Multiculturalism is the new Allah: Dont understand, just obey.
BIFF!
The system in Western Europe is based on a minimal use of force. In fact, the armed forces are so weak that in a different age these countries would have been conquered long ago. The situation has only remained stable because of the American military umbrella in Europe.
BAM!
Without a pre-political loyalty, emotional ties or even a pragmatic interest in supporting nation states, the democratic system becomes a vehicle for distributing favors to your friends at home and abroad, for fleecing the voters while in power and hopefully ensuring a lucrative international career along the way. You will have few moral inhibitions against importing voters from abroad for maintaining power or because your business buddies who give you financial support desire it. This process is related to technological globalization, but it has gone further in the self-loathing West than in any other civilization.
Average citizens who still identify with their nation states thus keep electing people who betray their trust. Since the elites identify little with the nations they are supposed to serve, more power to them will only make matters worse, as it already has in Europe. Corrupt and incompetent individuals will always exist. If you get a corrupt leader every now and then you are dealing with a flawed individual. If you constantly, again and again, get corrupt leaders you are dealing with a flawed system. Our political system is now deeply flawed. The problem is that I cannot easily see how to fix it.
BLAMMO! A nice pimpslap to the West's political traitor elite.
As he sat in his comfortable chair facing a vase of flowers on his leather-covered desk, Erler wasn't exactly in a jubilant mood. The news coming to Berlin in recent weeks was rarely good and not just as a result of the hostage crisis in Afghanistan. Erler found himself reading about the way others pursue their global policies -- without Germany.
And:
The worst part of this news was that Gernot Erler and the German government had to read the newspaper to learn about it. No one had asked them for their opinion or advice. In fact, no one even felt it was necessary to notify Germany.
And:
Germany had behaved like a kindly sheepdog, gently driving the herd in one direction, keeping everyone nicely together and making sure that no one strayed too far from the herd. But now it's becoming clear that there could very well be a few wolves lurking in the herd. The US government announced ...
And:
[On the topic of Tony Blair being appointed a Special ME Envoy] There can hardly be a more blatant way of demonstrating the fact that the superpower doesn't perceive Germany as an important player. But despite the slap in the face, the Germans have persevered. "We emphasize political dialogue with all interested parties in the region," Foreign Minister Steinmeier said defiantly.
And:
The United States believes that it is not obligated to consult with its allies because it feels sufficiently confident in its own strength. This makes it easier for the Americans to take political action than for the Germans to. Whenever the Americans feel that something is truly important to them, they suddenly become unilateralists. They take it upon themselves to make decisions. The Germans, on the other hand, are virtually powerless to make international decisions on their own, and perhaps this is not even their intention. This is why they are multilateralists, their decisions consistently dependent on seeking allies. Germany does want to exert its influence on world events, but its role as a medium-sized power precludes it from being able to assert this claim.
And let's not leave out the French:
In theory, this should also apply to France. But the Grande Nation perceives itself as being much larger and, for this reason, it has a penchant for acting alone (more...) at times -- especially when a new president apparently has something to prove to the world. At first Paris took its partners in Berlin by surprise when Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former French finance minister, was named head of the IMF. President Sarkozy had notified various European countries of the decision ahead of time, but not Berlin.
And "Sarko's Audacity":
France must "subordinate its national interests to a European strategy," said Andreas Schockenhoff, the deputy leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union's parliamentary group. His Social Democratic counterpart, deputy parliamentary leader Ulrich Kelber, even voiced the suspicion that Sarkozy had only intervened on behalf of the nurses to garner contracts for French industry. "This is really the sort of behavior one would expect from despots," Kelber said. "It makes US President George W. Bush pale by comparison."
#2
Better be careful, though. Remember what happened last time the Germans were pissed off . . .
Posted by: The Doctor ||
08/07/2007 16:05 Comments ||
Top||
#3
The Germans do not matter because they have destroyed their military and their courage. German conscripts are the worst troops I have EVER worked with - they are far different from those in the 80's.
The worst part is - the NCO Corps has rotted in PC-ness and babying of the troops.
Best weapon in the world is useless without a fighting spirit behind it.
Its to the point where if Germany did seriously try to fight, with the exception of some GSG and special units, they'd get their asses handed to them. THe old joke about a Vietnamese rifle is close to beign true in Germany:
For Sale - One slightly used Bundeswehr assault rifle; Never been fired, only dropped once.
IMHO, Man for man, the Dutch and French have better troops.
#5
Germany had behaved like a kindly sheepdog, gently driving the herd in one direction, keeping everyone nicely together and making sure that no one strayed too far from the herd. But now it's becoming clear that there could very well be a few wolves lurking in the herd.
Because, you see, all the nations of the West should be docile sheep herded about by Germany because it has such a moral and righteous point of view on things.
#6
OK, so I'm at a conference a couple months ago and talking with some Germans involved in their defense establishment. And the senior German guy says that their way of staffing the military is best because it's important to keep the military connected to the people.
A worthy goal, I agree, but how to maintain professionalism and skills? His response? They are far less important than insuring that the military's attitudes and values closely match popular culture.
#7
Well, we didn't ignore Germany circa '44-'45. You want that kind of attention again? I think its better for both of us, if we keep it the way it is now. The attention getting Germany was just too expensive.
#8
P2k, it isn't a massive semi-secret German re-armament program that concerns the world today, it's the huge disarmament draw-down that is drawing attention For instance, this 2004 BBC article.
Excerpt:
Mr Struck said that on top of the closures and spending cuts, the army would be cut by 35,000 troops to about 250,000.
That "250,000" is the entire military establishment, with 50,000 personnel being 18-25 yo conscripts. Germany spends about 1.5% of its GDP on defense, which makes Deutschland, for all practical purposes, a US military dependency.
#9
lotp - exactly the attitude I met working with them. The few NCO's that were any good were resigned to being custodians of these untrained mob of spoiled brats. How far they have fallen.
#11
The German "neurosis" is very old. Back before the German states were unified, Germans were made fun of around Europe as ignorant rural peasants, despite Prussia, the most rural of all.
And this really bugged the Germans, especially after unification, when they rapidly industrialized and developed the world's preeminent chemical and other industries.
Even after WWI, the Germans were still very self conscious about being looked down upon, and this was very useful in the rise of Hitler, as he emphasized German pride in a way that they wanted to hear.
For their part the French very actively tried "to keep Germany down", even openly proposing that it be remade into an agricultural nation.
And national pride can go a long way, for good or ill.
Unlike France, however, Germany has had a long run with a strong leader, electing a long tradition of stuffed shirts and mediocritans.
#1
But that's okay because the more they slant the news, the less people pay any attention to them and they eventually go out of business.
Look at the three main US cable news channels: Fox, CNN, and MSNBC for example. Fox has over twice the viewers as CNN.
The problem is with the print media. There is no national paper that is to newspapers as Fox is to television news. What needs to happen is someone take a paper such as the Washington Times national to compete with USA Today and the NYT.
Sowing the seeds of anti-Americanism by discrediting the American president was one of the main tasks of the Soviet-bloc intelligence community during the years I worked at its top levels. This same strategy is at work today, but it is regarded as bad manners to point out the Soviet parallels. For communists, only the leader counted, no matter the country, friend or foe. At home, they deified their own ruler&0151;as to a certain extent still holds true in Russia. Abroad, they asserted that a fish starts smelling from the head, and they did everything in their power to make the head of the Free World stink.
During the Vietnam War we spread vitriolic stories around the world, pretending that America's presidents sent Genghis Khan-style barbarian soldiers to Vietnam who raped at random, taped electrical wires to human genitals, cut off limbs, blew up bodies and razed entire villages. Those weren't facts. They were our tales, but some seven million Americans ended up being convinced their own president, not communism, was the enemy. As Yuri Andropov, who conceived this dezinformatsiya war against the U.S., used to tell me, people are more willing to believe smut than holiness.
Now we are again at war. It is not the president's war. It is America's war, authorized by 296 House members and 76 senators. I do not intend to join the armchair experts on the Iraq war. I do not know how we should handle this war, and they don't know either. But I do know that if America's political leaders, Democrat and Republican, join together as they did during World War II, America will win. Otherwise, terrorism will win. Abu Musab al-Zarqawi predicted just before being killed: "We fight today in Iraq, tomorrow in the land of the Holy Places, and after there in the West."
Unfortunately, partisans today have taken a page from the old Soviet playbook. At the 2004 Democratic National Convention, for example, Bush critics continued our mud-slinging at America's commander in chief. One speaker, Martin O'Malley, now governor of Maryland, had earlier in the summer stated he was more worried about the actions of the Bush administration than about al Qaeda. On another occasion, retired four-star general Wesley Clark gave Michael Moore a platform to denounce the American commander in chief as a "deserter." And visitors to the national chairman of the Democratic Party had to step across a doormat depicting the American president surrounded by the words, "Give Bush the Boot."
For once, the communists got it right. It is America's leader that counts. Let's return to the traditions of presidents who accepted nothing short of unconditional surrender from our deadly enemies. Let's vote next year for people who believe in America's future, not for the ones who live in the Cold War past.
#1
Down near the end of the article there is mention of Hillary Clinton and the left. Further probing indicates Saul Alinsky was her mentor.
Alinsky was the subject of Hillary Rodham's senior honors thesis at Wellesley College, "There Is Only The Fight...": An Analysis of the Alinsky Model. Rodham commented on Alinsky's "charm," but rejected grassroots community organizing as outdated. Once Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady of the United States, the thesis was suppressed by the White House out of misguided fear of being associated too closely with Alinksy's ideas.
Leftists seem to want to hide their beliefs from the light of day.
#2
Yusuf Bey, who typified the sort of person who led the NoI in its heyday, an entrepreneur who wanted to be a politician, with a decidedly sinister side.
Don't we usually call such persons "gangsters"?
Stewart said, "It's like this," pulled a .357 "bulldog" Magnum from his waistband, and shot Bey four times. Two bullets smashed his jaw and passed through his brain, and two rounds hit him in the chest. Stewart was sentenced to sixty years in prison. According to court records, the pathologist concluded that Akbar Bey was high on heroin or morphine at the time of his death.
Druggie or not, at least Stewart understood the mechanics of dealing with NOI.
HISTORIANS are fond of playing a game known as What if? in which they try to picture a world where a different set of decisions had been taken at a key juncture. Thus, what would have happened had Hitler not invaded the Soviet Union? What would the world be like today had Nazi Germany won the Second World War?
In the same spirit, heres a game for readers: What would the subcontinent be like today had it not been partitioned 60 years ago? Had both Congress and the Muslim League accepted the Cabinet Mission Plan and they were desperately close to an agreement India would have remained intact, albeit as a country with three confederating units. Would we have been better or worse off in such an arrangement?
In terms of physical development, I have little doubt that Pakistan has benefited from Partition. In physical infrastructure as well as social, political and intellectual development, the areas that constituted Pakistan on August 14, 1947, were some of the most backward in the subcontinent.
Since then, the country has seen considerable progress. Roads, hospitals, universities and schools have been built. Muslim entrepreneurs who migrated to the new state brought capital and business skills, and have created banks, mills and factories. And in a semi-arid country, new farming techniques have created a green revolution. For me, the transplantation of mango varieties is the most welcome aspect of this development.
In fact, had it not been for Pakistans inexorable population growth, we would all be much better off today, with fewer people demanding their share of the small but growing cake.
Of course, it can be argued that most of these changes would have occurred in an undivided India. But given our neighbours slow economic progress in the first three decades of Independence, I doubt that enough resources would have gone to the periphery.
Also, no Partition would have meant that no mass migration would have taken place. This in turn means that most of the skills and capital that crossed the new border in 1947 would not have been available to this part of the subcontinent.
Factors that led to Pakistans relatively rapid progress in the fifties and sixties include liberal economic policies, as well as our pro-western stance. This gave us access to capital and modern technology. Meanwhile, India was being governed under the Congress partys socialist vision that included a tightly regulated economy that yielded what is now known as the Hindu rate of growth.
So all in all, my guess is that in economic terms, Pakistan has benefited from Partition. It is in the non-physical areas that our growth has remained stunted. Had the subcontinent not been divided into two (and later three) components, we would not all have squandered such vast resources on defence.
With the trillions that have gone into the black hole of military budgets, the government could have doubled and tripled the expenditure on health, education, culture and sports.
As a confederating unit of India, the area today known as Pakistan would not have suffered from the identity crisis that has seen it position itself as an adjunct to the Middle East. This, and the exclusion of the army from political life, would have reduced the religious fervour that has brought the Taliban wolf to our door.
Indeed, one of the factors fuelling the rise of extremism in Pakistan has been the perception of the existential threat that (Hindu) India poses to us.
This has been matched by the rise of the Hindutva religious nationalism in India reflected by the Shiv Sena and the BJP. These organisations use the (Muslim) Pakistan threat to drum up support, in the same way governments and religious and right-wing parties play the India card here.
Living under a secular constitution would have made life a lot easier for our minorities. They would not have to live in fear under the Damocles sword of our iniquitous blasphemy laws, and would be equal citizens. Women, too, would have benefited, and not been subject to random prosecution as under Ziaul Haqs infamous Hudood Ordinances.
In the international arena, an undivided India would have long been a powerhouse. With around 1.5 billion people, it would have provided an even larger market for imported and locally produced goods.
Culturally, we would have benefited from much greater diversity than we have now. Pakistan is a monochromatic society where women have not been allowed to play their true role in society. By contrast, they are highly visible in all Indian cities. And with more exposure to literature and the arts, our cultural life would have been that much richer.
In sports, too, a combined population of 1.5 billion would have produced world-beating teams: imagine a cricket team representing the entire subcontinent!
There is a perception that had Partition not taken place, Muslims would have been oppressed by the Hindu majority. But half a billion Muslims are not a small minority that can be kicked around. As it is, about 160 million Muslims still live in India.Similar numbers in the areas that constitute Bangladesh and Pakistan today would have ensured that Muslims carried substantial political clout. And had Indian Muslims not faced the kind of isolation caused by Partition, they would not be the marginalised community they are now.
Politically, we would not have been subjugated by the army as we are today. As a result, parliament and the judiciary would have been functioning with far greater freedom than they have done here over the last six decades. Indeed, we would be a far freer people than we are.
At the end of the day, there are going to be winners and losers. Through Partition, many people gained, while others lost out. Many fortunes were made as a direct result of the scams arising out of the purchase of property claims submitted by refugees. Thousands of well-off people, caught up in the stampede created by the riots of 1947, were made destitute. Other migrants prospered due to the lack of competition in the new state.
Of course, all these are highly speculative projections, and if I have offended readers on either side of the Great Divide, let me remind them that this is just a game. And everybody can play.
Posted by: john frum ||
08/07/2007 18:22 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ten thousand Chinese become Christians each day, according to a stunning report by the National Catholic Reporter's veteran correspondent John Allen, and 200 million Chinese may comprise the world's largest concentration of Christians by mid-century, and the largest missionary force in history
I told yas, we Catholics are a wily bunch. Broguht down the Iron Curtain, and may yet bring down China's communists.
(MNA) -- President Mahmud Ahmadinejad's two-day trip to Algeria can be viewed and analyzed from various angles. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution in 1979, the two revolutionary countries established extensive political, economic, and cultural ties. Algeria, which is one of the most important Islamic/Arab countries, welcomed the victory of Iran's Islamic Revolution and made efforts to establish cordial and strong relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran. The relations grew even stronger from 1979 to 1980 due to the fact that Algeria played a constructive role in resolving the crisis over the U.S. embassy in Tehran.
Frequent exchanges of visits by high-ranking Algerian and Iranian officials paved the way for the expansion of diplomatic ties. During the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war, Algeria tried to act as a mediator to end the war that Saddam Hussein had imposed on the Islamic Republic. On May 3, 1982, an aircraft carrying Algerian Foreign Minister Mohammed Ben Yahia, who was flying to Tehran, was shot down on the border of Iran and Turkey by an Iraqi fighter jet. Even before the victory of the Islamic Revolution, Algeria played an important role in drafting the 1975 agreement between Iran and Iraq over the issue of the Arvand River (Shatt-al-Arab).
The Algerian people fought against foreign colonialists for decades to gain independence, earning the respect of all Islamic nations and inspiring Iran to strengthen its ties with the North African country. In addition, the important role played by Iran and Algeria in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) prepared the ground for the convergence of Tehran and Algiers.
Unfortunately, enemies of the two nations tried to foment discord between the two countries by accusing Iran of having had a hand in Algeria's painful incidents in 1992, and thus relations became chilly in the 1990s. However, after Abdul Aziz Bouteflika's victory in the Algerian presidential election of 1999, relations between the two countries started to improve because of his efforts to promote Islamic unity. The anti-colonialist stance of the two geostrategically important countries brought Iran and Algeria back together and they finally resumed their diplomatic relations in 2000.
Now, the trip of the Iranian president and his delegation to Algeria heralds a new day in collaboration between the two countries. Furthermore, joint investments in the oil and gas sectors, the two countries? efforts to strengthen OPEC, and the proposal to establish an organization of gas exporting countries will enhance this cooperation. Since Iran and Algeria are two important gas exporting countries, Ahmadinejad's visit will be a prelude to the establishment of this gas 'OPEC'. The organization will maintain the national interests of the gas exporting countries by helping conserve this important natural resource.
Ahmadinejad's visit to Algeria will help strengthen Islamic unity and facilitate efforts to confront the threats to the Islamic/Arab world, and the positive effects of the trip will become apparent in the near future.
Posted by: Fred ||
08/07/2007 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: Govt of Iran
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.
