web analytics

MORAL PARALYSIS ONCE MORE..

By ATWadmin On July 30th, 2007

US conservative writer Thomas Sowell sums it up well. Is America about to become the new France?

By this he refers to the fact that back in the 1930s, the governments of the democratic countries knew what Hitler was doing — and they knew that they had enough military superiority at that point to stop his military buildup in its tracks. But they did nothing to stop him. Instead, they turned to what is still the magic mantra today — "negotiations."  At one point, Hitler could have been stopped in his tracks "without the firing of a single shot," Churchill said. That point came in 1936 — three years before World War II began — when Hitler sent troops into the Rhineland, in violation of two international treaties. At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention. As Hitler himself confided, the Germans would have had to retreat "with our tail between our legs," because they did not yet have enough military force to put up even a token resistance. Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler’s aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

Sowell pointedly reminds us that we KNOW that Iran is moving towards gaining nukes. He points out that the UN will do nothing to stop this, just as the League of Nations did nothing to stop Hitler. As he concludes, Iranian leaders won’t stop until they are stopped. The US has the might to stop them – but has it the will? And if not, is history about to repeat itself? We either take out the Iranian nuclear facilities now or wait until we become embroiled in a nuclear stand-off with the mad mullahs. Which is the lesser evil? Remember the lessons of history.

88 Responses to “MORAL PARALYSIS ONCE MORE..”

  1. In other words, it’s 1938 all over again all over again all over again, only this time it’s 1936. If one of these bloodthirsty lunatics were forced to develop a historical analogy that didn’t involve Hitler, they’d have to run into the bathroom and top themselves.

  2. …and this is why the Bush administration should be excoriated for their abject failures in Iraq. When the West should be geared to meet this threat, we have British and American troops forced to act more like social workers than soldiers and thousands of armed enemies led by al-Sadr who should have been wiped out when we had the chance, while the Turks sit on the border threatening to invade if we give proper recognition to the Kurds who shed their blood in copious amounts to help free their own country, in contrast to the Shia who have shown their gratitude by turning on us.

    I am deeply pessimistic about the future. I think poor Israel will have to do our work for us *again*, and that’s absolutely unfair.

  3. Hugh Green,

    Perhaps that analogy is used because it is so well imprinted on everyone’s memory, and rings a bell in the most simple of minds.

    It is also a good example of the almost invariably bad results stemming from appeasement. Far from saving lives, it actually costs lives.

    An example where appeasement has worked, to everyone’s satisfaction, would be hard to find, and that would include Ireland, Israel, Cyprus, and many others places.

  4. Tens of millions of people died last time because of the same 1930’s mentality as yours Hugh. Maybe the reason you always moan about the repetition of the analogy instead of the actual arguments against it is that you have no convincing way of justifying yourself?

  5. Perhaps that analogy is used because it is so well imprinted on everyone’s memory, and rings a bell in the most simple of minds.

    Spot on.

    It is also a good example of the almost invariably bad results stemming from appeasement. Far from saving lives, it actually costs lives.

    But don’t you think that the reason people cite this example -apart from the aforementioned historical illiteracy- is the fact that it automatically places the person doing the citing on the side of the good guys?

    Not all situations are as clear cut as appeasing Hitler. See, for example, recent news about continued US arms sales to Middle East despotic dictatorships.

    DSD, I don’t have a ‘1930s mentality’.

    As for the US’s ‘moral paralysis’ -the meat of Sowell’s argument- once it stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, for instance, maybe we can start to consider the notion that that state has any capacity to act morally. Until then, we can dispense with the idea that it is one of the good guys.

  6. Hugh, Green,

    "we can start to consider the notion that that state has any capacity to act morally."

    Unfortunately, you are correct. Most of the time they do act morally, it is just the the odd, and usually well publicised, occasion when they don’t that wrecks all the good stuff, and their reputation..but then, we can say the same for other countries such as France, and Germany, and even the UK, who we also hold to high standards, but who somehow seem to get a ‘free pass’ on such matters, as arms trading, duplicity, and general skulduggery…

    There is no doubt about it – when the Americans do something, whether good or bad, they invariable do it – better, or bigger, and more publicly than anyone else, and it is all part of their culture to do it all with a certain amount of naiveté – it is what makes Americans, well – Americans!

    Overall, I still consider them to be, ‘one of the good guys’ – after all, their intentions are good, which as any good socialist will tell you – is all that matters…

  7. Where is the mighty EU?

    The US is held to be the one to stop this genocidal maniac, and sooner or later we will. Much later if the Democrats win the White House half of Europe will probably be glowing before they act. Yet I ask again

    Where is the Mighty EU? Sitting back on their mandatory Summer vacations as the Russians just sold long range Fighter jets to Iran with the refueling planes, Maybe thats why we are selling more weapons to Saudi Hugh.

    But the French are selling the Iranians parts for their Nuclear reactors along with the Russians, The EU and the british public are condemning us for acting in Iraq yet WE are supposed to stop Iran?

    WHY, their missils and planes can now reach England and France and any where in the EU, but they can’t reach US.

    When will you act to protect yourselves….

    No No thats OK wait for the US to act so that you all can be morally superior to the ignorant Yanks …LOL

  8. Ernest,

    "An example where appeasement has worked, to everyone’s satisfaction, would be hard to find"

    An example where bloodthirsty warmongering has worked out to everyone’s satisfaction would be equally hard to find.

    It certainly didn’t work out too well for Hitler.

  9. Troll,

    Exactly. The EU is stuck in 1938.

  10. Does anyone think a great depression is on it’s way again? After all, the Great depression of 1929 seen America and Britain struggle to recuperate while funds miraculously flowed into Germany like manna from Heaven.

  11. Ulster-Scots,

    No. I think that this is most unlikely although when Iran is taken out, and it will happen sooner or later, there is going to be one mighty jolt to the global economy, with oil prices surging even further.

  12. Thank goodness a depression isn’t on it’s way again. However, it wouldn’t surprise me if the economy is used again, like it was in 1929, to re-arm the enemy. Maybe I’m being a little too paranoid, but whoever controlls our current economy controlls the outcome of this war also.

    As for the issue raised in the initial post, the issue of time wasting and appeasment. Just keep an eye out to see if someone new joins in on this war. It has happened before, in the 1st world war, where America were introduced after a period of calm and reflection.

    Also, if you wish to control the diplomatic machinery and State Department of a country you have to prolong war.

  13. Maybe thats why we are selling more weapons to Saudi Hugh.

    Leaving aside the fact that ‘you’ are not selling more weapons to Saudi Arabia (unless you yourself are a shareholder in one of the arms manufacturers, or one of their agents), the reason arms get sold is the reason anything else gets sold: profit.

    The EU and the british public are condemning us for acting in Iraq yet WE are supposed to stop Iran?

    Again, I doubt that you personally will be doing anything to ‘stop’ Iran -leaving aside the matters of writing stuff on the internet and possibly contributing to a war economy through taxes-, but most people in the EU do not want the US to take military action against Iran.

    morally superior to the ignorant Yanks

    I don’t think Americans are generally ignorant.

  14. Sowell’s hit all the buzz words (France, Hitler etc.) in his piece but offered blessed little direction other than something must be done. And its like he has learned the lessons of the 30’s without learning the lessons of today. He’s a good thinker but this piece seems lazy to me.

  15. Hugh,

    That was not one of your more sensible replies to Troll’s quite valid points.

    In fact it was quite ‘Frank-enstein’ in it’s childish and meaningless way!…

  16. Ernest,

    I’m afraid there was little in Troll’s contribution to distinguish it from any of his other demagogic contributions. Iran is not about to attack the European Union, or anywhere else.

    Unfortunately, it distracted me from addressing your own post. I don’t believe that the actions of any state reflect the general character of its citizens. So if the US props up dictatorships (Mubarak, Gadaffi, House of Saud, Musharraf), this has nothing much to do with American people.

    Furthermore, I don’t think that there is something uniquely awful about the fact that the US is selling arms to dictators and the like. You are right to say that other states do similar things. The point, however, is that the US is by far the most powerful state, and its actions should therefore receive more attention.

  17. Here’s an interesting opinion piece from Israel on Arming the Arabs.

  18. david,

    At that point, France alone was so much more powerful than Germany that the German generals had secret orders to retreat immediately at the first sign of French intervention.

    france had the largest army in europe right up to 1940 (if memory serves). they were beaten by superior field tactics and an extremely bold strategy.

    Why did the French not act and spare themselves and the world the years of horror that Hitler’s aggressions would bring? The French had the means but not the will.

    a superb leap of faith. of course you never ask why they didnt act? that they didnt act is enough to fit your hindsight based thesis.

    Sowell pointedly reminds us that we KNOW that Iran is moving towards gaining nukes.

    proof please.

    ernest,

    It is also a good example of the almost invariably bad results stemming from appeasement. Far from saving lives, it actually costs lives.

    another leap into the fluffy abyss of hindsight.

    DSD

    Tens of millions of people died last time because of the same 1930’s mentality as yours Hugh.

    and tens of millions died before them. its quite possible that the events of less than 2 decades prior might have played some part in anyones unwillingness to put soldiers on the march once again, non? Of course we could also say that tens of millions died by the same "1930s" mentality of ATW hawks.

    Ulster-Scot

    Does anyone think a great depression is on it’s way again? After all, the Great depression of 1929 seen America and Britain struggle to recuperate while funds miraculously flowed into Germany like manna from Heaven.

    germany was devastated by the depression. and suffered hyper inflation as a result. this single event can be considered the main catalyst for the rise of fascism in germany. BTW wars are an excellent way to write off debt.

    david,

    No. I think that this is most unlikely although when Iran is taken out, and it will happen sooner or later, there is going to be one mighty jolt to the global economy, with oil prices surging even further.

    and who benefits from large oil prices, you, me? also, if any conflict sees the closure of the gulf, (iran could control choke points), then yes, the effects will go well beyond mere oil prices.

  19. Hugh,

    You failed to mention the likelihood of an attack on Israel. That Israel has an almost iconic standing in Western and Arab diplomacy, obviously for different reasons. The Arab world see it’s existence as an insult and the West see it as a beacon of democracy, in an area which has none.

    It was always destined to be a troubled child of international appeasement of terrorism, – and no, I am not approving or disapproving of it’s creation…

    The possibility of Iran doing something nasty is not beyond reason. That any such action would not necessarily be approved by all the other Arab nations – even they, while approving the general state of affairs, would most likely draw the line at a nuclear confrontation. Which, in diplomatic circles, probably justifies arming some of them, should a split occur in the overall Arab front.

    That America is in the position that it finds itself could be because so many countries in the EU when asked for volunteers, took the proverbial pace backward, leaving the US,the UK, and a few others standing alone.

    If we expect the USA, and the UK to carry the bulk of the load for the rest of western democracy, – it sounds very churlish to be so critical of their methods. It could be said that the actions of the naysayers in both countries are hampering a swift solution.

  20. I’m a natural optimist but I have become more and more pessimistic about the very real possibility of an all out world conflict where the West is pitted against the Muslim Caliphate, with all the death and destruction that would entail.

    At the present time, America is very rich. In general, she is presently willfullly oblivious to the hard realities which ever hover around us. – and I’m not talking about the medically uninsured.

    Our political class, both the Republicans and the Democrats, are "ivory tower" in their approach to the nation and the world; and the media serve only to distract and cloud the issues at hand.

    The Democrats can not even bring themselves to mention jihad in their presidential debates. The Republicans are in bed with the Saudis and applying only wishful thinking on Iran.

    Meanwhile, our legal systems are being comprised by the likes of CAIR and politically correct enablers.

    I don’t see how it cannot get worse before it gets better.

    Our hope lies with our military who are for the most part noble and strong, and the young who are clear sighted and not kow-towed nor fooled much by the denial, propoganda and power plays swirling around them.

  21. Patty

    There is no Muslim Caliphate.

  22. Patty: Civilian control of the military has served us well all these years, no need to embrace a military state now. As for the young, I am not sure that they have a greater understanding of the world than other age groups.

  23. Mahons

    The young are eager and restless which is not the same as clear sighted. Their eagerness can result in great bravery and sacrifice but it can also be abused for political cannon fodder purposes.

  24. Patty

    There is no Muslim Caliphate.

    well said colm.

    exactly who would the west be fighting? where is this "hitlerian" army that could possibly threaten the US?

    its a complete myth. but its enough to convince the unthinking masses that a war of civilisations is the only option open to us.

  25. Daytripper – so is it your considered opinion that we have absolutely no reason for concern regarding Iran and the liklihood that thet are attempting to attain nuclear weapons? What evidence do you have that they aren’t?

  26. Mahons, Colm and Daytripper: Do you deny that jihad is being waged against the West?

  27. Patty: There are certainly Muslim fanatics who are calling for jihad against the West. I am not about to suggest that our governments cede political control to the military because of the threat.

  28. Patty

    I echo Mahons here. There is obviously a problem with Islamic terrorism, but to stretch from that into a need for the US and the West to have a huge world war with the ‘Muslim Caliphate’ by which I presume you mean all or most of the world’s Muslim countries is ridiculous.

  29. "There is Muslim caliphate"

    Yet.

    Patty,

    You’re quite right.

  30. David

    I knew you’d side with Batty… I mean Patty 😉

  31. You failed to mention the likelihood of an attack on Israel.

    I failed to mention it because I do not think it important. Israel is a nuclear superpower which could flatten Iran if it so wished. Contrary to the image projected, Ahmadinejad does not have the political power to launch a strike against Israel, even if he had the material power, which he does not either.

  32. David: Did you mean that in the "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" spirit?

    And if not, do you support what appears to be Patty’s call for military dictatorships supported by what I suppose we could call the Patty Youth?

  33. Mahons,

    Patty points out the deficits in the ROP and the Dem’s and it is as good a summary as any I have seen.
    She then points out that eventually, Government WILL be forced to rely on our military and that whilst it is imperfect, the values that prevail within the warrior class, as opposed to the spineless political class, may save the day.

    And as for the Patty youth, beware the DV youth!

    The initial blog pointed out that our political class appears unable to act even as Iran follows the route that Hitler took.

    I have a twinfold solution to Iran;

    1. Send in Barbara Streisand to soften’em up. After a few hours of this prize moonbat the Mullahs will be grateful when…
    2. We reduce their nuclear capabilities to toast.

    The people that achieve the latter will be the brave young people of which Patty speaks.

    I hope she will forgive me for being so impertinent as to answer on her behalf but as I said, I agree 100% with her analysis.

    Now then, where can la diva Streisand be located..she was in Ireland but a few weeks ago…

  34. Mahons:"I am not about to suggest that our governments cede political control to the military because of the threat."

    What are you talking about? I never advocated ceding political control to the military.

    I said our military represents our hope.

    America’s all voluntary military is comprised of men and women of the highest caliber– both mental and physical– who seek to do the right thing and defend our country, and our freedoms. This to me is a hopeful sign that all will be well.

    Contrast this to America’s political elites who chose to pander to special interest– be gay marriage advocates, or gay marriage opponents; abortion advocates or abortion opponents — meanwhile ignoring the key issue of our time — the fact that the majority of the Muslim world feels that SHaria law is superior to our legal traditions, and feels that deception,violence, and whatever else are viable means to achieve the ultimate rule of Sharia law.

    You may distract and attempt to disarm all you like, but the reality is that jihad is being waged against the West.

  35. There are certainly Muslim fanatics who are calling for jihad against the West.

    Mahons the Jihad started long ago and it doesn’t just include guns and bombs. The deadliest aspect is the demographics.

    There is obviously a problem with Islamic terrorism, but to stretch from that into a need for the US and the West to have a huge world war with the ‘Muslim Caliphate’ by which I presume you mean all or most of the world’s Muslim countries is ridiculous.

    Colm – the impetus for the Jihad comes from the hate manual also known as the Koran.

    Below are excerpts from Hasan Al-Banna’s treatise, Jihad. In 1928, Al-Banna founded the Muslim Brotherhood, which today is the most powerful organization in Egypt after the government itself. In this treatise, Al-Banna cogently argues that Muslims must take up arms against unbelievers. As he says, "The verses of the Qur’an and the Sunnah summon people in general (with the most eloquent expression and the clearest exposition) to jihad, to warfare, to the armed forces, and all means of land and sea fighting."

    Islam is concerned with the question of jihad and the drafting and the mobilisation of the entire Umma {the global Muslim community} into one body to defend the right cause with all its strength than any other ancient or modern system of living, whether religious or civil.

    ‘Jihad linguistically means to exert one’s utmost effort in word and action; in the Sharee’ah {Sharia — Islamic law} it is the fighting of the unbelievers, and involves all possible efforts that are necessary to dismantle the power of the enemies of Islam including beating them, plundering their wealth, destroying their places of worship and smashing their idols. This means that jihad is to strive to the utmost to ensure the strength of Islam by such means as fighting those who fight you and the dhimmies {non-Muslims living under Islamic rule} (if they violate any of the terms of the treaty) and the apostates (who are the worst of unbelievers, for they disbelieved after they have affirmed their belief).

    It is fard (obligatory) on us to fight with the enemies. The Imam must send a military expedition to the Dar-al-Harb {House of War — the non-Muslim world} every year at least once or twice, and the people must support him in this.

    It is ridiculous to suggest that the West is eager to take up arms againt the ‘Muslim Caliphate’. I think you may be mistaken if you think that there aren’t many in the Ummah that are only too eager to find a way to take up arms against us.

  36. GA

    so is it your considered opinion that we have absolutely no reason for concern regarding Iran and the liklihood that thet are attempting to attain nuclear weapons?

    No i dont think there is any real need for much concern. and i think most of what we read on both sides of the issue is little more than hot air. infact ive yet to see anything to suggest that another tissue of lies isnt being developed against another target of the hawks. you should look at a military map of the region. iran is absolutely surrounded. Its possible that the US has shot its bolt to some extent, but id still be of the opinion that Iran will be attacked in the near/mid term. possibly by a democratic whitehouse.

    What evidence do you have that they aren’t?

    dont take my word for it. go speak to the IAEA. nuclear investigation, from what ive read, is quite an exact science. nobody can hide from IAEA inspections once they are on site, no matter how much cleaning up is attempted. they can even trace signatures to specific locations on the planet, or specific nuclear sites. and they know what they are looking for. and can tell quickly if "domestic" installations are being used for weapons development. you cant scrub radiation signatures off with a fancy mop and some ecover floor cleaner. and last time i looked at the IAEA website, Iran was agreeing to a new round of inspection.

    Do you deny that jihad is being waged against the West?

    patty if you think that they are a threat to western society, then i put it to you, david et al that you are the ones who have no faith in our institutions. and it is you who are the real defeatists. personally i consider you as someones useful fool.

    Ahmadinejad does not have the political power

    therein lies the rub hugh. he’s a blowhard. and little more. BTW the current faction running Iran has been dubbed the "neocons" by the people.

  37. Hi David — Thank’s for answering on my behalf! I was typing and then taking a phone call — slow on the uptake here. Dear Babs lives around the corner — in an enormous mansion, of course — and I am glad to here that she has been sent to Iran to work her charms…

  38. David: Launching Barbara Streisand upon our enemies violates any claim of decency that we may still have.

    The young people who Patty may be referring to are quite often blown apart in the poorly executed war that Patty supports, apparently without reservation. I can admire our military without having to cede authority to them.

    President Bush is more likely to drop acid than drop bombs on Iraq. I am all for strong dealings with Iran, but I am not going to suggest we substitute military control for civilian control.

  39. Sorry that should read "than drop bombs on Iran."

  40. Patty: Glad to see you aren’t calling for a military takeover. I would suggest to you that the military is both our shiled and sword, but the ultimate hope lies in our values and not our guns.

  41. the values that prevail within the warrior class

    david, soldiers follow orders. so far from the hopes of the many, we would have to rely on the intent of the very few. infact in purely military terms, the intent of just one. what if they turn out to be a C**T?

    its the closest ive seen anyone advocate for the fuhrerprinzip. and that scares me more than any notion of global jihad*.

    * which as a unified monolithic opposition, doesnt exist.

  42. Mahons

    To be fair to Patty she never suggested ceding political authority to the military or advocating that the US adopt a military dictatorship.

  43. Ps – Judging from some comments I have read about Babs recent UK concerts she wouldn’t be on stage long enough for the Iranians to get worked up either way.

  44. Colm: So much for being my "echo". I agree that she did not specifically call for a military dictatorship (although having dismissed the political parties, media and legal system what exactly is she calling for?).

    Perhaps she meant merely that she only has faith in the military to combat what she views as the great threat. Without clarifaction, I’ve sought same.

  45. Colm: I doubt she’d start off with "People (who need people)".

  46. Daytripper – and what if you’re wrong?

    In June, ‘Mohamed ElBaradei also said Iran could be running close to 3,000 uranium-enriching centrifuges by the end of next month—a number that IAEA officials have described as the point of no return in the start of a large-scale program’.

    “The next few months will be crucial,” he said: “Iran is building a capacity, a knowledge” of enrichment that is irreversible, while not providing evidence sought by his agency “that this is a peaceful program.”

  47. what exactly is she calling for?

    i came to the same conclusion.

    and what if you’re wrong?

    i honestly dont think i am. plus the myth mongers are going have to explain this one.

    and add it to the fact that Iran is a signatory of the NPT, has never used WMD and that the US previously approved of Irans desire to seek domestic nuclear energy.

  48. Daytripper: "therein lies the rub hugh. he’s a blowhard. and little more."

    Ahmadinejad is a "blowhard" until Iran is armed with nuclear weapons. And Iran will be "only a threat" until they use their weapons.

    Mahons: People who need people, are the ….;) kidding…

    I love the US military. They are practical yet idealistic. Forever optimistic yet 100% down-to-earth. Able to follow as well as to lead. Responsible for themselves and willing to protect and serve. They uphold tradition while seeking and acquiring state-of-the-art knowledge.

    I sleep peacefully in my bed at night thanks to the United States Military. How are we so lucky as to have such fine men and women? God bless them all.

    On a different note, I’m not "calling" for anything. I am pointing out the fact that the West is currently engaged in a formidable struggle against a totalitarian ideology which many are underestimating or willfully ignoring because they are in denial due to the horrible nature of the threat or willfully ignoring because they support the enemy.

  49. Daytripper – surely that’s the point. You *think* you are but you don’t know for sure. Just because the IEAA are going for a visit, followed by discussions, doesn’t mean that Iran aren’t attempting to create a bomb. Personally I don’t know for certain that Iran are atempting to develop a bomb but their generally reluctant ‘cooperation’ and my instincts tell me the West would be wise to suspect the worst. Particularly when Ahmadinejad, referring to Israel, states ‘the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started’ and ‘we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future’. Are you surprised that many in the West aren’t quite so relaxed about Iran’s nuclear programme as you seem to be?

  50. Patty,

    Does your love for the US military extend to Major General John Batiste? He was commander of the First Infantry Division in Iraq and is now retired in my neck of the woods. He was one of those generals in the field that Bush says he listened to (but didn’t).

    So is General Batiste "in denial due to the horrible nature of the threat or willfully ignoring because [he] support[s] the enemy"?

  51. There is no living writer whom I respect more than Thomas Sowell, but the danger from Iran seems overplayed to me. If Iran gets nuclear weapons it will still be vastly out matched by the United States or even Israel, so it is not going to launch a nuclear strike. As has been pointed out elsewhere for all the rhetoric of the Iranian regime it is run by men who have diligently managed to avoid all the opportunities for martyrdom that were available under the Shah or in the war against Iraq so they do not have a death wish.

    The danger from Iran getting nukes is that it will enable them to increase their backing for terrorist groups like Hizbollah, Hamas and assorted Shia militias in Iraq without any fear of retaliation,

    This doesn’t mean that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities ought to be ruled out, in fact Iran’s relative lack of power means that they can’t do much in retaliation that they aren’t doing already. The mullahs’ are not an existential threat to anybody though.

  52. Colm you know your not spouting sense when the first one who agrees with you is Daytripper…

    I like Hughs sideways insult saying My statements are Demagogy

    a demagog a person who tries to stir up the people by apeals to prejudice, emotion, etc to win them over quickly and so gain power

    well first of all no one here is being won over, very few listen to only the babble they spout out of their own keyboards

    Secondly where am I wrong? Where is the Mighty EU? They will do nothing except the french they will continue to sell the means to their own destruction.

    Hugh cite examples where the communities of europe are even threatening to mobilize against the repeated threats from the mad little persian in Iran???

    Their miisils can reach you and their planes can reach you. he has stated over and over that he wishes to bring back the 12th Imam (who by the way can only come if the world is bathed in blood) yet the bujeue europeans sit with their hands on their ass

    Now as for your other comments casting aspersions that I personaly won’t do anything your wrong just as you are with your opinions I am a vet I have served my country and given the opportunity I would again.

    I can also gurantee you that if car bombs go off in the streets of the US (which they will) the well armed citizenry is quite capable of defending their neighborhoods unlike you europeans

  53. Ahmadinejad is a "blowhard" until Iran is armed with nuclear weapons.

    and even if they do manage that, he will still be a blowhard. by irans own admission he is a powerless imcompetant fool. plus he’s been reeled right in since his ramblings at the UN.

    I am pointing out the fact that the West is currently engaged in a formidable struggle against a totalitarian ideology which many are underestimating or willfully ignoring…

    no. thats all occuring inside your head. even the greatest oppurtunity presented to the "jihad" sees divided factions acting out of their own interests and with multiple, seemingly fluid, motives. these millions of violent jihadists from around the world have a perfect chance to take on the west in iraq and yet all but a handful decline. what gives?

  54. surely that’s the point. You *think* you are but you don’t know for sure. Just because the IEAA are going for a visit, followed by discussions, doesn’t mean that Iran aren’t attempting to create a bomb.

    and from what ive read visits are worth their weight in gold. because it is virtually impossible to avoid detection.

    Personally I don’t know for certain that Iran are atempting to develop a bomb but their generally reluctant ‘cooperation’ and my instincts tell me the West would be wise to suspect the worst.

    their reluctant cooperation is directly attributable to the rise in belligerent rhetoric directed at them. no country, no matter how fluffy, is going to let itself be talked to like that. also, the "worst case" scenario is fundemental to neocon philosophy. imagine to absolute worst, develop into some sort of reality and then act on it. it patently transparent.

    Particularly when Ahmadinejad, referring to Israel, states ‘the countdown to the destruction of this regime has been started’ and ‘we will witness the destruction of this regime in the near future’. Are you surprised that many in the West aren’t quite so relaxed about Iran’s nuclear programme as you seem to be?

    im not going to get bogged down in the linguistics of that fools speeches. its all still hotly contested by translators and pundits alike. And Im not saying there is absolutely no need for concern. but is it enough to warrant the mass murder that will be required to stop iran from retaliating into iraq? and again on such flimsy premis and evidence?

    i mean i can understand people forgetting lessons from distant history, but to forget the pack of lies that got us into iraq, only four years ago, is frankly unforgivable.

  55. Daytripper: "m not going to get bogged down in the linguistics of that fools speeches. "

    I can see why you don’t want to get bogged down by his actual words, Daytripper!:) Half-truths and innuendo makes much better propoganda!

    "i mean i can understand people forgetting lessons from distant history, but to forget the pack of lies that got us into iraq, only four years ago, is frankly unforgivable."

    Huh? What lies? What lessons? It’s a good thing Saddam is gone….I say job well done in this regard. Setting up a democracy in Iraq hasn’t gone as well, but that’s another discussion.

  56. Patty,

    I don’t mean to answer for Daytripper (who should be asleep by now), but I do want again to introduce you to General Batiste. Please read about lies told and lessons not learned here from September, 2006.

    Is it all about politics? When a few intrepid Democrats held a hearing and invited General Eaton (Who trained all the Iraqi Police) and General Batiste (Former Commander of the elite 1st Infantry Division) to tell the real story of what was going on in Iraq, none of the Republican Senators even bothered to attend! I listened to these experienced, loyal and dedicated veterans, who stood the line in Iraq, and heard their story of frustrated and coerced plans, muzzled opposition, inadequate resources, insufficient national mobilization, improper strategy–yet no Republican Senator would even hear them! What an insult to their service to this country.

  57. Alan: What is your point? (serious question)

  58. "Of course we could also say that tens of millions died by the same "1930s" mentality of ATW hawks."

    No we cant Daytripper, because it isnt true. Millions died because of people like you and Hugh who want other people to pay the price for your idealistic idea of peace at all costs.

    But its OK, I’m sure every single public pronouncement by the Iranians is all just ‘hot air’ and we shouldnt worry about a bunch of religious maniacs who follow a (literally) apocalyptic death cult getting their hands on nuclear weapons. Because Hugh and Daytripper can (nudge nudge wink wink) ‘read between the lines’ of statements about wiping Israel off the map and know its all just a ‘neocon’ plot, or something.

    Colm,

    Of course there is a Muslim Caliphate. In fact there are several. What precisely would you call Iran? Syria? Gaza? we are *very* lucky that Shia and Sunni remain so intractably divided.

  59. DSD,

    But its OK, I’m sure every single public pronouncement by the Iranians is all just ‘hot air’ and we shouldnt worry about a bunch of religious maniacs who follow a (literally) apocalyptic death cult getting their hands on nuclear weapons.

    Since you’re the expert on Iranian pronouncements, perhaps you can tell me what the position of the Iranian Supreme Leader -i.e. the one who makes decisions about foreign policy- is on Israel and Palestine?

  60. Hugh – I think it’s fairly safe to assume that there’s not much difference between Khameni and Ahmadinejad on the question of Israel and Palestine.

    TEHRAN (Reuters 28.7.07) – Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday the United States and Israel were his country’s main enemies, just days after U.S.-Iranian talks about Iraq’s security.

    "The Zionist regime (Israel) and the American government are the main enemies of Iran, and hatred for America is deepening every day around the globe," Khamenei said in a televised speech.

  61. we shouldnt worry about a bunch of religious maniacs who follow a (literally) apocalyptic death cult getting their hands on nuclear weapons

    Do you mean people like these raving lunatics?

    If so, then people who think like that already have nuclear weapons.

  62. Patty,

    Here is my point.

    You said above "I love the US military. They are practical yet idealistic. Forever optimistic yet 100% down-to-earth. Able to follow as well as to lead. Responsible for themselves and willing to protect and serve. They uphold tradition while seeking and acquiring state-of-the-art knowledge."

    Fine. I agree. It is Bush who won’t let them lead, not even his generals.

    To hear President Bush tell it, all he does is sit back and patiently take the advice of his generals in the field and in the Pentagon. But every field commander to return from Iraq and put on his civvies has told a different tale: the White House hammers ridiculous strategies down their throats, doesn’t listen to a word they say, and instead takes direction from a group of juveniles in their fifties over at Neocon Central Command, the American Enterprise Institute.

    It is Bush who lies when he says he follows the generals, and it is Bush who fails to learn his lessons from these brave soldiers.

  63. Alan,

    For once we are in agreement.

    Hugh,

    Of course, as I pointed out, *you* know what the Iranians are actually thinking as opposed to what they are saying. With all that omniscience you ought to start your own apocalypse cult, maybe everyone could go to the Temple of Hugh and take cyanide capsules – except of course they’d all then do the ritual ‘nudge, wink’ and intone together ‘it isnt really cyanide you know, we’re just *saying* that, Praise the Lord Hugh’. Right before dropping dead.

    Frank,

    The link isnt working, but I’m assuming this is going to be one of those awesomely convoluted ‘Bush is a Christian therefore if *any* Christian is a nutter then he must be exactly the same as they are’ points so beloved of the Left.

    Funny how its oh so dreadful for us rightworlders to tar all Muslims with the same brush, yet perfectly OK for you to somehow conflate a bunch of Christian fundamentalist nobodies with the US Government. If we applied the same logic to Islam you’d be the first to scream blue murder about war crimes and racism.

    Hypocrite much?

  64. DSD,

    "The link isnt working,"

    Works here.

    "but I’m assuming "

    Don’t.

    [skip DSD tearing into elaborate strawman]

    "somehow conflate a bunch of Christian fundamentalist nobodies with the US Government"

    Never mind that some of them are in the US government and others of them have close ties with the US government.

    Still I suppose it is impressive that you can manage to misread things that you haven’t even read.

  65. DSD,

    Of course, as I pointed out, *you* know what the Iranians are actually thinking as opposed to what they are saying. With all that omniscience you ought to start your own apocalypse cult, maybe everyone could go to the Temple of Hugh and take cyanide capsules – except of course they’d all then do the ritual ‘nudge, wink’ and intone together ‘it isnt really cyanide you know, we’re just *saying* that, Praise the Lord Hugh’. Right before dropping dead.

    You could continue with your histrionics, or you could answer the question of why Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel when it would be wiped out as a result.

  66. Hugh – I think it’s fairly safe to assume that there’s not much difference between Khameni and Ahmadinejad on the question of Israel and Palestine.

    somebody doesnt understand the mechanisms of foriegn affairs very well.

    (In Tehran) Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Saturday

    ………………….

    just days after U.S.-Iranian talks

    those are the lines you should read between. it was a domestic speech for a domestic audience. after 2 1/2 decades of calling the US etc the great satan, what else did you expect? its a show of strength to deter public thoughts from dwelling too long on the simple fact that they spoke to the "enemy".

  67. PS: frank not much on display about christ, christianity or judaism. all i seen was flags, cheque books, modern crusaders and some really random dancing.

  68. Hugh: "You could continue with your histrionics, or you could answer the question of why Iran would launch a nuclear strike against Israel when it would be wiped out as a result."

    Not to speak for DSD, but being wiped out does not stop the Islamist suicide bomber, does it? Why would being wiped out stop Islamist Iran?

  69. but being wiped out does not stop the Islamist suicide bomber, does it? Why would being wiped out stop Islamist Iran?

    Good question Patty! Similarly, have you ever wondered how a green apple falling from a tree causes you only the lightest of injuries, whereas a green golf course falling from a tree will obliterate you?

  70. Hugh,

    What the heck are you smoking?

  71. DT,

    "all i seen was flags, cheque books, modern crusaders and some really random dancing."

    It is testimony to the quality of the dancing that it manages to be one of the most creepy things in a clip full of people (and congresscritters) eager for armageddon.

  72. Hugh: The Islamists don’t mind death and destruction. It’s not a question of proportion. You are evaluating them with Western eyes, you narcissist, you. Take them at their word. Islamists – including Iran — embrace death.

  73. Patty

    Good that you use the word Islamists. A more precise accurate and narrower definition than the geenralisation of all Muslims.

    PS – and this goes to DSD too. There is no Muslim Caliphate, and there arent’t several smaller ones either. We are not at war with Muslims or with Islam. We are at war with a much smaller number of people ,Islamists terrorists and we will defeat them, easily.

  74. Patty: A narcissist wouldn’t take their eyes off of their own image. Hugh may be many things, but a narcissist? I don’t think so (and I’ve been debating with him off and on all day).

    But I admit I don’t get his golf course comment.

  75. Mahons

    I think , though I may be wrong, he could be referring to the fact that the suicide bomber (or even Iran itself) could only drop a single (atomic) apple on Israel but Israel has the power to reply by dropping a golf course – I would have thought an Orchard would be the more appropriate metaphor – on Iran.

    Of course I might have got Hugh’s allegory completely wrong.

  76. Colm: I suspect you figured it out. I can see clearly now the rain is gone. Thanks.

  77. It is testimony to the quality of the dancing that it manages to be one of the most creepy things in a clip full of people (and congresscritters) eager for armageddon.

    i concur. FUBAR !

    tho i think ive been guilty of dancing like that at 6am on various sunday mornings in my lifetime.

  78. Islamists – including Iran — embrace death.

    fails to explain why there are so many of them though, dunnit……..

    alot of you people live in an almost complete fantasy land.

  79. Daytripper

    I think we have to be careful when differentiating between the term ‘Islamists’ and ‘Muslims’. If the former is used to refer only to the very fanatics who do engage in suicidal terrorism then the accusation is fair enough – when the term is used to describe all Muslims then I agree with you it is just complete nonsense.

  80. Mahons: I’m using "narcissist" because he is seeing in the Islamist a reflection of himself — that is someone with Western values, Western sensibilities, someone who values life. I’m saying that he should take the Islamist at his word. Death for Allah.

    Hugh (or anybody) : WHy is the apple green, and the golf course green?

  81. colm id agree with you except people like patty dont seems to see any difference. and tend to leap in and out of the two categories very casually. to me it just exposes their utter confusion. especially americans, who had the world thrust into their livings rooms and were forced to try and reconcile it with the media bubble that is the "land of the free". its all just lashing out at things not fully, or at all, understood.

    they should admit that islamists dont speak for islam begin the process of understanding that these places are not populated by angry hoardes. unfortunately that would mean understanding that other cultures exist with different goals and aspirations, that dont necessarily gel with US interests.

  82. "Islamists don’t mind death and destruction. It’s not a question of proportion. You are evaluating them with Western eyes"

    Patty, if the people running Iran wanted to be martyrs then why are they still here?, why didn’t they volunteer for the Iran-Iraq war? Why didn’t they publicly denounce the Shah when he was in charge? They’re quite happy for other people to die for their beliefs, but they take great care to ensure their own safety.

  83. Daytripper: "other cultures exist with different goals and aspirations, that dont necessarily gel with US interests."

    Unfortunately, I understand this all too well. I’m just not willing to cave into their aspirations for a global Caliphate.

  84. Daytripper, you operate under a false set of assumptions, which is understandable since you are as mad as a cut snake.

    Islamists do speak for the majority of islam. The muslim moderates are in the minority according to worldwide polls that you conveniently ignore. Muslims have never once come out en masse for demonstrations against terrorism or islamist jihad. Why don’t you bother to read the Koran or at least pay attention to what Muslims tell us on a daily basis. They are very clear about their intentions, why don’t you believe them?

    You’re liberalism has a clear dichotomy with Islam, what is your problem with admitting it? They would behead your liberal butt as apostate in a New York minute. Your defense of islam is bizarre and makes no sense from a leftist point of view.

  85. Daphne,

    "The muslim moderates are in the minority according to worldwide polls that you conveniently ignore."

    Since this contention is central to your argument that "Islamists do speak for the majority of islam," could you please post a link to one of these polls?

  86. Patty

    ‘I am pointing out the fact that the West is currently engaged in a formidable struggle against a totalitarian ideology which many are underestimating or willfully ignoring because they are in denial due to the horrible nature of the threat or willfully ignoring because they support the enemy’

    Formidable struggle?

    Horrible nature of the threat from…The Muslim World?

    If you want formidable, think Soviet Union, Nazi Germany or the Empire of Japan.

    But the Muslims??

    There’s a reason they live in deserts and caves and jungles and we have all the good real estate.

  87. Since this contention is central to your argument that "Islamists do speak for the majority of islam," could you please post a link to one of these polls?

    in anticipation we wait, alan.

    From the Economist (21st July 2007)

    [I]n a […] poll [of Iranians] last month by "Terror Free Tomorrow", an american think tank, 88% saw the economy as top priority, compared with 29% who listed nuclear weapons. And 79% said they would prefer a democratic system in which all leaders, including the supreme leader, were elected by a direct popular vote.

    Given that Iranians are naturally wary about what they tell strangers on the phone, these results are striking.

    These are Iranians, in Iran, talking to the "Great Satan" over the phone.

  88. Evening all.

    Hugh (or anybody) : WHy is the apple green, and the golf course green?

    Ooh dear. I did not intend to be yoda-like in my response. I thought it was pretty clear.

    You have a suicide bomber, right, which is one thing. Then you have a country, right, with institutions, history, men, women, children, animals, roads, geography, and so on. So a country is a completely different thing to a suicide bomber.

    But Patty develops the logic that because one thing is true of a suicide bomber (i.e. they are Islamist, which is not always the case, but we can debate that another day), then the fact that the same thing is also true of the country (i.e. it is Islamist, which is not quite the case, but we can debate that another day) means that something else that is true of the suicide bomber (that it wants to die, violently) can be inferred to be true of the country.

    Well, it can’t. But it was interesting to be called a narcissist. I shall have to go off to a quiet stream and reflect on that.