Long piece in CounterCurrents.org about the success US intelligence has had in fomenting peaceful regime change in Serbia, Georgia and the Ukraine, and the plan to do it again in the upcoming Venezuela elections.
Posted by: Steve White ||
11/26/2006 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#4
We could do this except for one thing. The republican central and South American cabal that has bungled things up in that region since the time of Nixon.
It is a closed fraternity of Jesse Helms-style foreign policy reactionaries who have kept out any non-members from their ranks. Which wouldn't be bad <strong>if they knew what they were doing.</strong>
But they don't. They horribly bungle things up and will only support the most right wing dictator-types in the region. In Venezuela alone that have already supported half a dozen *botched* coup attempts. Real boy scout quality operations that were just embarassing. Compromised from the start by the pitiful Venezuelan intelligence service.
Out of an otherwise fine, even brilliant republican foreign policy staff, this group stands out like a cancre sore of incompetence. Almost every success the US has had in the region has either been done directly by the president without even consulting them, or has been an "end-around" them.
#6
Foreign policy rarely means control. But it is supposed to mean that you are at least aware of what is going on in a country, who is doing what to whom and why, what the public supports, how their government works, and especially who are the "bad guys".
You can't just look at central and South America and make a blanket statement, "Let's only support the 'right wing'", because what they call the 'right wing' down there has almost nothing in common with what they call 'right wing' in the US.
Yet at the same time, their socialists and communists are pretty much the same. But this doesn't mean that their opponents are necessarily democrats, either.
Socialists and communists only get a foothold down there when the government, often just a dictator, is rotten to the core. The way you *stop* such leftists is by helping the people down there get good, democratic governments.
You don't do it by supporting some "El Supremo" who you like for the sole reason that he kills commies. We did that during the Cold War, because the commies were Soviet clients, but no more.
And finally, if you *have* to overthrow some twit like Chavez, you get pros to do it, not some dumbasses led by an Oliver North-style Colonel who conspire with the same hopeless cases whose rule *caused* Chavez in the first place.
You recognize that Venezuela has real problems that brought about Chavez, and until they are alleviated, there will be an endless supply of Chavez's to take his place.
And *this* is what you try to make your foreign policy do.
A RASH of pop prophets tell us that Muslims in Europe are reproducing so fast and European societies are so weak and listless that, before you know it, the continent will become "Eurabia," with all those topless gals on the Riviera wearing veils.
Well, maybe not.
The notion that continental Europeans, who are world-champion haters, will let the impoverished Muslim immigrants they confine to ghettos take over their societies and extend the caliphate from the Amalfi Coast to Amsterdam has it exactly wrong.
The endangered species isn't the "peace loving" European lolling in his or her welfare state, but the continent's Muslims immigrants - and their multi-generation descendents - who were foolish enough to imagine that Europeans would share their toys.
In fact, Muslims are hardly welcome to pick up the trash on Europe's playgrounds.
Don't let Europe's current round of playing pacifist dress-up fool you: This is the continent that perfected genocide and ethnic cleansing, the happy-go-lucky slice of humanity that brought us such recent hits as the Holocaust and Srebrenica.
THE historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity. One of their more-humane (and frequently employed) techniques has been ethnic cleansing.
And Europeans won't even need to re-write "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" with an Islamist theme - real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims. Europe hasn't broken free of its historical addictions - we're going to see Europe's history reprised on meth.
The Europeans have enjoyed a comfy ride for the last 60 years - but the very fact that they don't want it to stop increases their rage and sense of being besieged by Muslim minorities they've long refused to assimilate (and which no longer want to assimilate).
WE don't need to gloss over the many Muslim acts of barbarism down the centuries to recognize that the Europeans are just better at the extermination process. From the massacre of all Muslims and Jews (and quite a few Eastern Christians) when the Crusaders reached Jerusalem in 1099 to the massacre of all the Jews in Buda (not yet attached to Pest across the Danube) when the "liberating" Habsburg armies retook the citadel at the end of the 17th century, Europeans have just been better organized for genocide.
It's the difference between the messy Turkish execution of the Armenian genocide and the industrial efficiency of the Holocaust. Hey, when you love your work, you get good at it.
Far from enjoying the prospect of taking over Europe by having babies, Europe's Muslims are living on borrowed time. When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch - all predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal.
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims. After all, we were the only ones to do anything about the slaughter of Muslims in the Balkans. And even though we botched it, our effort in Iraq was meant to give the Middle East's Muslims a last chance to escape their self-inflicted misery.
AND we're lucky. The United States attracts the quality. American Muslims have a higher income level than our national average. We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs.
And the American dream is still alive and well, thanks: Even the newest taxi driver stumbling over his English grammar knows he can truly become an American.
But European Muslims can't become French or Dutch or Italian or German. Even if they qualify for a passport, they remain second-class citizens. On a good day. And they're supposed to take over the continent that's exported more death than any other?
All the copy-cat predictions of a Muslim takeover of Europe not only ignore history and Europe's ineradicable viciousness, but do a serious disservice by exacerbating fear and hatred. And when it comes to hatred, trust me: The Europeans don't need our help.
The jobless and hopeless kids in the suburbs may burn a couple of cars, but we'll always have Paris.
#1
Gee, why do I get the feeling that Peters has another shoe that's waiting to be dropped. Like, why don't we shift the European Muzzies over here where they have a real chance at assimilation.
#2
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims.
I have no problem calling for the impeachment of any asshat who orders it.
Peters must love the taste of Arab ass.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/26/2006 12:08 Comments ||
Top||
#3
"a rash of pop prophets..."
Oh, for cryin' out loud, Ralph; just stuff a damn sock in it, wouldja? You're no less a "pop prophet" than anyone else opinionating today.
"The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity."
Well, those historical patterns will either hold, or they will not. To date, there is damn little evidence that those patterns are about to repeat themselves-- and a lot of evidence that suggests they will not. Today's Europeans sound an awful lot like they really, REALLY would rather die on their knees than lift a finger to save themselves.
"I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims."
Not even on a triple hit of Purple Haze could I imagine such a damnfool thing. Get real, Ralphie.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/26/2006 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#4
He does have that special gift of being blissfully unaware that incredibly stupid things come out of his keyboard. Doesn't he let an article sit, say overnight at least, and then re-read it to see if it's completely inane? Sigh.
It's one thing to be a brave blogger who lets fly and takes the lumps for it - in real-time... we do provide this therapeutic outlet for free, lol. It's a whole 'nuther thing to be (at least) thrice as stupid as the dumbest post managed in a whole day on RB -- and get paid for it.
#5
I see two possibilities. (1) Steyn is right and the Europeans don't have the spine anymore to defend themselves (2) Peters is right and the Europeans go ape shit on the Muslims.
I don't think the US would be involved at all except to tut-tut the worst atrocities that might hit the media. But a rioting city sealed off will simply die of starvation (as Stalin did to the Ukranians) . If the Europeans blame Jihadists for making things too dangerous for firemen and police to help who are we to blame? It's enough deneyability for a world sick of Muslims picking fights and beheading people and looking for nukes and dirty bombs that we'll take the Europeans word for it until the deed is done and the tell-all books come out a few decades later as things are declassified.
#6
I can see the Europeans reacting violently to a Muslim incident. What I don't see is an organized European response that would result in any real number of Muslims being displaced. One city maybe, one nation unlikely, continentwide impossible.
Posted by: Formerly Dan ||
11/26/2006 12:49 Comments ||
Top||
#7
When a third of French voters have demonstrated their willingness to vote for Jean-Marie Le Pen's National Front - a party that makes the Ku Klux Klan seem like Human Rights Watch
Utter, shameless BS, and I'm not a fan of the FN. Even the fringe groups gravitating around the party are not on par with modern KKK or any neo-nazi type org.
The bulk of the FN ideology is something you'd expect from a run-of-the-mill buchananite, basically... Anti-immigration, anti-globalization/free trade, anti-big business/pro small business, and some anti-jewish resentment (not nazi racial antisemitism, rather jooos as ennemies of national cohesion through liberalism and high finance).
The racialists have been driven out a long time ago (the FN is actually one of the most empowering party when it comes to having elected people from minorities), the "free-marketers" also, as were the traditionalist catholics. What's left is a rather hollow shell, with a rather mild ideology especially when compared to the diabolization.
Le Pen is a rather colorful character, true, but he's an ex-paratrooper/commie-smasher street fighter type and an archetypal populist rightwinger, not a white supremacist.
#8
real Muslims zealots provide Europe's bigots with all the propaganda they need. Al Qaeda and its wannabe fans are the worst thing that could have happened to Europe's Muslims.
It's not just Europe's bigots. Those "real Muslim zealots" give anybody in their right mind nine different reasons to Sunday why Islam is the biggest threat since Nazism and communism combined. Funny how you don't hear any of the European Muslims decrying how al-Qaeda has made their life so hard. All I've ever heard from them is lusty cheering for the "Magnificent 19".
I have no difficulty imagining a scenario in which U.S. Navy ships are at anchor and U.S. Marines have gone ashore at Brest, Bremerhaven or Bari to guarantee the safe evacuation of Europe's Muslims.
I'll have what he's having, thank you. Must be some good stuff he gets on that high salary of his. Before 9-11 this scenario might have played out. Post 9-11? America's give-a-shit meter is still pegging five years later. What the fuck would we want with a bunch of beheading car-burners over here? I have as much use for Peters' supposed insights as I have use for two peters myself.
AND we're lucky. The United States attracts the quality. American Muslims have a higher income level than our national average. We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs.
He left out the part about a massive fifth column of silent supporters and covert operatives. Evidently Peters didn't find the time to compare notes with his European colleagues before going to press.
#9
Just for clarification, when the US boatlifted folks out of Lebanon we did not bring them to the USA (I'm talking about in the 80s not the recent one when we took US citizens back). I see no reason to think we'd rescue French-Arabs and bring them to the US.
#10
I also think Peters is conflating ethnic groups and religions. The US has a high number of Christian Arabs that assimilate and do well and have no desire to return. The American-Muslims like to claim them because it inflates there numbers.
The US also has a bunch of Pakistani/Indian Muslims that are here on work visas and tend to leave. They tend to be better than the usual. They are not American-Muslims because they are not Americans.
Then there are the Muslim Arabs in the United States. They do not tend to live up to Col Peters descriptions of American Muslims from what I've heard. They fit Zensters version a lot better.
I dont know whether Mr Peters is referring to my book, because, as usual when this particular columnist comes out swinging, he prefers to confront unnamed generalized opponents: thus, he refers to a rash of pop pundits predicting Europe will become Eurabia. Dismissing with airy condescension a rash of anonymities means you avoid having to deal with specific arguments.
Had he read America Alone, for example, he would know that I do, indeed, foresee a revival of Fascism in Europe. He concludes: All predictions of Europe going gently into that good night are surreal. Which of us predicted anything about going gently? As I write on page 105 of my book: Its true that there are many European populations reluctant to go happily into the long Eurabian night. What I point out, though, is that, even if youre hot for a new Holocaust, demography tells. There are no Hitlers to hand. When Mr Peters cites the success of Jean Marie Le Pens National Front, he overlooks not only Le Pens recent overtures to Muslims but also the fact that M Le Pen is pushing 80. As a general rule, when 600 octogenarians are up against 200 teenagers, bet on the teens. In five or ten years time, who precisely is going to organize mass deportations from French cities in which the native/Muslim youth-population ratio is already right now - 55/45?
As Ive said innumerable times, the native European population is split three ways: some will leave, as the Dutch (and certain French) are already doing; some will shrug and go along with the Islamization of the continent, as the ever-accelerating number of conversions suggests; and so the ones left to embrace Fascism will be a minority of an aging population. It will be bloody and messy, as I write in America Alone, but it will not alter the final outcome. If you dont breed, you cant influence the future. And furthermore a disinclination to breed is a good sign you dont care much about the future. Thats why the Spaniards, who fought a brutal bloody civil war for their country in the 1930s, folded instantly after those Madrid bombings. When youve demographically checked out of the future, why fight for it?
Ralph Peters is late to this debate. If hes going to join the discussion, he might do better to tackle the facts. But that would require him to acknowledge real specifics rather than a rash of pop pundits. Youll notice that his column and mine differ not just in their approach to worldviews but in their approach to argument: mine cites four specific persons, their actions and assertions; his boldly batters anonymous generalizations. I know which I regard as more effective.
Posted by: Mark Steyn ||
11/26/2006 14:18 Comments ||
Top||
#12
" We hear about the handful of rabble-rousers, but more of our fellow Americans who happen to be Muslims are doctors, professors and entrepreneurs."
Yes they are successful. Which means they've got more disposable income to funnel to the jihad on a local, national, and international level. It's obligatory.
"And the American dream is still alive and well, thanks: Even the newest taxi driver stumbling over his English grammar knows he can truly become an American.
Muslim Cabbie at airport in MN: "Is whiskey bottle you got in hand infidel? No ride for you...Hey blind man, that your seeing eye dog? No ride for you....Hey woman, your dress too short and sweater too tight. Don't blame me if I rape you. Put scarf on head or no ride for you. It's Allah's will."
Sorry Ralph, put me down in the category that doesn't believe all that many muslims want to become Americans.
Yeah, they want to live in America, but that isn't enough. For most being muslim will always trump being American.
Let me put it this way: Real Americans wouldn't get together and STAGE a scene to spew koranic prayers on board an airliner. Muslims would. That's the differnce.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
11/26/2006 14:25 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Rare has been the conqueror that wanted to preserve the prize after taking it. Plunder is the norm. Golden geese are dinner fare for barbarians. Fuck tomorrow, Allan will provide.
#14
Mark, if it is you, please shed some light on why American politicians won't go near this subject, when awareness and logic would force the debate and all future possibilities to the table. America must know which way Europe is heading and how to handle the situation.
#15
That was from PowerLine... the Mark Steyn nym is a hollow joke, a pun, a fabrication, a stain upon the very fabric of RB's (otherwise) beautiful pristine Blue Dress. A pox on nym-shifting swine! Lol. Sorry, got carried away. Now I'm over here.
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/26/2006 15:19 Comments ||
Top||
#23
Mark me down with RJ and Dave... whatever the Euros do, or don't do, I can't see the US moving one finger to rescue the likes of the various Moslem "youts". Not after carbeques, and gang rapes, and rioting over Danish cartoons, and beating up on Jews and all the other things so widely reported on the 'burg. Not one damn finger, one damn rowboat. Nada. Zip. Zilch.
#24
Don't take it personally, NS. I don't have a "thing" for you - no shit - believe it. Just have fun and be Nimble Spemble - without pissing on me, plz. I like your comments - you're one of the reasons I hang here. Honest.
#25
Problem is, Sgt. Mom, I can easily see a Democrat president, backed by a Democrat congress, doing such a fool thing-- and not only risking our soldiers' and sailors' lives to evacuate them, but evacuating them HERE. You'd be SHOCKED at the number of Bosnian Muslims in rural Iowa, thanks to BJ Clinton...
Posted by: Dave D. ||
11/26/2006 15:24 Comments ||
Top||
#26
.com,
Nothing personal taken. Lot's of miscommunication in this thread. Nothing I said was intended to be pissing on you. I thought as a Mod you had IP access and could tell who was who if you wanted to look. I missed you during your hiatus and am glad you're back, even without your photo album. It's not the same place without you.
I didn't really look at the nym as Dave D. did because I thought the link to Powerline made it clear. Dumb mistake on my part.
#27
NS, well, I was referring to an earlier time - and you've been scarce of late, so I connected the two. You did seem to be picking on me a week or three back. I'm happy to be wrong, lol.
Waay glad to be reconnected, believe me. Dunno how long it will last, there's something on the horizon. Hell, there's always something on the horizon, I guess, lol. ;-)
#28
Clinton might have gotten away with giving refuge to Bosnian Moslems, because they were mostly seen as poor-pitiful-refugees, besides being pre 9-11. They had indifferent, to vaugely favorable advance press, so no one minded too much. The Euro-Moslems havn't anything like that, and the press about them is getting so awful, even in the usual MSM, I can't see a Democrat president thinking of it as a good move. They are going to behave so badly in the next couple of years that there'll be no way a Democrat administration will want to touch them with a ten-foot pole. Word is getting out, as much as the usual "news" tools try and divert attention, or tamp it down.
#39
Blowin shit up, please, exJAG. Daddy used to do that back when Israel was still Palestine, but he never, ever told any stories... ;-)
Hi, everyone! I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving, full of delicious food, happy times with friends and family, and a minimum of the annual fight with the unavoidable ass... and that y'all are looking forward to a clear slide straight into the joys of Christmas or other winter holiday of your choice! :-)
#40
Oh dear, NS. I've got a kilo of reagent-grade ammonium nitrate in the garage that ought to fix you right up. Been trying to figure out what to do with that. TM 31-210 has some splendid suggestions, but I'm pretty sure I'd get in trouble.
TW, I'd love to hear your dad's stories. Was he part of the Haganah? What a shame he never told, but I'm sure he had his reasons. I don't think I'd tell either.
#45
"The historical patterns are clear: When Europeans feel sufficiently threatened - even when the threat's concocted nonsense - they don't just react, they over-react with stunning ferocity."
I notice how effectively a whole bunch of them reacted when ordered into the boxcars. Yeah, there were some reactions, but in all, too little, too late.
#46
I suppose the one big difference is that if this time around Europe interns all of their Muslim population we won't have any problems with bombing the camps.
As always, there is an element of Monty Pythonesque farce in these imams posturing as holy warriors while being welfare-state spongers, and constantly tripping up in their own lies. Farce, that is, if it were not so deadly serious.
First a bit of good news: As reported in the Jyllands-Posten, Sheikh Raed Hlayhel, who has been in Denmark since 2000 and was the prime instigator behind the cartoon protest, recently announced that he had had it with Denmark and was leaving to settle down in his hometown of Tripoli in Lebanon. "And I am not coming back," he fumed, as if depriving the country of some tremendous cultural asset.
As a commentator noted, Hlayhel has not exactly been a model of successful integration. Having received his religious training in Medina in Saudi Arabia--where he imbibed pure, unadulterated Wahhabism--Hlayhel applied for asylum in Denmark and was at first denied. But as his young son suffers from spina bifida, and the Danish authorities felt the boy could not get the proper treatment in Lebanon, he was allowed in on humanitarian grounds. Hlayhel thus did not have Danish citizenship and did not speak a word of Danish. But in Denmark's fundamentalist parallel society, Arabic will do just fine, especially when you preach jihad. The center of Hlayhel's activities was the Grimhøjvej mosque in the small town of Brabrand in Jutland, which has been closely monitored by Danish intelligence.
Continued on Page 49
Nacera Berrouba, a young Algerian in Paris, says she couldn't get the job she dreamed of until she dyed her hair blond.
Karima Ramani, who calls herself "addicted to freedom," says the Dutch love her hip black jeans and bright red nails but can't accept her Moroccan mind.
Straight-A student Gokboru Ozturk was born in Germany and waved the German flag during last summer's soccer World Cup tournament, but wants to be buried in Turkey because "as much as I feel German, I cannot be buried here." Meanwhile, his mother jokes he should change his name to Schmidt to boost his job prospects.
Why is it a joke? My family changed their name when they came to America. It's called "trying to fit in", or "assimilation."
As Europe goes through a wrenching debate over integrating immigrant populations and at a deeper level about what it means to be European in a globalized age the children of those immigrants also find themselves grappling with issues of identity in an environment where tensions are complicated by the scarcity of jobs and distorted by the fear of terrorism.
#1
My Polish-born grandfather (bilingual in German & Polish when he immigrated) went by the surname Fuchs if he wanted to work for a German in the US, but otherwise used his Polish surname once he got established. Assimilation runs in many different directions.
Remember the story that hit the media on Friday, about a group of Sunni Muslims burned alive by Shi’ite insurgents in Iraq? Curt at Flopping Aces investigated the report (it’s probably bogus) and discovered yet another case of the media Getting The News From The Enemy.
It's Not a Quagmire, It's a Muddle
By Michael Reagan
This is a time for giving thanks, and among the many things for which I am thankful is the fact that I am not George W. Bush.
Think about it -- in the sixth year of his presidency he is besieged on all sides, not only by his foes, but by his friends and supporters as well.
On the one side are those demanding that the president adopt some kind of face-saving solution that will allow him to withdraw from Iraq without admitting the United States has lost yet another war -- the solution once recommended by former Vermont Sen. George Aiken, who advised that we declare victory in Vietnam and get out.
Among those advocating this kind of sleight of hand are members of George Herbert Walker Bush's administration, perhaps even former Secretary of State James Baker. Baker co-chairs the widely touted Iraq Study Group, which has leaked its recommendations for coping with the war by calling for negotiations with Syria and Iran.
On the other side are the hawks who want not only to remain in Iraq, but have advanced the rather peculiar idea that the ultimate aim in any conflict is to win it. They insist that anything less than total victory over the insurgency would result in unthinkable consequences for the United States, the Middle East and the West.
In the middle are the great masses of American people who told exit pollsters they weren't against the war, only against how it was being conducted.
Then there is the Congress of the United States, fated to fall into the hands of the liberal-controlled Democratic Party whose leadership is deeply enamored of the idea of cutting and running a concept they disguise by calling the pullout of the U.S. from Iraq "redeployment."
To complicate matters, however, powerful Democrats such as Hillary Clinton more or less support the idea of remaining in Iraq until the Iraqi forces can handle the insurgency on their own.
The president's dilemma arises from his conviction that a pullout before Iraq has been enabled to fight their war on the insurgency would lead to a conflagration that would engulf the entire Middle East, disrupt the supply of the oil that keeps our economic engine running, create a national base for the Jihad that would enable the radical Islamic movement (probably armed with nukes to bring the Jihad to our shores), and eventually drive the West out of the entire area.
Yet the pressure on the president to find a solution that will allow us to leave Iraq, even if it's with our tail between our legs, is growing more and more intense.
Added to the dilemma is the president's knowledge that negotiations with Syria and Iraq can have only one result withdrawal disguised as recognition that Iraq is a regional problem meant to be solved by regional interests in this case, Iran.
The president knows full well that the only negotiating point is surrender to Iran, whose 1979 constitution declares the aim of the Jihad is world conquest by the Islamic revolution which it leads. To Iran, Iraq is the high ground they seek to take in their war against the West.
Should the president continue to stress his role as Commander in Chief, he will find himself facing an obstructive Congress that will use every device available to them, perhaps even to the extent of withdrawing funding for the military.
Given the facts of the matter, should the president cave in to the peace-at-any-price crowd the deaths of almost 3,000 American fighting men and women -- and the billions of dollars it has cost -- will have been shamefully wasted.
On the other hand, should he stick to his guns, he will find himself the most embattled President since Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln couldn't find generals who could go out and win the War between the States, had to deal with an obstructive Congress and its Committee on the Conduct of the War, and even fought dissent by members of his own cabinet, one of whom referred to Lincoln as "the original ape."
That's why I'm thankful that I'm not George W. Bush.
Mike Reagan, the eldest son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network.
Look for Mike's new book "Twice Adopted". Order autographed books at www.reagan.com
E-mail Michael Reagan at mereagan@hotmail.com
IRAQ STUDY GROUP
By: Patrick Chappatte, The International Herald Tribune
Distributed to subscribers for publication by Cagle Cartoons, Inc.
#2
conflagration that would engulf the entire Middle East, disrupt the supply of the oil that keeps our economic engine running, create a national base for the Jihad that would enable the radical Islamic movement (probably armed with nukes to bring the Jihad to our shores)
Can't have both Mr Son. Disrupt the flow of petrodollars and Middle East (sans Israel) has the biggest economic (and, eventually, population) crash in history.
By Tony Blankley
The decisions made on Iraq over the next few months will take the measure of America's maturity and sense of responsibility. Because, whether we like it or not, our decisions -- and our decisions alone -- will determine whether the barely containable murderous pathologies of the Middle East will just be dumped into the face of humanity -- or whether rational efforts will be persisted at to contain and mitigate its civilization-threatening forces.
We have the most profound obligation to attempt to calculate the consequences of the impending American decision to wash our hands of the Iraq unpleasantness. In that regard, the words of President Kennedy come to mind: "There are risks and costs to a program of action. But they are far less than the long-range risks and costs of comfortable inaction."
#2
The security problem in the cities can be solved with better intelligence. Only aggressive investigative detention will enable a weedout of the terrorists. But I still think playing the Sunni card is our best bet. The Shiites have almost no allies outside of their national zones. The President has a free hand. Diplomacy isn't a weapon against Iran; it is a white flag.
#3
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. The US should guarantee Iraq's borders and let the Iraqis figure out how they divide the country. It will result in a bigger Kurdistan and Shiastan and a reduced Sunnnistan, but so be it.
#4
#1: Baghdad is the head of the snake, the "mistake." Hang Saddam, cut off the head of the snake, and problem will be over.
Afraid not, this particular Snake Grows new "Heads" seemongly out of thin air.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
11/26/2006 9:27 Comments ||
Top||
#5
You notice that when we bombed the sh!t out of Germany and Japan, the occupation and rebuilding were a lot easier. The nicer kinder type of war doesn't appear to work. And given that MSM will not allow any long term commitment, that's about the only effective approach to future operations. Since our military is damned by the MSM if it tries either approach, might as well do the upfront and quick operation.
Now we know why the Iraqis held back for so long from joining in the process. They had a better understanding of how fickle the American system is in the post-WWII period of hanging in there. Their unwillingness has become a self fulfilling prophecy. The old saying - he who hesitates is lost.
The Iranians are right that if we just bomb them, they will be able to reconstitute their nuclear program.
So in addition to bombing them, we must partition Iran, so that they *can't* rebuild, no matter how much they want to.
Partition is far short of a full scale invasion. It is complementary to an air campaign. It is more like the surgical removal of parts of Iran until all is left is Persia.
The people who live in these lands care nothing for the central government. Instead, they have much more in common with Iran's neighboring countries.
Iran delenda est. Persia will live, as will tens of thousands of Persians who would otherwise die. But it will no longer be able to build nuclear weapons.
#3
Confiscate Iran and "Saudi" Arabia's oil and most of these problems evaporate. It's current masters are pirates and slavers and our continued refusal to destroy is a stain on our history and our honor.
A long hodge-podge article representing AP analysis of the domestic awl biz.
You'd think it was Texas. Dusty roads course the scrubland toward oil tanks and warehouses. Beefy men talk oil over burritos at lunch. Like grazing herds, oil wells dip nonstop amid the tumbleweed - or even into the asphalt of a parking lot.
That's why the rumor sounded so wrong here in California's lower San Joaquin Valley, where petroleum has gushed up more riches than the whole gold rush. Why would Shell Oil Co. simply close its Bakersfield refinery? Why scrap a profit maker?
#1
So they story is that Shell sold a refinery they didn't want -- because they had bigger refineries in the same region -- to another company.
Lots a speculation built around a weak core.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/26/2006 12:11 Comments ||
Top||
#2
This stew of distortion and economic illiteracy is breath-taking, even by AP standards. Red meat for the most embarrassingly stupid commonly held idiot idea is America: the evil oil companies are squeezing us!
Don't have time, and don't know where to begin. Just a few gems.
Imagine an industry making its own investment decisions? My god! Where will it stop? (oh, right, EVERY industry does that, sorry)
What could possibly be the barrier to entry to buidling refineries? Why don't us R'burgers just pool our resources and build some, to address the demand out there that evil Big Oil is manipulating? Oh - right. Regulatory and environmental barriers are, uh, almost insuperable. Oops.
And on, and on .....
This is one area where Americans are not much more sophisticated than uneducated Arab or African masses - the worship of Big Oil evil as a concept is almost animist at times.
#3
How about all the Carribean basin awl the Bush family is going to get because of the OWG thing? Huh? Answer me that! And the 131 supertankers full of Ethel circling around the Bermuda quadrangle? And crop circles, don't forget them, and flight 880,that Ambrose Bierce thingy Jack Rubenstein and em Grassy Knoll
The one about the haunted house on Vine Street in Cincinnati?
Creeped me out the first time. Doesn't stand up to re-reading. Heck, most of his stuff just seems to be missing something; probably because the assumptions about what's frightening are so different now.
Posted by: Robert Crawford ||
11/26/2006 15:20 Comments ||
Top||
#7
If their statistics are true and there have been less wells drilled in the past few years than the period before, there are several good reasons why.
1) Drilling costs have gone up faster than oil prices, so wells are less economic to invest in than in the past (true.)
2) There are fewer prospects to drill now, since some were drilled in the intervening years, but new ones are not created (just identified.)
3) Improved technology allows us to drill fewer (though more costly) wells to develop the same oil prospects.
AP 'analysis' is incomplete, at best, again.
Posted by: Mike ||
11/26/2006 9:23 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Look. Harry Truman used to tell derisive Jewish jokes. Richard Nixon said nasty things about Jews in government and elsewhere. Who cares?
I care. Bowing to recognized popular support for the preservation of Israel does not redeem a personal core of anti-Semitism. Much more than Truman, Nixon embodied an intensely hipocritical nature in his denigrating and eliteist attitude towards the American electorate.
American anti-Semitism is alive and well. One need only listen to Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson or Louis Farrakhan to be assured of such. Pseudo-Christian neo-Nazis do their share of the hating in turn. Nor can significant portions of the American Muslim community be exempted from this reprehensible posture.
Make no mistake, in seeking to preserve the front-runner status it earned during the Holocaust, Europe still continues to clutch at its silver medal despite the MME (Muslim Middle East) having finally snatched the gold from them.
Truman and Nixon were the two greatest friends of the Jews in the entire postwar period: Truman secured them a refuge in the state of Israel, and Nixon saved it from extinction during the Yom Kippur War.
With an even increasing lack of will to defend Israel's anti-terrorist military action, one can only wonder if America will finally reveal itself to merely have been a fair weather friend after all. Let us certainly hope not if we are to have any hope of learning from the one culture that has even the slightest notion of how to deal with Islamic terrorism.
#3
Personally, I'm a lot more concerned with ongoing international delegitimization of Israel (upper classes antisemitism), than with antisemitic jokes by drunks.
This should make the resident monetary policy / economy / stock market types 'round here happy. They love to argue, lol. Rumors fly that President Bush may be willing to raise taxes.
BY LAWRENCE B. LINDSEY
During the recent off-year elections, the president repeatedly pointed to the booming economy and noted that his tax cuts were responsible. With growth strong and unemployment low despite the ending of the stock-market bubble, terrorist attacks and the war in Iraq, he had every reason to be proud. Moreover, both economic theory and the actual timing of the economic revival support his claims regarding the tax cuts.
#1
If W does this, the Pubs will be dead for a generation.
I wonder if this last election was about government competence. I have a growing sense that nothing works the way it should. My wife's green card story was an INS horror show. FEMA and Katrina, Border Enforcement, bridges to nowhere, 50,000 Soddy student visas, VISA Express, Iraqi occupation, CIA and DoS follies, and my personal favorite: TSA that strip searches 90 year old grandmothers will letting young Arab men pass. Many more examples...
I wonder how much gov't incompetence and annoyance the people will tolerate?
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.
As always, there is an element of Monty Pythonesque farce in these imams posturing as holy warriors while being welfare-state spongers, and constantly tripping up in their own lies. Farce, that is, if it were not so deadly serious.
Nacera Berrouba, a young Algerian in Paris, says she couldn't get the job she dreamed of until she dyed her hair blond.
IRAQ STUDY GROUP
