Hi there, !
Today Wed 11/28/2007 Tue 11/27/2007 Mon 11/26/2007 Sun 11/25/2007 Sat 11/24/2007 Fri 11/23/2007 Thu 11/22/2007 Archives
Rantburg
531688 articles and 1855967 comments are archived on Rantburg.

Today: 93 articles and 247 comments as of 10:45.
Post a news link    Post your own article   
Area: WoT Operations    WoT Background    Non-WoT    Local News       
Sharifs reach deal with Perv
Today's Headlines
Headline Comments [Views]
Page 4: Opinion
12 00:00 twobyfour [] 
4 00:00 3dc [] 
1 00:00 Frank G [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
0 [] 
2 00:00 DMFD [] 
2 00:00 Zenster [] 
8 00:00 Besoeker [] 
3 00:00 wxjames [] 
2 00:00 crosspatch [] 
0 [] 
2 00:00 Excalibur [] 
2 00:00 Parabellum [] 
9 00:00 M. Murcek [] 
6 00:00 Anonymoose [] 
4 00:00 Zenster [] 
Page 1: WoT Operations
3 00:00 Zenster [1]
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 g(r)omgoru []
0 []
5 00:00 macofromoc []
2 00:00 Redneck Jim []
0 []
1 00:00 JosephMendiola [1]
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 Old Patriot []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
1 00:00 g(r)omgoru []
4 00:00 Zenster []
0 []
0 []
Page 2: WoT Background
3 00:00 Anonymoose []
1 00:00 Duh! [1]
0 []
1 00:00 JosephMendiola []
3 00:00 Zenster []
8 00:00 Anonymoose []
0 []
2 00:00 ed []
6 00:00 crosspatch []
10 00:00 ed []
14 00:00 SR-71 []
5 00:00 WTF []
2 00:00 Zenster [1]
0 []
4 00:00 Spiny Gl 2511 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
9 00:00 Zhang Fei []
0 []
5 00:00 JosephMendiola []
0 []
0 []
25 00:00 OldSpook []
Page 3: Non-WoT
13 00:00 Steve White [1]
3 00:00 Procopius2k []
4 00:00 Eric Jablow []
1 00:00 twobyfour []
0 []
6 00:00 Deacon Blues []
10 00:00 Bright Pebbles [1]
0 []
4 00:00 Mike N. [1]
1 00:00 crosspatch []
4 00:00 JosephMendiola []
Page 5: Russia-Former Soviet Union
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 Zenster [1]
0 []
0 []
0 []
0 []
2 00:00 Anonymoose [1]
1 00:00 M. Murcek []
1 00:00 Anonymoose []
2 00:00 Zhang Fei []
4 00:00 Bright Pebbles [1]
7 00:00 ed []
2 00:00 McZoid []
7 00:00 mom []
-Short Attention Span Theater-
Forum de Rantburg: Godwin's Law
As I have seen these comparisons come up especially frequently on this discussion blog, often in capital letters but also increasingly by serious people, I wondered whether anyone here was familiar with Godwin's Law, which states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

According to the Wikipedia article, which is linked as the source, this law has become an increasingly ingrained meme in internet culture. An interesting article, with plenty of good links to related articles.

Discuss.
Posted by: trailing daughter #1 || 11/25/2007 18:10 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  I was not aware of Godwin's Law. I really don't see much evidence of this on Rantburg or some other "conservative" or "libertarian" blogs it does sseem to be a feature (bug) of left leaninig blogs.
Posted by: Deacon Blues || 11/25/2007 18:40 Comments || Top||

#2  Only people who are ignorant (inadvertantly or willfully) of the Holocaust would compare anything since that time to the fuehrer or the reich. A pox on them all...
Posted by: M. Murcek || 11/25/2007 18:47 Comments || Top||

#3  Only a Nazi would post this article. ;)
Posted by: Mike N. || 11/25/2007 18:58 Comments || Top||

#4  Sure. Just make clear what we're dealing with. For some the term nazi [note small letters] is simply a pejorative used like the other 'n' word nigger. We can now add the term nativist to the selection too. It's employed as an insult which in many circles is far more acceptable than the other classical 'n' word. The intent is still the same.

However, if you're referring to the National Socialist German Workers Party, or NSDAP, commonly known as the Nazi Party, we're referring to a bunch of thugs who employing the facade of socialism and nationalism to undermine basic human liberties and freedoms to accumulate power all while doing it in the name of the People[tm]. These were socialist of a nationalistic flavor, not to be confused with international socialists like the flavors of communism. They get great recognition due to the mass media of the era who could stereotype [with good reason] them into the classical mold of 'evil' [with nifty uniforms]. Though the historical record is pretty clear their cousins in the international movement, the communists, had a far larger kill count in the 20th Century and much better press and reception in our esteemed institutions of 'higher learning'.
Regardless of the popular press, they were indeed socialist, with a program for the People[tm].

If you're dealing with the left and their patterns of behavior and language manipulation begin to merge, the alignment of goals and means to the real historical 'Nazis' become apparent, then by all means call it for what it is.

If you're referring to those of the right who would promote individual subordination to the state, but who are definitely anti-communist/left, then the appropriate term would be fascist. Something along the line of Franco.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 11/25/2007 19:06 Comments || Top||

#5  It is important to recognize that the Nazis were not an alien force to Germany. That they were truly Germanic in their origins. If you compare fascism between German, Italian and Spanish groups, you see how very different in national character they are.

Hitler, while never popularly elected, was popular as a person. In much the same was as Bill Clinton, people disparaged his behavior, but liked him personally. As a politician, by the standards of the time, but with modern labels, he could be called a feminist, an environmentalist, and a believer in public welfare and health.

As a feminist, he elevated the German Hausfrau from a domestic drudge to an important and honorable role in society. He was opposed to smoking and drinking, and supported physical education, environmental causes, and a healthful diet for all. Even socialist realism art emphasized healthful living and the avoidance of bad habits and condemned art depicting them as decadent itself.

Fascism saw itself as halfway between capitalism and socialism. Government should not nationalize industry, but it should join with it in public-private partnerships, like the Corporation for Public Broadcasting in the US today. Such thinking held considerable interest in the left, around the world and in the US. It was seen as a half step towards socialism, or "moving in the right direction."

At the social level, it has only been recently noted that once the Nazis were in power, they behaved much like socialists, seeing individuality as bad. But the Nazis deferred to group actions, such as large protests, and never interfered with them.

That is, if you individually protested the Nazis, you would be arrested and abused. But if there was a large group of people protesting, the Nazis seemed helpless. They would not interfere, or allow the police to do so either. They were deferring to "the people."

Much of what Hitler did in Germany was very ordinary and typical for politicians anywhere. Again, like Bill Clinton, he spent a great deal of time acting like he was campaigning for an election, even elections had ended and he was in power.

It is quite likely that the future will regard Hitler much like we now regard Napoleon Bonaparte. For 150 years, Napoleon was seen as a tremendously evil, almost anti-Christ figure. But today, we see him as a powerful French leader. In France, he is seen as a national hero. The horrific crimes of his regime and the terrible destruction he caused has been popularly forgotten.

In the future, it will be easy to compare the two, because they had similar ambitions, each for their own country.

And finally, it has been pointed out that the Nazis propaganda machine did not convince the German people to hate the Jews. Many of them already did so. It was preaching to the choir. And were things different, with a fascist regime in Britain, it is not impossible to imagine similar persecution of the Jews there. That is, while officially more liberal, the typical Englishman does not care for Jews, nor has for many centuries.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/25/2007 19:36 Comments || Top||

#6  It is quite likely that the future will regard Hitler much like we now regard Napoleon Bonaparte.

There are many horrid possibilities that might come about.
Posted by: lotp || 11/25/2007 19:48 Comments || Top||

#7  At the social level, it has only been recently noted that once the Nazis were in power, they behaved much like socialists, seeing individuality as bad.

I suggest you read Hayek, "The Road to Serfdom", first published in 1944. It traces the sources of socialism culminating in Germany's National Socialism, and details how it was admired by the elite in England.

BTW, you forgot your sarcasm tags.
Posted by: KBK || 11/25/2007 20:30 Comments || Top||

#8  I don't think he did.
Posted by: Secret Master || 11/25/2007 21:42 Comments || Top||

#9  lotp: There is nothing but some grainy black and white films to teach the horror of Nazism to future generations. Once everyone alive then is dead and gone, the strong need to condemn what the Nazis were will die as well.

One of the last vestiges of Napoleon were insane people in asylums claiming to be him. Then for years, just that was jokingly referred to, a Napoleon complex to denote insanity. But by then, almost no insane people still did that. Napoleon was just a fading memory.

Mel Brooks "The Producers", made in 1968, just 23 years after the end of World War II, depicted how Nazis had lost the strong response of people in America. They *could* be laughed at, without deeply offending everyone. The world was already forgetting them, and getting on with life.

Children in the US no longer learn about World War II except on television. It is only rarely taught in the schools. And, I might point out, that when asked, close to a *majority* of students will identify Vietnam as "America's bloodiest war".

In truth, for all their efforts to appear special, the Nazis weren't. They were incompetent, inefficient, yet were directing a nation that had a lot of resources. Hitler appealed to stupid Germans, no different in their way and time than stupid Democrats in the US today.

The Nazis should have been destroyed, and they were. The only pity is that communism hasn't been destroyed like Nazism was.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/25/2007 22:08 Comments || Top||

#10  To answer your question, TD, yes - many of us have long been familiar with this "law", and it's often used as a handy end to online discussions. Keep in mind the important point of a "comparison" - an historical reference or discussion may be acceptable, and even apt, but the common occurence is simply a slur or smear - i.e. "so and so is a closet Nazi" - and most recently it's a clear indicator of BDS.

As Deacon Blues notes, it's more common on left blogs these days, probably in conjunction with the more common use of profanity there as well, but the left has no monopoly on the technique.

The somewhat milder right-wing version is labelling an opponent a "communist", where the descriptor "socialist" is more accurate (except the factual cases where an interlocutor actually is or was a communist).

Mike Godwin's underlying point was that increasing time and/or participants involved in an online discussion leads to simplistic name-calling - certainly a logical conclusion.
Posted by: Haliburton - Border Control Divison || 11/25/2007 22:26 Comments || Top||

#11  As it was recently hinted (like today) that I must lean communist I must agree.
Posted by: 3dc || 11/25/2007 23:07 Comments || Top||

#12  As it was recently hinted (like today) that I must lean communist I must agree.

Parse error. Does not compute.

:-)
Posted by: twobyfour || 11/25/2007 23:24 Comments || Top||


Photoshop Making The Rounds
(Originally this was captioned "Ismail Haniyeh (R), the Hamas leader dismissed as prime minister by President Mahmoud Abbas, puts a picture of jailed Speaker of Palestinian Parliament Aziz Dweik, next to him as he attends a session of the Palestinian Legislative Council with Hamas lawmakers in Gaza November 7, 2007.")

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket
This would, however, explain some things.
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/25/2007 16:55 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  bob bob bob bob!

Vids ob bob

Slacker!
Posted by: 3dc || 11/25/2007 21:37 Comments || Top||

#2  connie music video - slackers
Posted by: 3dc || 11/25/2007 21:42 Comments || Top||

#3  balad of Bob Dobbs - Church of SubGenuis
Posted by: 3dc || 11/25/2007 21:48 Comments || Top||

#4  Of course the church of the sub genius doesn't appreciate the WoT and does lots of propaganda like this against it link
Posted by: 3dc || 11/25/2007 22:02 Comments || Top||


-Signs, Portents, and the Weather-
U.S. Military wasting all its victories on Notre Dame
Teh Onion. Teh funny.
Posted by: Seafarious || 11/25/2007 00:03 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  ...throwing the military's first victory over Notre Dame since 1963 into stark contrast.
Discounting, of course, the four straight victories by the Falcons over the Irish between 1982 and 1985.
Posted by: GK || 11/25/2007 2:17 Comments || Top||

#2  Jane's Sporting News Heh.

"It's important to realize that our young men have been fighting pitched battles against religious fanatics who have been brainwashed into a culture that seeks to destroy all other ways of life," Air Force head coach Troy Calhoun said Monday. "That's just the way Notre Dame football is, the way it's always been... Heh heh heh.
Posted by: Parabellum || 11/25/2007 8:35 Comments || Top||


Africa Subsaharan
Lost paradise of the big white chief
Ian Smith, who died last week, maintained white rule but became an unlikely hero for the black Zimbabweans suffering under the Mugabe dictatorship

RW Johnson

Ian Smith, the former Rhodesian prime minister, who made his unilateral declaration of independence from Britain in 1965 and fought a bitter rearguard action to prevent black majority rule, never lost the ability to inspire strong emotion. When he died last week, aged 88, he was still hated by many for his unrepentant belief that white rule was better for all races in Rhodesia.

It is quite common to hear him blamed for having created Robert Mugabe and having thus helped to father the human catastrophe of present-day Zimbabwe. Yet the odd truth is that in retirement after 1980, when Mugabe took over, Smith not only did not fade away but grew both in stature and popularity.

As Mugabe’s regime became steeped in blood and violence, Africans of all persuasions flocked to Smith’s house to consult him. The (all black) student body of Zimbabwe University gave him a standing ovation for his ringing condemnation of “the gangsters”, as he always called Mugabe’s corrupt ruling mafia.

Continued on Page 49
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 07:33 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  It's depressing to unlearn things that we learned as children as we grow up.
(1) There is no Santa.
(2) Ain Rand was an anal retentive.
(3) Josef Mccarthy wasn't a fiend in human form.
(4) Ben Gurion screwed up biiiig.
(5) George II is his father's son.
(6) Colonialists weren't so bad.

I could go on, and on, and on....
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 7:55 Comments || Top||

#2  "They shall not grow old,
As we that are left grow old.
Age shall not weary them,
Nor the years condemn.

At the going down of the sun,
And in the morning,
We will remember them.
We will remember them."


Dankie Smithy, and dankie ooks jou ananymous.

Posted by: Besoeker || 11/25/2007 8:11 Comments || Top||

#3  Besoeker, I plan to buy those in a couple months

THE BUSH WAR IN RHODESIA (there was a related dvd named "The Saints", with materials from the time, but it appears to be gone).

FIREFORCE
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 8:20 Comments || Top||

#4  I finished Robb Ellis' "Without Honour" while I was in the ITO. Robb really does explain the futility of western "think." Let me know how your reading goes.
Posted by: Besoeker || 11/25/2007 8:26 Comments || Top||

#5  Paul Themba Nyathi, a leader of the opposition Movement for Democratic Change, who had fought Smith’s regime tooth and nail, told me that in retrospect Smith’s Rhodesia had been “a paradise”.

"We're f*cked"
Posted by: Frank G || 11/25/2007 9:54 Comments || Top||

#6  Nyathi and Smith, of course, had missed a golden opportunity.

I realize there's a crowd here that thinks the old Rhodesia was better than the current day Zimbabwe, and in a number of ways they're right. But one point that should be made: the old Rhodesia denied basic political and human rights to most of the population. That was not just wrong, it was untenable in the modern world.

Smith tried to fix that by installing a puppet black government, but that got no support from the majority population.

Smith then made his big mistake by negotiating with Mugabe.

If he's gone with the other tribes in Rhodesia and set up a true, federal, inclusive government, Mugabe might have been pushed aside. That would have made life today a lot better.
Posted by: Steve White || 11/25/2007 11:49 Comments || Top||

#7  That was not just wrong, it was untenable in the modern world.

Seems to work in Venezuela and many other places. long as the thug is spouting anti-Yankee rhetoric he's the darling of the elites and media who don't give a rat's ass about human rights. Such regimes receive special protection of the League of Thugs UN and the Security Council.

If the people don't eat, if they're not secure in their person, family, or property, the facade of government doesn't make any difference.
Posted by: Procopius2k || 11/25/2007 13:16 Comments || Top||

#8  Posted by: Steve White 2007-11-25 11:49 But one point that should be made: the old Rhodesia denied basic political and human rights to most of the population. That was not just wrong, it was untenable in the modern world.

Steve: Not suggesting any sort of sjambok nostalgia, but nearly from the birth of his nation, Smith was fighting an insurgent war. A communist insurgency hosted by the usual suspects, Russia, Cuba, and every other communist country able to send arms, advisors, and finances. It was an MSM unpublisized conflict, ignored by the west, and fought on all borders resulting in a dreadful list of casualties. In fact, Rhodesia suffered WIA/KIA in proportion to it's population, far greater than the US suffered in Vietnam. The enemy, by the way.... were not disgruntled Swedes or mad Englishmen. The "denial of political and human rights" can often be the product of martial law as a nation struggles to survive. Following Pearl Harbor FDR signed Executive Order 9066, and the Canadian government took similar measures. General Tommy Franks has predicted extreme measures to include martial law, should our country come under attack in the GWOT. Smith was a patriot who did the best he could do with what was available to him. He clearly predicted the outcome we see now and he was saddened by it.
Posted by: Besoeker || 11/25/2007 14:20 Comments || Top||


I'm fit to govern all of Africa, says comrade Zuma.
25 November 2007 07:49. African National Congress (ANC) deputy president Jacob Zuma is "ready" to be the country's president if asked to do so, the Sunday Times quoted him as saying. "If I am asked I will be ready for the task," he told a function for black businessmen in Sandton, Johannesburg, on Friday. In response to a question from a banker he said he was "fit to govern".

At the meeting, Zuma articulated his policy views on a range of issues. He said the country is too soft on crime and that the police are not being paid enough. South Africa needs a ministry of law and order instead of safety and security because "we are not safe". "We need to put in place more laws that are not liberal and user-friendly for criminals," he reportedly said.

Corruption is a "sickness of society" and the government should not be run through patronage. "You cannot run a country by using friends around you ... I wish in the not-too-distant future we can be in a position to deal with these matters head-on ... It [patronage] is corruption."

The government has politicised HIV/Aids instead of dealing with the pandemic. "I feel we could have done more," he said.

The ANC will be united "like never" before, irrespective of who becomes its next leader at the December conference. On the possibility of President Thabo Mbeki serving a third term, he said the matter of leaders overstaying their welcome cannot be ignored. "[Former president Nelson] Mandela did a wonderful thing by stepping down. But we didn't think there was a problem then. If it is left unattended, it will cause unnecessary problems."

Earlier on Friday, Zuma told a meeting at Cape Town's Mitchells Plain that South Africans must speak up if they want the death penalty back. Asked whether he thought it was possible to sway the ANC into a rethink on the death penalty, he said it is an issue that was decided by the Constitutional Court, not the party. However, it is important, if the issue "keeps on coming", to know what South Africans feel about it "so that it can be addressed in the interests of all South Africans".

He told the South African Press Association afterwards that he was not calling for the return of the death penalty, and emphasised again that the outlawing of capital punishment had been a Constitutional Court decision. "What I'm saying [is] if people feel like they are not happy with it, a way should be found," he said. "The people themselves must voice their views about the matter. If the population is not happy, then let the population tell us what needs to be done."
Mind your seat belt if this lad becomes president.
Posted by: Besoeker || 11/25/2007 07:14 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Looking Toward Zimbabwe's Future
By Michelle Gavin
Special to washingtonpost.com's Think Tank Town
This is considered deep thought at the Council on Foreign Relations.
When Zimbabwe became an independent country in 1980, it was a focal point for international optimism about Africa's future. Today, Zimbabwe is a basket case of a country.
There's a reason for that.
Over the past decade, the refusal of President Robert Mugabe and his ruling party to tolerate challenges to their power has led them to systematically dismantle the most effective workings of Zimbabwe's economic and political systems, replacing these with structures of corruption, blatant patronage and repression. The resulting 80 percent unemployment rate, hyperinflation, and severe food, fuel and power shortages have created a national climate of desperation. Estimates suggest that roughly one-quarter of the entire population has fled the country. Meanwhile, the government's violent crackdown on voices of dissent has left the opposition divided and eroded public confidence in the prospects of peaceful political change.

The human rights and humanitarian consequences of these developments have attracted the attention of the United States and others in the international community, as has the potential of the crisis to add Zimbabwe to the roster of the world's dangerously unstable failed states. But years of Western condemnation and targeted sanctions have done little to alter the course or speed of Zimbabwe's decline. The cyclical crackdowns on opposition figures, the anti-climatic regional negotiations, and the ever-shrinking economic figures tend to merge into a drumbeat of hopelessness, and a real danger exists that policymakers fatigued and distracted by other crises will lose enthusiasm for playing an engaged and constructive role in southern Africa's most alarming political crisis.

While it makes sense to keep the pressure on the regime, the United States cannot compel President Mugabe and his loyalists to step aside.
Sure we can. One brigade from the 82nd Airborne and appropriate A-10 coverage could do it. Just saying.
Zimbabweans themselves will ultimately decide, though other Southern African states may well influence, how and when political change will come.

But, as I argue in a new Council Special Report, Planning for Post-Mugabe Zimbabwe, the U.S., working with others, can help to alter the calculus of the Zimbabwean players who can affect change -- at least those players who are not 83 years old and determined to tank their country in a fit of pique. By focusing on the future and putting a serious commitment to Zimbabwe's recovery on the table, we might be able to influence the present.

This means working closely with others in the international community to map out strategies that will help bring essential services back on line and get the economy back on track. It also requires building consensus around governance-related conditions that must be met to set those plans in motion, like respect for basic human rights, an end to the political manipulation of food aid, and amendment or repeal of repressive laws. Finally, this requires marshalling real resources in an international trust fund for Zimbabwe's recovery -- resources that can serve as powerful incentives for potential successors to Mugabe to embrace vital reforms.

A clear plan to link robust recovery assistance to better governance can help Zimbabweans interested in charting a new course to plan their strategy by making it clear just how the spigots of international support can be turned back on. This approach will open up space for a new diplomatic discourse about Zimbabwe's potentially prosperous future, rather than simply the prickly present. Such a plan would also lay the groundwork for a sound reconstruction investment, because just as bad governance led to today's economic catastrophe, sound governance will make or break recovery.


The United States can also seize on the opportunity presented by change in Zimbabwe to enter a new phase of cooperation with Southern Africa, and particularly with South Africa -- a country where the U.S. has quite a lot at stake. By engaging in detailed consultations with Southern Africans now and by linking a commitment to Zimbabwe's recovery with a commitment to regional infrastructure investments like improving southern Africa's rail links, the U.S. may be able to remove Zimbabwe from the list of irritants in the U.S.-South African bilateral relationship to the list of issues on which the United States and South Africa are genuinely invested in each other's success.

Zimbabwe, with its powerful history of race-based oppression, tremendous human capital, and compelling roster of patriots who have worked tirelessly and at great personal risk to resist oppression, could be as inspiring tomorrow as it is depressing today. To be effective in helping to turn the country around, the U.S. must work with others in the international community rather than going it alone, and must be willing to commit meaningful resources to the country. That's a tall diplomatic order, and it will take a committed team of senior leaders in Washington working with energized diplomats on the ground and a Congress willing to invest in Zimbabwe's future to fill it.

The author is an overpaid International Affairs Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.
Posted by: Fred || 11/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  By engaging in detailed consultations with Southern Africans now and by linking a commitment to Zimbabwe's recovery with a commitment to regional infrastructure investments like improving southern Africa's rail links

Foreign Aid and Railroads.... I just knew that had to be the answer. I wonder if she knows who built the rail structure in that part of the world to start with?
Posted by: Besoeker || 11/25/2007 1:00 Comments || Top||

#2  Decodes to, let's throw money at them. Actually, were the policy to throw money at the opposition then I would support it. It's a policy that might actually work.
Posted by: phil_b || 11/25/2007 1:30 Comments || Top||

#3  Hurray, we've another money making scheme.
Posted by: Ban-Ki Moon || 11/25/2007 7:35 Comments || Top||

#4  That's a tall diplomatic order, and it will take a committed team of senior leaders in Washington working with energized diplomats on the ground and a Congress willing to invest in Zimbabwe's future to fill it.

You jest of course. What compelling diplomatic, political or economic reason does the USA have for any interest in Zimbabwe? These arguments are irrational and contradictory to our own national interest. This is the most bankrupt of all nations that once were seen as the model of African economic success and the breadbasket of sub-Saharan Africa. Now it is no more than a savaged waste-land of empty shelves and moldy currency. Good luck convincing even Obama to get involved. Zimbabwe today makes Somolia and Darfur look like Hollywood and Vine.

Posted by: Jack is Back! || 11/25/2007 9:22 Comments || Top||

#5  Cause we all know how effective the Washington and international diplo's were in resolving the problems in Haiti.

Notice all the whiners about 'progress' in Iraq, sorta skip over that Clinton adventure?
Posted by: Procopius2k || 11/25/2007 13:20 Comments || Top||

#6  Don't throw money at the opposition. Throw guns.

Specifically several thousand inexpensive Chinese AK-47 knockoffs with a couple hundred rounds with each MG. Maybe a hundred RPG-7s, with three hundred rockets, as well.

"You want to get rid of Bob? You do it. These are all the tools you need to free your country."
Posted by: Anonymoose || 11/25/2007 19:42 Comments || Top||


Arabia
Saudi rape stirs social revolution
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 08:02 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The continued silence of American so-called Feminists has been deafening.
Posted by: doc || 11/25/2007 13:54 Comments || Top||

#2  The continued silence of the left has been deafening.

Fixed it for ya.
Posted by: DMFD || 11/25/2007 19:51 Comments || Top||


Europe
How condescension benefits terrorism
If European Muslims are treated like children, is it surprising that some should act so irrationally?
Posted by: ryuge || 11/25/2007 06:25 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  Ye, sure---it's all the West's fault.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 7:36 Comments || Top||

#2  Actually, I believe it is the West's fault. It is our fault for not annihilating these goat-raping primitives in 1979 let alone on September 12, 2001. We pay for the jihad against us every time we fill up on a tank of gas from the oilfields we gave them.

This conflict could be over later this afternoon if we had one leader with the will to finish it. We don't.
Posted by: Excalibur || 11/25/2007 10:40 Comments || Top||


Home Front: Politix
More ron paul buffoonery : Jews for Ron Paul Exposed as a Fraud!
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 14:01 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  The real Jim C. Perry though is not an Orthodox Jew, though he makes a point of dressing up like one until he's virtually a cartoon. He's gay and is currently married to a gay man and a self-identified Churchgoing Unitarian Universalist. Here he identifies himself as a Seminarian. He has another account where he calls himself Reverend Jim C. Perry H.P., M.D.A. (he also claimed to have a doctorate in English which he apparently modestly left off here all at the tender age of 22) and a Pagan Minister. Briefly he appears to have gone Ward Churchill and began calling himself Jim FlyingEagle. (He may have also used James L. Rush and posted at Cherokee Pride as James L. Rushing River pretending to be Cherokee)

Now Jim C. Perry, Gay Pagan Unitarian Minister (possibly also Cherokee and Mormon), thanks to a few photos in costume, is being passed off as an Orthodox


well, he could be sincere... but I doubt it. Ron
Paul supporters will eventually get back on their meds and back in the shadows of society. Otherwise we'll beat them to death. *JK*
Posted by: Frank G || 11/25/2007 18:22 Comments || Top||


Mark Steyn: GOP looks like the party of diverse ideas
Posted by: Beavis || 11/25/2007 12:29 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


India-Pakistan
The Eagle has landed again and again and …
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 11:38 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:


Israel-Palestine-Jordan
Towards Annapolis: Is U.S. Policy Changing
After being sworn into office in 2001, the Bush administration informed the Israeli government that the Clinton proposals "were off the table." The Bush Letter of April 14, 2004, received by Israel as a quid pro quo for the Gaza Disengagement, introduced new elements into the Israeli-Palestinian peace process that completely superseded the Clinton proposals.

Prime Minister Sharon explained the significance of the Bush Letter to the Knesset on April 22, 2004: "There is American recognition that in any permanent status arrangement, there will be no return to the ‘67 borders. This recognition is to be expressed in two ways: understanding that the facts that have been established in the large settlement blocs are such that they do not permit a withdrawal to the ‘67 borders and implementation of the term ‘defensible borders.'"

There is a serious question about the exact standing of the Bush Letter on the eve of Annapolis. Secretary of State Rice stated on November 13, 2007: "I believe that most Israelis are ready to leave most of the - nearly all of the West Bank, just as they were ready to leave Gaza for the sake of peace." Yet all serious public opinion polls actually show strong Israeli support for retaining strategic areas of the West Bank, like the Jordan Valley.

It has been frequently stated, particularly in Washington, that, "We all know what the final outcome of an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement will look like," an assertion usually followed by some reference to the Clinton proposals and the talks at Taba. Such statements try to introduce inevitability into the expected parameters of a peace settlement, even though they are based on a whole series of failed negotiating attempts seven years ago that cannot possibly bind the State of Israel, and completely ignore the fact of opposition by the General Staff of the Israel Defense Forces to the Clinton proposals as endangering Israel's security.

It is critical for Israeli diplomacy to protect the Bush Letter against those who seek to undercut and replace it with a new set of Israeli-Palestinian documents. Israelis have learned from their experience with Gaza what can happen to their most vital security interests if they are not safeguarded at the same time that far-reaching territorial concessions are made.
Long, rest at the link
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 08:58 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under: Palestinian Authority


Olde Tyme Religion
Islam, Slavery and Rape
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 07:30 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  A voice shouting in the desert.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 7:45 Comments || Top||

#2  Islam, Slavery and Rape

Triple redundancy. Next?
Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 16:05 Comments || Top||

#3  You think, after all this time, we are finally going to address the relationship of Islam and all the satanic activity a human is capable of as recorded in the Koran ad nauseum ?
I doubt it. But really, this article should be run and rerun day after day until everyone has had a chance to memorize it. Not only here, EVERYWHERE.
Posted by: wxjames || 11/25/2007 17:43 Comments || Top||


Should Muslims integrate into the West?
Posted by: lotp || 11/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  No.

Read the Koran. They integrate if it is a step towards eventual conquering of those societies for Allah.
Posted by: wh || 11/25/2007 0:15 Comments || Top||

#2  Should Muslims infiltrate into the West?

Not if we can help it
Posted by: Kofi Unavilet8503 || 11/25/2007 2:43 Comments || Top||

#3  Only apostates integrate. Any questions?
Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 2:46 Comments || Top||

#4  Islam isn't only one of many religions. It is an imperialist and totalitarian ideology, that was designed to enslave humanity in the name of a non-existant god. It has advanced only by conquest and surrender; every single indulgence of Muslim immigration is piecemeal retreat. When they have the numbers, conquest will be wholesale.
Posted by: McZoid || 11/25/2007 5:16 Comments || Top||

#5  Only as if necessary. And then for only as long as necessary.
Posted by: gorb || 11/25/2007 5:24 Comments || Top||

#6  Yes, if they can.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 7:33 Comments || Top||

#7  Integrate, no, ASSIMILATE, yes, that is, renounce (most of) their own identity, and adopt the one of their new home, even if it's painful... and even then, not in a sufficient number to change for good the ethnic composition of the host Nation. Of course, those two requirements are years-light apart from what is happening, in fact, that's the absolute reverse, the host Nations are commanded by the dominating ideology to assimilate themselves to the migrants, and their very identity, cultural and ethnic, are changing, for the worst.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 7:46 Comments || Top||

#8  Islam isn't only one of many religions.

Even the article admits that Islam isn't a religion. To wit:

For mainstream Muslim jurists, Islam is not a culture, a religion, or a tradition, but rather an alternative type of nationality which claims jurisdiction over all aspects of human activities. A Muslim can also be a citizen of a Western nation state, yet the Western nation state is tolerated only because it is bound to dissolve and because its weaknesses may be of use to the Muslim cause.

While this article goes on to modify the above statement, I'll let you guess which view is held by the majority of clerics. That "mainstream Muslim jurists" regard Islam as some sort of "alternative type of nationality" only confirms the notion that it is a political ideology and has little, if anything, to do with religion.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 13:05 Comments || Top||

#9  Yeah, integrate 'em into cemetery plots...
Posted by: M. Murcek || 11/25/2007 18:53 Comments || Top||


Soddies get up British priest's nose - His reply; "Piss Off" (Video)
Posted by: GolfBravoUSMC || 11/25/2007 00:00 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  If your buffering is screwed up by the subtitles, please try this link.



Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 2:39 Comments || Top||

#2  Pat Condell is always great. But "British priest"? He's a pretty vehement atheist.
Posted by: Jeff || 11/25/2007 6:37 Comments || Top||

#3  Bravo.. insightfully nails the Saudis and their pissed up religion yet in turn, he informs with a very good spirit..

as opposed to the all to usual, brow beat on this topic.
Posted by: Red Dawg || 11/25/2007 7:11 Comments || Top||

#4  I took the time to review many of Condell's videos last night and was disappointed to see how mercilessly he bashes Christianity. While he does, indeed, reserve his most scornful criticism for radical Islam, nowhere does he indicate any realization that the world's population of "moderate" Muslims ranks with that of the unicorn.

His suggestion that Israel gain world approbation by surrendering Jerusalem to the Arabs is facile at best. As an athiest, he is wholly entitled to slam religion full force. I'll grant that he does give due measure to the actual words of Jesus but just as frequently—and not without cause—uses them to lambaste most Christians on the spot. It would seem as if he subscribes to Nitchze's view that, "The last true Christian died on the cross."

I also consider him as being far too hasty to bash American intervention in Iraq and the MME (Muslim Middle East), solely as imperialist venturism and not any legitimate effort to eliminate oppressive regimes or—at the very least—mitigate Islamic terrorism. To be sure, the man is exceptionally articulate and has a very wicked sense of humor. I just think his formidable talents would be better off directed at—what is currently—the more significant threat of Islamic theocracy and its terrorist handmaidens.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 13:52 Comments || Top||


Syria-Lebanon-Iran
Iran's secret Syrian plan
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 07:29 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under: Govt of Iran

#1  I suppose people have to earn a living---even "ME experts" have to eat. I'm just soooooo tired of all these speculative articles by people who don't actually have anything to say on the subject.
Posted by: g(r)omgoru || 11/25/2007 7:43 Comments || Top||

#2  There is one and only one indicator needed to see Iran's real plan for Syria. They are "converting" Syrian families to Shiia Islam and paying them something like $10,000 per family to convert. They have a long term plan, alright, and that is to create another Shiite country in the ME with Iran as the Theological center of that universe. Basically they want to build a virtual Caliphate with Iran as the seat of the Caliph.
Posted by: crosspatch || 11/25/2007 14:09 Comments || Top||


Terror Networks
Arabs' wilful neglect deepens Israeli misery
WHEN the US intervened in 1999 to stop the mass murder of a Muslim minority by Slobodan Milosevic, it was savagely criticised by a Europe desperate to distance itself from the action.
Even though they were unable to solve the problem themselves.
Eight years later, the US is being savaged for a perceived lack of engagement in the Arab-Israeli conflict.

It is becoming increasingly de rigueur around the world and, for that matter, in certain segments of the Democratic Party, to place responsibility for all international crises on the US Government.

When it comes to the Arab-Israeli conflict, it has attained the level of high fashion to ascribe the persistent absence of peace to a lack of adequate US "engagement" in resolving it.

If the administration of President George W. Bush were truly engaged, the argument goes, the chances for Middle East peace would be greatly improved. Next week's meeting in Annapolis, Maryland, between Israel and Arab representatives has the look and feel of more of the same. The State Department has sent out formal invitations to the event, but it remains unclear who will attend besides Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

If history is any guide, the meeting will yield unsatisfactory results, Israel will be blamed for failing to make the requisite concessions and the Bush administration will be criticised for its "failure to engage".

This analysis, simple and neat, and for so many so satisfying, would seem at odds with the historical record.

The problem is that all too often, those who blame the US for failing to deliver Mid-East peace are some of the world's most culpable enablers of Mid-East violence -- and those who are themselves actually responsible for erecting the fundamental roadblocks to a resolution of the conflict. This is so obvious as to almost go without saying -- except that the penchant for placing the blame on the US is so widespread and so addictive that it goes largely unsaid.

It was the Arab bloc, including the Palestinian leadership, that decided to reject the UN's 1947 partition of Palestine into two states, Arab and Jewish, living side by side. Instead, it invaded the nascent Jewish state rather than choosing to co-exist with it, spawning the conflict that has so burdened the world for the past 60 years.

This was not a decision made by the US.

The US is also not responsible for the Arab world's choice not to create a Palestinian Arab state in East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank from 1948 to 1967, when it easily could have done so -- before there were any Jewish settlements there to serve as the public object of Arab grievance.

It was not the US whose leaders rejected peace with Israel, negotiation with Israel and recognition of Israel in 1967.

Nor can the Clinton government be criticised for failing to pursue Yasser Arafat with sufficient solicitude between 1993 and late 2000. The Clinton administration was, after all, the most ardent of suitors of the Palestinian leader -- only to be forced to watch Arafat reject an independent Palestinian state in all of Gaza and virtually all of the West Bank.

It was the Palestinian leadership, not the US, that decided in 2000 that, rather than accept an independent Palestinian state, its wiser course was to launch a four-year bombing campaign against Israel's civilian population. This particular decision has also resulted in suffering throughout the region, and instability beyond -- but it was a course of action chosen and implemented by the Palestinians and publicly supported by Arab states, not by the US.

When Israel withdrew from all of Gaza in 2005, the Arab world had the opportunity for a fresh start there.

Instead of taking advantage of the opportunity, the Hamas-dominated Palestinian leadership opted to begin and then intensify a missile-launching campaign against Israeli civilian centres. This choice led to Hamas's international isolation, and conditions in Gaza have grown steadily worse for Palestinians there.

For its part, the Arab world has stood by and permitted this to occur, and has once again remained unwilling to place the welfare of Palestinians ahead of its desire to stir opposition to Israel.

However significant the role of the US is in nurturing political settlements of international disputes, it simply cannot prevent the Palestinian leadership and itsArab backers from making extraordinarily poor choices or, in Clinton's parlance, "tragic mistakes". There is a marked tendency on the part of most of the world to cite the Bush administration's lack of engagement as the principal stumbling block to peace.

It isn't.

As for the Arab world, there is an even more pronounced habit of fingering the US as the party that has the means at its disposal to bring about a Middle Eastern settlement, or at least conditions favourable to a settlement.

If the past is any indication, the US does not ultimately possess those means. The Arab world does.

Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries, whose treasuries overflow with petrodollars, are in a position to invest heavily in the Gaza Strip, create economic opportunities for its destitute population and dilute the toxin-filled atmosphere there.

They have not done so.
And won't, most probably, because they're not interested in the so-called "palestinian people", only in what this tool can do to further their aims.

Egypt could stop the flow of rockets and bombs into Gaza, where they are used to attack Israeli civilians. They have not done so.

Europe and Russia, whose lucrative contracts with Iran provide them with such enviable revenues, have been in a position to pressure Tehran into stopping the funding of Hezbollah, which assaults Israel from Lebanon, and Hamas, which assaults Israel from Gaza. They have not done so.

Under the circumstances, one might imagine that those in a position to improve the situation in the Middle East -- but who have chosen by their inaction to worsen it -- might feel sheepish about placing the onus for the absence of Middle East peace on the US.

The only thing in shorter supply than sheepishness when it comes to the Middle East, however, is helpfulness. As far as helpfulness is concerned, it is past time for those who complain most about the lack of American engagement to begin providing some.
Posted by: anonymous5089 || 11/25/2007 07:53 || Comments || Link || [0 views] Top|| File under:

#1  [Mike Sylwester has been pooplisted.]
Posted by: Mike Sylwester || 11/25/2007 9:28 Comments || Top||

#2  The problem is that all too often, those who blame the US for failing to deliver Mid-East peace are some of the world's most culpable enablers of Mid-East violence -- and those who are themselves actually responsible for erecting the fundamental roadblocks to a resolution of the conflict.

Progress will be made only after these obstructive actors have been sufficiently maimed—both militarily and economically—whereby their interference is no longer possible. Nothing less will stop such enablers of terrorism.
Posted by: Zenster || 11/25/2007 14:57 Comments || Top||



Who's in the News
54[untagged]
7Global Jihad
5Hamas
3al-Qaeda in Iraq
3Govt of Pakistan
3Taliban
2Iraqi Insurgency
2TNSM
2Mahdi Army
2Govt of Iran
1Palestinian Authority
1PFLP
1Thai Insurgency
1Hezbollah
1Fatah al-Islam
1Govt of Sudan
1Govt of Syria
1al-Qaeda
1Chechen Republic of Ichkeria
1HUJI

Bookmark
E-Mail Me

The Classics
The O Club
Rantburg Store
The Bloids
The Never-ending Story
Thugburg
Gulf War I
The Way We Were
Bio

Merry-Go-Blog











On Sale now!


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.
Click here for more information

Meet the Mods
In no particular order...
Steve White
Seafarious
tu3031
badanov
sherry
ryuge
GolfBravoUSMC
Bright Pebbles
trailing wife
Gloria
Fred
Besoeker
Glenmore
Frank G
3dc
Skidmark

Two weeks of WOT
Sun 2007-11-25
  Sharifs reach deal with Perv
Sat 2007-11-24
  Tanks deployed in Beirut to prevent possible violence
Fri 2007-11-23
  Lahoud stepping down at midnight
Thu 2007-11-22
  Iraqi Security Forces detain 81 suspected extremists
Wed 2007-11-21
  Berri postpones Lebanon presidential vote for fourth time
Tue 2007-11-20
  Israel to free 441 Palestinian prisoners
Mon 2007-11-19
  Israel agrees to return 20,000 Palestinian refugees
Sun 2007-11-18
  Negroponte meets with Perv
Sat 2007-11-17
  40 militants killed as gunships pound Swat and Shangla
Fri 2007-11-16
  Philippines reaches deal with MILF
Thu 2007-11-15
  Morticia Hopes to Form Nat'l Unity Gov't
Wed 2007-11-14
  TNSM spreads outside Swat
Tue 2007-11-13
  Blasts rips through Philippines Congress building
Mon 2007-11-12
  Seven dead at festivities honoring Yasser
Sun 2007-11-11
  Thousands flee Mogadishu, over 80 killed

Better than the average link...



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.
3.237.31.131
Help keep the Burg running! Paypal:
WoT Operations (23)    WoT Background (27)    Non-WoT (11)    Local News (15)    (0)