24 Comments

1. ic:

What are you talking about? Everybody in the sophisticated world knows that Bush is the greatest threat to humanity.

Jan 5, 2006 - 6:24 pm 2. ras:

One needs to ask why liberals want to believein their fantasies so much. Seriously, they cannot be that stupid, no one can. So they must emotionally need to believe as they do.

The most consistent correlation that I see is one of their favoring a stable hierarchy. Apparently, the pressure of a meritocracy is more than they can handle – they might be passed! – so they demand rights and social status based on immutable characteristics such as race and gender instead.

Jan 5, 2006 - 6:41 pm 3. Yehudit:

Headed back? Headed back? It’s been Fitzi-Contini time on the Upper West Side since 1967.

Jan 5, 2006 - 8:06 pm 4. heather:

As Mark Steyn has noticed, in his latest jeremaiad, that between 1914 and 1919, the Russian, Ottoman and AustroHungarian Empires had disappeared. If you get a chance, look at one of those old newreels of Queen Victoria’s funeral: line upon line of aristocratic people who then, RAN THE WORLD.

In 1939, the most important world players were the British Empire, the Soviets, the German Empire and the Japanese Empire, with the USA sitting it all out in haughty isolation. In 1945, the only TWO WORLD POWERS were the USSR and the USA.

The USSR kept the old Austro Hungarian frozen for some 50 years… and after 1989, there was Czechoslovakia, and then suddenly Czech Republic AND Slovakia and Estonia and Poland and Croatia and Slovenia and Germany (whole, undivided and much chastened), etc.

The present war in Iraq is a continuation of “Picking up the Pieces” of the old Ottoman Empire.

And then, we have Israel… a tear in Herzl’s eye, as he watched the crowds yell “Death to the Jew”… to a most important player IN ITS OWN RIGHT (I think Israel made a very great mistake to ask the UN for the thumbs up back in 1948, by the way; winning the war over that gravel heap was actually, in the real world, sufficient.)

Despite our wealth and “plans”, quite suddenly, things can happen. History happens. And it can happen to me and it can happen to you. Even if we don’t want it to. It may be gradual, or sudden, but it will happen, nonetheless.

One interesting element in our present pickle: the very striking intelligence and competence of the US Military, and the great probability that it will be extremely active for a number of years… and the sheer idiocy and foolishness of the current “elites.” I wonder if a civilian controlled government can survive… but what do I know?

Jan 5, 2006 - 8:16 pm 5. pastorius:

Roger,

I don’t think it is a racist idea that the Arab world is backward. The UN itself, commissioned a report a couple years ago which stated that very fact. And, for instance, they backed it up by showing that the entire Arab world had only aquired something in the range of 100 patents during the 1990’s, while just South Korea had aquired 16,000 patents in the year of 1999.

So, is that racist?

The Arab world is backward, and much of it is primitive, and it is because they are a people enslaved by the chains of Jihadi fascism.

Jan 5, 2006 - 8:53 pm 6. chuck:

After all, we are so well-armed, so modern. And they are so primitive, so Third World. What a racist conception that is.

Our arms are useless if people feel there is nothing worth defending. When there is no will to survive, weapons are just an expensive extravagence. I can almost see the US coming apart into those who believe in the country, and those who no longer feel they belong. Now *that* would be a shock to the illusion of permanence.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:20 pm 7. Sandy P:

Aren’t there encouraging signs in Iran?

More strikes?

More people willing to take on the Rev Guard?

We’re sending advanced planes near Cuba to beam radio news.

We should be doing the same in Iran, we’re on 2 of their borders.

Guns and bombs would also be helpful, maybe w/russian/frog labels?

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:20 pm 8. lindenen:

Pastorius, I think you misunderstood Roger’s remark.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:25 pm 9. Shochu John:

Roger says,

“Of course, the CW is that these people cannot possibly touch us. After all, we are so well-armed, so modern. And they are so primitive, so Third World. What a racist conception that is.”

Nonsense. It would be racist to suggest that Arabs or Iranians or whoever are genetically predisposed to a primitive state of being. It is not at all racist to note that those that a given group currently is not capable of posing a real threat to the United States give its circumstances.

Also, before people go off the deep end comparing our world to a late 1930’s world but with Islamism as our fascism, I would strongly encourage some perspective be kept. In the late 1930’s, fascists controlled several world powers, including arguably the most technologically advanced country at the time, Germany. Contrast this to the present. The al Qaeda Sunni Islamist types control preisely no country. The Saudis often make nice with them, but that’s as close as they get. On September 11, 2001, they pulled off what was considered a spectacular attack, killing a whopping 0.001% of the U.S. population and wrecking some very nice buildings. The actual material damage to the United States was negligible. The real damage came because everyone freaked out. That’s why it’s called terrorism. The object is to make a relatively small event as damaging as possible to the psyche of the target people. By inflating these fringe Allahu Akhbars to giant size with these inane runup-to-WWII analogies, you advance their cause. Why do it? Deal with them as they are and you will find it much more effective. Coversely, deal with them as you would Nazi Germany (i.e. with large armies bluntly applying force) and you will hand them victory after victory.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:26 pm 10. Rick Ballard:

If the US were at the same stage of decline as Europe I suppose that there would be cause for concern. We are not, outside of the sophists masquerading as sophisticates who constitute perhaps 14% of the population while generating 45% of the noise. Iran is not an intractable problem. I do not expect this President to allow this problem to be handled by an untested successor.

I can’t guess what shape the ultimatum will take but I don’t doubt at all that one either has been or is being formulated. Iran will not respond adequately in any event and we will see an air campaign similiar to the one that brought down Milosivic. A sixty day campaign will give a ten year breathing space for the Iranian freedom talkers to work up the courage to actually fight for that which they call upon the US to deliver to them on a silver platter.

The time for talking is over.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:39 pm 11. pastorius:

Lindenen,

If I misunderstood, I am sorry, and embarrassed, but apparently, Shochu John misunderstood in the same way as I did. Maybe, Roger could clarify. Or maybe, you could help me, because I don’t understand that “racist” comment Roger made.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:42 pm 12. pastorius:

Now,

Schochu John, I think your comment about the magnitude of 9/11 is profoundly ignorant.

Consider Pearl Harbor, which, of course, was the beginning of WWII. Less people died in the Pearl Harbor attacks, and Hawaii was not even a state at the time.

The fact that the Twin Towers fell may have seemed merely spectacular to you, but the thing is, if they had been hit just two hours later, it is likely that tens of thousands of people would have been dead.

Everyone “freaked out,” huh?

The message of 9/11 is that the Jihadis will do whatever they can to kill as many of us as is possible.

Iran, with nukes is a much more powerful state than Germany ever was.

Jeez, dude, check your assumptions.

Jan 5, 2006 - 9:47 pm 13. Shochu John:

Well pastorius,

The fact of the matter is that in sharp contrast to 9.11, our attacker in Pearl Harbor had a rather sizeable military that controlled much of east Asia, and they had an ally that was busy marching all over Europe. Al Qaeda controls what exactly?

Everyone did, in fact, freak out after 9.11, and a lot of people continue their freak out to this day. You are correct the jihadis did want to send the message they will do whetver they can to kill as many of us as possible. The point is they can’t really do all that much.

Also, the Sunni al Qaeda types and Iran are not the same adversary. You’d be well to remember that. Nowhere is the distinction more clear than in Iraq where us and the Iranians have the same allies (SCIRI et al) and we are fighting the Sunni fundies. Anyway, relatively speaking Iran with nukes is still not all that powerful. If you’d transplanted Iran with nukes back to 1943, they’d be powerful indeed, but now lots of people have nukes, which is why nobody uses them anymore.

So, basically, this isn’t the cold war in which our enemy could kill virtually every last one of us with the touch of a button. This isn’t WWII in which our enemy controlled major powers and were conquering everything in sight. So I would advise you to check your own assumptions and keep some historical perspective.

Jan 5, 2006 - 10:13 pm 14. Terrye:

Sochu John:

Yet. They do not have the capacity yet.

That is why the confluence of wmd and rogue states who support terrorists is so deadly.

Here of late however, the Iranians seem to be scaring even the Europeans so perhaps there will be a change in attitudes.

I have to admit when the most recent mad Mullah accused the Europeans of ethnic cleansing in driving the Jews to the Middle East in the first place I kind of got a strange feeling of perverse satisfaction. So much for sucking up to the Jihad.

Jan 6, 2006 - 3:08 am 15. David Thomson:

ìAlso, the Sunni al Qaeda types and Iran are not the same adversary.î

Nothing could be further from the truth. Both are true believing nihilists. this is all that matters. Only death and destruction satisfies their existential cravings. The Russian Communists were often nothing more than cynical fascists. They had every intention of living the good life. They enjoyed the best vodka and their beautiful dachas outside of Moscow. Their children were not going to be raised to eventually become suicide bombers.

Jan 6, 2006 - 6:08 am 16. Sandy P:

–If you’d transplanted Iran with nukes back to 1943, they’d be powerful indeed, but now lots of people have nukes, which is why nobody uses them anymore.–

And the bolshies would never align w/the nazis, what was Chamberain’s response when told again?

The commies had a domination wish, not a domination w/hundreds of millions expendable

martyr bantha poodu 72 raisin afterlife orders-from-allan mandate.

But then, if JFK didn’t blink in 62 – who knows what the commies would have done? We know what Castro urged them to do, then they realized they had a loose cannon.

You are applying semi-rational western, civilized thought/hope to a cult which is neither western, civilized nor (semi-) rational.

Jan 6, 2006 - 8:57 am 17. pastorius:

Schochu John,

I am aware of the fact that the Sunnis and Shiites do not, generally, get along. However, I am also aware of the fact that, generally, they are united in their hatred of us.

Do you disagree with that?

Another thing to think about is the fact that, while we were locked in our Cold War stalemate, we were not so confident of the logic of Mutual Assured Destruction. We did not necessarily go to bed all comfy, believing there was no chance the Soviet Union would go Armageddon on us.

And now, we can not be sure that Iran, or Al Qaeda would not use nuclear weapons.

In fact, Iranian mullahs have specifically threatened that they will use a nuke against Israel, and Bin Laden sought and received a Fatwa to kill two million Americans.

How do you think he plans on killing so many people?

Jan 6, 2006 - 9:34 am 18. David Thomson:

Alas, it behooves me to pretend that Iím a second rate Jeanne Kirkpatrick imitator. We must be very careful to distinguish between totalitarian nihilists and mere fascists. The latter often just wants to organize a few parades, make some dumb speeches, and then go out and get drunk. They have no particular interest in dying, or living in poverty merely to advance ìthe cause.î Todayís islamic crazies are nihilists. These folks eagerly seek their own deaths. This world is deemed a vile and disgusting place—and 72 sexy virgins are waiting for them in the next.

I also might as well refer to the comments of another female political figure, Golda Meir. She reportedly asserted that peace will only come when the Arabs love their children more than they hate the Israeli Jews. I will dare to say that the same holds true for the Islamic nihilists regarding the whole Western world. They hate us more than they love their own children.

Jan 6, 2006 - 9:36 am 19. Shochu John:

Hello again everyone. There are some new points I would like to address. First, Terrye says, ìYet. They do not have the capacity yet. That is why the confluence of wmd and rogue states who support terrorists is so deadly.î

I am certainly not denying that rogue states and terrorism are a bad combination. This is what made the invasion of Afghanistan necessary. However, this focus purely on the rogue state angle seems to me a product of wishful thinking. That is, our military knows how to conduct state to state, army to army warfare, and is very good at it. The more we focus on states, the more we get to play to our strengths. This is part of what made the Iraq adventure so appealing to many people. They got to thinking they were combating terrorism and could do so by doing what America does best, spending about a week rolling up some backwater army. Unfortunately, actually combating terrorism is not given to such clean brute force solutions, as we have been learning in Iraq for the past couple of years.

Mr. Thomson says, disagreeing with my point that the Iranians and the al Qaeda types are different, ìNothing could be further from the truth. Both are true believing nihilists. this is all that matters. Only death and destruction satisfies their existential cravings.î

Now Mr. Thomson, while it may be comforting to paint all your adversaries as caricatures of evil, it manages to utterly miss the point. They are two different groups and that is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to anything they say or how they behave. Iranian Intelligence was helping us out during the Afghan war. After all, why would they cooperate with people who think theyíre infidels and would not have a second thought about wiping them off the face of the earth? And of course, there is the Iraq example I cited previously. A lot of people like to ignore the fact that we have the same allies in Iraq as the Iranians do. I think it upsets their neatly bipolar worldview.

SandyP, challenging my thoughts on the possibility of stability through mutual assured destruction with a nuclear Iran writes (of the Iranians), ìYou are applying semi-rational western, civilized thought/hope to a cult which is neither western, civilized nor (semi-) rational.î

While I certainly have no great faith in the rationality of religious fundamentalists of any stripe, I do not think Iranís behavior with respect to the nuclear question so far has been particularly irrational. If one is the only nuclear-free and as yet uninvaded member of the “Axis of Evil,” one is not behaving inrrationally by seeking out a nuclear capability for defensive reasons. This is especially so when the US has already the invaded countries on either side. And while we’re on the subject of irrational behavior, it’s not as though the neocon types have changed their minds about the desirability of invading Iran.

Also, while we are postulating here that Iran is going after nuclear weapons, I will also add that the official Iranian story of wanting nuclear power for energy reasons is also plausible simply because it makes a lot of sense. It is true that Iran is swimming in oil, but they would rather be swimming in money, and the less oil they use at home, the more they can sell. They may very well have weapons as an underlying motive, but the cover story checks out, and didn’t we learn something about the wisdom of always leaping to the worst possible conclusion in Iraq?

Iíll take the opportunity to cut myself off at this point in case someone else wants to get a post in edgewise. Have a good weekend, all.

Jan 6, 2006 - 7:45 pm 20. David Thomson:

“Now Mr. Thomson, while it may be comforting to paint all your adversaries as caricatures of evil, it manages to utterly miss the point. They are two different groups and that is clear to anyone who has been paying attention to anything they say or how they behave.”

Many Iranians are indeed pro American. In many respects, much of the countryís religious leadership seems more fascist than nihilistic. However, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems to share the mindset of Al Quaeda. He is the dude with the ability to bring about Armageddon. That is the point we must focus on. It matters little if possibly even 90% of the Iranian population desires peace if Ahmadinejad has his finger on the button—which can launch a nuclear weapon.

Jan 6, 2006 - 8:24 pm 21. David Thomson:

ìI will also add that the official Iranian story of wanting nuclear power for energy reasons is also plausible simply because it makes a lot of sense.î

It would be imprudent to base our policies on the outside possibility that Iran is only interested in the peaceful use of nuclear energy. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a likely nihilist who explicitly threatens the West. There was also once upon a time some guy named Adolph Hitler who wrote Mein Kampf wherein he clearly outlined his plans for the holocaust and world domination. Useful idiots throughout the world dismissed his rants as mere political hyperbole. Letís not make that mistake again.

Jan 7, 2006 - 4:52 am 22. markus:

I’m sick of this tough trash talk against “Hitler/al Qaeda/Islamic fascism/Iran”, as Shrinkwrapped puts it. If in fact the idea of the “good Muslim” is as irrelevent in 2006 as the idea of the “good German” was in 1938 — well then, stop talking about “doing something” and criticizing those who don’t want to do anything. Start telling me about what must be done.

Given that 60% or more of the Iranians have just voted to elect “Hitler” as their President, what should we do about that, David Thomson and others? And what should we do about the fact that the new democratically elected government of Iraq is likely to be quite close to the present Iranian government?

The fact is we actually DO have lots of military options for dealing with Iran. Everything from airstrikes to, yes, an invasion and occupation. We did D-Day in ‘44, doubtlessly we can do it again. Are people here really ready to put up or shut up?

Insult today’s Neville Chamberlins all that you want — but don’t pretend for a moment that the ALTERNATIVE to appeasment in 2006 does not necessitate a loss of life that will dwarf what has been suffered so far in Iraq. Also come clean about the fact that there is no light at the end of the tunnel in this clash of civilizations that according to your more accurate view of the world we have no choice but to fight.

Show me a post “World War IV” scenario in which millions of Muslims are not enraged at the West and tens of thousands are not willing to die as jihadis, and I’ll show you another liberal pipedream masquerading as neoconservative vision. (Or perhaps just another Straussian “noble lie”.) Insist that radical Islam is likely to be no more popular post- WWIV than Nazism was popular among the children of Goethe and Beethoven after WWII, and I’ll remind you not to hit the crackpipe before you post.

In case you wonder what I think — I think that WW IV can still be avoided.

Jan 7, 2006 - 8:16 am 23. Bostonian:

Markus,

You’re still not paying attention.

Iranians did NOT select that lunatic, any more than Venezuelans selected Chavez.

And if you think free Iraqis will voluntarily ally themselves with another dictator, you have zero comprehension of human nature.

If we are “enraging” Muslims worldwide, it is because those people are being fed enraging lies by their own dictators, by the majority of the world press (fighting the death of the UN and “internationalism”), and by the American Left (for the same reasons).

I will not be manipulated by dictators, press barons, or Chavez-worshippers. Nor should such people determine the course of history.

Jan 7, 2006 - 9:17 am 24. Sandy P:

–. If one is the only nuclear-free and as yet uninvaded member of the “Axis of Evil,” one is not behaving inrrationally by seeking out a nuclear capability for defensive reasons. This is especially so when the US has already the invaded countries on either side. And while we’re on the subject of irrational behavior,–

Uh huh.

How long does it take to put a nuke program together?

They did it in 2 years? Only now do they feel threatened?

Impressive, most impressive, especially after shouting “Death to America” since 1979.

As to their claims they need it, I saw the 10 minute segment on Die Welt last year, hogwash.

They have more than enough, especially when we won’t need most of “the world’s” anymore.

Jan 7, 2006 - 11:23 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: