The European countryside is as beautiful as ever. Hotels in the cities are as packed as they are high-priced. Tourists fill Rome. The same bustle is evident from Lisbon to Frankfurt. Everywhere European stewards welcome in millions of sightseers to enjoy the treasures of Western civilization. Never has life seemed so good.
Despite a public anti-Americanism, individual Europeans extend the old warmth and friendship to American visitors. Yet beneath the veneer of the good life, there is also a detectable air of uncertainty in Europe this summer, one perhaps similar to that of 1914 or the late 1930s.
The unease is apparent in newspapers and conversations on the streets that echo the view that voters and politicians want nothing to do with the European Union constitution. Perhaps the general European discomfort could be summed up best as the following: Why hasn't the good life turned out the way we wanted it to?
England, France and Germany are upping their retirement ages and/or planning pension cuts. They have given up the dream that workers in the future can quit at 55 - or even 65!
The Iranians irk Europe. European governments sold them precision tools necessary for nuclear reactors. Many Europeans assured Tehran that dialogue, not rowdy Americans, alone can solve the "misunderstanding" over nuclear proliferation. But as thanks, Iran's pesky president talks down to these postmodern Europeans as if they were George Bush. Meanwhile, Iran presses ahead - hoping to top off with nukes three-stage rockets that could reach the Vatican, the Eiffel Tower or the Brandenburg Gate.
Frontline Spain clamors impatiently for the European Union to clamp down on illegal immigrants streaming across the Mediterranean. The utopian vision of a continent with porous borders is, for the time being, on hold - at least as it pertains to Africa.
The Dutch, the French and the Danes are petrified about unassimilated Muslim radicals in their countries who have killed or threatened the most liberal of Europeans. Churches are almost empty. Mosques are being built; Italians wrangle over plans for one of the largest in Italy - to be plopped amid the vineyards and olive groves of Tuscany.
A majority of polled Germans now believe that the pacifist Europeans are in a "clash of civilizations" with the Islamic world.
What is going on?
Good intentions that have gone sour.
The enemies of Europe's past - responsible for everything from Verdun and Dresden to a constant threat of mutually assured destruction - were identified as nationalism and militarism. Meanwhile, at home, Europeans cited cutthroat competition and unbridled individualism as additional contributory causes of the prior strife and unhappiness.
So in response to the errors of the past, Europeans systematically expanded the welfare state. They welcomed in immigrants. Politicians slashed defense spending, lowered the retirement age and cut the workweek. Voters demanded trade barriers to protect the public from the ravages of globalization. Either to enjoy the good life or to save the planet, couples forswore children.
But instead of utopia, unintended consequences ensued. Unemployment soared. Dismal economic growth, shrinking populations and a scarier world outside their borders followed.
Abroad, even the much-heralded "soft power" of a disarmed Europe could only bring attention to, not stop, the killing in Darfur. Meanwhile, China and India are no longer inefficient socialists but breakneck capitalist competitors. Indeed, they have thrown down the gauntlet to the Europeans: "Beware! Workers of the world who labor harder, longer and smarter deserve the greater material rewards!" In this new heartless global arena, apparently few will abide by the niceties of the European Union.
Publicly, Europe's frustrations are fobbed off on "crass Americans" - and particularly George Bush. The Iraq war has poisoned the alliance, the Europeans insist. They contend that America's greedy consumers warm the planet, siphon off its oil and trample foreign cultures.
But in private, some Europeans will confess that the problem lies with Europeans, not us. Some brave soul soon is going to have to inform the European public: Work much harder and longer for less money; defend the continent on your own; move out of mama's house and start changing diapers - and from now on expect far less from the state.
Who knows what the reaction will be to that splash of cold water? In response, what European populist will soon appear on the streets in Rome, Berlin or Madrid once again to deceive the public that it was someone else who caused these disappointments?
We in America should take note of the looming end of this once seemingly endless summer. We've been there, done that with this beloved continent all too many times before.
#1
It'd be dandy if Europeans actually came around, in public AND in private, to recognizing that their Utopian blueprint is delusional. It won't mean a thing, however, until they give up the biggest delusion of all-that there is no such thing as evil and that you will never have to fight or wage war against it. This is their gargantuan Achilles heel. With their horrific losses from WWII, they should know it better than anyone.
#4
The notion of a "paradigm shift" after WWII to discard nationalism and embrace so-called "transnational progressism" is IMHO very apt.
The Enlightened Elites (socialists and freemason seculars) were already toying with that idea between the wars, and this was probably encouraged by the USA too.
In Europe today, nationalism is something to be ashamed of, except perhaps if reduced to soccer chavinism (its last refuge?), and patriotism is too... except that there a deliberate try to manufacture an "european patriotism", and it is being built with the USA as the counter example (I remember reading about how the massive european demonstrations right before OIF were the sign a true european identity was being born).
This is what our Enlightened Elites want, I believe... a post-national Europe, built on a truly imperial model, with top-down power, and an aloof, irresponsible oligarchy building a social-democrat paradise, as the people just cannot be trusted (remember, about 70% of the french used to vote FOR the death penalty in opinion polls, so now they don't even bother to ask).
Add the fact that the EU (not the ECC) is probably a truly socialist post-democratic construct (see this, and try to find his book, called EUrss in english I think), that the Eurabia project may be a reality (I'm a 50% believer, this would be so suicidal), and add all the negative factors (the two most harmful being PCness, itself an hugely successful marxist memetic war machine, and the loss of will to live, as demonstrated by the below-remplacement level birthrates everywhere), and you've got something bad in the making, something bad i'm not sure we'll recover from.
The main reason for anti-individualism is envy (the main motivation for socialism).
Bright Pebbles, this is the exact conclusion of Jules Monnerot, the main theorician of antimarxism in France, who concluded that the driver behind communism was envy and resentment. Note also he called communism the "islam of the 20th century" and noted the similarities between thoses two religions.
See this catalog page in french for his "sociology of communism" (in english here).
#5
--This is what our Enlightened Elites want, I believe... a post-national Europe, built on a truly imperial model, with top-down power, and an aloof, irresponsible oligarchy building a social-democrat paradise, as the people just cannot be trusted (remember, about 70% of the french used to vote FOR the death penalty in opinion polls, so now they don't even bother to ask).--
Going back to what they've always been, serfs and masters.
It took me nearly one-third of my life to come to a simple conclusion: Liberals are elitists.
Now, maybe that's not such a big deal to some, but to me it has become quite bothersome. It's pretty clear to me now that average hard-working Americans, be they red-staters or blue-staters, can smell the stench of elitist, intellectual posturing by so-called liberals and progressives.
One of the reasons why this bothers me is because I fear that it will cause us to continue to lose presidential elections.
The second thing that bothers me is that I may be one of those elitists. After all, I couldn't wait to tell the world that I had earned a Ph.D. I smile a bit on the inside every time my students and/or coworkers refer to me as "Dr. Williams."
I'm not so sure when it became important for people to know that I knew more than they did. What I do know is that it does not serve me well with average folk; this is at the core of the problem for liberals, and, given that we make up the base of the Democratic Party, it's also at the core of why we keep losing presidential elections.
To me, politics is about one thing: winning elections. Sure, policy and activism are wrapped up in there, too, but at the end of the day, you want to win - period!
I think I see your problem, bub. It's a problem that afflicts the Democrats. Y'see, when politix is about winning elections, that means that the things like ideas and principles and service aren't present. They can't even take second place, since politix is only about one thing, not many.
There's much to be said for the principle of compromise. It keeps us from reaching political extremes, because we have to cover enough ground to include people whose ideas aren't all that different from ours to make up a majority. If politix is only about winning elections that means compromise reaches its illogical extreme. Nothing guides the actual administration, there aren't any real goals. Once you're in office, the next step is to start getting ready for the next election, not actually doing anything.
My opinions about all this have been influenced by working for the Democratic National Committee, regionally, and volunteering for various local elections. What I've realized is that you have two camps within the Democratic Party. You have folks who think too much, and folks who work very hard to ensure that our candidates are elected. Don't look now, but the nerds are attempting to take over the frat house. The problem with that is, they can't help us win elections. They simply stand around sipping green tea and talking about how great it would be if everyone read Armistead Maupin's Tales of the City. It's no wonder folks have begun to call us effete. We sit around, legs crossed, sporting Birkenstocks, and looking down on people who don't read as much as we do.
Those nerds are the policy guys, and their vaporings are what passes for ideas among libs. So you're talking about a two-pronged attack on the republics, one being the unprincipled and the other being the loons.
And, when you really get down to the nitty-gritty, you realize that somehow we feel that all that carrying on makes us better human beings than everyone else. That our values and morals are better than others. This is what really annoys folks about us. What I've also realized is that this is a character flaw, and, that this does more to divide America than any of Patrick Buchanan's hate-filled rhetoric.
I don't think Patrick Buchanan's hate-filled rhetoric divides the nation. Most people dismiss his patter as a vanity campaign for... ummm... something. Not for president anymore, since for all the hoots of "Go, Pat, Go!" something like 3.2 percent of the voting public bothered wasting a ballot on him. I'm a lot more concerned with liberals' hate-filled rhetoric lately, since it's actually more overtly hate-filled than is Patrick J.'s. On the other hand, I'm not real worried about the nation being divided, since that's why we've got two political parties instead of one. They break down to a liberal lunatic party that's obsessed with winning elections on the one side, and a conservative party of ineffective suits that pretty much wins elections by default but is afraid to govern. A bare majority has been going with the ineffective suits for the past few years, because they've been trading ideas while the libs have been jumping up and down and rolling their eyes and looking for causes further and further out in lefty field. I suppose that can change at any point, especially since the only thing that matters in politix is winning elections, but I hope it doesn't.
Folks who don't read six national newspapers a day hold as much value and worth to our society as those who do. These folks raise families, work very hard for a living, and spend time thinking about ways to better their quality of life. They know what will serve their best interests, and they know what will not.
If the liberal elite would stop writing and chatting so much about how this country should be, they would learn more about how it is. We need to come out of the library from time to time and actually put our ears to the ground. We will find that the blue-staters are looking for leaders who will represent them, even if they don't have college degrees or sip imported beers.
At one point, that was the Democratic Party; today it is not. People were right to leave us. We gave them nothing to hold on to. We are no longer the party of inclusion; it only looks that way on billboards and campaign advertisements. If we do not address this issue soon, we will need more than a Florida recount to make this party relevant again.
#2
This is the first realization for this radical, not liberal.
Next, in no particular order are first the realization that the purpose of running for office is not to win office, but to earn office--it's not a damn lottery.
Second, that being elected means that you have been hired for a job, not to rule over others. What you do in that job is usually as rote as what you would do if you worked in a fast-food restaurant.
Third, that being elected is not an end to itself. Those politicians who in past lived and breathed running for office (such as Bill Clinton), while despising the work they were supposed to do in that office, accomplish nothing more than keeping someone deserving from helping others in that office. They are a benign tumor, at best, and a malignant one at worst. Destined to be forgotten, despite their lust for "legacy".
Fourth, that they enter their new office as novices. They are not hired for what they *know*, but on the assumption that they will study and learn what they need to know. If they do not study the issues before them, then they are just deadwood, either doing what they are told, or voting based on ignorance, prejudice, emotional gratification and whim.
This latter problem is the worst among elected officials, people who sometimes seem ovine in their herdlike behavior, purely out of ignorance.
#3
Well liberals are elitists, but alot of this guy's thinking is just bullshit. Got news for ya pal: CONSERVATIVES also read 'six national newspapers a day', 'drink imported beer' and even (shock of shocks) have college degrees you pompous ass. Ironic that a guy talking about coming down off the high horse is on one himself. Listen up Einstein, you still don't get it. Conservatives are NOT hicks from the sticks.
As a conservative/libertarian who has a college degree, wears Birkenstocks (until I found something cheaper and better), sips imported beers and green tea, reads six national newspapers blogs daily, I can say that Liberal elitist attitudes were a major factor driving me away from the Dems forever (it's also driving me away from my Church, but that's another story).
Unfortunately, this guy's suggestion smacks of more of the "need to re-package the message" meme that Dems can't seem to get beyond. Guys, Howard Dean praising gun-toting Southerners ain't gonna fly.
#15
The joke in academia, which clearly dear Chuck somehow managed never to hear as he smiles to himself when people call him Dr. Williams, is that a PhD means one knows more and more about less and less, until one knows absolutely everything about nothing at all. Or a least that's what Daddy used to say about the post-doc researchers he was training to kill small rodents in creative ways.
And there isn't anything wrong with being either an elitist or a snob, so long as one acknowledges the possibility that others who aren't in The Department may meet or exceed the standards you set, without being so ostentatious about it. It's the old, not-judging-a-book-by-its-cover thingy, my dear Dr. Charles.
Of course, that insistence on the title just goes to show he doesn't quite make the cut he's so keen on. In elite academic circles, the kind he doesn't seem to be aware of either, it's assumed that everyone has a PhD in something or other, and only medical doctors are so addressed, so that they can be easily identified in case of emergency.
Yes, I'm a snob, and married to a true, self-made elitist; this means I'm smart enough to be proud to have any of you Rantburgers over for tea, Mr. Wife would be clever enough to try to learn from your knowledge and accomplishments (I couldn't have married a man who wasn't), and neither of us is so foolish as to be impressed by titles or possessions. But don't call me Dr. Wife -- I never could ignore all the interesting things that need to be learned long enough to focus on learning everything about a particular bit of nothing, and neither can he. ;-)
#16
a PhD means one knows more and more about less and less
I always thought it stood for Pile higher & Deeper. :-)
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/01/2006 15:41 Comments ||
Top||
#17
Mind you, a B.S. isn't much better. I've always wondered why you in the states haven't caught on to it yet. In Canada we've switched to B.Sc.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/01/2006 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#18
BTW, the whole engineering vs arts & science battle is as old as...farming. Oh man, so many jokes, so little time.
Two engineering students were walking across campus when one said, "Where did you get such a great bike?" The second engineer replied, "Well, I was walking along yesterday minding my own business when a Beautiful woman rode up on this bike. She threw the bike to the ground, took off all her clothes and said, "Take what you want." The second engineer nodded approvingly, "Good choice; the clothes wouldn't have fit anyway."
What is the difference between Mechanical Engineers and Civil Engineers?
Mechanical Engineers build weapons; Civil Engineers build targets.
An engineer was crossing a road one day when a frog called out to him and said, "If you kiss me, I'll turn into a beautiful princess." He bent over, picked up the frog and put it in his pocket.
The frog spoke up again and said, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess, I will stay with you for one week." The engineer took the frog out of his pocket, smiled at it and returned it to the pocket.
The frog then cried out, "If you kiss me and turn me back into a beautiful princess I'll stay with you and do ANYTHING you want." Again the engineer took the frog out, smiled at it and put it back into his pocket.
Finally, the frog asked, "What is the matter? I've told you I'm a beautiful princess, that I'll stay with you for a week and do anything you want. Why won't you kiss me?" The engineer said, "Look I'm an engineer. I don't have time for a girlfriend, but a TALKING frog, now that's cool!"
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/01/2006 16:02 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Rafael, Piled Higher and Deeper is only the literal translation, whereas knowing everything about nothing at all is the meaning. ;-) BS, on the other hand, is just too much fun to give up especially, I suspect, for all the computer jockeys whose schools granted them a BA instead.
#20
A< few remarks: politics is not about winning elections but about doing something for your country , and I would dare to say, for humankins
Second: He tells about liberals reading too much implying that at least they ahave very learned). Sorry but they aren't. They read mediocre philosphy (eg Sartre), pseudoscience and liberal litterature, ie books written by people who don't know the differnce betweeen a bit and a byte.
Youy are learned when you read hard science, technology, economics and real history (NOT Chomsky) and political science. But if they did that they would become conservatives. :-)
#21
TW, computer jockeys are learned people too. They can all speak at least 18 languages: C, C++, Perl...Polish, reverse Polish...
Oh hell, one more engineering joke:
Three engineering students were gathered together discussing the possible designers of the human body. One said, "It was a mechanical engineer. Just look at all the joints." Another said, "No, it was an electrical engineer. The nervous system has many thousands of electrical connections." The last said, "Actually it was a civil engineer. Who else would run a toxic waste pipeline through a recreational area?"
Sorry in advance to all the civil engineers out there.
Posted by: Rafael ||
06/01/2006 17:10 Comments ||
Top||
#27
Sorry in advance to all the civil engineers out there.
No problem, my dad was a Civil Engineer and he told that joke.
Here's one back,
"Beware of Statistics and Averages. Take for instance a man standing barefooted with one foot on a block of ice, and the other foot on a hot stove."
"On the average, he's comfortable"
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
06/01/2006 20:39 Comments ||
Top||
#28
Dedicated Lefty Netters-Bloggers are already ascribing themselves andor their movement as synonymous wid SOCIALISM, albeit like true PC-lovers = chicken littles they haven't Officially/Publiclydecided between Western-Euro Socialist or Asian Communist. In any case, the conversion of the Democrat Party and the anti-Unitarian Unitarian Clinton-centric NPE has begun. IMHO THE DEMOLEFT HAS BEGUN ITS OVERT MOVE TOWARDS BECOMING THE DE FACTO FUTURE COMMUNIST-STALINIST PARTY OF AMERICA. One day in the futre, America = Amerikkka = NORTH KOREA > we Amerikanskis will be told Amerika is sovereign and independent, but in reality we will be PC and covertly controlled fron Russia-China aka Communist Asia-Eurasia. Americans get to pretend we're de facto independent and self-governing, Russia-China gets to pretend they do NOT rule us or control us; =/OR Americans get to pretend we are controlled by Commie Asia, Russia-China gets to pretend we're sovereign and self-governing, to put in another way. HOWEVER THE PC FEEL-GOOD INTERPRETATION(S), AMERICA = AMERIKA > NO MORE.
IFF America's enemies had a choice, they'd probably prefer for Amerikkka to be defeated wthout Americans even realizing it.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
Published 6/1/2006 12:08:11 AM
WASHINGTON -- As we watch the left of the Democratic Party pressing its case to return to the top of the heap in American politics, or at least evade the fate of the Dodo, we have ever more evidence validating an insight on which I stake my reputation as a political seer. To wit: partisan politics falls more often under the professional expertise of the psychiatrist than that of the political scientist. A learned shrink can often tell us more about a political issue than any other professional, not excluding a swami or a voodoo priest.
#1
Bit of advice John: Let it go. You lost. You'll never win. The swiftees were just ordinary guys who were revolted by your lies. If you think you can shake off their stigma, just ask your old buddy Teddy if he could shake off Chappaquiddick in a national election.
#2
I'm doing it again.
I never beleived the Swiftboat vets over Kerry's own crew.
John O'Neil (hand picked in 1971 to counter John Kerry ) made a ton of money with a best seller.
The cruxt of their story would appear to sully their own reputations as well as Kerry's.
And then there's "how come O'Neil never mentioned this stuff for 30 years ?
Why shouldn't I beleive the dude he plucked from the river over some paid hack author.
Granted there is something not right about Kerry.
But this tactic (andf it was a tactic) really dirty's the system.
#7
Gene,
One indication is that almost all the Swifboat crew who served at the same time as Kerry came out against him, including his entire chain of command. I don't think that has ever happened in the history of the US. What could have happened to to cause this other than Kerry was well known as a lying, self aggrandizing ponce who F'ed over his comrades. Swift Veterans Letter to John Kerry
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2006 12:16 Comments ||
Top||
#8
But this tactic (andf it was a tactic) really dirty's the system.
Maybe they should strive for "Fake but Accurate" next time?
#9
I give you self aggrandizing ponce.
That's a lot of people to fit on a swiftboat.
Wow they even got Admiral Zumwalt to sign Posthumously. Most impressive and I agree he should fill out the record release form.
But it doesn't say much beyond and amounts to someone's word against the official record which they presumably (cause I don't know) could have challenged at the time.
#10
"Maybe they should strive for "Fake but Accurate" next time?"
No... All should stop the BS personal attacks and slurs and events from the past and all politicians should be forced instead to actually address the issues and offer substantive resolutions to current problems, plans and visions for the future, and if it's not too much to ask they should speak in complete sentences too.
#11
Gene, Kerry gave himself was awarded a silver star for turning back to pick up a sailor who fell off his boat. That in itself should tell you what kind of fool we are talking about here.
I don't know about your navy Gene, or the US Navy, but in Admiral Wxjames' navy, any asshole who returns without his full crew is going to get a high speed lead decoration in his phalking ear.
And that's just one of his heroic day dreams. JFKerry is a complete phalking loser, and if you can't see that, I question your judgement.
#12
I felt the blood rush to my head momentarily there.
Anyway I am not defending this putz anymore.
While the blood was in my head I decided that he F88ked over the 51 million who voted for him too. He's got nothing to offer beyond "Bush Lied" and I'm sick of that line already.
So you won't see me sticking up for Kerry again unless he actually has a meaningful opinion about something.
#13
Admiral Zumwalt's family signed. He originated the idea of shifting Swiftboats to riverine operations. Before that, Kerry was cruising the surf of the Indochina Sea. The deceased Elmo Zumwalt Jr. was also a Swiftboat officer, though probably not at the same time as Kerry.
Gene, sailors, almost to a man, in your squadron do not turn against you unless you did something especially bad and dishonorable. Think about it. Both officers and enlisted that fought, lived, and got to know the man in the 3 months he served with them. Not all of them are Republican operatives.
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2006 13:11 Comments ||
Top||
#14
For thirty years Senator Kerry's actions and claims didn't really matter, Gene. He was merely the decorative junior senator from the state of Massachusetts, known more for gracing the arm of a rich widow at swanky parties in Georgetown and Martha's Vineyard than for any actual accomplishments. However, when it appeared that he might actually have a shot at running the executive branch of the government, those who knew personally of his fatal character flaws decided to speak up. This is actually one of the times, in my opinion, when the system worked as intended.
#16
Gene, I'm an a.d. Marine officer. I'm not attacking you personally but here is my $.02 & I prolly differ from the crowd here a bit on this. First, I respect Kerry for going to 'Nam. A lot of other guys in his position found a free pass out or went north to canuckistan. That being said and from the *facts* I've studied would seem to me that of his 3 wounds, two were greatly embellished. He received purple hearts for wounds that other servicemen of the day would've scoffed at. Also, the rendition of him gunning down a v.c. who was running away w/a B-40 rocket launcher is fishy, any Navy guy here could tell you that. Shit, a dumb gyrine like me will tell ya a LT beaching his boat to run down a native in the jungle is way out weird. He did 6 months or so in brown water 'Nam, got the 3 purple's and requested his way out (along w/putting in requests for his immediate crew). IIRC he did a year prior to that on a frigate or destroyer w/blue water navy off the coast. I respect that he showed up, but when he touted being a "war hero" for the cameras it deserved some looking into. I usually get put off about delving into servicemen's records but when you're known to be given to puffery and some 50+ guys are calling "shennanigans" then it is prolly shennanigans.
#18
never argue with a moron. He acknowledges his level of intellect. Believe him. It's true. Idjit
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/01/2006 13:43 Comments ||
Top||
#19
Easy Frank. Gene wants current issues to be addressed. I agree with that. I just wish Kerry realizes he's been spanked and devote his time to the Martha's Vineyard cocktail circuit. Then Americans can focus their attention on more important matters.
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2006 13:50 Comments ||
Top||
#20
As far as I'm concerned:
Swiftboated, N.
1) To have the truth told about you in public when you would rather a lie be beleved. 2) To have people call you on your lies and embellishments in the public arena and shoot down your ambitions.
#21
If Kerry had campaigned for the presidency on the ground that he was the world's greatest CEO and had guided the XYZ Company to spectacular success, it would be perfectly legitimate to ask the employees of XYZ what they thought of his managerial skills. That's not a cheap shot or a personal attack -- it's just a sensible attempt to verify an asserted credential.
Posted by: Matt ||
06/01/2006 14:26 Comments ||
Top||
#22
My problem with Kerry isn't what he did in Vietnam, but what he did to his "band of brothers" once he got back--the allegations of phony war crimes. The 1971 "winter soldier" crap was what really got the Swifties up in arms--and the Swifties' ad with Kerry's 1971 "testimony" was the one that really sunk him.
Note carefully, please, that Kerry has made no substantive effort to defend his 1971 "testimony."
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2006 15:45 Comments ||
Top||
#28
So you won't see me sticking up for Kerry again unless he actually has a meaningful opinion about something.
Aw c'on Gene - I just found a clean sock to stick my roll of quarters in... }:D
Kerry gets my respect for going to Viet Nam(for whatever reason). But not for what he did afterwards, from his 1971 antics to his continuing failure to release his records.
If you're gonna run as a 'war hero', you g-damn better well back it up.
Sgt. Amanda Pinson, whose story I have been following since her death, is receiving a singular honor. The NSA is adding her name to its memorial wall. This is very cool.
May 31, 2006 -- THIRTEEN years ago, our troops won a lopsided battlefield victory in Mogadishu. President Clinton declared defeat and pulled out. We've been paying the price in terror ever since - and it might be about to soar.
When it comes to strategy and military affairs, folk wisdom is worth a century of scribbling theorists. Your father could have told you how to handle the Mogadishu warlords: "If you start something, son, finish it."
Continued on Page 49
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/01/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
US defeat or withdrawal unto isolationism > will be interpreted by Amer-West's enemies as a de facto decline in US power and capability, to include ability to protect andor lead the West. IT MEANS ENEMY ARMIES BENT ON ARMED CONQUEST AND VIOLENT DESTRUCTION WILL SHOW UP INEVITABLY IN AMERICA'S BACKYARD, IN CONUS-NORAM, AND PAYING OR ECON REWARDING THEM TO NOT ATTACK AMERICA-WEST IS NOT GOING TO STOP THEM, NOT EVEN IFF AMERICA DID
COME TO ACCEPT SOCIALISM. America must be LeftSocialist, Non-Independent and Non-Self Governing, Non-Sovereign, and under Socialist OWG where American is just one weak nation amongst all others, NOT SOCIALIST, INDEPENDENT, SELF-GOVERNING, SOVEREIGN, and OUTSIDE OF OWG OR NOT UNDER OWG!? VOLUNTARILY = FORCIBLY.
#2
Wretchard said today that the enemy was "failed states." ("Personally I believe the underlying cause of the War lies in the breakdown of the Third World, as manifested in the multiplication of failing states: that is my definition of the enemy.") Failed states are a growth medium, not the pathogen.
I think that there are three enemies:
1. Teeror funding states. Really there are only two of these -- Saudi Arabia and Iran -- because those are the only two that have the money and ideology to make a difference.
All three are networked among themselves also. Networked enemies are hard as hell to defeat. It's also hard as hell for them to take decisive action. So wars with them tend to be wars of exhaustion. We could attack the networks indirectly, by directly and decisively attacking the funding states/nodes and drying up their operating cash. Until we summon the will to do that, we are stuck fighting two wars.
The first war is the so-called long war. We will fight the Islamist terror networks in Somalia, Afghanistan, Gaza and Judea, Iraq, and anywhere else they pop up. This war will probably drag on until the money that funds the Islamists dries up.
What worries me about the second war against the nuclear network, is that we are moving away from the force structure that we will need to win it. At some point, we are going to have to take nukes away from fairly crazed groups and individuals. Unless we are going to nuke them, we will need survivable forces that can mass and disperse rapidly and fight on a battlefield where nuclear weapons are being used tactically. Unfortunately we are dismantling much of the heavy iron and support structure that you need to win that sort of battle.
#3
In my experience from the time I was a young lad on, when dealing w/the arab mind: if an arab hits you on the cheek you turn and smash him on his cheek twice as hard.
#5
The Rangers were reloading and planning to go out the next day and systematically destroy Aidid's forces (and we now know, Al Qaeda Arabs) and anyone else who got in their way. That is until Clinton called them off. If the Rangers were let loose, the World Trade Center towers, embassies, and thousands of Americans would probably still be alive. Clinton, Aspen, Murtha. May you all rot in Hell.
Posted by: ed ||
06/01/2006 13:28 Comments ||
Top||
#6
God sent Jimma Carter and Slick Willy Clinton to destroy the democrat party. They did well, but failed to complete their missions. It's up to us to finish the job. Happy hunting.
It did not take long for Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinejad to slap down Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's offer of direct talks. "Rice's comments can be considered a propaganda move," Ahmadinejad told the Islamic Republic News Agency.
Rice's announcement that U.S. officials were prepared to both offer the Iranian regime new incentives and sit down with it was a strategic fumble. Not only did Rice provide Ahmadinejad with an opportunity to humiliate the "arrogant power" to his domestic audience, but she also undercut what little international credibility the U.S. retains.
On its surface, the U.S. initiative was traditional diplomacy. Rice offered both carrots and sticks: "We are agreed with our European partners on the essential elements of a package containing both the benefits if Iran makes the right choice, and the costs if it does not." But the devil is in the details. The stickif Iran remains noncompliantis a vague European and Russian commitment to consider sanctions at the United Nations. What specific sanctions? Not decided. What time frame? Undetermined.
Should Washington trust European and Russian sincerity when it comes to a fundamental threat to U.S. national security? In Bush's calculation, the worst outcome would be for the Islamic Republic of Iran to possess nuclear bombs. For many Europeans, though, the idea that the U.S. might act forcefully to deny Iran nuclear weapons is a greater threat. And so they encourage an administration more eager to please the international audience than lead it to once again entangle itself in multilateral obfuscation.
It is tempting to believe engagement can succeed, but precedent suggests otherwise. In early 1992, Berlin inaugurated a policy of critical engagement with Iran, believing that dialogue and concession could draw the Islamic Republic into the norms of international behavior. Soon after, on September 17, 1992, Iranian government assassins murdered four Iranian dissidents in Germany. On April 10, 1997, a German court found that a committee composed of Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, Iranian President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, and intelligence minister Ali Fallahian had ordered the hit. Rather than moderate, European concessions convinced Iranian leaders that they could get away with murder. They did.
After delivering to their Iranian counterparts a strongly worded tongue-lashing, European officials tried again. Between 2000 and 2005, European Union trade with Iran almost tripled. Oil prices surged. But rather than invest its windfall in civil society and basic infrastructure, the Iranian governmentat the time in the hands of so-called reformistspoured its hard currency into a clandestine nuclear program. On September 24, 2005, the International Atomic Energy Agency found Iran in non-compliance with the nuclear non-proliferation treaty's safeguards agreement.
European negotiators tried once more. On November 15, 2004, the Iranian government agreed to suspend uranium enrichmentthe same demand Rice made yesterday. Iran got what it wanted: A decision not to refer the matter to the United Nations. The next day, the Daily Telegraph reported, that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw said "he was confident that Tehran was taking its commitment seriously." European backslapping was short-lived. Iran decided to backslide on its commitment and again began to enrich uranium. It was typical Tehran behavior. Iranian diplomacy consists of one step forward, two steps back. Western officials meet backslidinghowever largewith a click of the tongue; they mark forward progress, however slight, with concessions. That the net vector is backwards matters not when diplomats just seek to win the next promise or transitory deal.
European governments are not the only ones who have experienced Iranian insincerity. Washington has too. Prior to the Iraq campaign, the Iranian government pledged to not interfere. They broke their promise within days of the fall of Saddam Hussein. Today, Iranian intelligence has free reign over southern Iraq and, increasingly, Iraqi Kurdistan. None of this should come as a surprise to Washington. Iranian government officials consider U.S. red lines to be drawn with pencil on sand.
Foggy Bottom's fundamental misunderstanding of Iran is dangerous. There was little surprise to Rice's about-face. Undersecretary of State for Policy Nicholas Burns has long urged direct negotiation; he can be persuasive. There is a mantra in Foggy Bottominculcated in diplomats from their very first day in the A-100 classthat any problem can be solved with discussion and negotiation. In some cases this is true. But it also reflects a projection on the part of U.S. diplomats who feel that all problems are political and solutions lie only in discovery of some magic formula of incentives and compromises. But multiculturalism is not just about celebrating diversity. It is also about recognizing that those from other nations and cultures can have different ideologies, values, and thought processes. "Diplomacy is much more than just talking to your friends. You've got to talk to people who aren't our friends, and even people you dislike," former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told the New York Times. Perhaps. But does Khamenei view diplomacy the same way? Where did Iranians learn the art of negotiation? In some swank Virginia institute or in the bazaar? How did a lifelong seminary education shape Khamenei's perception of the West?
If Rice's offer was just a misstepto be forgotten like Madeleine Albright'sthen no harm done. But Rice set a precedent. Her offer may have sought to solve one problem, but it signaled other nations that the path to concession and recognition lies through proliferation, not compliance. Washington's handicap has always been the triumph of short-term fixes over long-term strategy. Why should any country voluntarily forfeit a nuclear program as South Africa and Brazil once did, or nuclear weapons as did the Ukraine and Kazakhstan?
The damage caused by Rice's offer to the people of Iran may be irreversible. She can speak of how "President Bush wants a new and positive relationship between the American people and the people of Iran." But if so, why recognize and legitimize the unelected regime which is oppressing them? In 1953 and 1979, the U.S. government supported an unpopular leader against the will of the Iranian public. Why, in 2006, should we make the same mistake a third time?
During his second inauguration, Bush declared, "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: The United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you." Nothing could be further from the truth. The wholesale abandonment of those seeking liberty goes beyond Iran. When Rice announced the reestablishment of diplomatic relations with Libya, she did not mention democracy. Likewise, Rice has broken her promises to the Egyptian people. On May 25, Egyptian police beat and sodomized a 24-year-old protester Muhammad Sharkawi. His crime? Holding a sign reading, "I want my rights back." The Egyptian government has denied him medical attention, and those monitoring his case in Cairo say his breathing is labored due to cracked ribs, and he is urinating blood due to other internal injuries. Both the State Department and the U.S. embassy in Cairo remain silent.
On September 20, 2001, President Bush declared, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." With Bush's decision to abandon freedom-seekers across the region, and reward a terror-sponsoring Iranian regime in noncompliance with its international commitments, the White House has signaled to the world, stand with us if you want, but we only respond when you're against us.
Posted by: Don King ||
06/01/2006 09:29 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Bull. Rice has done a good job of jaw-jaw. Sincere offers to negotiate were made without giving away the store. That is necessary to get the Euros and domestic fence sitters on board. If this comes down to war-war, which I strongly suspect (ok, hope) it will, at least we will have done every thing we could to avoid it. The Iranian governement has shown itself to be worthy of whatever comes its way.
#2
I'm not sure what alternatives Dr. Rice has. The US is not in a position to act effectively and unilaterally against Iran. We don't want to repeat the situation we faced in Iraq, with too many 'allies' working against us in the background (France, Germany) or blocking us in the foreground (Turkey). Iran is bigger and likely a tougher foe than was Iraq (geographically, at the very least). Their 'alliance' with China is a complication not faced in Iraq. The US military is not stretched to the breaking point in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it is stretched - prolonged efforts in Iran combined with increased harassment against the rear in Iraq might be too much.
I had some other comments, but they just might be true, and if so, best left unsaid.
#3
"There was little surprise to Rice's about-face."
IMO, this is not a change in course. It's more likely that this was a plannned tactic that has more to do with setting the gauntlet for Russia and China then forcing the the Iranians to prove their intent.
#4
One of this administration's favorite tactics is to make its enemies an offer they can't accept, wait for the rejection, then act. Remember these?
2001 -- demand that the Taliban turn over bin laden and close all al-Q facilities
2003 -- demand that Saddam resign and leave Iraq
Posted by: Mike ||
06/01/2006 13:51 Comments ||
Top||
#5
Gosh, Uncle Mike! Then what happened? Little StevieS waited for his favorite part of the story.
Bad move? Bah! I'm with Mike and NimSpem. This is just part of the diplo-dance we need to go thru to show we are willing to make nice. I sincerely doubt anyone in the administration expected Almondinejihad to accept the invitation.
When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad publicly released a long, insulting letter seeking direct talks with the U.S. last month, President Bush dismissed it as unworthy of reply. But yesterday Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice delivered the real U.S. answer: Yes.
In a surprising policy reversal, Ms. Rice offered to negotiate directly with Iran's mullahs if they first suspend all uranium enrichment and cooperate with United Nations arms inspectors. The Secretary of State seems to have convinced Mr. Bush--over the doubts of Vice President Cheney and others--that this was the only way to prevent the U.S. from being isolated as our European allies ran for cover and Russia resisted any U.N. sanctions. How this new U.S. concession will impress the mullahs to give in is now Ms. Rice's burden to demonstrate. Good luck.
Granted, the offer has one big virtue: ending the three-year pretense that the so-called EU-3--Britain, France and Germany--had any chance of ending Iran's nuclear ambitions. Time and again the not-so-big three had threatened "consequences" if Iran continued to enrich uranium, only to back down and force more concessions--from Washington. The mullahs always wanted to talk directly to the U.S. for the implicit recognition such talks would convey, and now they have their wish.
In theory, Condi's gambit could help to expose Iran's real intentions should it refuse to negotiate seriously. In theory, too, a determined U.S. could use the direct talks to insist that Tehran undertake a Libyan-like dismantling of its nuclear facilities, complete with random and intrusive inspections. But yesterday's proposal demands nothing so comprehensive, and the potential sanctions supposedly on the table are still opposed by Russia and China. The ultimate sanction of military force isn't even hinted at, much less on the table.
Given the concessions he has already won by refusing to cooperate, Mr. Ahmadinejad won't be in any hurry to oblige now. Already yesterday, Iran was pocketing the direct talks and demanding that any negotiation be "without preconditions." This was entirely predictable, and you can bet this new Iranian demand will soon be echoed in Paris, Moscow and all too many precincts in Washington.
It was good to hear Presidential spokesman Tony Snow yesterday describe that enrichment precondition as the "foundation stone" of the new U.S. proposal. But will Ms. Rice and her main ally in this windmill tilt--Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns--soon be pressing Mr. Bush to make this concession too?
It's not as if Iran has met anybody even halfway on concerns about its nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council has already asked Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. But Iran's response to April's deadline was to announce it had enriched reactor-grade uranium and is developing advanced centrifuges to do more--perhaps as many as 3,000 by the end of this year.
Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad continues to deny that the Holocaust ever happened, threatens to erase Israel from the face of the earth, taunts Mr. Bush about the coming collapse of democracy world-wide, abets the killing of Americans in Iraq, supports terror in Lebanon and elsewhere, and talks more generally about a coming conflict in which much of humanity will perish. We suppose it would serve Mr. Burns right if he has to negotiate with this zealot, except that the entire State Department seems almost as zealous in its pursuit of any kind of deal.
We'd like to think better, but one thing we didn't hear yesterday from Ms. Rice was any timeline for Iran to accept her offer. Tehran will surely attempt to delay as long as possible, giving it time to build more centrifuges and further harden its nuclear facilities. Mr. Burns could soon be talking to an Iranian Le Duc Tho about the shape of the Geneva negotiating table.
Perhaps the most dispiriting part of this new diplomacy is the signal it will send to Iran's internal opposition. The regime is wildly unpopular, but it will use this implicit U.S. recognition to show that it has earned new world respect. It will also demand that the U.S. cease its support for democrats inside the country, and voices in Europe and at State will want to do the same. We hope Mr. Bush has vetoed that kind of appeasement. We hope, too, that he'll continue to put pressure on the mullahs by interdicting Iranian terror financing, and shipping under the Proliferation Security Initiative, where warranted.
Iran's relentless drive for a nuclear weapon is a difficult problem, and perhaps Ms. Rice is right that direct diplomacy is essential to expose Iran's real purposes. But given Iran's track record, we'd say the Secretary has walked her President out on a limb where the pressure will soon build on him to make even more concessions. If this gambit fails, she'll have succeeded mainly in giving the mullahs more time to become a terrorist nuclear power.
#1
"But yesterday's proposal demands nothing so comprehensive, and the potential sanctions supposedly on the table are still opposed by Russia and China"
Bush and Rice contacted Russia and China before making this offer public. IF you trust Bush, one must presume he got a very well defined quid pro quo. If you DONT trust Bush, then Id think youd have a lot of other problems with the admin.
#2
LH, i don't think this one is a matter of if you trust Bush or not, it's if you trust Pooti and Jintau.
If the sanctions go through with a military backing it would be a real win for Bush. If not,
it's exactly what everyone expected so it's not much of a loss.
They way I see it, Bush really can't lose much by getting shot down at the U.N. That combined with the thought that he has probably gotten all he can get out of Irans business partners makes me think he might as well go to the U.N. now instead of waiting on nothing.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
06/01/2006 15:21 Comments ||
Top||
#3
I must hand it to you though LH, I am starting to think that you have been right all along about getting at least one of the Communist countries on board a resolution.
Posted by: Mike N. ||
06/01/2006 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Bolton in a FOX interview days ago was quite insistent that the Bush admin. was prepared to go in alone, to engage in various unilateral actions, including but not limited to military force, againt Iran should Amer's allies, etal. not go along in international/UN ventures to prevent Iran from having nukes. Condi herself was on FNC stating that America is giving Radical Iran "a last chance". or words to that effect, to work with the UNO, and that a nuclear-armed Radical Iran was NOT ACCEPTABLE, i.e. IS NOT AND NEVER WILL BE on America's table as long as Dubya is in the WH.
Hat tip to Powerline:One of the insoluble difficulties raised by Iran's nuclear threat is the impotence of deterrence against those who relish death, or think death but a small price to pay for the elimination of Jews from "Palestine." The unworkability of deterrence against Iran has received remarkably little public attention, though it must have something to do with the assertion that Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons would be "unacceptable." The Hudson Institute has posted the paper (in PDF) by Laurent Murawiec devoted to this topic of deterring jihadis such as Ahmadinejad: "Deterring those who are already dead?"
Posted by: Steve ||
06/01/2006 15:15 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Interesting - I've seen almost no discussion of the problem of Iran's drive to nukes that doesn't mention the problem of deterring those who think martyrdom is the noblest death. A lot of them are pretty uncomfortable the choices that seems to leave on the table (aggressive preemption), but they certainly seem to acknowledge it.
#2
A lot of those who loudly demand the chance to martyr themselves become very quiet when an opportunity occurs. As for the rest, our factories make lots of bullets, and other sharp things.
#3
So what achieves deterrence? I would propose that the situation is even worse than suggested, because it is not just the death-seeking fanatic who wants nuclear weapons, but the common man on the street.
Iranians missed out on the "nuclear terror" that gripped the West and Russia. Forty years of culture shock leading to a grudging acceptance, but always fearing the worst.
But for the Iranians, it is just a big bomb that makes them powerful and able to "feel safe", because *nobody* will mess with somebody who has "the bomb". It is Aladdin's djinn, who will grant them all their hearts' desires.
We cannot educate them otherwise. And even if we blew up a small bomb upwind of one of their cities, so that they saw the horrors, the pain and the suffering, they *might* learn.
BUT NOBODY ELSE WOULD.
So our alternative is dividing their nation into such pieces that they can no longer make nukes. To take away their resources, and give them to other nations to use and protect.
#4
Deterrence is irrelevant here. Punishment, plain and simple. For example, I don't support the death penalty because it is a deterrent, but because it punishes the evil of murder. Muzzies understand punishment. Acoording to allen's book he's dishing it out all the time. So, the next time a nuclear facility raises it's ugly head in Iran, obliterate it from the sand. Let's see if we run out of bombs before they run out of money.
#5
During the Cold War, while there were organized Comunist- and USSR/Soviet-centric groups, inclduing armed factios, in the West, these for the most part worked in the shadows, and were succesfully kept benign either voluntarily andor by external legal means, and despite "blurps" or incidents of notoriety or violence. I agree that Cold-War, Western-style bilateral or multilateral deterrence will NOT work with the fanatical, death- and jihad/war-centric Radical Islamists. Unlike the Soviets or Red China, whom wished to avoid mutually destructive global nuclear war while working to econ- or societally implode the capitalist West vv bilateral, "managed" escalatory competition just as the West was doing against the Commie Bloc, the Radical Islamists are interested only in immediate submission, concession, appeasement, and espec IMMEDIATE CONVERSION! Islam is by definition the ULTIMATE/FINAL form-model of belief in God-Society ergo the ultimate-final cannot be the one which surrenders or is inferior to lower forms-modelsof faith and society. FOR NOW, THE COMMON ENEMY FOR BOTH RADICAL ISLAM AND SECULAR LEFTISM-SOCIALISM IS UNIPOLAR HYPERPOWER AMERICA - IFF AND WHEN AMERICA IS EVER DEFEATED OR DESTROYED, THE DAY AFTER ALL BETS ARE OFF AS TO RADICAL ISLAM WARRING AGAINST SECULAR LEFTISM-SOCIALISM, THE GOD/FAITH-BASED LEFT VS. THE SECULAR ATHIEST LEFT OVER THE REMNANTS OF THE WORLD!?
#6
Does anyoen recall the old saying that the Chinese didn't fear a nuclear war because they could absorb the casualties?
That is what the Chinese wanted the rest of the world to think, even though it would also mean loss of the party of any real power in the aftermath. Its not what is real, it is what you can make others think is real for your agenda.
One of the professors profiled in my recent book of that title is Cornel West, a man confuses attitudinizing with thought, whose intellectual output the liberal New Republic assessed and found worthless, who is one of the academic worlds most honored and distinguished figures and yet hasnt written a scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever).
The leftwing journal Alternet is outraged by these facts. Here is its entire argument against my description of the unbearable lightness of Cornel West's being: In the nation's top universities, African-American representation goes from offensive to paltry. Anywhere from less than 1% of tenured faculty are black to a high of 4.3%. In other words, you'd need to go out of your way to pluck a black professor for your rant about the nature of academia.
In other words, Cornel West is a black airhead so dont hurt his feelings by pointing this out. Actually, my book The Professors features portraits of several bloviating dummies like West who are white. Professors Michael Vocino and Grover Furr for example. However, neither Vocino nor Furr have 20 honorary degress, a professorship at Princeton, a $35,000 academic speaking fee, a several hundred thousand dollar academic salary, or a lucrative book racket for appending their signatures to encyclopedic publications of the Harvard press.
Cornel West is blessed with these unearned and undeserved perks solely because hes black -- there is no other explanation (but dont hurt his feelings by pointing this out).
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.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. 
One of the professors profiled in my recent book of that title is Cornel West, a man confuses attitudinizing with thought, whose intellectual output the liberal New Republic assessed and found worthless, who is one of the academic worlds most honored and distinguished figures and yet hasnt written a scholarly paper or book in twenty years (if ever).
