands of corpses.
I do not doubt that there is such a thing as xenophobia, though it is a very different thing from racism. Etymologically the term means fear of (and therefore aversion towards) the foreigner. Its very use implies a distinction between the one who belongs and the one who doesn't, and in inviting us to jettison our xenophobia politicians are inviting us to extend a welcome to people other than ourselves - a welcome predicated on a recognition of their otherness. Now it is easy for an educated member of the liberal ,lite to discard his xenophobia: for the most part his contacts with foreigners help him to amplify his power, extend his knowledge and polish his social expertise. . . .
. . . Members of our liberal ,lite may be immune to xenophobia, but there is an equal fault which they exhibit in abundance, which is the repudiation of, and aversion to, home. Each country exhibits this vice in its own domestic version. Nobody brought up in post-war England can fail to be aware of the educated derision that has been directed at our national loyalty by those whose freedom to criticize would have been extinguished years ago, had the English not been prepared to die for their country. The loyalty that people need in their daily lives, and which they affirm in their unconsidered and spontaneous social actions, is now habitually ridiculed or even demonized by the dominant media and the education system. National history is taught as a tale of shame and degradation. The art, literature and religion of our nation have been more or less excised from the curriculum, and folkways, local traditions and national ceremonies are routinely rubbished.
This repudiation of the national idea is the result of a peculiar frame of mind that has arisen throughout the Western world since the Second World War, and which is particularly prevalent among the intellectual and political elites. No adequate word exists for this attitude, though its symptoms are instantly recognized: namely, the disposition, in any conflict, to side with `them' against `us', and the felt need to denigrate the customs, culture and institutions that are identifiably `ours'. I call the attitude oikophobia - the aversion to home - by way of emphasizing its deep relation to xenophobia, of which it is the mirror image. Oikophobia is a stage through which the adolescent mind normally passes. But it is a stage in which intellectuals tend to become arrested. As George Orwell pointed out, intellectuals on the Left are especially prone to it, and this has often made them willing agents of foreign powers. . . .
Nor is oikophobia a specifically English, still less specifically British tendency. When Sartre and Foucault draw their picture of the `bourgeois' mentality, the mentality of the Other in his Otherness, they are describing the ordinary decent Frenchman, and expressing their contempt for his national culture. A chronic form of oikophobia has spread through the American universities, in the guise of political correctness, and loudly surfaced in the aftermath of September 11th, to pour scorn on the culture that allegedly provoked the attacks, and to side by implication with the terrorists. . . .
Oikophobia. That's the word for the day. Be sure to use it on the next moonbat you encounter; it'll confuse the dickens out of 'em.
An another word popular at least in some circles is "ethnomasochism"; it was coined by ultra-rightwing writer Guillaume Faye, and has a similar meaning, only with a racial connotation rather than cultural.
I do not doubt that there is such a thing as xenophobia, though it is a very different thing from racism.
While we're at it, time to come up with a new 'ism' for those with a blind hatred of military people along the lines of racism, sexism, etc. Another fine condition of the left, or is that an implied subset of the Left[tm] cause I know the traditional left had no problems with using uniform people to kill those they perceived as a threat [i.e. Stalin, Mao, etc].
Boggle. Someone asked, not too long ago, for suggestions of who should be the first against the wall - that was the gist of it, anyway - and nominated Soros. I thought that was a pretty good choice and couldn't think of anyone else to offer at that moment, but this reminds me who I should've suggested.
These people are as described in the article -- and dangerous. I nominate them to be against the wall with Soros in the first wave.
This is what passes for brilliant analysis from Richard Cohen,the sage of the WaPo. I wonder how soon we'll see outright anti-semitism on the op-ed.
The greatest mistake Israel could make at the moment is to forget that Israel itself is a mistake. No, the greatest mistake would be not to eliminate HezbAllan while they have the chance. Only someone who has converted to Islam could say Israel is a mistake.
It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now. No one is culpable? Not even George Bush?
Israel fights Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south, but its most formidable enemy is history itself. Israel, always launching rockets that land and explode in its own cities.
This is why the Israeli-Arab war, now transformed into the Israeli-Muslim war (Iran is not an Arab state), persists and widens. It's the mistake's fault!
It is why the conflict mutates and festers. It has nothing to do with co-dependents like the UN, EU and SA, who help the Paleostinians live forever in the past nursing the grudge of their grandfathers.
It is why Israel is now fighting an organization, Hezbollah, that did not exist 30 years ago and why Hezbollah is being supported by a nation, Iran, that was once a tacit ally of Israel's. Israel created HezbAllan? Who knew? The underlying, subterranean hatred of the Jewish state in the Islamic world just keeps bubbling to the surface. The leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and some other Arab countries may condemn Hezbollah, but I doubt the proverbial man in their street shares that view. So let's listent to the ignorant man in the street who cannot figure out what even his dimwitted leaders have begun to understand.
There is no point in condemning Hezbollah. The WaPo wouldn't carry the story anyway.
Zealots are not amenable to reason. Look at Pinch.
And there's not much point, either, in condemning Hamas. Nope. Wouldn't run that either.
It is a fetid, anti-Semitic outfit whose organizing principle is hatred of Israel. I thought that was the UN.
There is, though, a point in cautioning Israel to exercise restraint -- not for the sake of its enemies but for itself. Whatever happens, Israel must not use its military might to win back what it has already chosen to lose: the buffer zone in southern Lebanon and the Gaza Strip itself. Right. Israelis, stop resisting. Accept the rockets red glare with good cheer.
It is also true, as some critics warned, that Israel's withdrawal from southern Lebanon was seen by its enemies -- and claimed by Hezbollah -- as a defeat for the mighty Jewish state. Hezbollah took credit for this, as well it should. We were rooting for it all the time.
Its persistent attacks bled Israel. In the end, Israel got out and the United Nations promised it a secure border. The Lebanese army would see to that. (And the check is in the mail.) What's with the intrusion of sanity?
But worse than what is happening now would be a retaking of those territories. That would put Israel smack back to where it was, subjugating a restless, angry population and having the world look on as it committed the inevitable sins of an occupying power. The smart choice is to pull back to defensible -- but hardly impervious -- borders. That includes getting out of most of the West Bank -- and waiting (and hoping) that history will get distracted and move on to something else. LALALALALALALA I can't hear you. That's always proven to be a successful tactic.
This will take some time, and in the meantime terrorism and rocket attacks will continue and lots of Israelis will die. Another gifted British historian, Tony Judt, wraps up his recent book "Postwar" with an epilogue on how the sine qua non of the modern civilized state is recognition of the Holocaust. Much of the Islamic world, notably Iran under its Holocaust-denying president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, stands outside that circle, refusing to make even a little space for the Jews of Europe and, later, those from the Islamic world. They see Israel not as a mistake but as a crime. Until they change their view, the longest war of the 20th century will persist deep into the 21st. It is best for Israel to hunker down. Israel, just turn the other cheek one more time. Hunker down while Iran nukes up. A-friggin-stounding!
Yeah, 100 rockets a month isn't really a reason to retaliate or anything.
Assholes like this guy think there is never a reason for war no matter what the circumstances. That's a very dangerous way of thinking. Our isolationism and pacifism during the 1st and 2nd world wars nearly resulted in disaster both times.
Curious that the left has chosen the path of isolation and anti-globalization by default, since the Right chose an open and pro-active economy and foreign relations policy.
It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now.
He just can't bring himself to do it. To follow this line of thinking to its logical end. Yes, he believes Israel must be wiped from the map. But, also, I'd question that didn't the U.N. "create" Israel? Nope, can't blame them, now can we? And WTF with the snide comment on Christians in the area? Can anyone point me to the last time a Christian (or Christian group) launched rockets, strapped on a bomb, or, heck, even is quoted as saying the Jooooos must be killed?
I'm increasingly concerned that a large portion of our population is headed for Alzheimer's Disease. I conclude this because only scrambled brains full of plaques and tangles can account for some of the "liberal" crap that I see on-line each day. Even the mentally retarded have a better grasp of common sense and cause and effect than these people.
Apparently this leftover douchebag has missed most of the last thirty years of news including the start of the Global Jihad .
Too busy trying to get a hummer in the office to even read the AP or something.
This guy needs a slapburger.
Posted by: J. D. Lux ||
07/18/2006 15:47 Comments ||
It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of European Jews in an area of Arab Muslims (and some Christians) has produced a century of warfare and terrorism of the sort we are seeing now
So when is the idiot going to back his bags and go back to the European source of his genes? Wasn't America basically a bunch of Europeans in an area of North American aboriginals about two hundred years ago? Oh, that's right again, key principle of elitism, one set of rules for us and another set of rules for everyone else.
It is an honest mistake, a well-intentioned mistake, a mistake for which no one is culpable, but the idea of creating a nation of English and Europeans in an area of Heathen Indians (and some Animists) produced two and a half centuries of warfare and terrorism of the sort we saw end at Wounded Knee.
Richard Cohen has a long history of these type of articles. I come to the conclusion that he has a psychological problem with a combination of sociological. I can come up with one that qualifies as a physchological and sociological, it's called Inferiority Complex but, in Mr. Cohen's case (based on his previous articles), I would call it Jewish Inferiority Complex.
For example concerning Europe, he believes that Jews showed up in Europe after the modernization. His base premise is that Jews should be subservient no matter where they live or whatever situation they are stuck in because "Jews showed up later in the game." The truth is that Jews were scattered and "showed up first" in every modern civilized country that exist today. Also, one of his previous articles includes his rational for eliminating Algebra from schools. (Algebra! Why do they hate us?)
"If a person is subject to humiliation from another person and made to feel inferior, the person thinks that it is the inferiority complex that is aroused in him."
The above explains why he feels Jews need to submit whereever they live.
"If he is bottom of the class in some subject that he does not like, he will not develop an inferiority complex (for that subject). Instead, he is likely to focus on his need for social approval by getting a name for himself, even if it is only as a trouble-maker."
The above explains why he also has a sociological problem.
Al-Jazeera began cheer-leading Taliban/al-Qaeda the second the Afghan liberation began. Muslims in general, and Arabs in particular have treated post 9-11 as final-jihad. I would have banned CAIR, ISNA, ICNA and the AMC as terrorist organizations the second they started to agitate against any and all US response to the 9-11 terrorism. Since that disgusting date, Christians and Jews have been almost cleared out of Muslim majority states, while we have been allowing massive Muslim immigration. It is highly likely that the next generation will deny pensions to us, given the fact that we shifted an unnecessary danger onto the backs of our children. We are in World War 3; let's stop fighting ourselves and start killing the enemy.
I'm with NS on this one. We're in WWIV (with WWIII being the Cold War). And, I believe we all know the answer to the question he poses. If allowed, the jihadis will definitely make this an all-out clash of civilizations (actually, I refuse to call it that because 1 side is NOT "civilized") rush to the bottom. I'd also add that this war has been "hot" (in U.S. terms) since 1979 in Iran, we just haven't recognized it's a war until we were hit hard on 9/11.
I believe you got your history wrong. When Ariel Sharon (tank commander) had Arafat in his sights in the verge of taking over Beruit, President Reagan stopped him. But, there is a caveat to President Reagan stopping Sharon, history likes to blame Reagan but the truth of the matter is that it was Colin Powell, James Baker, and Brent Scowcoft that strongly twisted Reagan's arm. President Reagan regretted that decision til his dying day.
Limbaugh is wrong. It's been World War III since 1979. Admitting the truth will hurt the egos so many of the former U.S. policy makers. These former government officials likes tour around the TV talk circuit, explaining away how brilliant they are, but people like me who don't forget the disasterous mistakes they have made 30-40 years ago, are not the least bit fooled.
Don't forget that Arafat is a Egyptian terrorist that was kicked out of Egypt and Jordan. This is how he ended up in Beruit in the first place.
Just like the Paleo's, the Arab world knew that Arafat was a trouble maker so the Saudi's threw him and the rotten scum Paleo's, to the Jews. If you fast forward time, to today, you are witnessing with your very eyes, the failure of decades past.
Just because some asshole changed the Cold War name which we who lived through all 40 years of it and called it The Cold War.
Besides which my genius friends, the Cold War was not fought all over the world.
Finally, I'll bet the jerk who wants WW3 to be the Cold War is a liberal, and therefore illegitimate as a war namer.
Besides which my genius friends, the Cold War was not fought all over the world.
The "Cold War" was a war against communist expansionism fought by the USSR and Red China against the US and it's allies by various proxies.
The Korean Conflict, Vietnam, Malaysian insurgency, Cuban missile crisis, Nigaragua, Grenada, etc, etc were battles in that war. Looks pretty world-wide to me, and still simmering in a few places. I'd say it would qualify as WWIII.
Surely the Soviets and the Red Chinese thought of the Cold War as a world-wide fight over which philosophy would win (Totalitarian "Communism" or Individual-rights Classic Western Liberalism), with proxy hot wars fought over the issue in various third world countries while the suborned or seduced fought for US/European hearts and minds. Should we not believe those who set themselves to fight against us, and name it the World War they believed it to be, hence the 3rd of that type.
Prafull Goradia analyses why India is soft towards Islamist terror, while Israel leaves no stone unturned to retaliate against jihadi violence
Having arrived in Mumbai from London on July 5, 2006, Isaac Armstrong, professionally a computer expert, flew into Delhi on the night of the terrorist carnage on Western Railway. We happened to meet on the following day. Being half Jewish, he had interest in Islamic affairs and got talking without my posing many questions. The way to handle them is shown by Israel. In order to recover one abducted soldier, eight ministers and 20 legislators, including the Palestinian Deputy Prime Minister have been captured.
For the Lebanese seizing two soldiers, Israel has invaded their country. But for the strong will of its rulers, a small country like Israel could not have survived on the huge Arabian landmass. Mr Armstrong confessed that had they possessed the same will power earlier, the Nazis could not have slaughtered six million jews.
Continued on Page 49
The struggle is on to turn India into a dar-ul Islam where the writ of the sharia' would run. That would have happened earlier had there been no Partition. Undivided India would be already 40 per cent Muslim. Qaid-e-Azam Jinnah spoilt it all. By now a popularly elected sultan would have been ruling in Delhi.
VS Naipaul likened the partition of India to the amputation of a gangrene infected limb. He said that all Indian cities would now look like Kararchi, were it not for partition.
Of course, when the terrorist supporting state has half a million men in its army, a modern airforce and navy, PLUS nuclear armed cruise and ballistic missiles, the reaction of the victim state will be constrained.
Nukes provide Pakistan with the strategic space within which it can use jihadi terror.
by Mohammed Fadil, "Iraq the Model"
Reprinted in the Wall Street Journal
In spite of what we are facing here every day I find myself, just like many others, so attached to following what's going on between Israel and Lebanon and that's mostly because of the close resemblance between the two cases.
In both cases we see a weak government suffering to control a powerful militia that is challenging the will of the rest of the country and engaging in a proxy war making the people suffer the results of regional conflicts that in no way can benefit their country.
The other reason why I'm closely following this ongoing crisis is that the powers involved in this conflict between Lebanon and Israel are closely connected to the powers fighting in Iraq and we here believe that the battle over there will have an impact on the situation here in one way or another.
It's still very difficult for people here to predict how this crisis is going to end especially that politics mix with ideology in a complex way in this region, however there's a general sense that the fires of war are going to spread to the rest of the region but still no one here can see the way this bigger war is going to end. . . .
Hezbollah has 1/6 of the parliment. That would indiacate a public mandate to me. 1 MP would be enough to set the precedent. They elected Hezbollah to their government, same as the paleos elected Hamas. Now enjoy the blessings of liberty!
I agree. I believe the U.S. don't want Israel to do it because if Israel takes out Hizballah, Hamas, PLO, Syria and Iran, Israel will get all the glory. Israel will look more competent at fighting terror because Israel is not into spreading Democracy, winning hearts and minds, or nation building. Just destroying the terrorists. I don't think the egos at the U.S. Govt. could handle someone else getting that kind of glory.
Wow. I'd say that case of heartburn is terminal, Poison Reverse. You don't actually BELIEVE your shit, do you?
Are you really this poisoned against everyone in the US Government?
That's just fucking stupid.
Godammit, you've just hit a nerve with your blanket bullshit. WHO the fuck are you?
There are millions of Americans who work hard to keep us safe, who work overtime without thanks, who serve in the military, who aren't the egotistical morons you've just painted them ALL to be. They're not perfect and they're not infallible, they're no different from most of us, in fact. Hell, they ARE us. I have ZERO doubt they, and I, would happily bitchslap you into another time zone for that blatantly stupid statement.
Again, WHO THE FUCK ARE YOU? You're the one with the ego problem. Grow up. Then apologize and beg them, and us, for forgiveness. Then fuck off. You've negated other posts which (maybe) contained good sense. Asshole. You've regressed to Poison Retard, again. Yeah, I know about your early days here. Fuck you.
No, tell us what you really think, flyover! Good thing you didn't include a graphic.
Poison, maybe you should figure out what your "kernel of truth" is and restate it more diplomatically, keeping in mind that we are supposed to avoid going nuclear because of all the political and radioactive fallout!
When I say that "Israel will look more competent", it was not a knock at the best military in the world (U.S.) When I say U.S. Govt. I don't mean the U.S. Military. My problem is that the U.S Military is not given enough freedom to fight the war on terror. I blame the Leftists, MSM and Democrats for the restraint. I never was into nation building or winning hearts and minds, or spreading Democracy in the Islamic world, just the destruction of the terrorists, decisively. I am very familiar with the Islamic mind set, and flowers and candy won't work, only absolute fear. I hope that explains things, if not, sounds like a personal problem. You are more than welcome to go ballistic, burst a vessel, nuclear, plagarize .com or what ever makes you happy.
BTW, what was it that I exactly posted in the past that was EVER anti-US Military. Trust me, I know who's military keeps me safe.
Poison Reverse, perhaps it would help if you explained whence came your understanding. Everyone knows that my husband travelled and worked around the world, and that the I lived for five years with him in Germany and Belgium, that .com spent the better part of two decades working in Saudi Arabia, that 49Pan and Jarhead are active military, that Oldspook is retired Special Forces now doing things to support the guys Over There, that JFM and dear anonymous5089 are French, etc. Where have you been and what have you done to shape your understanding? Some bits of that kind of information will allow others to better understand the information and postions you bring to the table.
UN Secretary General Kofi Annan and British Prime Minister Tony Blair want to send an international force to separate Israel from Hizballah terrorists in Lebanon. Mr. Blair said a UN force should be sent to, "...stop the bombardment coming over into Israel and therefore gives Israel a reason to stop its attacks on Hezbollah." Kofi Annan said such a force could, "...pursue the idea of stabilization." But their idea assumes first, that a cease-fire would protect those worthy of protection, and second that restoring the region's ante bellum "stability" would promote long-term peace. Both assumptions are utterly false.
Hizballah is not some small, ragged band scattered around Lebanon. It is a huge terrorist structure, built over decades, that includes thousands of men, weapons, positions, offices and everything that enables it to control southern Lebanon. Israel is now destroying that infrastructure. A cease-fire would benefit Hizballah and threaten Israel. It would protect both Hizballah and the nations that support it - Syria and Iran - as well as the Lebanese that have accepted the terrorist organization as a legitimate part of their government. A cease-fire would allow Hizballah to rebuild its power base and enable it to resume its attacks whenever Damascus and Tehran desired. For Israel, a UN force would create no security whatever against future attacks. The UN's years-long record on the Israel-Lebanon border makes mockery of the term "peacekeeping." On page 155 of my book, "Inside the Asylum," is a picture of a UN outpost on that border. The UN flag and the Hizballah flag fly side-by-side. Observers told me the UN and Hizballah personnel share water, telephones and that the UN presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.
The Israeli response to the attack by Lebanon-based Hizballah terrorists was much more violent and effective than Hizballah, Iran or Syria expected. The Olmert government failed to make any significant response to previous raids from Gaza and Lebanon, which encouraged both terrorist regimes. The Syrian and Iranian regimes practice brinksmanship as their foreign policy. They attack as often as they can in as aggressive manner as they believe will not trigger a decisive response. Iran wanted to distract the G-8 summit from agreeing to do anything about its nuclear weapons program, so it apparently told its Hizballah surrogates in Lebanon that the time was ripe to begin a major offensive.
The Hizballah attacks began about two weeks after Israel suffered the usual international condemnations for its response to the Gaza-based Hamas kidnapping of an Israeli soldier. Even after the Gaza incursion - emboldened by international condemnation of Israel's "disproportionate" response -- Iran and Syria were convinced that Israel would do no more than make token raids into Lebanon. For the first time, Israel has acted in accordance with what used to be George Bush's theory: that a government which contains, supports or harbors terrorists is responsible for their actions. Israel is now demonstrating that there is a price to be exacted from nations who collaborate with terrorists. The reason Israel must not agree to a cease-fire now, and why a UN force must be rejected is the fact that the Arab nations may be starting to open their eyes.
An emergency Cairo meeting of the 18 Arab League nations' foreign ministers last weekend produced the most significant event in the region since Saddam fell from power. These meetings are routine, held in crises or for political posturing and on every occasion before last weekend have resulted in condemnation of Israel and (or) the United States. This meeting began with the Lebanese foreign minister Fawzi Salloukh proposing a resolution condemning Israel's military action, supporting Lebanon's "right to resist occupation by all legitimate means" (which even the AP report characterized as "language frequently used by Hizballah to justify its guerillas' presence in south Lebanon.") The Lebanese draft also called on Israel to release all Lebanese prisoners and supported Lebanon's right to "liberate them by all legitimate means." The "Lebanese prisoners" are virtually all Hizballah members and "legitimate means" translates to terrorism. The Syrian foreign minister, Walid Moallem, strongly supported Lebanon and Hizballah. But an historic obstacle was raised that blocked the Lebanese endorsement of terrorism.
The Saudi foreign minister, al-Faisal, led a triumvirate including Egypt and Jordan that, according to the AP report, was "...criticizing the guerilla group's actions, calling them 'unexpected, inappropriate and irresponsible acts.'" Faisal said, "These acts will pull the whole region back to years ago, and we simply cannot accept them." These are the rumblings that precede a political earthquake. The Arab leaders are frightened that the acts of the terrorists they have coddled for decades might have consequences for them. And they are very frightened of what Iran may do next. We must reinforce those fears because they provide the first big lever with which those nations can be moved.
The Arab foreign ministers apparently have the glimmerings of a lesson dawning in their minds. The US veto of a UN resolution condemning Israeli action makes clear that if Israel imposes consequences for support of terror, the US will not stand in the way. Punishing Lebanon for its government's acceptance of Hizballah is one step. The next logical step would be punishing Syria and then Iran. If President Bush means to implement the policy he has pronounced, he wouldn't merely get out of Israel's way. He would lead. Instead of criticizing Kofi Annan and asking him to call Bashar Assad to pressure Syria to "cut this s*#t out," he should find a more reliable messenger. The name of Peter Pace comes to mind.
The Iranians and Syrians are apparently urging Hizballah to intensify this battle in the coming days. Many more missiles and suicide bombers will be used against Israel. And the Israelis will continue their attacks in Lebanon and Gaza. If we pressure the Israelis to call a halt to action prematurely, the hope that rose from the Arab ministers' meeting will be dashed and the lesson taught that there is still no penalty for supporting, succoring and ordering terrorists to do their work. If we continue to reject a ceasefire, and openly encourage Israel to deal a decisive blow to Hizballah, then Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan will understand the lesson is quite the opposite. For Syria and Iran, the lesson will have to be applied directly.
Jed Babbin was a deputy undersecretary of defense in the George H.W. Bush administration. He is a contributing editor to The American Spectator.
On page 155 of my book, "Inside the Asylum," is a picture of a UN outpost on that border. The UN flag and the Hizballah flag fly side-by-side. Observers told me the UN and Hizballah personnel share water, telephones and that the UN presence serves as a shield against Israeli strikes against the terrorists.
This is no surpries. They're de facto allies, the UN and Hizballah.
Pure class. Babbin is in my Top 5 favorites for interviews or comments. Woolsey, Eagleberger, McInerny, and Coulter (for sheer chutzpah and lampooning) are the other straight-shooters who never pull a punch and which I always enjoy for facts and perspective. Sadly, when you want an hour of them on a serious issue, you get 1:37 and they're gone. 100 words or less "journalism". Sucks. So we buy their books, LOL.
I can just see the UN troops(prolly Italians) elbow their way in between the Israelis and Hezbollah. Acting as a human shield wilst rockets dash out of Lebanon overhead and continue to crash into Israel.
But Jews arent supposed to fight back, they are just supposed to die I guess.
! Link (title and below) to .pdf (6 pages).
by Claude MONIQUET, President of the ESISC
Peace still seems a long way off for the Middle East. Three factors have combined to place the region in the middle of a military crisis which seems destined to last for at least another few days, if not two to three weeks. Two of these reasons are purely circumstantial, while the other is strategic.
As far as the circumstances are concerned, it is clear that there has been no compliance with the two conditions imposed by the Israelis (as well as by the G8 and most of the western nations, even though some countries continue to criticize what they see as a "disproportionate" Israeli response) for the cessation of hostilities. These two conditions are clear, distinct and non-negotiable: the Hezbollah must release the two kidnapped Israeli soldiers safe and sound and suspend its rocket attacks on Israel... To read more Claude Moniquet is a belgian journalist who graduated from terror specialist to private analyst; his views are always measured, sound and interesting, and on top of that he's "liberal" (european sense, IE free-markets, small gvt,... his first synthesis notes were published online at the belgian Hayek Institute) and non-idiotarian.
A refreshing change from "big" think tanks like the ifri!
The mullahs reply to Condi Rice's nuclear olive branch.
The war between Hezbollah and Israel is a tragedy for its victims, but it could also be a clarifying moment if the world draws the proper lessons. To wit, this is a preview of what the Middle East will look like if Iran succeeds in going nuclear.
The threat of a nuclear Iran isn't primarily that the mullahs might actually use such a weapon if they got one. The more immediate threat is that Iran would use the weapon as a shield to pursue its hegemonic ambitions throughout the Middle East, promoting terrorist attacks on its enemies and intimidating anyone with the nerve to fight back. The Hamas-Hezbollah double assault on Israel is a portent of things to come unless the world gets serious about Iran's radicalism.
Iran is testing the world right now.
And the world will come up short until someone loses a city. Its a shame there are tens of thousands of people alive today who need to die in order for the Mullahs to be treated as the threat they are.
My mother, Queen Mollie, once told me when I was a kid: There are four words I want you to take out of the English language. Those are ought, should, fair, and equitable, because, Darlin, life isnt always the way it oughta or shoulda be. For sure, it's rarely fair or equitable.
I first noticed this when I was in Beirut as a journalist in June of 82 with the Israel Defense Force. I went over there as a typical naïve American thinking that we would see some fighting. However, it did not take me long to realize that the Islamic mentality with which we were dealing was founded on terror. The Islamic version of fighting was sniper warfare and bombing. It goes along with the Islamic mentality that I was told is based in the Koran, that the way to defeat an enemy (and let there be no mistake, this barbaric mentality lives by the attitude that the death of everyone who is not one of them is necessary) is to strike, one slice at a time. One slice may not harm their quarry, but after 2,000 slices, they leave victorious.
Continued on Page 49
We're not merely "forgetful." We've constructed a fantasy past in which primitive societies lived in peace and security with nary a fear that their crops would be stolen or their children enslaved. War has been the natural condition of mankind for thousands of years, and our civilization is a very fragile exception to that. What does it say about us that so many of our elites believe exactly the opposite -- that we are a monstrous violent rupture with our primitive pacifist ancestors? It's never a good idea to put reality up for grabs. You can bet your highest-denomination axe on that.
Amen. Kool Aid is de rigeur in so many circles. The more effete the elite, the more charming and blameless the barbarian.
It is often the poisonous notion of those who are not self-made successes in an American thread enlightenment society that because they did not succeed by the "bootstrap" method, the method and the society that spawned it are the problem, and that a return to some imagined past when everyone was magically happy would solve all of their problems.
This leads to two equally poisonous conclusions. For the much of the idle or inherited wealthy limousine type liberals, transnationalism and socialism and distrust of entrepreneurship. For those who lack the intellect/skills/work ethic to advance, redistribution of wealth and government guaranteed income security for all, and distrust of entrepreneurship.
The latter would also include much of our education industry, professors who see as unjust any society that would reward a shoe store manager with more money (and therefore status, in a capitalist society) than a "lofty" professor who is so very, very smart and has spent so many years at study.
ITHO, the problem can never be within themselves. It can't be that they missed the zeitgeist of market economics, or simply have no skills to reach the apex in a capitalist society, or that, knowing the pay scale going in, they are foolish enough to think it will magically change once there. No, it must ALWAYS be the fault of others, and, ultimately, our very system of economics and governance itself.
The paradox is that in any stone or early bronze technological society this type of grousing would probably get them killed, possibly eaten.
We should never forget the Tasaday hoax, where an invented gentle group of gentle primitives made it all the way to the cover of National Geographic before it was discovered that the "professors" who "discovered" them had made their very existence up in order to say,"See, see, this is what humanity is REALLY like without nasty evil Western civilization. These clowns later admitted that they did this because they couldn't find any examples of people living with that level of technology who weren't violent and that this didn't sit well with their cherished ideas about the "noble savage."
All very pathological.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
07/18/2006 5:56 Comments ||
...If you can, find the book 'War' by Canadian writer Gwynne Dyer. Dyer is just shy of a barking moonbat, and his conclusions can be summed up by saying, "Only the UN can save us" - but he does an incredible job in showing how we've been at war with each other for a few millenia and damned little is going to change that.
Posted by: Mike Kozlowski ||
07/18/2006 6:31 Comments ||
I've said it before -- I'm amazed at how deeply this myth has sunk into our culture. My own dad thought the Brits introduced scalping into North America -- and he probably still does, despite my pointing out skulls from the 1300s, found in North Dakota, that show signs of being scalped.
Those skulls, by the way, were found in a mass grave containing everyone from a village except the young girls.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
07/18/2006 7:45 Comments ||
I read Spengler's review of Wade's book a week ago. I immediately thought of the trolls who come here to accuse the average Rantburger of being genocidal fantasists. It is only the attitude of us and those like us that keeps civilization from sinking into genocidal savagery. It has a cost, but so does everything. (I'd much rather pay that cost than sacrificing my family and friends to the suicidal pacifist nightmare.) And that goes back to my contention that the reason most liberals are liberals is because they cannot understand mathematical concepts like trade-off analysis, standard deviation, and compound interest. Everything gets grouped into poles (war bad, peace good) and a narrative gets constructed to explain it all. Very much in line with no more uro's excellent analysis.
RC: For better or worse I don't read much Sci Fi these days, but years before 9/11, there was a short story in the Man-Kzin War series that postulated a great conspiracy to purge the historical record of all reference to war. By the time of the story (200 years in the future?), the narrative was that all major war had ended by the time of the Rennaissance, the V-2 rockets were weather rockets, and the United Nations had abolished all residual violence. Researchers who uncovered the truth were lablelled "military fantasists," brainwashed and sent off to labor camps as part of a Mars terraforming porject.
The Apache threat thus loomed on the northern Piman horizon at the same time that Jesuit missionaries reached them from the south. When Father Kino set up shop at Cosari in 1687 hostile Apache hosts were already just over the horizon. During the 1690's the experienced warriors of the Piman Sobaipuri groups living along the eastern frontiers of northern Pimería handily defeated the first Apache probes (Bolton 1948:I:179-181). The first Athapascans came into Pima borderlands as reinforcements of Jano, Jócome and Suma war parties. These were relatively small Indian groups inhabiting the territory between the New Mexico trail in Chihuahua and the Spanish settlements in Sonora (Wyllys 1931:138 and Bolton 1943:I:181). They may have been Opata in language or they may 172have been Lagunero or a southwestward extension of the very small language groups of Texas. They were almost certainly not Athapascan speaking Indians. They fought their northern Piman enemies in the aboriginal style as late as 1698 (Bolton 1948:I:179-180). That is, they came openly and challenged the Sobaipuris to battle. The Sobaipuris chose ten men to oppose a picked ten composed partly of Jócomes, partly of Janos and partly of Apaches-probably true southern Athapascans. These ten picked men on each side fought and when the Pimans won the enemy broke and with the victors in hot pursuit. That was apparently the last battle the Apaches fought according to aboriginal Jócome-Jano-Suna rules. Thereafter, the battle conditioned southern Athapascans seem to have taken over direction of even combined war parties, and changed tactics from the aboriginal style of warfare they had been forced to abandon generations earlier in order to survive. After 1698 the Apaches, deprived of their Jano and Jócome and Suma allies, resorted to ambushes, sneak attacks, raids on fields and horse herds, and kidnapping, avoiding frontal assault or defense whenever possible.
Not a lot of 'white men' involved in these things. The 'white man' guilt program brought to you by the usual suspects. Why didn't the plains indians take advantage of the American Civil War to push back the white man? Because they were too busy hammering each other. Remember though, for the [neo-marxist] lefties, its not about facts, its about feelings.
the reason most liberals are liberals is because they cannot understand mathematical concepts like trade-off analysis, standard deviation, and compound interest. Everything gets grouped into poles (war bad, peace good) and a narrative gets constructed to explain it all. Very much in line with no more uro's excellent analysis.
Excellent comments all! It's a subject I'm fascinated with. One thought .... I know from personal experience that it is not that they "can not understand" but simply they group into poles and construct a narrative and refuse to understand.
For most of the rabid liberals I know, they are perfectly capable of understanding compound interest etc. Most are very intelligent. It's that once the narrative is constructed, they are unwilling to to understand those principals and they use their wit to come up with word games to explain them away.
I'd go further - and I have a pretty good sample group to choose from - that for the Koskiddie types and the University types and the aging liberal types and the rabid liberal types are expressing an an insecurity/superiority complex that carried forward from childhood. Ask them (but not outright of course, you need to go in the back door on this) and they will tell you. The cheerleaders were mean to them, they were horribly teased as children because of glasses or some physical deformity - or any other issue that causes children to be teased, too short, too tall, too fat, etc. But the difference is that they are smart - not stupid - and they know they are just as good as... nay better.. than those teasing them. So they know they are smarter or somehow better than those bullying them, but they don't have the social skills to deal with the teasing so they feel angry and helpless throughout their childhood. This carries to adulthood and so they latch onto the liberal narrative that they are superior by accepting a set of beliefs. They are better and smarter than you, ya see, because the media says so. The powers that control our culture say so. These same people would change their beliefs on a dime tomorrow if suddenly the powers that be told them that the cool, smart people believe in X and all of the "other stupid people" believe in Y. Bascially they are scared cowards who hide behind bullies to make themselves feel ok.
Very true, 2b. The worst of the lot aren't the ones who hide behind the bullies. The very worst are the ones like Krugman or Chomsky, who once free of the violence of the schoolground, become intellectual bullies themselves. In the context of a civilization, when there is no longer any threat of barbarians burning your crops or killing you and enslaving your kids, they often rise to power. Somewhere along the way, they become so enamored of their own words, so convinced of the power of their "narrative," that they become convinced that their cleverness can defeat bararians with swords. Sometimes they do. But in the end the barbarian always wins.
I have come to learn that the healthy skepticism that Americans have for intellectuals is well founded. Some would call it anti-intellectualism. I consider it to be a very useful check that prevents America from being run by ENArques.
I think that I had the potential once to become a Krugman or a Chomsky. Due to some choices I made and the strong hand of the Salesian order, I went in a different direction. But I understand the dynamic of which you write very well.
That's too complex. Most liberals (esp. the social libs) are physical cowards. They flinched as children to bullies, as young adults to those more agressive, and in the present against evil. And they expect you to do the same.
And I also see physical cowardice in much of the upper class, whether Democrat or Republican. It's a consequence of leading sheltered lives and as young adults, not ever having to put their comfort or safety on the line.
well said, 115AS! Better than I could have ever hoped to express it myself.
And they expect you to do the same. You are right too ed, but instead of physical intimidation, Krugman and Co. learned that they could use their words as clubs. They bully with their ability to swing words and make people duck. That's why they revere Chomsky so much.
It's a consequence of leading sheltered lives and as young adults, not ever having to put their comfort or safety on the line.
That's what makes them feel comfortable to make such stupid, self-destructive bullying statements. As soon as they truly feel threatened they will be the first to demand that the military remove all constraints and immediately defend them without any regard to moral equivalence or any other such nonsense.
If you've been to a high school reunion, did it strike you that the smartest kids had gotten the Ph.D.'s and college teaching positions? Not at mine. They went to the professional schools and the next rung on the intellectual ladder went the academic route. I think that's a reflection of their intellectual insecurity.
Except for two, the top kids in my high school class (1979 woo hoo!) went into teaching, mostly as professors. Of those two, he became a CPA at one of the Big 7 firms after dropping out of Harvard Law, and she became a housewife and museum docent (putting that Masters in anthropology to good use). Of course, a lot of us were the children of university professors, which may have had something to do with it. A bunch of our top quartile went into medicine or became professional classic musicians.
And for the record, I am under 5' tall, got braces and glasses the same week at the beginning of fourth grade (which in my innocence I took as proof that my parents loved me), and have been sheltered from hardship and mean people my entire life (or perhaps I just didn't notice)... yet I was drawn to Rantburg. Environment is not destiny, thank goodness.
lol! TW I'm sure you bloomed later in life :-)
The point is not that they have some sort of insecurity or that the cheerleaders are mean to them, everyone has a THEY WERE MEAN TO ME story and insecurities about their physical condition - no matter how good they look. But what separates them was their inability to handle it socially and/or get over it later in life. You look back at your time with braces and glasses time with humor and fondness - they look back with lingering pain.
Try it sometime. Like I said, don't ask directly, but if you get to know a rabid liberal, eventually they will share with your their tale of childhood injustice and they will still be nursing the anger and hurt.
Re: degrees, I think it's a mistake to overgeneralize on this, from the boomers onward. Lots of people are changing fields and/or taking degrees throughout life and sometimes changing careers along the way.
A good example is my friend Ann. After her Navy Commander / PhD husband settled in a 4 yr assignment for once and her kids were all in school, she went back for her master's and PhD. This was in the late 80s, early 90s when everyone was focused on making money and many people yawned at her dissertation topic: Just War theory in the Arab tradition and its modern use.
Looks rather relevant since 9/11. She's a professor now back in their home state.
Now I don't know Ann's class ranking in high school, but I think it was rather high. Her husband was at the top of his class pretty much all the way through school.
Just sayin' .....
Posted by: no name, just sheepskins ||
07/18/2006 16:35 Comments ||
This could use a picture of the Scarecrow from the Wizard of Oz. As the wiz said,"You don't need a brain, you need a diploma".
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.