Last week, I appeared at the Oxford Union to debate the proposition: This House regrets the founding of The United States of America. Such is the extent of anti-Americanism out there that this was considered to be a reasonable debate topic by Britains best and brightest.
It was an exhilarating and daunting experience. I do a lot of campus speaking and yet, going in, this felt like the functional equivalent of Rose Bowl. Ultimately, it turned out otherwise. But I only really realized that in retrospect. . . .
My colleagues in the debate were Peter Rodman, a former foreign-policy muckety-muck in the Reagan administration (and NR senior editor) and all around good guy, and Matt Frei, a convivial and charming Brit who covers the U.S. for the BBC. Plus there was one student debater on our side, an earnest and sharp young man who looked like he raced to put on his tux after arduous rehearsals for the Oxford theater troupes edition of Godspell. Lanky and long-haired, when he first told me he was one of the debaters, I immediately assumed the hippyish fellow was the anti-American. Instead, he was on our side.
The defenders of the proposition were originally scheduled to be one student plus three invited speakers: two Islamist radicals and a bona fide Communist.
But the Communist chickened out at the last minute, reportedly explaining that he didnt want to debate because he feared his side would lose. Now, a few short points need to be made here. First, this was remarkably shabby on his part. Second, why on earth a devout Communist would shirk at the prospect of fighting for a lost cause is beyond me. I mean hasnt that ship sailed? And, lastly, the Communists cowardice was an enormous disappointment because Peter Rodman and I had prepared to debate a Communist. We yearned to debate a Communist. I mean how often do you even get to meet an actual supporter of Stalin and Kim Jong Il? And, yet, they dangled this bloody ideological chum in front of our eyes and then cruelly yanked the bait away at the very last minute, informing us less than an hour before the debate. They replaced the Communist with a Canadian which, even I had to concede, was a very poor substitute for a Communist. . . . Go read the whole thing, which includes Jonah's prepaed text incorporating his anti-Commie talking points. A sample:
I dont know how it is in Britain, but in America, Communists are nearly extinct. A few aging relics do linger on like Japanese soldiers refusing to surrender long after the war. They live in an archipelago of academic backwaters, their bunkers brimming with yellowing copies of The Daily Worker and the Guardian, saturated with the strong stink of despair mixed with the suggestion of old urine.
Communists are more commonly seen as comic-book villains or mythical creatures rumored to have once existed in fairy tales or, perhaps, James Bond movies.
A Communist!? My goodness, were Dr. Doom, Lex Luthor, and Ernst Blowfeld unavailable? Did the most sagacious pundits of the Klingon Empire not return the Oxford Unions phone calls? Do the Oompah Loompahs refuse to fly coach?
Im sorry, but my honorable opponents party stands as a matter of principle! in lockstep solidarity with the murderocracy of Kim Jong Ils North Korea. He stands as the living exponent of the criminal tradition of Pol Pot, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Tse Tung, and he dares damn the United States of America from the safety of historys dustbin. Please.
Surely, this evening was intended as a gag. At the risk of repeating myself, go read it all. It rocks!
Posted by: Mike ||
05/03/2007 12:07 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
They replaced the Communist with a Canadian which, even I had to concede, was a very poor substitute for a Communist
The secularists have ruled corruptly when they've had power. The Islamists rule slightly less corruptly but scare the s..t out of most of the population.
The Kurds (Sunni) and Alevi (Shia) are numerous but almost completely shut out of govt and govt chartered corporate jobs. Chistians and Jews have to pay bribes to govt officials for protection.
We used to have a Turkish commentator at Rantburg. Wonder how he's doing.
#3
The question is not whether the Turkish people will dump the AKP in the June elections, but whether the Army will forcibly evict them. Either way, it will be better when they go.
This will be the EU's epitaph and quite likely the American left's as well.
As John Stuart Mill explained in his book On Liberty, freedom of speech is the foundation of true liberty. Swedish writer John Järvenpää argues that one of the virtues of free speech is that politically incorrect viewpoints force others to rationally argue against them.
Muslm reaction to the Danish cartoons and Pope Benedict's Regansburg address has already shown the world exactly what they think of free speech.
The term inciting hatred against religion will no doubt be used by Muslims to silence critics of Islam, especially since the Council of Europe has earlier decided to view Islamophobia as equal to anti-Semitism.
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
And finally, let us not leave out:
ARBEIT MACHT FREI!
Moreover, whereas constitutions have traditionally outlined the basic workings of the state, the proposed European Constitution, running into hundreds of pages, betrays an almost sharia-like desire to regulate all aspects of life. It is an instrument of control, a blueprint for an authoritarian state.
The Eu's bureaucrats have guaranteed a seamless transition from their constitution over to sharia law.
The Muslim immigration the EU is promoting to Europe has triggered the largest wave of anti-Semitism since the rise of, well, Nazi Germany, and may yet force the remaining Jews to leave. That Europeans should support this organization to prevent a new totalitarian regime is a sick joke.
Most ironic of all will be how the joke is on themselves.
HT No Pasaran! PJM Paris editor Nidra Poller - who has been following the French presidential election closely for Pajamas Media - reports on Wednesdays debate between finalists Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. The hot-headed Sarko was supposed to lose his cool, but it may have been his opponent who did.
by Nidra Poller
In anticipation of the Royal-Sarkozy debate, commentators speculated on the unexpected: what might happen to surprise us; will one of the candidates lose his or her composure or, on the contrary, say something so memorable that it could change the course of events.
Every single day for four months we have been hearing that Nicolas Sarkozy is nervous, hot-tempered, impulsive, and liable to erupt at any moment against his own will. At its furthest extremes, the hate campaign against Sarkozy is steeped in anti-Semitic, anti-American poison; in polite circles it is fashionable to talk about his brutality. Ségolène Royal, at the height of fashion, never misses a chance to label her rival and his politics as brutal.
Tonight the two candidates engaged in face to face debate for over two hours. Nicolas Sarkozy was calm, cool, and collected. Relaxed and comfortable, he had perfect control of himself and his language. He addressed every question intelligently, replied clearly and coherently. Ségolène Royal was nervous and aggressive from the get-go. She attacked, jabbed, taunted. She stared at him with narrowed angry eyes. Her voice was harsh. She spoke through clenched teeth. And, as I expected, before the debate was over, an issue hit her panic button, she lost control and turned spitfire.
Thats it, right? Thats what everyone was waiting for. Could two rivals in fierce competition handle themselves with dignity in a two hour face to face, or would one of them fall into a trap and explode? Yes. Except that it was supposed to be Nicolas Sarkozy.
The first media reactions came to us on France 3. The debate after the debate. Four guests for Royal, four for Sarkozy. Two moderators. Royal was praised by her loyal supporters who had no doubt that she had won the debate. They were honest enough to admit that she did not necessarily win votes, but her performance in the debate was dazzling. She was so deliciously pugnacious. Yes, pugnacious. And when she went into that riff, shouting at Sarkozy for minutes on end, totally out of control, and he told her, calmly, that a president doesnt blow her top, she slammed back, I am not blowing my top, I am revolted! I have a right to be revolted at what you said! I am angry, I am not blowing my top!
Well, they took her at her word. Nicolas Sarkozy couldnt fool them, oh no, they could see through his deceptions. Everyone knows how hot-tempered he is. And he just sat there, looking relaxed, speaking calmly, never raising his voice or his hand. To hear them describe it, it was almost too evil. A brutal man like that should at least have the honesty to show his real face.
Naturally, each candidate developed arguments that we have heard before, that we can read in their respective programs. The point of a face to face debate is to allow the opponent to challenge statements as they are made, on the spot, without stumbling or stuttering. Much of what we heard tonight has already been elaborated during the course of the campaign.
She throws in anecdotal details, adds some heavy emotional seasoning, turns the question into a flattering spotlight on her own person, and just keeps talking until someone, in this case the moderatorsPatrick Poivre dArvor and Arlette Chabotpolitely waves her to the side and stops her long enough to ask another question.
There were no surprises on that score. Ségolène Royal cannot focus her thoughts. She cannot give a straight answer to a direct question. Her ideas are strung together like beads, in no particular order. She throws in anecdotal details, adds some heavy emotional seasoning, turns the question into a flattering spotlight on her own person, and just keeps talking until someone, in this case the moderatorsPatrick Poivre dArvor and Arlette Chabotpolitely waves her to the side and stops her long enough to ask another question. On every crucial issuethe 35-hour work week, the admission of Turkey into the EU, reform of the pension systemshe flourishes a plume of high principles and then abdicates: the decision will be made after consultation with all parties, after discussion and debate, by referendum, by a flick of the wrist.
When Nicolas Sarkozy confronted her with facts, she hissed. Dont try that on me. I know your tactics. On many points, it was obvious that she was faking. He has far more experience than she does in the affairs of state. Which is why she endlessly refers to regional government, and all of the miracles she has performed in the region she governs.
Sarkozys entire campaign is based on a promise of accountability. He has fully developed his thinking on the longstanding problems of France. He has clearly defined a coherent program of proposed solutions. And he has pledged to stand by them, and be judged by his results. While Royal refers to her region, Sarkozy refers to Europe and the world. If Germany, England, Denmark, Ireland, and Spain can have full employment and healthy economies, there is no reason that France should be suffering from stagnation.
Ségolène Royals campaign is based on herself. In tonights debate, she could not use her charm. And her anger, for all the praise it might win from her diehard supporters, did not come across as righteous. Faced with Sarkozys concise thinking, her rambling arguments did not billow, her slogansgagnant-gagnant, donnant-donnantfell flat, and she didnt sing her usual tunes with the same conviction she musters when standing in front of ten thousand cheering fans.
Before the debate began, we were informed that Royal and Sarkozy had exchanged a cordial handshake (like Sumo-sans?) in front of the cameras but the scene would not be shown until the debate had ended. For some unexplained reason the curtain came down and there was no delayed broadcast handshake.
After all the tough questions from unemployment to Irans nuclear ambitions had been hashed over, the moderators asked the debaters what they thought of each other. It might seem like a silly question. In fact it was quite revealing because Ségolène Royal could not and did not pour out a dose of the anti-Sarko hatred that inspires her voters. She could not say then and there, after viewers had watched them in action for over two hours, that he was such a danger to the nation that even people who didnt like her or her politics should vote for her just to keep him from being president. Fans being fans, they probably wont hold it against her.
My choice for the best stumping exchange is the China Olympics Boycott issue. Both Royal and Sarkozy deplore the reluctance of the international community to act decisively to stop the massacre of the innocent in Darfur. Royal proposes a boycott of the Chinese Olympics, to punish the Chinese for preventing an international intervention simply to protect their interests in Sudan. Sarkozy asked her why, in that case, she made a high profile visit to China. Of course he might have asked her why she wanted to be president of France because, if Im not mistaken, the French, too, have interests in Sudan.
Will the debate change the figures?. Sarkozy is predicted to win by as much as 53 to 47. If anything, it might convince certain reluctant voterspeople who share his analysis, share his solutions, but are inhabited by that vague Sarkozy is scaryto vote for the hot-tempered guy who is so clever he can keep his cool.
#1
All minisyterial experience of Royal was as "minuistre délegué". To make things cleaer envision someone who has headed trhe department of Navy vs soemeone who heads teh Ministry of Defence. While a minister has a lot of autonomy respective to the prime minister, a ministre delegue reports to the full minister andtakes orders from him since the very name implies he is just taking care of field the full minisyter cannot dedicate his whole attention.
In contrast Sarkozy has hndled two of the important ministeriums: Finance and Interior (in France the later implies heading police and the "defensive" branch of secret services)
#5
basically Win-win (winner-winner & giving-giving), as opposed to the zero-sum mentality of the french (and otherwise) left, and a large part of the right too.
#6
I'm relieved to see she flipped out. The threat of hostile immigrants/the culture clash in Europe makes it much too important for anyone but Sarkozy to win.
If I were really pressing my luck, I would say it would also be great to have Sarkozy help France abandon its socialist urges. Don't want to be too utopian, though.
Americans for weeks woke up and went to bed to news updates about Anna Nicole Smiths death and the fate of her daughter.
Then, we seemed to go into near national paralysis over Don Imuss hos slur yes, including this writer, who wrote half a column on his arrogance.
But then actor Alec Baldwin came to the rescue screaming, Pig!, at his poor 11-year-old daughter and, of course, accepting Dr. Phils televised offer of intervention.
The media run with this trivia because they know it will hook viewers. But why do we care about this transient fluff? After all, its not as if there hasnt been real news this spring.
To recap just some of whats been going on while we waste our time following spats between Rosie ODonnell and Donald Trump:
It's a toss-up whether support for Israel or opposition to illegal immigration earns more angry emails. Here's one of the more interesting in response to an essay I wrote for City Journal, updating the arguments of Mexifornia five years ago (text left unchanged as it arrived):
It worries me that you have time to write such ignorant opinions, because that's all they are,just opinions.You must be a senior- citizen looking for some attention. Look buddy we are all human, except our monster, I mean our President,G.W.Bush. Get over it, you and your ancestors,Emerson,Hitler,Stolin... well you'll be dead soon, so who cares. Oh yeah you are one of those Americans who believe in god huh? You do not deserve to be called American because we all know that the orinal Americans were the Indians. Don't think I'm old , I'M 23 YEARS OLD AND MORE CAPABLE OF REASON THAN YOU. PINCHE VIEJO PENDEJO, I ALSO WRITE CHINESE TO BAD YOUR "american" computers can not.
Too bad he can't also write English. Okay, I know who "Stolin" is, but what about Emerson? Lake and Palmer? Ralph Waldo? I have never heard of any of those being accused of mass murder or running a police state.
#1
Oh, my... what a literate, thoughtful and well-developed intellect UC-Berkeley is graduating these days! His or her parents must be so proud of their ofspring's scholarly achievements!
(Ok, do I really need the industrial-strength sarcasm tags?)
#2
Sgt Mom - they're sitting in trees along Galey Drive near the International House protesting the potential destruction of these trees in order to build a new sports complex. You want to see socialist and communist drivel, pick up a copy of the Berkeley Daily Planet - or just walk through Sproul Plaza on May 1st.
They're trying to be relevent by attempting to recapture the glory days of the 1960's.
#4
Terrorism expert Steve Emerson filmed for his documentary, Jihad in America, an Islamic extremist conference in OKC in Dec 1991. The documentary (which has been shown to Congress several times) reveals that during the 1991 OKC conference, WTC attacks were openly discussed and planned by OKC Hamas terrorists being closely monitored by OKC FBI agents including FBI agent Floyd Zimms.
http://www.newswithviews.com/Briley/Patrick16.htm
Posted by: Bobby ||
05/03/2007 17:52 Comments ||
Top||
If the NY Times had comics, this would NOT be there, but it made my local paper. One cartoonist sees the idiocy of jihadi 'leadership'. How long until CAIR demands a retraction and apology?
The Air Force has offered up a few more clues about its next bomber, set to join the service in 2018.
At a presentation in Washington yesterday, a senior Air Force official said that extensive analysis indicates that a "manned, subsonic bomber aircraft" is the best option to pursue for the service's long-range strike requirement. "Our analysis shows that the best value and the one that meets the requirements in the mid-term, the 2018 time frame, would, in fact, be for a new concept bomber," Maj. Gen. Mark Matthews, director of plans and programs for Air Combat Command (ACC).
Matthews said the ACC-led study determined that the platform should be manned and subsonic. It is also envisioned to possess advanced stealth characteristics to penetrate hostile airspace, operate in that environment for extended periods and survive in the face of sophisticated air defenses, he said."It has to have the ability, in denied airspace against very capable air defense systems, to survive and persist on that battlefield," he said of the new bomber. "We are talking about the embedded capability to survive."
The service's preference for a manned aircraft is hardly surprising. As a service run by pilots, the Air Force has long espoused a need for men (and women) in the cockpit, despite the steady evolution of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and associated technology. The new aircraft will most likely have a two-person crew, similar to the B-2.
According to Defense Daily, the service plans to spend $333 million on developing the new bomber through Fiscal Year 2013. However, in an era of tightening defense budgets, there are no guarantees that the new bomber will move steadily toward development and operational deployment. The Air Force has identified the bomber as its fifth most-important acquisition program, ranking behind such platforms as the F-22, the Joint Strike Fighter, and the CSAR-X helicopter. And, with the Army and Marine Corps demanding more funds to buy new hardware, expand their ranks and repair damaged equipment, it's easy to envision some lean funding years for the new bomber, and possible delays in its introduction.
However, there is little doubt about the need for some sort of new, long-range strike platform. While the venerable B-52 is expected to soldier on until 2040, but other bomber platforms--notably the B-1B Lancer--may face retirement sooner, mandating the need for a replacement.
But the development clock is ticking. At this point, the service--and prospective contractors--have roughly a decade to develop and test the new bomber, which is still years away from the first full-scale mock-up, let alone a flying prototype. The revolutions in computer-aided design, precision manufacturing and simulator testing will accelerate the development process, but the designated time line suggests a bomber that will be evolutionary in its design and capabilities, rather than evolutionary. Requirements dictate that the aircraft "would have the capacity to carry in the range of 14,000 pounds to 28,000 pounds of ordnance and would have to have a range in excess of 2,000 miles unrefueled," according to General Matthews. The new bomber is also expected to incorporate low-observable technology for improved survivability and advanced sensors/munitions to increase its lethality.
In terms of performance, the bomber must be able to "hold at risk any potential adversary--regardless of where they area" Matthews said. That includes the ability to locate and attack deeply-buried facilities and fleeting targets, like those associated with enemy WMD programs, air defense networks, or even terrorist organizations. But the real bottom line for the new bomber is going to be its price tag. The last Air Force bomber (the B-2) costs almost $1 billion a copy, a major reason the service bought only 21 of them. To purchase more copies of the new bomber, it's got to be affordable, particularly in the early years of the program when the Air Force will be in the middle of its JSF acquisition.
Recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan have again demonstrated the value of bomber platforms. With the recent JDAM upgrade, bombers can now match fighter fighters in terms of precision, while greatly surpassing their capabilities in range, endurance and persistence. Still, I'm not completely convinced that a new manned bomber is the definitive answer for the next long-range strike platform. As the next bomber enters full-scale development (and becomes more expensive), the Air Force may be forced to consider other, potentially more affordable options, including UAVs.
The Anchoress Lots of linkage in the original, only some of which I've transferred over here. Go read it all, as they say.
Reading this piece about how the Democrats in the Senate banded together to throw their skirts over their faces and weep and wag fingers at David Broder (for the crime of daring to criticize one of them), I am reminded of Eric Hoffers remark in his book The True Believer:
The weakness of the soul is proportionate to the number of truths that must be kept from it.
This meme has all sorts of holes in it, mostly involving a refusal to engage in an intellectually honest manner about what was said and done four years ago today. The same people who complain that the pre-war intel of two administrations and most of the worlds spy agencies wasnt perfect seem to have no issue using half-truths and less in a weak attempt to score points four years later.
Aw, it doesnt matter if the narrative has holes in it - as long as people want to believe something, and the press wants them to believe it - it doesnt really matter what someone actually said or did. So what if Bush said wed be in for a long, hard slog in Iraq? He really said Mission Accomplished so we should be out of there, already. Isnt that right? So what if fire routinely melts steel at 2500 degrees - thats not real science, look at the pictures! or something. So what if no one has been able to empirically prove that humanity is causing global warming - thats real science or at least its the narrative.
As Hillary once famously said, you dont have to fall in love, just fall in line. Fall in line with the narrative, and it becomes your truth.
In our enlightened, post-modern era, weve moved waaaay beyond something as quaint as objective truth. Truth is now pretty much whatever you want to believe. If you want to believe that the economy is horrible, despite continued, sustained growth, (what are we up to, now, ten quarters of it?) low unemployment numbers and expanding manufacturing, why thats fine. If you dont like thinking that Harry Reids land deals deserve looking at, why they dont! Move along, creatures, move along.
What some people are actually starting to say is: When the evidence of something is right in front of my face, why do you insist on telling me that what I am seeing is not what is real, that what I am hearing is not really being said, that what my own reason can sensibly deduce makes no sense? Stop telling me I dont know what Im encountering and that my reason is faulty. Stop telling me that the Bush White House outted Valerie Plame to punish Joe Wilson, when your own boy Richard Armitage admitted to doing the job. Stop telling me he lied to us about yellowcake while neglecting to mention that the Butler report confirmed the intelligence. Cease this nonsense that everyone loved America until 2003. For the love of Pete, dont tell me George Tenet is saying something other than yes, Saddam did have WMD. Stop feeding me bullshit narratives that have barely a nodding acquaintance with the truth, because its starting to seriously piss me off!
Yep. Thats what folks are saying, bad language and all. Its not a lot of voices, but there are a few. . . . People are saying it, but softly if they really want to stop a forward momentum that is really starting to veer out of control theyd better start saying it louder, and more often.
Posted by: Mike ||
05/03/2007 12:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Oh, boy, is she spot on with this analysis.
Two days ago, a guy with whom I have occasional business dealings - a retired lifelong postal worker, and a screaming leftist "the government's first job is to keep my income stream coming" moonbat - was bitching about gas prices and how W and the oil companies are engaged in a conspiracy to loot the American public. I quietly and politely informed him that with inflation, the price of gasoline would have to be over $5.00 per gallon to equal what it cost in the late '70's.
His response?
"I don't believe in those analogies."
Notice what he's saying here. They are analogies, not facts, and he doesn't bother to attempt to refute them with other facts, he simply refuses to "believe" in them, because it would spoil his na-a-a-a-a-rative about how W and the oil companies are taking his money.
And so post-modernism goes.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
05/03/2007 17:59 Comments ||
Top||
#2
His response? "I don't believe in those analogies."
Heh. It is truly amazing what people are capable of convincing themselves of to justify their superstitions, paranoias and prejudices.
I was always aware that some people were capable of enormous self-deception; but until the Leftosphere built up a full head of steam I had no idea just how many people live on the brink of insanity.
Who could have imagined that the loony shit we heard only from the likes of Moore, Sontag, Pilger, Fisk and other moonbats right after 9/11, would become standard Democratic Party cant barely five years hence?
I sure didn't. I thought, for a while, that we were all in this together.
Truth is, we're not.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/03/2007 18:17 Comments ||
Top||
Long but very good piece by Hanson. One notable passage:
Polls show about 20% of Americans favor the Palestinians in their war against Israel, while about half the US population now expresses an unease with Muslims in general. Meanwhile a large minority of Muslims, according to polls, condones terrorist attacks on civilians, while a vast majority is vehemently anti-American. Their prejudice apparently is chalked up to our omnipresencelike saving Kuwait, feeding Somalia, stopping Muslims dying en masse in the Balkans, ridding Afghanistan of the Soviets, paying astronomical prices for their oil, and giving nearly $100 billion over the years to the Egyptians, Jordanians, and Palestinians.
Our prejudice surely could not be due to 19 Muslims slaughtering to the delight of millions3,000 Americans, nor to the news almost every hour of Christian-Muslim violence, Hindu-Muslim violence, Buddhist-Muslim violence, or secular-Muslim violence. And now the much circulated quote from Sheik Ahmad Bahr, acting Speaker of the Palestinian Legislative Council:
You will be victorious on the face of this planet. You are the masters of the world on the face of this planet. Yes, [the Koran says that] you will be victorious, but only if you are believers. Allah willing, you will be victorious, while America and Israel will be annihilated. I guarantee you that the power of belief and faith is greater than the power of America and Israel. They are cowards, who are eager for life, while we are eager for death for the sake of Allah. That is why Americas nose was rubbed in the mud in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in Somalia, and everywhere Oh Allah, vanquish the Jews and their supporters. Oh Allah, count their numbers, and kill them all, down to the very last one. Oh Allah, show them a day of darkness. Oh Allah, who sent down His Book, the mover of the clouds, who defeated the enemies of the Prophet defeat the Jews and the Americans, and bring us victory over them.
And wait till these people get the bomb. So much for the war against Islamism being over.
RTWT...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
05/03/2007 08:14 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Weve suffered through the distortions of Michael Moore and know that Cindy Sheehan once thanked President Bush for meeting with her. Weve heard that the US military is akin to Saddam, Nazis, Pol Pot, or Stalin from the likes of Sens. Durbin and Kennedy, that America is a pariah from Sen. Kerry, that the war is lost from Sen. Reid and Howard Dean, and about everything imaginable from poor Sen. Biden.
#3
Perhaps with Gulf oil money, they can one day forget Israel, create a just society, foster a vibrant, non-corrupt economy, and then with confidence negotiate with Israel about borders. But until then, there is no reason to have relations with this government or its populace.
Its mothers milk is envy and jealousy that a displaced decimated people was placed down beside them in rock and scrub, and sixty years later built a humane, prosperous society that is a daily reminder to them that what they dostatism, gender apartheid, tribalism, feuding, religious intolerance, corruption, autocracy, polygamy, honor killings, etc.lead to the very opposite sort of society in which nothing is invented, no discovery is found, no security or prosperity is achieved, and hand-outs are demanded but never appreciated.
Few better, or more biting, appraisals have ever been made regarding that massive collection of psychotic murderous ingrates known to us as the Palestinians.
For years Arab intellectuals demanded from the West some concern for human rights, and a cessation of business as usual with their dictatorial strongmen. But post 2003 we are learning that such posturing was, well, posturing, and most of these hothouse plants are more angry at the democratization efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq than they are at their own autocrats. An unspoken truth in the post 9/11 climate is that Arab reformers have zero credibility. Most live in Europe and the United States (including members of the families of the Pakistani, Syrian, Lebanese, and Saudi autocrats and extremists). Most are far more critical of western governments that gave them refuge and a new life than they are of the illiberal regimes that drove them out.
So, we already know that moderate Muslims are of little use in fighting terrorism. Now it appears that even reformists may not be of much more worth. What is the message here? Is anyone else sensing a pattern? It seems as if Islam, as a whole, is simply of no use to the civilized world. As .com has so succinctly inquired, what redeeming features does Islam have? Between international terrorism, genocide and sharia law, the answer, apparently, is "none".
Without oil and nukes, the Arab and Iranian Middle East has no hold on the world, no more than does Paraguay or the Ivory Coast or Bulgaria or Laos.
There's not much we can do about the MME (Muslim Middle East) having so much oil, save reducing our consumption of it. However, there is something we can do about them ever obtaining nuclear weapons. Starting with the neutralization of Iran. That, today and tomorrow, will remain job #1 until we have rendered Iran an also-ran in world history.
H/T The Corner Michael Rubin. This is from IRNA: Islamic Republic News Agency
The US and the UK must "admit defeat" in Iraq and stop fighting "a hopeless war," according to one of Britain's most distinguished generals.
General Sir Michael Rose also controversially suggested that the insurgents in Iraq were right to try to force US troops out of their country. "I don't excuse them for some of the terrible things they do, but I do understand why they are resisting," Rose told BBC's Newsnight programme.
"They just don't know any better. They aren't like us. We'd never do that."
"It is the soldiers who have been telling me from the frontline that the war they have been fighting is a hopeless war, that they cannot possibly win it," he revealed.
I'll bet they haven't said any such thing.
"The sooner we start talking politics and not military solutions, the sooner they will come home and their lives will be preserved," said the general, who was commander of UN forces in Bosnia and head of Britain's elite SAS force.
So goes the spirit of the Blitz, of Malaya, ...
He suggested that it was time for Britain to bring its troops home from Iraq and said that this meant the UK government would have to admit defeat.
Which he's salivating to do, since that would bring down Tony, who's leaving anyway.
Last month, Rose said that Prime Minister Tony Blair must be impeached over the Iraq war before he leaves office because of the catastrophe it has caused to the country's armed forces. "Iraq has been such a serious setback to Britain's standing in the world, Blair should be held accountable in Parliament. He cannot just walk away from this in a few weeks' time," he said in an interview with the Daily Mail.
Wonder why he hasn't appeared on The View? He and Rosie would get along quite well.
In his latest interview with Newsnight, the general drew similarities between the tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, who he warned would not give up, and the US War of Independence against the British over 200 years ago.
I'm just guessing that he doesn't understand the difference between al-Qaeda, an Anbar tribal chief, a Shi'a tribal chief, and a Sadrist. Just guessing.
"If I was an American, as I am an Englishman, as long as one Englishman remained on American native soil, I would never, never, never lay down my arms," he quoted former Prime Minister Lord Chatham saying at the time. "The British admitted defeat in North America and the
catastrophes that were predicted at the time never happened," Rose said.
Perhaps because the American rebels were different in a couple of ways from the Iraqi Sunni terrorists and Iranian-backed Sadrists? Could it possibly be that American rebels had expressed certain thoughts in the Declaration of Independence that are totally at odds with whatever al Qaeda and the Sadrists might believe? Anyone? Bueller?
He also said that the catastrophes predicted after the US withdrawal from Vietnam in the 1960s never happened and that the "same thing will occur after we leave Iraq."
Nope, nothing bad happened in Vietnam after we left. Except for the million boat people. And the half-million Vietnamese who were killed by the new regime. And the half-million Vietnamese tossed into concentration camps. Oh, and the Khmer Rouge. Something about 'killing fields' as I recall, but I'm sure the General must be right. He's a believer.
In other news about this General: Published: April 24, 1995
In his third and strongest hourlong report from Bosnia, Peter Jennings takes aim at Lieut. Gen. Sir Michael Rose, the former commander of the United Nations forces in that battered land. The specific charge of "The Peacekeepers: How the United Nations Failed in Bosnia" is that having declared the towns of Gorazde and Bihac to be safe havens, the United Nations, represented in the field by General Rose, allowed the Serbian aggressors to get away with murder.
General Rose, in the critical view of relief workers and military officers, played down the Serbian attacks and responded feebly or not at all despite his ability to direct NATO air power against the aggressors. General Rose's explanation, under the tough questioning of Mr. Jennings, that the United Nations and NATO are on a peacekeeping mission not a war mission, seems weak and evasive, especially when his words are accompanied by scenes of besieged civilians under incessant attack.
#1
He also said that the catastrophes predicted after the US withdrawal from Vietnam in the 1960s never happened...
I should have a couple of my Vietnamese friends tell him about their little boat trips to get here back in the seventies.
Convenient knowledge of history you've got there, general.
#2
In his latest interview with Newsnight, the general drew similarities between the tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, who he warned would not give up, and the US War of Independence against the British over 200 years ago.
Odd... had the colonials fought by setting off bombs in market places, schools, and churches, I'd have expected to have that thrown into my face by every other leftist, yet I've never heard of any such tactics.
Posted by: Rob Crawford ||
05/03/2007 11:49 Comments ||
Top||
#3
What's with these senior idiots who are so useful to the brain-dead "critics"? Rose doesn't sound very familiar with the most basic facts in Iraq. Not that such ignorance is any bar to being taken seriously by most journalists and all childish "critics" who know only how to offer empty criticism and 20/20 hindsight, bereft of historical or functional literacy, constructive alternative, or moral content.
#4
In his latest interview with Newsnight, the general drew similarities between the tactics of the Iraqi insurgents, who he warned would not give up, and the US War of Independence against the British over 200 years ago.
#5
General Sir Michael Rose-one of Britain's most distinguished generals must be having [a dangerous] senior moment. How else do you explain his break with reality?
#6
An army which can go anywhere at anytime at will, with remarkably [if not unprecedented] low desertion and AWOL rates, and filling the ranks by recruiting not drafting, defeated? Heh.
Georgie where are you when we need you to get their attention. Smack the man a few time to get him to snap out of it.
Yet our humanitarian ideas are secular versions of Christian compassion, and it is Christian or post-Christian compassion that compels us to keep feeding and funding the unsustainable birth rates in other cultures, even actively hostile ones. Likewise, there are elements of Christian thought, such as universalism, that could be seen as the inspiration behind our one-world Multiculturalists.
Might this be the fountainhead of bleeding heart liberalism? Let's read further ...
The next three items are from the linked Fjordman article:
If even one single person breaches any of these conditions, the entire dhimmi community will be punished, and Jihad resumes. Notice that while Muslims, following each case of Islamic terrorism, are quick to say that not all Muslims should be punished for the actions of a few, this is precisely what sharia proscribes for non-Muslims.
So, when will Christianity learn that Islam is not worthy of the Golden Rule? Islam must not be treated as we would wish them to treat us. Muslims have already decided that any Christian, no matter how kind, devout or subservient, will be collectively punished for the sins of any other non-Muslim person, be they Infidel, Jew, Hindi or what have you.
In a meeting attended by Robert Spencer, former Soviet dissident Natan Sharansky noted that Israel had again and again aided Christians - at their own request - against Islamic violence and injustice, most notably when the Church of the Nativity was occupied by Jihadists in 2002. Yet international Christian leaders, he said, have not responded with similar gestures toward Israel.
This is increasingly true and represents totally reprehensible conduct on the part of Christian organizations.
Christians need to realize that they have much more in common with other non-Muslims, not just Jews, but Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists and Atheists, than they will ever have with Muslims.
Why is this not the case? Islam long ago proved that its people of the book doctrine is a total farce.
Christians argue that Europes problem is a cultural vacuum created by the retreat of church attendance and Christianity as a religion, which has paved the way for Islam to enter. They have a point, as I have shown before. But some Christian groups are opening the West to Islam, too, and the secular state doesnt have to be insipid and toothless.
Religious groups sponsoring the Minnesotan Somalis spring to mind.
One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors before we were even born. It could be argued that this idea has its roots in Christian thinking, in the concept of original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, but where all their descendants are subject to its effects.
It appears that Fjordman grasps just how abominable the concept of Original Sin is.
Perhaps Christianity, despite its many great qualities, needs to be balanced out by other more worldly elements, such as attachment to nation states.
Compare this last statement to that of Ayatollah Khomeinis speech at Qom in 1980:
'We do not worship Iran, we worship Allah. I say, let this land [Iran] burn. I say let this land go up in smoke, provided Islam emerges triumphant.'
Perhaps a little secular nationalism is a good thing.
#2
One major component of Western self-loathing is the idea that we should we be punished for crimes, perceived or real, committed by our ancestors before we were even born. It could be argued that this idea has its roots in Christian thinking, in the concept of original sin, committed by Adam and Eve, but where all their descendants are subject to its effects.
*sigh* This is patently anti-biblical, even from the Old Testament, as is shown here. People's thinking on this was so warped back then that they said that it was not right that people should suffer for their OWN sins, and accused God of being wrongheaded for insisting that they should.
As I see it, the doctrine of Original sin is the teaching that Adam and Eve's sin had spritual effects that render them, and their offspring, incapable of righteous behavior. We have no problems acknowledging that there are chemicals that damage gametes so that the offspring suffer from the consequences of damaged genes, but balk at the concept of spiritual genetics and permanent spiritual genetic damage passed from parents to offspring. Our native ignorance of the nature of spirit is so lamentable and deep, we're like liberal moonbats being so stupid about a subject that we have no conception or ability to even judge who's an expert in that subject, or judge rightly when someone's telling the truth or falsehood about it.
Question: if you chop BOTH your arms off above the elbows, how can YOU, yourself, stop YOURSELF from bleeding to death? YES, there ARE things you can do that are irreparable, and not all the whining that "it's unfair!" can change that.
Personally, I believe our sprits were originally 4 dimensional (xyzs), with spirits being any being with the 4th dimension (s). As punishment for their sin, Adam and Eve's spirits were deprived of one physical dimension (xzs), as were the angels who fell. No matter how much humans breed, their spirits cannot go from 3 to 4 dimensions because they cannot pass on what they do not have.
I find that a lot of unusual verses and passages in the Bible that don't make sense suddenly DO make sense given this thesis.
#3
Personally, I believe our sprits were originally 4 dimensional (xyzs), with spirits being any being with the 4th dimension (s). As punishment for their sin, Adam and Eve's spirits were deprived of one physical dimension (xzs)
Ptah, do you not mean a loss from XYZS -> XYZ, thereby losing the temporal component of spiritual transport or experience? In such a light your theory makes some degree of sense in that man's self-imposed material existence forbids him a large portion of transcendental mobility.
While I still have immense difficulty in accepting most conventional interpretations of the Paradise Mythos, I am always interested in novel and constructive evaluations of it. Please be so kind as to elucidate upon your own version, if you would.
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.
Last week, I appeared at the Oxford Union to debate the proposition: This House regrets the founding of The United States of America. Such is the extent of anti-Americanism out there that this was considered to be a reasonable debate topic by Britains best and brightest.
PJM Paris editor Nidra Poller - who has been following the French presidential election closely for Pajamas Media - reports on Wednesdays debate between finalists Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy. The hot-headed Sarko was supposed to lose his cool, but it may have been his opponent who did. 
Americans for weeks woke up and went to bed to news updates about Anna Nicole Smiths death and the fate of her daughter. 
Emerson or Stolin anybody? [Victor Davis Hanson]
