Says we are in period of rapid, systematic and consistent dismantlement of democracy
By Gudrun Schultz
BRUSSELS, Belgium, November 7, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The European Union is rapidly approaching a state similar to ideology-driven totalitarian regimes, a former Soviet dissident and expert witness against the Soviet Communist Party warned last week in Brussels.
Speaking at the invitation of the United Kingdom Independence Party, Vladimir Bukovsky, 63, said the EU was a monster that must be destroyed before it developed into the next Soviet Union, the Brussels Journal reported.
The Soviet Union used to be a state run by ideology. Todays ideology of the European Union is social-democratic, statist, and a big part of it is also political correctness, Mr. Bukovsky said in an interview with Paul Belien. I watch very carefully how political correctness spreads and becomes an oppressive ideology Look at this persecution of people like the Swedish pastor who was persecuted for several months because he said that the Bible does not approve homosexuality.
Pointing to a further example in the introduction of hate speech laws in France and Britain, Mr. Bukovsky said, What you observe, taken into perspective, is a systematic introduction of ideology which could later be enforced with oppressive measures.
Mr. Bukovsky said he gained access to confidential documents from the Soviet era in 1992, which revealed plans, dating back twenty years, to turn the European Union into a socialist organization. In 1985-1986 an informal agreement between Moscow and left-wing parties of Europe began to develop, according to Bukovsky, a plan that would see the Soviet Union mellow toward a social-democratic structure, while Western Europe would adopt a socialist structure.
Then there [would] be convergency, said Mr. Bukovsky. This is why the structures of the European Union were initially built with the purpose of fitting into the Soviet structure. This is why they are so similar in functioning and in structure.
While he acknowledges EU policies are not aggressively enforced as they were under the Soviet leadership, Mr. Bukovsky said nonetheless European countries are under enormous pressure to conform to EU ideology.
It is almost blackmail. Switzerland was forced to vote five times in a referendum. All five times they have rejected it, but who knows what will happen the sixth time, the seventh time. It is always the same thing The people have to vote in referendums until the people vote the way that is wanted.
It looks like we are living in a period of rapid, systematic and very consistent dismantlement of democracy, Mr. Bukovsky warned.
Todays situation is really grim. Major political parties have been completely taken in by the new EU project. None of them really opposes it. They have become very corrupt. Who is going to defend our freedoms?
He believes the repression of national freedom and identity he sees in EU domination of European nations will eventually lead to a backlash similar to the chaos that followed the collapse of the Soviet state.
[Y]ou can press a spring only that much, and the human psyche is very resilient you know. You can press it, you can press it, but dont forget it is still accumulating a power to rebound. It is like a spring and it always goes to overshoot.
#2
There are two kinds of totalitarian regimes. some are personality-driven, and some are ideology driven. There are examples of each, and I agree with Mr. Bukovsky that the EU is rapidly becoming one.
#3
Flew in from Morrocoy Beach A380
Didnt get to bed last night
Then it crashed and broke my knee
Man I had a dreadful flight
I'm back in the EUSSR
You don't know how lucky you are, boy
Back in the EUSSR.
a letter from a reader to Jonah Goldberg of National Review.
Heres what I think.
I believe good Democrats and good Republicans both believed this war was going to end if their party won on election day. The Dems believed they'd end the war through withdrawal; the GOPers believed they'd end it through victory. They're both wrong. This war is going to go on for a long, long time.
It seems to me that Americans believe wars end when we say they end. Whether we win (WWII), lose (Vietnam), or draw (Korea), our wars have ended when we said they ended. The defeated Germans, victorious North Vietnamese, or stalemated North Koreans never came after America when hostilities ended. But the jihadists are coming, no matter what happens in Iraq. Make no mistake.
I was 21, and just about to start a 27-year relationship with the pages of NR, when the Iranian hostage crisis happened. I remember all the pronouncements from US leaders that they, and the American people, would have to get acquainted with the Quran to understand what all this revolutionary stuff was about. Now, all these years, I find that virtually no one in America has read the Quran or other holy books on the life of Mahommad. They have no idea that what we're seeing on TVthe Army of God (Hezbollah) attacks Israel; the regular practice of beheading; the spread of Sharia law; the brutalization of women; and the worldwide practice of actual jihad, not spiritual jihad, springs directly from those sacred texts, word for word.
I invite you to try a test with friends and family. I've done this with about 15 people in the last couple of weeks. Ask them to put the following three names in history, in the order in which they appeared: Jesus, Mohammad, Moses. I have been shocked at how many put Mohammad before Jesus, and even before Moses. I think the reason this happens is because Muslim countries look so much older on television! Now how could Americans understand Jihad, the Crusades, the relationship between the Bible and the Quran, or any thing they might hear that the Quran directs, without even understanding the historical sequence of the prophets?
With the Democrat victory, I hear a sigh of relief across the country that now we can bring this whole thing to a close. It is an illusion. Until we get into the animating texts of Islam, and do so publicly, loudly, and consistently, we will invite more violence, and abet the silence of moderate Muslims of goodwill around the world.
I believe the leadership of this debate is the most urgent task to ever face the brave staff of National Review. You already led the debate on Communism, but then you remember Communism had few real adherents in Communist countries. Radical Islam has tens of millions of true believers. This will be harder.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/09/2006 16:57 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11128 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This gets at what (I believe) TW posted last night. He's hated/questioned because he came in to shake up/change the military. Now, he may be serving as the fall guy, whom everyone hates, but if the new guy continues on with those changes, he'll be loved for some reason. She stated it more eloquently than I, but the point is, watch the hand, not the mouth on this move.
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 15:31 Comments ||
Top||
#2
'Twas indeed I, BA. Thank you for your kind words. I watched the company for which Mr. Wife labours go through this process (twice!), and be the better for it, painful though it was at the time for all concerned. And watched how the first ones were not permitted the fun and pride of rebuilding after the pain of tearing down the organization they'd grown up in (it's that kind of company), and listened to all and sundry praise the second ones for executing the first ones' rebuild plans, "only better than the other guy would have done." It tore my heart to know that both first ones had to watch that from exile like Moses, knowing they'd never be allowed to return to the Promised Land they'd been the ones to reshape. I'm much too soft-skinned for the sandpaper business world.
#3
TW, you're needed in other arenas. Like tending to us battle-hardened warriors with tea and scones. Not that I'm a male chauvinist pig, because I KNOW you can hold your own, lol!
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 20:36 Comments ||
Top||
#4
BA - too little credit - she's a warrior
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/09/2006 20:44 Comments ||
Top||
#5
So true, Frank, AND she's our warrior, tee-hee.
*slinks off-stage*
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 21:06 Comments ||
Top||
#6
No, I know the difference between what I am and true warriors, both female and male. That's why I'm happy to serve tea and scones (whether imaginary or real) to those who've earnt it, to show my affection and admiration, and do my bit to preserve the civilized space the warriors go out there to fight for. And if, on occasion, I get to rap the knuckles of a few trolls with my carved ivory fan, isn't that one of the pleasures of hanging out at Rantburg?
#7
Ah yes, TW, the "silent warrior". She absolutely fillets trolls AND makes them love her at the same time, lol! Keep up the good work, TW.
And, I second her notion. I'm no TRUE warrior. Just an average guy who's ENTIRE world was shaken on 9/11/2001 to wake up and see the enemy(ies) within. We have the unfortunate circumstances of having to fight both foreign and domestic enemies at the same time. Just trying to do my bit in this long, hard slog.
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 21:26 Comments ||
Top||
Well known in the last couple months. I think she's going to trash Harman. Harman made the mistake of crossing her and Pelosi is the kind of pol who never forgets that.
#3
"Pelosi" and "intelligence" in the same sentence?
Doesnotcomputedoesnotcomputedoesnotcompute....
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
11/09/2006 18:32 Comments ||
Top||
#4
lol, Barb. My thought exactly.
I keep stating that it should be interesting to watch Lieberman in all of this. He was pretty steamed yesterday on Hannity's radio. Mentioned that several of his Donk friends have "completely change their relationship" (specifically mentioned Hillary and Schumer), and then literally said "Watch me, I'm going to caucus with the Democrats, but will WORK HARD to be independent." God, I hope he means it.
I know he won't change to a social (or even fiscal) conservative. But, I'd like to see him (in his calm, boring demeanor) absolutely b!tch slap Schumer, Clinton or Pelosi over Iraq.
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 20:40 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Funny thing is he is the most free man inthe Senate.
He owes his presence there to no party, only his sensible views and how they mesh with those of his voters.
And even better, if votes fall on party lines, that leaves it 49-49, Sociast going Dem 50-59. Meaning Joe gets to make it 51 for the Dems and ask his price, or 50-50 and VP Cheney breaks the tie - and Joe gets the Repubs to pay his price.
Joe Lieberman, the biggest winner of the 2006 election.
He will be a great boatanchor to hang on the local Dem who just won what is normally a fairly conservative/moderate CD. Him on one side and Kerry on the other.
Wahoo! If the Dems continue to do payback instead of governing from the middle that they ran to, 2008 is going to be a ball!
Now that the election is behind us, and the Democrats control one or possibly both houses of Congress, there's no reason not to admit it: the Right was right about us all along. Here is our 25-point manifesto for the new Congress:
1. Mandatory homosexuality
2. Drug-filled condoms in schools
3. Introduce the new Destruction of Marriage Act
4. Border fence replaced with free shuttle buses
5. Osama Bin Laden to be Secretary of State
6. Withdraw from Iraq, apologize, reinstate Hussein
7. English language banned from all Federal buildings
8. Math classes replaced by encounter groups
9. All taxes to be tripled
10. All fortunes over $250,000 to be confiscated
11. On-demand welfare
12. Tofurkey to be named official Thanksgiving dish
13. Freeways to be removed, replaced with light rail systems
14. Pledge of Allegiance in schools replaced with morning flag-burning
15. Stem cells allowed to be harvested from any child under the age of 8
16. Comatose people to be ground up and fed to poor
17. Quarterly mandatory abortion lottery
18. God to be mocked roundly
19. Dissolve Executive Branch: reassign responsibilities to UN
20. Jane Fonda to be appointed Secretary of Appeasement
21. Outlaw all firearms: previous owners assigned to anger management therapy
22. Texas returned to Mexico
23. Ban Christmas: replace with Celebrate our Monkey Ancestors Day
24. Carter added to Mount Rushmore
25. Modify USA's motto to "Land of the French and the home of the brave"
The Democrats capture of formal control of the Senate is bad news for President Bushs judicial nominations especially to the federal courts of appeals during his final two years in office. But dont be fooled by Democrats bluffing. Theres still plenty of room to get another excellent Supreme Court justice or even two or three more confirmed.
Skeptical? Consider the last Republican appointee to the Court to be confirmed by a Democrat-controlled Senate Clarence Thomas in 1991. That Senate had 57 Democrats and only 43 Republicans, and the swirl of allegations gave Democrats plenty of cover to vote against the nomination. Still, 11 Democrats voted for Thomas, and he was confirmed by a 52-48 margin.
A lot has changed since 1991, but the changes cut in both directions. The Democrats have gotten more unified and nastier on judicial confirmations since then, but the high-profile politics of a Supreme Court nomination enhances the case for confirmation of a strong pick. Opponents cant rely on obscure procedures to block the nomination. They need to make their case openly, and in the Internet age, unlike with the 1987 nomination of Judge Bork, their distortions wont go unanswered.
Posted by: ed ||
11/09/2006 9:13 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The problem is I have little faith in the backbone of one George W Bush when ti comes to standing firm on consrvative principles regarding domestic issues.
He has dallied around on domestic policy for his entire administration. Other than the tax cuts, and the belated (and mainly symbolic) fence, can you see ANY of his non-war-related policies that he was elected for in law now?
Bush is a wimp domestically, and I'm beginning to suspect his is like his father, spineless go-along get-along frat boy ("Read my Lips, No New Taxes" - and now the son is caving like the father on domestic policy). The only difference is his conduct of the war and unwillingness to back down from hunting terrorists, compared to his father's leaving us this war to fight when we coudl ahve taken down and reformed Iraq very easily in the first GW.
#4
It it stood for anything or made a difference, I would just look at the Ranger Up gal for next two years--sort of like treading water for a long time.
#5
It's definitely time to beat on Bush, but for the right things.
I'm not sure things would have been substantially different had we gone to Baghdad at the end of GWI. The coalition would not have held and it would have been a clusterfight of immense proportions. Bush II knows the inside story of why we did not go to Baghdad and I suspect that has a lot to do with why we acted so unilaterally in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has signalled that he is a wimp domestically from the git-go. He never portrayed himself as the son of Ronald Reagan in any sense, including oratoricly. He was always been a hands across tha aisle guy in Texas.
Regardless of what one may think of them, he got NCLB and drugs for the elderly in addition to the tax cuts. The only major thing he will not have done that he promised to do is reform social security. The war took that chance away from him if he even had it.
If he could work out a deal to fix social security/medicare in exchange for a cut and run from Iraq, he'd be a fool not to take it. The donks are going to force him out of Iraq any way. And if the people change their mind, nobody will want to leave Iraq before 2008. But the MSM will make sure the war only seems more bloddy and evil every day. He's boxed in and doing as well as he can with the promises he made and the cards he was dealt.
#7
I'm not so sure NCLB is such a disaster. The law requires vouchers be issued to children in failing schools--and defines "failing" in such a way that most public schools will ultimately fail. That's why you hear the lefties crying about school funding and proficiency testing so much--they realized, only after NCLB passed, that they'd been set up for a fall.
That said, I do think there is reason to be concerned that W will lose heart and start giving the Donks too much. If he has a flaw, it's that he's too willing to credit others with good faith, too forgiving, too willing to believe that an enemy can repent and change his ways.
This is probably a function of the President's own life story; don't forget, he was a heavy drinker, and by all accounts a total failure at life before he accepted Christ. I have no doubt that God can work a similar transformation in the lives of a Nancy Pelosi or a Ted Kennedy--with God all things are possible--but He only comes in to do such work if you invite Him. I don't know that it's such a prudent thing to deal with a Nancy Pelosi or a Ted Kennedy on the theory that if you merely show a little Christian charity, they'll come around eventually.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/09/2006 11:55 Comments ||
Top||
#8
I appears Pelosi's improvements are of the plastic variety. Her silicon is also an improvement.
#9
Bush's "compassionate conservatism" has signalled that he is a wimp domestically from the git-go. He never portrayed himself as the son of Ronald Reagan in any sense, including oratoricly. He was always been a hands across tha aisle guy in Texas.
I tend to agree. Beside his long-standing opposition to abortion and embryonic stem cell research, and perhaps the tax cuts, what's "conservative" about this man? Reps lost because they have left their conservative soul.
"When Republicans worry more about staying in government than about limiting government, they get thrown out of government."
HT to Instapundit, link goes to surce of the quote: Tapscott. Rantburger, can you find any better - or come up with better yourself? Rule is: One sentence per post and limit use of conjunctions. Looking for Pithiness like above or else Rantburg's trademarked Snark
On Tuesday we noted that Uwe Reinhardt, a professor of political economy at Princeton, had issued, in a Washington Post op-ed, a partial defense of John Kerry's most recent calumny against American servicemen. Although acknowledging that Kerry's remark was "uncouth," Reinhardt argued that the all-volunteer military is invidious because those with greater education and opportunities have less incentive to join up.
What we didn't realize, because Reinhardt didn't mention it in this piece (though he has elsewhere), is that this matter is personal to Reinhardt. As Town Topics, a weekly Princeton newspaper, reported in August 2005, Prof. Reinhardt's son, Mark, joined the Marines after his graduation from Princeton in 2001. Mark Reinhardt had three combat deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the Paktika province of Afghanistan, he was seriously wounded--seven broken ribs and a punctured lung--when his Humvee hit a Taliban mine. The younger Reinhardt recovered fully.
In a Washington Post op-ed published in early August 2005--shortly before Mark Reinhardt was wounded--Uwe Reinhardt confessed that he did not approve of his son's decision to join the military:
When our son, then a recent Princeton graduate, decided to join the Marine Corps in 2001, I advised him thus: "Do what you must, but be advised that, flourishing rhetoric notwithstanding, this nation will never truly honor your service, and it will condemn you to the bottom of the economic scrap heap should you ever get seriously wounded." The intervening years have not changed my views; they have reaffirmed them.
Unlike the editors of the nation's newspapers, I am not at all impressed by people who resolve to have others stay the course in Iraq and in Afghanistan. At zero sacrifice, who would not have that resolve?
As an editor at one of the nation's newspapers, let us say that we are impressed with Mark Reinhardt's sacrifice and sympathetic with Uwe Reinhardt's fatherly anguish at seeing his son in harm's way. But are such emotions a reliable guide to public policy? We would say not. Indeed, it strikes us that Prof. Reinhardt's personal involvement in this issue distorts rather than clarifies his views of it.
To begin with, Reinhardt's son is actually a strong counterexample to the professor's argument. Mark Reinhardt, an Ivy League graduate, plainly joined the Marines not because of a lack of opportunity but because it was what he wanted to do. Uwe Reinhardt tried to talk him out of it, which is understandable enough: He loves his son and wants to protect him.
But it is hypocritical for him to try to talk his own privileged child out of serving and then turn around and complain that the privileged don't sacrifice enough under the volunteer military. Prof. Reinhardt wrote a nasty little column for the Daily Princetonian this past September in which he taunted as "chicken hawks" those students who have refrained from joining the military. That is, he is insulting those young Americans who have taken the very course that he unsuccessfully urged on his own son.
One gets the sense that Uwe Reinhardt thinks he has made a sacrifice here. In fact, although he obviously has paid an emotional price, the sacrifice was his son's alone. Mark Reinhardt will always be his father's child, but he is not a child. He is a man, and he made an adult decision to join the Marines.
The infantilization of the American serviceman is a familiar and offensive refrain of the liberal left. In Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11" there's one particularly stupid scene (and that's saying something) in which Moore approaches members of Congress and demands that they send their own children to Iraq. But of course no parent can force his child to join the military; that is a decision only an adult can make for himself.
Again, for Reinhardt this seems to be more a personal matter than an ideological one. A Princetonian news article describes a revealing father-son conversation:
"Why?" Wilson School professor Uwe Reinhardt asked of his son, Marine Cpt. Mark Reinhardt '01 and another Marine officer as they sat in a bar in San Diego. "Why did you do this?"
"Because no one else does," came the response from Mark. "There are all these kids from the barrio and the Dakotas and the farmland, great young guys going [overseas] to stand tall for America, and they need leaders."
Mark Reinhardt sounds like a class act, and his father should be very proud. But Uwe Reinhardt does himself no credit when he disparages young Americans who choose a different path.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/09/2006 16:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[11136 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Uwe sounds like a self-absorbed asshole. I wanted my son to go to college (eventually,l he will), with a 3.8 GPA. When I asked him why he joined the Army, he said "9/11". What more could I say than "do your best and come home safe"? Uwe's world is all about him and his son's priorities kick his ass. Think he'll ever realize? No. The son is a hero. The father is a dick.
not unlike my own situation... :-)
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/09/2006 21:42 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This Uwe guy is a clinical narcissist of the worst kind.
Uwe, in case you haven't noticed, there are far worse things in life than a United States Marine. If nothing else, show your son some f*cking respect. You can start by recognizing the sacrifice he has freely chosen to make-- despite the many less risky alternatives offered to a Princeton grad, I'm sure-- and the honor said sacrifice deserves.
#1
I have to disagree a bit with VDH here. The cause of our ills is not a low birth rate, the good life or even socialism. The cause of our ills is that our society here at home is that through our media and culture, we have adopted the same mindset as our enemies. Blame.
The new culture of blame is the problem that we face. For the Islamist culture it has always been that way - the cause of all their problems is the Jews. The Palestinians are so steeped in this culture that they rejected their own state of peaceful prosepertity to a state of anarchy.
Creating a government, like fighting a war is difficult and messy and it's never perfect. Nothing is ever perfect. Instead of looking to real causes they cling to "root causes". For them, the root cause is the Jews.
Don't have as much as your neighbor? The Jews are to blame. Stub your toe? Somehow, it is the fault of that sneaky Jew. No need for you to fix that floor board once a day if it is the Jew who needs to do it for you.
Previously in Western society we did not fall prey to this malady. If there was a problem, you identified it, addressed it as best you could and fixed it as best as it could be fixed. Each person was responsible for doing his part. You saw a problem, it was up to you to help fix it. Charity was the extra you did yourself to help those who could not help themselves. Whiners were told to shut up and get to work.
But not anymore. Now the liberals especially, but our culture in general is about blame. Get in an "accident"? No such thing as an unfortunate accident anymore. Lawyers are dispatched to assign blame. Even if no one involved had acted with malice or intent or the accident could not have been helped - blame must be assigned and the person blamed punished. It's no longer enough to pay the doctors fees or help out the person harmed. Blame must be assigned and someone must pay.
We have now lost what was once an integral part of our culture - the idea that the individual must reach within himself to forgive his enemies - to love and help his neighbor. That it was up to each individual to do this himself. This has been for centuries, a cornerstone of our culture.
For the liberals and our culture at large- they are no longer about ideas, they are entirely about blame. The Evangelicals, Republicans, The Government(TM), George Bush and Jews who don't blame themselves are the new Satans reponsible for all ills. These groups are somehow responsible for every homeless person, every death around the world - anything and everything that goes wrong in the world can be blamed on them, even the weather.
I think that the reason that our freedoms and lifestyle are so deeply threatend by Muslim culture and risk returning to the Dark Ages is because now our culture has discarded the ideals that were responsible for making the dark ages to go away. Instead of appreciating the work of those who roll up their sleeves and work hard to make an imperfect world better - we simply chastise them for the fact that they didn't make it perfect. Blame - it's what ails us all.
#2
Anon, that was GREAT! I lifted the entire comment, with attribution, and posted it at my website. You put into words what has been bugging me for a long while.
#5
Bad, good to see ya back. And, anon, that was spot-on. Our country has turned from a "support every friend/defeat every foe/the buck stops here" type nation to one that races to the nearest attorney anytime someone feels offended.
Where this ALL starts at is with attorneys. Go to www.opensecrets.org and see who (by far) donates the most money (as a "group") to Congress (on both sides of the fence). I know we've been sliding a while, but I think that McDonald's Coffee spill lawsuit started this insanity full tilt. You had the asbestos lawsuits prior to that, but that one single lawsuit (in my mind) showed how freakin' lawsuit-happy this nation is.
I'm probably a "young whipper-snapper" to most here at the 'burg, and even I see significant changes in how we approach each other to solve problems just since I grew up in the 80s. Don't like your neighbors painted house? Go to your homeowners association (or to court) about it. Used to be you'd just go TALK to that neighbor and solve it. Not anymore...everyone talks through "representatives" and attorneys.
Posted by: BA ||
11/09/2006 13:15 Comments ||
Top||
#6
thanks all! Ptah, I'm really flattered by that :-)
#7
There are 2 rules to follow:
Take responsibility for all that happens to you.
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
About free will:
We all have the ability to choose what to do in our lives, it's called free will.
To force your will upon another is a sin.
To allow another to force his will upon you is a sin.
I question the timing - obviously the Bush admin wants to steal the headlines from the Democrats!
But seriously folks - does anyone think Robert Gates woke up this morning to the stunning news that he was the new SecDef? Don't buy that for a minute.
One thing regarding the Democrat's victory I expected: hearings. A lot of folks were just sent to Washington on the promise of willingness to "ask the tough questions" on Iraq. (A nice way to deflect any concerns that you have no answers, of course, but I digress...) But what that translates to is hearings - probably hearings ad nauseum, and doubtless with multiple planned appearances from one Donald Rumsfeld. My guess - and I state this with sincerity - is that barring appointment of a Special Assistant to the Secretary for Listening to the Tough Questions, Mr Rumsfeld's ability to run the Defense Department would effectively come to a close in late January, 2007.
He may still be spending that time at the show trials, of course - he himself may in fact become the unpaid Special Assistant to the Secretary for Listening to the Tough Questions. But now it won't compromise his ability to lead a military in time of war.
I hope I'm wrong. I hope the man can retire in relative peace (he will always be a target, of course, and I mean that in many ways) and perhaps he can. Confirmation hearings for his replacement will certainly give us our first glimpse of whether this could be so. (And our first indication of the nature of next year's Senate. Uniters or dividers?)
Speaking of the replacement (and raise your hand if that's a job you'd take), here's a publication of interest to those desiring insight to our next SecDef (pending Senate approval). From 2004, Iran: Time for a New Approach: . . . .
You can buy a copy of the paperback for 15 bucks from Amazon, but 'cause I love you, man, you can download a pdf here for free. (Remember though, it's from two years ago...)
From the Guardian, every bit as truthful as the NYT.
Three months ago, Tony Blair warned the world that an "arc of extremism" now stretches across the Middle East from Iran to Lebanon. This phenomenon, he suggested, threatens the survival of the very values on which western society is based. Yet, when Blair came to power, no such claim could have been made. Yes of course, everyone knows that Violent Islamic Extremism started post 1997.
Slap-bang in the middle of his currently awesome arc, lay a fortress of stability in the shape of Saddam's Iraq. Ba'athist death squads = fortress of stability. How quaint
Saddam had tied down revolutionary Iran, the most potentially destructive force in the region, in an eight-year war, at the expense of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi casualties. Any Islamic terrorists found on Iraqi territory were summarily executed. The Middle Eastern oil that underpins our society, and therefore the values that our Prime Minister holds so dear, flowed freely into our refineries. Within Iraq itself, a secular state offered women opportunities unimaginable in nearby countries, and provided a standard of living far from unreasonable by the standards of the developing world.
Three objections were made to this state of affairs.
The first was that Saddam had expansionist ambitions. His annexation of Kuwait in 1990 was, however, rooted in a long-standing territorial claim based on the fact that Kuwait had been part of Basra province under the Ottomans and was only hived off under British colonial rule. Somewhat disconcertingly for Iraq's current liberators, this claim was revived in 2004 by none other than the US-appointed President of Iraq's Interim Governing Council. When in doubt play the Ottoman Empire card.
The second objection was that Saddam was developing weapons of mass destruction. Why he stopped doing so, we shall perhaps never know, but when he had such weapons, he chose to use them against Iranian armed forces and Iraq's own dissident Kurds, rather than for any purpose that threatened the wider world. WMDs are so much more pleasant when used for regional conflicts and suppressing your own citizens.
And who cares about Iranians or Iraqi dissidents anyways? Not the Guardian.
Had he acquired nuclear weapons, this might have proved a useful check on Iran's regional ambitions.
Alternately, it might have caused Israel's destruction, but again, who at the Guardian cares about the filthy Zionists?
Today, Iran appears to pose far more danger to the outside world than Saddam ever did, yet we seem to have no plans to deal with this country as we did with Iraq. Not so sure about that one Bub.
Perhaps if they'd shut up for a while Dubya could get on with it.
The final objection to Saddam's rule, on which more and more weight has necessarily had to be placed by those responsible for his downfall, is that he abused the human rights of Iraqi citizens. Quite clearly he did. Yet, why should it be assumed that this consideration trumps all others?
It does only if you believe in human rights and that human rights are for all people, not just Y'urp-peon newspaper columnists.
Iraq was created by the victors of World War I. Its Shia, Sunni and Kurdish peoples did not choose to be flung together, and their antagonisms made the country a powder-keg. Saddam believed that such a nation could be held together only by brutally effective repression. Current events suggest that he may have had a point. Naturally theyre not exactly beacons of liberty but one only has to look at the stability of Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria to prove his point.
The alternative would be to let the people go their own ways, but it's not surprising that the grandchildren of British imperialists would miss that possibility ...
Living under tyranny may not be ideal, but it is not impossible. Now theres a Dictators boiler-plate if you ever saw one.
It might not be impossible, but who says it's desirable?
In the Soviet Union, life took on a character of its own, in which the human spirit managed to flourish in spite of the political constraints.
Except for the folks sent to the gulags, they had a real hard time managing to flourish in the corrective labor camps in the Kolyma, at least if you read a certain Mr. A. Solzhenitsyn.
The literature generated in those conditions can still inspire us.
But apparently not teach us.
Today, many former Soviet citizens feel no more free under the yoke of global capitalism than they did before, and some would like to see the return of Stalinism.
Because what they got wasn't capitalism but gangsterism. It's interesting: the Bolsheviks taught that capitalists were gangsters, and Vlad Putin is doing everything he can to prove them right.
The people of China seem in no rush to jettison a regime that holds out the prospect of prosperity at the expense only of liberty.
So says a safely ensconced British newspaper columnist who's never seen a Chinese labor camp, and who certainly doesn't care about the Chinese people.
Even in Britain, our supposed attachment to our supposed freedom turns out to be tenuous. We seem content to toss aside ancient liberties in the face of a dubious war on terror, and we live, cheerily enough, under a regime of surveillance that the KGB might have envied.
Saddam offered his people a harsh deal. Yet, their lives were at risk only if they chose to challenge his authority.
Or if their brother, husband, daughter, second cousin, or member of a neighboring clan did. Or if they were Shi'a. Or Kurdish. Other than that, nope, Saddam never bothered anyone.
Now, they die because of the sect to which they happen to belong. Soon, their country may fall prey to a savage civil war. If that happens, the Iranians will doubtless intervene, along, perhaps, with Turkey and Israel. Bet you all saw that one coming. No one can predict where that might lead, but the outcome is unlikely to be positive for peace, prosperity, justice or, indeed, human rights.
If Saddam were still in power, he would have stopped this happening. Iraq's dissidents would have paid a price, but the rest of us would be a lot better off.
And there you have it -- it's not about the Iraqi people, their right to be free, to realize their dreams, their human rights, it's all about the author -- HIS right to be better off.
As he goes to meet the hangman, the world has cause to rue his demise.
Hogwash: the world has cause to ululate.
Stability is not a natural right. It is not a right guaranteed by international law, international treaty, and the resolutions of the United Nations, as is human rights and freedom from genocide and mass murder. It is not what people ardently desire in their bones and for which they are willing to sacrifice their lives. Democratic freedom is such a right, the core one, and it should be the fundamental basis of our diplomatic and foreign policy decisions, even by our diplomats. And guided instability may be a tool to this end.
R.J. Rummel
#1
We should seriously reconsider redrawing the borders of the middle east. Either (a) Chop Iraq apart or (b) Take over Syria and Jordan and combine the three into a larger confederation with roughly equal ethnic balance with the Jordanian King as titular leader and the Kurds otherwise in control.
Does the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as U.S. Secretary of Defense, who led the war in Iraq, signal an immediate beginning of the American army's withdrawal from Iraq? The answer is no.
It is more reasonable to conclude that the appointment of Robert Gates to the position will represent the start of changes in the way American forces are deployed in Iraq and the establishment of a plan with the Iraqi government for taking on greater military responsibility.
It is more reasonable that following its loss in Congress and a call by many voters for a change in military policy in Iraq, the Republican Party will now focus on an effort to save the White House for U.S. President George W. Bush's political heir. In other words, the party wants to show that it will be making changes in Iraq, while taking national security responsibility for the United States' position as a world power.
It is quite doubtful that the Democrats would have decided on an immediate withdrawal from Iraq had the decision been up to them. They, too, understand that a rushed pullout could end up having the U.S. lose the entire Middle East. The Democrats will continue to make it difficult for Bush and criticize him for the war in Iraq, but they will find a way to finance the army's continued presence there without humiliating the U.S.
Rumsfeld's resignation will ensure that the relationship between a defense minister of his choosing and the top brass at the Pentagon, along with the senior officers in the field, will improve. Some top American commanders argued a year ago that Rumsfeld was running the war badly, and it would be better if he quit. He did win full support from Bush, but it's clear that a decision was made on whether there is another approach for refreshing the American strategy.
Nonetheless, it is worth remembering that U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney shares most of Rumsfeld's views on the war. Rumsfeld's original viewpoint was that Iraq could be won with an army that was not large, but armed with the best technology and the use of speed. That's what happened in the first phase of the war, when the Iraqi army was quickly broken in the battlefield. The disagreements began afterward, when it came time for the small American force in Iraq to bring order to the country.
The Iraqi army and police were dispersed, and the American army, with its relatively small amount of troops, had a tough time coping with the various militias and helping impose democracy. They were faced with the task of bringing in order, rebuilding the infrastructure, and putting Iraq back on its feet.
Saddam Hussein was captured, but there were difficulties in fighting the insurgents, and the combat turned into a civil war. Despite the pressure from top military commanders, Rumsfeld refused to increase the number of American soldiers in Iraq, and the objections multiplied. Rumsfeld's deputy and most of the assistants who helped him plan the war and come up with the approach that only relatively small forces were needed, have left the Pentagon.
Gates will need to bring a new generation of top officials into the Pentagon. He will understand soon that not only is the American future in Iraq at stake, but so are the plans being hatched by Iraq's neighbor, Iran. He will also understand soon that he will have to deal not only with the future of Iraq, but also, indirectly, with the future of Jordan, which could end up being surrounded by negative forces.
Still a bit bummed, but this humor piece brought a smile to my face. I know he's being tongue-in-cheek... but some of those sound like really good ideas.
Frank J.'s New Agenda for America - Part 1: Iraq
)
"A chicken in every pot, a bullet in every terrorist."
That's the focus of this new agenda (except replace "chicken" with "nachos and beer"). All the terrorists should be dead while at the same time we're well off enough in American to have all the nachos and beer we want. That's the future I see for America. I have a plan that will bring happiness to Americans while bringing unhappiness to America's enemies. My hope is that, with your support, the Republican Party will adopt this exciting new agenda as their new platform.
There are many issues facing us now, and I have just as many solutions if not more. Let's start with the biggest issue: Iraq.
Before I give my solution for Iraq, I should explain my philosophy on the military. It starts with this:
The core values of the US military are fear, death, and destruction.
Anything that tries to wussify the military is destructive. We should not expect other countries to welcome our troops with open arms; we should expect citizens of any sane country to scream and run in terror at our approach. Our troops should be seen as demon-gods - vessels of pure destruction who know not mercy. When our troops appear in a country, the shout of "Americans!" should always be preceded with the shout of "Holy @#$%!" The enemy must know that our troops show no mercy and cannot be dissuaded and attacking us is always the absolute dumbest idea ever.
To move towards this new paradigm for the military, some changes are small. For instance:
Secretary of Defense will be named back to Secretary of War.
Changing the name of the Secretary of War to Secretary of Defense is just a step away from naming the position Secretary of Peace. It was done to make America look more peaceful, and that is completely wrong-headed. It is not what we want to project to other countries. What we want to project to other countries is:
America is a nation that loves war and only obedience to our will can stave off your destruction.
This is will only be partially true, but we want all countries to believe it.
Another way to get rid of the "nice military" image is:
Collateral damage will no longer be a factor in making military decisions.
If you don't want to die, get out of our way. Women and children make poor shields, as most of our artillery can go right through them.
Yes, killing innocent people is awful, but giving the enemy the idea that there is some way to slow down our destructive advanced towards them is even more awful as it only invites attacks and causes even more death in the end. This new policy may cause our troops to be called "baby killers," but they can just respond to that with, "Yes, we kill babies - enemy babies."
Some may think the troops may not like the new image of them being deadly killers, but actually what they hate are objectives that are more complex than "kill these people and blow this stuff up." All our trying to be nice ultimately just puts a great burden and danger on our troops by restraining their ability to kill and destroy. That's wrong. They deserve better.
The worst of it is this whole "nation building" idea. That's gay. Since there are many patriotic, openly-gay Americans who want to be a part of our military, they can do the nation building since that's so gay.
Back to the main subject, how do we handle Iraq since we're already in the position of the "nice" military who helps other countries? Well, let's look at the first rule of applying military might to a situation:
AMERICA NEVER LOSES WARS!
EVER!
I think the solution is simple: we set a timetable for withdrawal. When we leave, we will have won... one way or another.
Yes, I know that a timetable would just mean to the terrorists that they just have to hold on only that much longer before they can own the country, but not with the way we will announce our timetable:
"All American troops will be out of Iraq by the date we have set. If Iraq is a peaceful democracy, then we will declare victory. If it does not look like Iraq will be a peaceful democracy when we leave, then we will nuke it to hell and also declare victory."
With this strategy, our troops will know the conflict will be over by a set date and that the war will be won no matter what.
Now, I know many of you would think it awful to nuke Iraq. I think it would be awful too. There are many great people there who just want a better life, which is why I don't think we'll have to nuke them. When we announce our timetable, they'll be ripping terrorists limb from limb to bring peace to the country.
Of course, for this to work, people have to be convinced we will use nuclear weapons. For that, consult the Nuke the Moon strategy. It was written back in 2002, but it is even more relevant today and leads to this important point for the future:
The taboo against using nuclear weapons must be broken.
Nuclear weapons are useless to us if no believes we will actually use them. Of course, if any other country uses them for any purpose, they will be obliterated. You may think this is a double standard that we can use nuclear weapons and other can't, but America has long held the belief that there are standards for us and different standard for smalle,r weaker countries.
Back to the Iraq situation, think of how different it would be if we used my timetable strategy on Vietnam. Instead of terrorists attacking us in Iraq hoping it will be another Vietnam, they would be fleeing for their lives fearing it would be another Vietnam.
So let's get us a timetable and completely and utterly win the war in Iraq.
That's the first part of the new agenda for America. There are many other parts to it, including more on the military (including more details on combat strategies for the future and troop benefits), foreign affairs, and the many domestic issues, but I'll let you chew on this for now and put out more parts every day. I hope you will all be a part of this exciting new positive agenda for America and pass it on to those in charge so it can lead the Republicans to a great new victory in 2008.
#2
Frank J - the only Frank tougher than me. I bow to the AOF Alpha Dog
Posted by: Frank G ||
11/09/2006 18:30 Comments ||
Top||
#3
instead of just saturation bombing a city, super-saturation bomb it. After annihilating everything until nothing but ash is left, Id nuke the ashes.
#1
Every time I read something about politics in Lebanon I can't help thinking of the contentious war lords of the Illiad or the barbaric tribes "allied" agains Rome.
The ME is pre-modern in so many ways that it is hard to conceive of the proper response.
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.
