http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6315989.stm
Another eight would-be terrorists detained: how many is that in the last three months? Dozens and dozens... I don't know what the capacity of the current system is to keep on absorbing such large numbers of 'criminals', but just the volume must be putting intense stress on the CPS, Judicial system and the prisons. As a mental exercise, I try to imagine treating other wars as an exercise in crime prevention- what if the Americans had taken every Vietcong prisoner, and done a forensic study of his actions, and then put him on trial for 'Unlawful warfare' or some such legal silliness. The backlog of cases would have run through to about 2075. Its a stupid stupid idea to pretend that a minorities war on the majority is simply criminality- if you pay attention to the combatants own words they are only too happy to describe their goal as the takeover of the British state and the destruction of British law and its replacement with Islamic law. They are traitorous warriors against the British state.
Refusing to name things with their right name is a dangerous game. Huge amounts of effort can be wasted and great strides made in the wrong direction if we can't bring ourselves to even elucidate our current situation. A far more effective way of dealing with this would have been to describe these men as traitors to Britain from the outset, and hang as many of them as we discovered. There would be far fewer wannabe Jihadists out there if the penalty for joining this treasonous plot was death. It would also have made it much more difficult for mainstream Muslims to argue that Britain should drop its own interests, and pursue those of Muslim countries, knowing that an armed force were literally holding a gun to the head of the British government. The armed force would be hanging from gibbets- and Britain could pursue its own interests with equanimity.
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Tuesday, January 30, 2007
Response to Iraq Study Group report
http://www.freerepublic.com/CitizensReportonIraq.pdf
Found this on Michelle Malkin. Have only read a few pages, but this is a must-read for anyone with an interest in the real story of Iraqs deathly struggle for a future.
Found this on Michelle Malkin. Have only read a few pages, but this is a must-read for anyone with an interest in the real story of Iraqs deathly struggle for a future.
Monday, January 29, 2007
Carter and the Arab dupes
http://www.meforum.org/article/1633
'Carter believes that if the U.S. government reduces or stops its support for Israel, then the Jewish state will be weakened and become more malleable in negotiations. His underlying logic is based upon an imperial rationality that assumes Washington to have the answer to myriad issues besetting Middle Eastern societies. This plays into the notion in Arab societies that the cause of their problems lies with Western powers and other outsiders. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid will feed that belief.'
...'By adopting so completely the Palestinian historical narrative, Carter may hamper diplomatic efforts enshrined in the "Road Map" and elsewhere that attempt to compel the Palestinian leadership to accept accountability for its actions. In pursuing this path, Carter violates the advice he gave eighty Palestinian business, religious, and political leaders on March 16, 1983, when, speaking to a gathering at the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, he said, "Unless you take your own destiny into your own hands and stop relying on others," you will not have a state.'
Bridges, spacecraft and international policy built using faulty data and lies cannot work. Much as the millions of Arab dupes in the US and Europe would like the Arab narrative of Middle Eastern history to be true, its not. So every time they use that narrative to try to make predictions about the future, they are woefully off-target. And always will be. When Arabs stop lying and decide they want to act like grown-ups take responsibility for their own actions, they will find that success if very often the payoff.
UPDATE: 'Carter has defended Hamas against charges of intransigence during his Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid book tour. While visiting Tehran on December 8, 2006, Haniyeh said, "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated."[45] When asked by a Denver radio host on station KHOW 630 AM six days later about Haniyeh's statement, Carter answered, "No, he didn't. No, he did not do that. I did not hear that."'
La la la, I can't hear you, la la la
'Carter believes that if the U.S. government reduces or stops its support for Israel, then the Jewish state will be weakened and become more malleable in negotiations. His underlying logic is based upon an imperial rationality that assumes Washington to have the answer to myriad issues besetting Middle Eastern societies. This plays into the notion in Arab societies that the cause of their problems lies with Western powers and other outsiders. Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid will feed that belief.'
...'By adopting so completely the Palestinian historical narrative, Carter may hamper diplomatic efforts enshrined in the "Road Map" and elsewhere that attempt to compel the Palestinian leadership to accept accountability for its actions. In pursuing this path, Carter violates the advice he gave eighty Palestinian business, religious, and political leaders on March 16, 1983, when, speaking to a gathering at the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem, he said, "Unless you take your own destiny into your own hands and stop relying on others," you will not have a state.'
Bridges, spacecraft and international policy built using faulty data and lies cannot work. Much as the millions of Arab dupes in the US and Europe would like the Arab narrative of Middle Eastern history to be true, its not. So every time they use that narrative to try to make predictions about the future, they are woefully off-target. And always will be. When Arabs stop lying and decide they want to act like grown-ups take responsibility for their own actions, they will find that success if very often the payoff.
UPDATE: 'Carter has defended Hamas against charges of intransigence during his Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid book tour. While visiting Tehran on December 8, 2006, Haniyeh said, "We will never recognize the usurper Zionist government and will continue our jihadist movement until Bayt al-Maqdis [Jerusalem] and the Al-Aqsa Mosque are liberated."[45] When asked by a Denver radio host on station KHOW 630 AM six days later about Haniyeh's statement, Carter answered, "No, he didn't. No, he did not do that. I did not hear that."'
La la la, I can't hear you, la la la
Prison facilities contd
Further to my thoughts about prisons, I suddenly remembered the Roman fort kit. When the Roman army travelled, they took with them a pre-fabricated fort, which could be erected pretty much in a day. Put it up, dig ditches, and you had a very serviceable fort. Also, every fort was laid out exactly the same as every other fort. Therefore, every soldier always knew where everything in the fort could be found, even on a dark, stormy night with arrows whistling past his ears. Also, the components of the fort could be fabricated in large quantities, with a minimum of fuss.
Why not have one prison design, designed by a team of prison officers and intelligent members of the public (absolutely no architects allowed)? All prisons would be built according to this design, which would be simple, functional and built on the principle that the Victorians established: a prison should LOOK like a prison, not like a City Academy with slightly fewer security features. It should be built to last 100 years; it should have no entertainment facilities of any kind; it should be spartan; it should be easy to construct; it should maximise the idea of prison as first and foremost punishment.
The same idea could also be used in public housing. There is no need whatsoever to constantly re-design council houses- have one perfectly practical template and build all council houses to that pattern. That template could also have integral to it a materials quality specification which would have to be adhered to. It could save the nations millions and millions in design fees and in sub-standard council house building.
Why not have one prison design, designed by a team of prison officers and intelligent members of the public (absolutely no architects allowed)? All prisons would be built according to this design, which would be simple, functional and built on the principle that the Victorians established: a prison should LOOK like a prison, not like a City Academy with slightly fewer security features. It should be built to last 100 years; it should have no entertainment facilities of any kind; it should be spartan; it should be easy to construct; it should maximise the idea of prison as first and foremost punishment.
The same idea could also be used in public housing. There is no need whatsoever to constantly re-design council houses- have one perfectly practical template and build all council houses to that pattern. That template could also have integral to it a materials quality specification which would have to be adhered to. It could save the nations millions and millions in design fees and in sub-standard council house building.
The constant refrain
'Support for Sharia law, Islamic schools and wearing the veil is much stronger among younger Muslims, a poll for the centre-right Policy Exchange found.
The report's lead author, Munira Mirza, blamed government policy for a growing split between Muslims and non-Muslims.
She said ministers should engage with Muslims as citizens.'
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6308683.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_630868
Thats it? The only problem with young Muslims in Britain is that '...ministers don't engage with Muslims as citizens.' What does that mean? How could I, were I lucky enough to reach the lofty heights of a position in Tony Blairs government, go about engaging with Muslims as citizens? A few days back, I followed a link on the wonderful Knowledge is Power blog to a spoof music video from the late 1980's. In it, a marvellously earnest protest singer puts the world to rights- well almost. Just as he gets to the interesting bit, where he would actually tell all us deluded conservatives what we SHOULD be doing, he goes all mumbly and shifty. This is precisely the same. People like Munira Mirza have a very strong feeling that its all the governments fault, they just can't quite put their finger on why exactly. So she ends up mumbling something about not being engaged with Muslims.
I wish that at least one government minister would engage straightforwardly with the jumble of prejudice, lies, myths and Islamic supremacism that Muslims bandy back and forth between each other, and occasionally with us. I wish some bold minister would go point by point through this noxious mixture and provide the exact reasons why her Majestys Government will not be incorporating any of it into policy. Mostly it would be because its just untrue- all the paranoid fantasies about neo-colonialism and Mossad agents blowing up the WTC and Israeli death balloons etc. Some of it would be ignored because it's anti-British prejudice. And what is left would be ignored because its diametrically opposed to the greater interests of the British people.
Get used to it. Thats the main message. At no point will the rational portion of the British electorate accept having their interests over-ridden by a strident minority of recent arrivals who are largely ignorant of the place they have come to; whose first instincts are supremacist and amongst whose first visible actions as a minority are mass-murder. How many different ways have they invalidated their agenda?
The report's lead author, Munira Mirza, blamed government policy for a growing split between Muslims and non-Muslims.
She said ministers should engage with Muslims as citizens.'
http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6308683.stm?dynamic_vote=ON#vote_630868
Thats it? The only problem with young Muslims in Britain is that '...ministers don't engage with Muslims as citizens.' What does that mean? How could I, were I lucky enough to reach the lofty heights of a position in Tony Blairs government, go about engaging with Muslims as citizens? A few days back, I followed a link on the wonderful Knowledge is Power blog to a spoof music video from the late 1980's. In it, a marvellously earnest protest singer puts the world to rights- well almost. Just as he gets to the interesting bit, where he would actually tell all us deluded conservatives what we SHOULD be doing, he goes all mumbly and shifty. This is precisely the same. People like Munira Mirza have a very strong feeling that its all the governments fault, they just can't quite put their finger on why exactly. So she ends up mumbling something about not being engaged with Muslims.
I wish that at least one government minister would engage straightforwardly with the jumble of prejudice, lies, myths and Islamic supremacism that Muslims bandy back and forth between each other, and occasionally with us. I wish some bold minister would go point by point through this noxious mixture and provide the exact reasons why her Majestys Government will not be incorporating any of it into policy. Mostly it would be because its just untrue- all the paranoid fantasies about neo-colonialism and Mossad agents blowing up the WTC and Israeli death balloons etc. Some of it would be ignored because it's anti-British prejudice. And what is left would be ignored because its diametrically opposed to the greater interests of the British people.
Get used to it. Thats the main message. At no point will the rational portion of the British electorate accept having their interests over-ridden by a strident minority of recent arrivals who are largely ignorant of the place they have come to; whose first instincts are supremacist and amongst whose first visible actions as a minority are mass-murder. How many different ways have they invalidated their agenda?
Friday, January 26, 2007
The Gold Standard in writing
http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/content/articles/Art018-02062004.html
I tried to read this because it seemed there might some meaty analysis of the our parlous state from the Muslim point of view. Oh my God!
"From the 1950s onwards, the oligarchs who had underwritten the long war began to stake their claim. It was a brilliant move and utterly successful. What they said sounded so good. “The government’s job is to govern-but the markets must be free to adjust and develop their processes without state intervention.” In one move on the chess-board, the political ruler, assuming he was inside the democratic system, that is, playing by the rules of the game, had been check-mated. Political power had been stripped of its very motor-force, wealth. Politics itself had become a service industry. The financiers determined the value of the currency. They determined the complex taxation practices. They allotted the political state its budget. In many cases, they determined in detail on what that budget should be spent."
Riiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttt....
"It is not, of course, sustained by magic, but by the anxiety of debt, which makes man blind. The split in the wealth system is that while at the present time it has taken complete control of the world’s commodities, that is to say, everything that has come out of the ground, its hold on that wealth is sustained by the pseudo-wealth it has created with a world system of ‘national’ currencies which are in themselves utterly worthless. In short, base-metal coins, paper notes, and numbers transfer which only exist as electronic signals passing from computer to computer-none of this has either substantive reality or value."
Ooooooookkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy....
Give that man an honorary Economics MSc and an honorary Political Science MSc! But wait for the coup-de-grace-
"The great financial systems of the past, based on the usage of gold metal, created the great civilisations. The current financial system, based on electronic numbers and the world credit systems’ gold plastic cards, has in our lifetime destroyed our continuity with these past civilisations and plunged us into the current ecological and biological disaster-area called modern life."
We are doomed because we don't use gold coins any more. Got it. Thanks.
*** NB I found this by googling the word 'Kuffar'. Have a go, there's not telling how much fun you can have :-)
I tried to read this because it seemed there might some meaty analysis of the our parlous state from the Muslim point of view. Oh my God!
"From the 1950s onwards, the oligarchs who had underwritten the long war began to stake their claim. It was a brilliant move and utterly successful. What they said sounded so good. “The government’s job is to govern-but the markets must be free to adjust and develop their processes without state intervention.” In one move on the chess-board, the political ruler, assuming he was inside the democratic system, that is, playing by the rules of the game, had been check-mated. Political power had been stripped of its very motor-force, wealth. Politics itself had become a service industry. The financiers determined the value of the currency. They determined the complex taxation practices. They allotted the political state its budget. In many cases, they determined in detail on what that budget should be spent."
Riiiiiiiiiiggggggggghhhhhhhtttttttttt....
"It is not, of course, sustained by magic, but by the anxiety of debt, which makes man blind. The split in the wealth system is that while at the present time it has taken complete control of the world’s commodities, that is to say, everything that has come out of the ground, its hold on that wealth is sustained by the pseudo-wealth it has created with a world system of ‘national’ currencies which are in themselves utterly worthless. In short, base-metal coins, paper notes, and numbers transfer which only exist as electronic signals passing from computer to computer-none of this has either substantive reality or value."
Ooooooookkkkkkkkkaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy....
Give that man an honorary Economics MSc and an honorary Political Science MSc! But wait for the coup-de-grace-
"The great financial systems of the past, based on the usage of gold metal, created the great civilisations. The current financial system, based on electronic numbers and the world credit systems’ gold plastic cards, has in our lifetime destroyed our continuity with these past civilisations and plunged us into the current ecological and biological disaster-area called modern life."
We are doomed because we don't use gold coins any more. Got it. Thanks.
*** NB I found this by googling the word 'Kuffar'. Have a go, there's not telling how much fun you can have :-)
Pampered prisoners
The prison population of Britain now exceeds 80,000. The cost of each prisoner per year is £40,000 pounds according to a recent tv news report. That is £3,200,000,000 per year. There are countries whose entire GDP is not that much. Why the huge expense? Is it that prison officers are paid like princes? I don't think so.
I've seen three documentaries about prisons in the last year or so- I was struck by the very high level of facilities across the board. The accomodation was a higher standard than the general housing in many African countries, higher than quite a few hotels I've stayed in, and higher than the homes of many of the inmates. That is a scandal. If for no other reason that every single penny spent on prisons is public funds, that is a terrible scandal. Prison is about punishment. It ought to be unpleasant, difficult and an experience you would not willingly ever repeat. Instead, the evidence is that criminals see prison as a perfectly viable outcome, many even prefering it to forms of punishment like community service where they might actually have some personal discomfort or have to do some real work.
A prison, in my view should be bleak, clean, functional, boring and completely devoid of the facilities that free people enjoy. There would be no TV, no ping-pong tables, no video games- nothing but a stack of Bibles in the chapel. Prisons are much more like hotels than they are places of punishment- drugs are freely available, many prisoners get weekend passes, and in lower security prisons, the inmates have their own bathrooms, desks, TV's and fridges. Until every English person has a home at least that amenity-rich, I don't want a single law-breaker swanning around in such cushy circumstances.
How we came to have such idiotic ideas about prisons I can't say- but the taxes of the poor pay for these Ritzy places and I want that to stop.
I've seen three documentaries about prisons in the last year or so- I was struck by the very high level of facilities across the board. The accomodation was a higher standard than the general housing in many African countries, higher than quite a few hotels I've stayed in, and higher than the homes of many of the inmates. That is a scandal. If for no other reason that every single penny spent on prisons is public funds, that is a terrible scandal. Prison is about punishment. It ought to be unpleasant, difficult and an experience you would not willingly ever repeat. Instead, the evidence is that criminals see prison as a perfectly viable outcome, many even prefering it to forms of punishment like community service where they might actually have some personal discomfort or have to do some real work.
A prison, in my view should be bleak, clean, functional, boring and completely devoid of the facilities that free people enjoy. There would be no TV, no ping-pong tables, no video games- nothing but a stack of Bibles in the chapel. Prisons are much more like hotels than they are places of punishment- drugs are freely available, many prisoners get weekend passes, and in lower security prisons, the inmates have their own bathrooms, desks, TV's and fridges. Until every English person has a home at least that amenity-rich, I don't want a single law-breaker swanning around in such cushy circumstances.
How we came to have such idiotic ideas about prisons I can't say- but the taxes of the poor pay for these Ritzy places and I want that to stop.
Fighting your position
Something which constantly annoys me is the inability of many people, whatever their political views, to argue their own position well. Many is the time I've sat watching debates or current affairs shows where the protagonists seem to be like blind swordsmen weilding foam claymores- unable except by accident to lay even a tiny blow on their opponents.
Much of the anti-war blather, for example, is completely ineffectual: no facts are adduced, no rational position is posited, no evidence of sober thought about outcomes or morality revealed. There are usually very good arguments against particular wars; sadly, most anti-war fanatics rarely discover the genuine arguments and simply rely on generalities, rhetorical flourishes and sentimental gibberish. Having the overpowering feeling that they are right, they don't feel the need to think.
Irrationality is always a fact in politics. But it cannot, in any sane, advanced polity be allowed to be the basis of politics. I would be happy to discuss the US/British interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq with anyone who knows at least as much about those conflicts as I do, has a serious moral interest in the best outcome of those conflicts, and who is able to argue rational points. The latter means accepting when you are wrong, and taking new facts into account even if they destroy previously held beliefs.
Vast numbers of people in Britain now project political poses- a facade of political beliefs without any basis in knowledge or underpinning principles. Britons used to take pride in their extraordinarily dull politics based on the simple, unchanging facts of social, economic and spiritual life. Politeness, geniality, fairness, privacy, personal responsibility, steadiness, thrift, enterprise, dependability, honour, vigour, charitability, humane concern and pity for the less advantaged formed the core of all politics, that part of politics which is not partisan. These ancient and real virtues have been replaced by modish empty vessels: slogans about human rights, generalities about international law, specious historical parallels and taking every possible view on a position other than that of a patriotic Englishman/Englishwoman.
The lack of toughness and vigour of our education system can be blamed for a large amount of this; the rest is the direct outcome of the explosion of anti-rationalist dogma in the 1960's. This anti-rationalist dogma, in among its teeming hatreds, loathed science, political calculation, the existence of objective truth and even simple biological truths. This dogma also touted the arbitrary assertions and revolutionary psychopathologies of Marxism as revealed truth. Anti-rationalism breeds confusion and fatalism- states that exist to a huge degree in British society. What is to be done? A return to our traditional virtues, especially the ones that require speaking the truth, would be a good start.
Much of the anti-war blather, for example, is completely ineffectual: no facts are adduced, no rational position is posited, no evidence of sober thought about outcomes or morality revealed. There are usually very good arguments against particular wars; sadly, most anti-war fanatics rarely discover the genuine arguments and simply rely on generalities, rhetorical flourishes and sentimental gibberish. Having the overpowering feeling that they are right, they don't feel the need to think.
Irrationality is always a fact in politics. But it cannot, in any sane, advanced polity be allowed to be the basis of politics. I would be happy to discuss the US/British interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq with anyone who knows at least as much about those conflicts as I do, has a serious moral interest in the best outcome of those conflicts, and who is able to argue rational points. The latter means accepting when you are wrong, and taking new facts into account even if they destroy previously held beliefs.
Vast numbers of people in Britain now project political poses- a facade of political beliefs without any basis in knowledge or underpinning principles. Britons used to take pride in their extraordinarily dull politics based on the simple, unchanging facts of social, economic and spiritual life. Politeness, geniality, fairness, privacy, personal responsibility, steadiness, thrift, enterprise, dependability, honour, vigour, charitability, humane concern and pity for the less advantaged formed the core of all politics, that part of politics which is not partisan. These ancient and real virtues have been replaced by modish empty vessels: slogans about human rights, generalities about international law, specious historical parallels and taking every possible view on a position other than that of a patriotic Englishman/Englishwoman.
The lack of toughness and vigour of our education system can be blamed for a large amount of this; the rest is the direct outcome of the explosion of anti-rationalist dogma in the 1960's. This anti-rationalist dogma, in among its teeming hatreds, loathed science, political calculation, the existence of objective truth and even simple biological truths. This dogma also touted the arbitrary assertions and revolutionary psychopathologies of Marxism as revealed truth. Anti-rationalism breeds confusion and fatalism- states that exist to a huge degree in British society. What is to be done? A return to our traditional virtues, especially the ones that require speaking the truth, would be a good start.
The vampire Constitution
'In a joint article published in a number of European newspapers, Spain's Alberto Navarro and Luxembourg's Nicolas Schmit say that in today's globalised world "a united and capable Europe is more necessary than ever".
"We cannot resign ourselves to Europe being no more than a huge market or a free trade area," they write.
"We want a political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6300231.stm
I, like tens of millions of people all across Europe, thought the EU constitution was dead. France voted it down, the Netherlands voted it down, the end. True, I'm no expert about these things, but my reasoning I presumed was sound: a constitution could not be acceptable for all of Europe if it had been rejected by France and the Netherlands, important constituent members.
I, also like tens of millions of people across Europe, have no interest in an EU state. I want a 'huge market or free trade area'. After all, at least two generations of politicians in Britain have assured my parents and now me that that's what we signed up for. There will be an awful reckoning if it turns out that under the guise of joining a free-trade area, we have become a province of United Europe. That eventuality would probably provoke the complete unravelling of the political dispensation in Britain: the subjects of the Queen would no longer respond to the politicians in Westminster with anything but abuse and bile. Sovereignty is a precious commodity over which countless wars have been fought- it is only given up in circumstances where the receiving party is considered utterly trustworthy, or when armed resistance is completely at an end.
Neither of those latter conditions prevail in our current circumstances. The instincts of the vast majority of Europeans is that the nation-state is the surest guaruntee of their safety and their interests, and is already the object of their great affection. A socialist super-state with statist, protectionist economic policies; anti-American, pro-Islamist foreign policy; and a vast array of neuroses and self-destructive habits is anathema- if the politicians think they can coerce us into it, they are wrong. People will fight. The Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Balts didn't throw off Communisms dead hand to have it replaced almost immediately by the proto-communists of Luxembourg and Spain.
'A united and capable Europe is more necessary than ever...' Necessary for what?
'We want political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service...' Why? To stop Britain sending armies to help America perhaps? To send European armies to the middle east to help the Arabs destroy Israel perhaps?
Over my dead body.
"We cannot resign ourselves to Europe being no more than a huge market or a free trade area," they write.
"We want a political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service."'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6300231.stm
I, like tens of millions of people all across Europe, thought the EU constitution was dead. France voted it down, the Netherlands voted it down, the end. True, I'm no expert about these things, but my reasoning I presumed was sound: a constitution could not be acceptable for all of Europe if it had been rejected by France and the Netherlands, important constituent members.
I, also like tens of millions of people across Europe, have no interest in an EU state. I want a 'huge market or free trade area'. After all, at least two generations of politicians in Britain have assured my parents and now me that that's what we signed up for. There will be an awful reckoning if it turns out that under the guise of joining a free-trade area, we have become a province of United Europe. That eventuality would probably provoke the complete unravelling of the political dispensation in Britain: the subjects of the Queen would no longer respond to the politicians in Westminster with anything but abuse and bile. Sovereignty is a precious commodity over which countless wars have been fought- it is only given up in circumstances where the receiving party is considered utterly trustworthy, or when armed resistance is completely at an end.
Neither of those latter conditions prevail in our current circumstances. The instincts of the vast majority of Europeans is that the nation-state is the surest guaruntee of their safety and their interests, and is already the object of their great affection. A socialist super-state with statist, protectionist economic policies; anti-American, pro-Islamist foreign policy; and a vast array of neuroses and self-destructive habits is anathema- if the politicians think they can coerce us into it, they are wrong. People will fight. The Czechs, Hungarians, Poles and Balts didn't throw off Communisms dead hand to have it replaced almost immediately by the proto-communists of Luxembourg and Spain.
'A united and capable Europe is more necessary than ever...' Necessary for what?
'We want political Europe that can speak with one voice, and with one minister of foreign affairs and a common foreign service...' Why? To stop Britain sending armies to help America perhaps? To send European armies to the middle east to help the Arabs destroy Israel perhaps?
Over my dead body.
Thursday, January 25, 2007
Must get out more
I just remembered a piece on the Channel 4 news yesterday notable even by that channels standards as dumb and reality-free. They had obtained a video, of which they seemed inordinately pleased, of US and Iraqi soldiers on patrol in Baghdad. Channel 4 news had done a voice over, full of stage whispered horror and melodrama.
To save time, I'll summarize what the actual contents of the video were: a bog-standard US/Iraqi joint patrol stops a car with three blokes in it, and find mortar shells in the boot. On the way back to base, the Iraqi soldiers whack the blokes around a bit, and stuff them unceremoniously into the boot of a Humvee. The end. Nobody died, three more insurgents were cleaned from the streets, no civilians became collateral damage, in other words- total success.
But from the voice-over, you'd have thought that a Szrebrenica-scale breach of human rights had taken place, and that at the very least the UN should pass a stiff resolution of censure against the US. In a city where dozens of people are tortured in ways that you and I really don't want to dwell on and then are murdered every day, by people of the same religion, and where every trip to the market could end up with you being embedded into a nearby building, where the smell of death can be detected in most neighborhoods on most days, three guilty blokes getting some bruises is... a poor joke.
But if you sit in beautiful, modern offices in Grays Inn road, and the closest you have ever come to violence is the local rugby derby, and the most dreadful thing that ever happened to you was not getting a seat on the Northern line, its easy to get carried away. Next thing you know, your script about the Baghdad security situation has become an anguished wail against the futility of war, the hideous brutality of the Americans, the so-last-yearness of America's hubris etc.
I read the blogs of three American embeds (http://www.indcjournal.com/, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/, http://fumento.com/), guys who go out with the US and Iraqi military and police every day. They are usually ex-military, and know the tasks of soldiering very well. They are never over-the-top, never stupid, never hysterical and they are good company to their readers. The difference between the real journalism they produce, and the candy-floss squealing of the Channel 4 prissies is exactly parallel to the difference between a veteran and a pontificating 15-year old braggart. The former commands respect by his simple presence- the latter invites pity and scorn in equal measure.
To save time, I'll summarize what the actual contents of the video were: a bog-standard US/Iraqi joint patrol stops a car with three blokes in it, and find mortar shells in the boot. On the way back to base, the Iraqi soldiers whack the blokes around a bit, and stuff them unceremoniously into the boot of a Humvee. The end. Nobody died, three more insurgents were cleaned from the streets, no civilians became collateral damage, in other words- total success.
But from the voice-over, you'd have thought that a Szrebrenica-scale breach of human rights had taken place, and that at the very least the UN should pass a stiff resolution of censure against the US. In a city where dozens of people are tortured in ways that you and I really don't want to dwell on and then are murdered every day, by people of the same religion, and where every trip to the market could end up with you being embedded into a nearby building, where the smell of death can be detected in most neighborhoods on most days, three guilty blokes getting some bruises is... a poor joke.
But if you sit in beautiful, modern offices in Grays Inn road, and the closest you have ever come to violence is the local rugby derby, and the most dreadful thing that ever happened to you was not getting a seat on the Northern line, its easy to get carried away. Next thing you know, your script about the Baghdad security situation has become an anguished wail against the futility of war, the hideous brutality of the Americans, the so-last-yearness of America's hubris etc.
I read the blogs of three American embeds (http://www.indcjournal.com/, http://www.michaelyon-online.com/, http://fumento.com/), guys who go out with the US and Iraqi military and police every day. They are usually ex-military, and know the tasks of soldiering very well. They are never over-the-top, never stupid, never hysterical and they are good company to their readers. The difference between the real journalism they produce, and the candy-floss squealing of the Channel 4 prissies is exactly parallel to the difference between a veteran and a pontificating 15-year old braggart. The former commands respect by his simple presence- the latter invites pity and scorn in equal measure.
The President, the Pope and the Prime Minister
http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=27
Mark Steyns reliably excellent musings about John O’Sullivans 'splendid new book The President, The Pope And The Prime Minister'. The latter are Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. What links them? They formed a tiny but awesomely influential counter-weight to the prevailing 'wisdom' of the 1970's and 1980's. Each took personal responsibility for turning the self-perception of their constituencies on their heads. Without them, the world would look completely different now.
The biggest question is, did they pass the baton on to people who were up to the job? In my view, two out of three are. George W Bush is a mostly worthy successor to Reagan, Pope Benedict XVI is a doughty force for good- only Tony Blair fails in most respects to live up to Thatcher. Mr Blair may be solidly behind the war on Islamism, but in many other respects he has betrayed the Thatcherite legacy.
This reflects the fact that of all three of those constituencies, Britain has by far the most to fear for the future, and the most bewildering lack of clarity in its 'leaders'. Two full generations of socialist dogma and marxist claptrap in British schools and universities has produced a population bereft of useful knowledge, traditional cultural beliefs about enterprise, and basic economic facts. We now have a political class with no conservative leavening at all.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out in other places, the facts of life are conservative. Trying to govern a country when you have no grip on the facts results in outcomes visible in most African countries. As the Soviet Union discovered, you can manipulate the minds of the people until the cows come home, but the economy just keeps rolling along (or not). And when public morale collapses, or people lose interest in the common enterprise, you need a very strong societal glue to hold things together. What has Britain got? A common hatred of Tony Blair? A common despising of George W Bush? A common appreciation for Chicken Biriani?
Mark Steyns reliably excellent musings about John O’Sullivans 'splendid new book The President, The Pope And The Prime Minister'. The latter are Ronald Reagan, Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher. What links them? They formed a tiny but awesomely influential counter-weight to the prevailing 'wisdom' of the 1970's and 1980's. Each took personal responsibility for turning the self-perception of their constituencies on their heads. Without them, the world would look completely different now.
The biggest question is, did they pass the baton on to people who were up to the job? In my view, two out of three are. George W Bush is a mostly worthy successor to Reagan, Pope Benedict XVI is a doughty force for good- only Tony Blair fails in most respects to live up to Thatcher. Mr Blair may be solidly behind the war on Islamism, but in many other respects he has betrayed the Thatcherite legacy.
This reflects the fact that of all three of those constituencies, Britain has by far the most to fear for the future, and the most bewildering lack of clarity in its 'leaders'. Two full generations of socialist dogma and marxist claptrap in British schools and universities has produced a population bereft of useful knowledge, traditional cultural beliefs about enterprise, and basic economic facts. We now have a political class with no conservative leavening at all.
As Mark Steyn has pointed out in other places, the facts of life are conservative. Trying to govern a country when you have no grip on the facts results in outcomes visible in most African countries. As the Soviet Union discovered, you can manipulate the minds of the people until the cows come home, but the economy just keeps rolling along (or not). And when public morale collapses, or people lose interest in the common enterprise, you need a very strong societal glue to hold things together. What has Britain got? A common hatred of Tony Blair? A common despising of George W Bush? A common appreciation for Chicken Biriani?
Wednesday, January 24, 2007
Going through the motions
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jason_mccue/2007/01/hamas_stepping_stones_to_peace_1.html
'Democracy's leap of faith has reaped a grand reward for Hamas as it did for their Irish brothers. But with electoral success comes the burden of responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to foster peace, which inevitably means respecting its neighbours, adhering to the law and righting wrongs.'
In acting, they call it 'phoning it in'. I'm not sure what they call it in journalism- 'typing the first crap you think of'?
Comparing Hamas with the IRA is just brain-poppingly stupid. The IRA's single goal is the reuniting of the Ulster counties with the rest of Ireland; Hamas's goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of all its Jews. The IRA are both logical and open to reasoned argument- when the bombing of pubs in England alienated Irish people in England, the IRA stopped doing it. When killing bandsmen and ceremonial soldiers lost the IRA even more support, they switched to economic targets like the Natwest tower. This latter strategy worked- and the British government established a dialogue with the IRA that resulted in a reasonable facsimile of peace in Northern Ireland. Implacable the IRA may be: but never satanically evil. It was assumed by all parties that should the north become part of the Irish republic, all hostilities would cease. At no point do I recall the IRA vowing to kill all Unionists and throw their bodies in the sea. What was at issue was an international border.
Hamas have one organisational goal: the destruction of the state of Israel and its people. Logic and reasoning have no impact on their visceral and crazed attachment to that goal. Only a lack of means holds them back. Since 1947, it has been the single political goal of the Arabs. McCue writes "Hamas must begin to play the Irish model of ballot box and Armalite politics until it reaches a position where - down the line - its grassroots militants are happy to disarm and stand down. Eh? 'Play the Irish model'? Hamas are so not interested in playing some political parlour game, or some international diplomatic shell game. They want Israel destroyed. And thats it. When are idiots like McCue going to accept the plain, unvarnished truth?
I am currently reading Robert Spencers 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam', and although he never will, McCue should too. Islam is not that complicated. Its core ideology and practise has not changed much in 1300 years. Kill infidels until they convert to Islam. Jews and Christians are inferior; everybody else is even more inferior. Nobody gets to leave Islam, and any land that is ever part of the Ummah will always be part of the Ummah. Israel is 'Muslim lands'. That simple fact precludes any Arab Muslim from ever accepting the existence of Israel. Forget pathetic lamo attempts at historical parallels. It is the SPECIFICS of history that are important.
Hamas, if it exists in one hundred years, will still be gunning for the erasure of Israel and all Israelis- count on it. Then again, if Mr Ahmedinajad succeeds, they won't have to lift a finger.
'Democracy's leap of faith has reaped a grand reward for Hamas as it did for their Irish brothers. But with electoral success comes the burden of responsibility. Part of that responsibility is to foster peace, which inevitably means respecting its neighbours, adhering to the law and righting wrongs.'
In acting, they call it 'phoning it in'. I'm not sure what they call it in journalism- 'typing the first crap you think of'?
Comparing Hamas with the IRA is just brain-poppingly stupid. The IRA's single goal is the reuniting of the Ulster counties with the rest of Ireland; Hamas's goal is the destruction of the State of Israel, and the death of all its Jews. The IRA are both logical and open to reasoned argument- when the bombing of pubs in England alienated Irish people in England, the IRA stopped doing it. When killing bandsmen and ceremonial soldiers lost the IRA even more support, they switched to economic targets like the Natwest tower. This latter strategy worked- and the British government established a dialogue with the IRA that resulted in a reasonable facsimile of peace in Northern Ireland. Implacable the IRA may be: but never satanically evil. It was assumed by all parties that should the north become part of the Irish republic, all hostilities would cease. At no point do I recall the IRA vowing to kill all Unionists and throw their bodies in the sea. What was at issue was an international border.
Hamas have one organisational goal: the destruction of the state of Israel and its people. Logic and reasoning have no impact on their visceral and crazed attachment to that goal. Only a lack of means holds them back. Since 1947, it has been the single political goal of the Arabs. McCue writes "Hamas must begin to play the Irish model of ballot box and Armalite politics until it reaches a position where - down the line - its grassroots militants are happy to disarm and stand down. Eh? 'Play the Irish model'? Hamas are so not interested in playing some political parlour game, or some international diplomatic shell game. They want Israel destroyed. And thats it. When are idiots like McCue going to accept the plain, unvarnished truth?
I am currently reading Robert Spencers 'Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam', and although he never will, McCue should too. Islam is not that complicated. Its core ideology and practise has not changed much in 1300 years. Kill infidels until they convert to Islam. Jews and Christians are inferior; everybody else is even more inferior. Nobody gets to leave Islam, and any land that is ever part of the Ummah will always be part of the Ummah. Israel is 'Muslim lands'. That simple fact precludes any Arab Muslim from ever accepting the existence of Israel. Forget pathetic lamo attempts at historical parallels. It is the SPECIFICS of history that are important.
Hamas, if it exists in one hundred years, will still be gunning for the erasure of Israel and all Israelis- count on it. Then again, if Mr Ahmedinajad succeeds, they won't have to lift a finger.
The world according to the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/6294595.stm
"Opus Dei was formed in 1928 in Madrid by the priest Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. Its name means "the work of God". It encourages members to see religion as something that should direct every minute of their lives, rather than being a matter of just turning up for Mass and confession.
But it has aroused controversy in the past, with critics calling it secretive and ultra-conservative, claims which its members deny."
BOTH secretive AND ultra-conservative? Well that just makes me want to go get each one of those bastards and rip out their spines and flog them to death with it, over and over again. In these enlightened times in which we live, there must be no secrets and absolutely no conservatives. And basically, if you want to make up a plot where Opus Dei members murder and plot and connive BECAUSE they are Opus Dei, who's gonna stop ya? Its not like they're the Muslims or anything.
"Opus Dei was formed in 1928 in Madrid by the priest Josemaria Escriva de Balaguer. Its name means "the work of God". It encourages members to see religion as something that should direct every minute of their lives, rather than being a matter of just turning up for Mass and confession.
But it has aroused controversy in the past, with critics calling it secretive and ultra-conservative, claims which its members deny."
BOTH secretive AND ultra-conservative? Well that just makes me want to go get each one of those bastards and rip out their spines and flog them to death with it, over and over again. In these enlightened times in which we live, there must be no secrets and absolutely no conservatives. And basically, if you want to make up a plot where Opus Dei members murder and plot and connive BECAUSE they are Opus Dei, who's gonna stop ya? Its not like they're the Muslims or anything.
Off topic
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpkHJEKpL6k
Watching this clip of Neil Diamond in 1966, I had a sudden thought. He looks like a man. Even with the long, shaggy hair. If you took all the little shites that make pop/indie music in 2007, and lined them up, it would probably look like a primary school outing. They don't just look like effeminate kids, they sound like lobotomised effeminite kids. This is going to sound totally gay, but isn't: where have all the men gone? Where are the all the Robert Plants, the Ozzy Osbournes, the Jimi Hendrixes, the Jim Morrisons and the Roger Waters? These guys were not children.
The great question is, is pop/indie music in 2007 crap because its made by children, or crap because its made by people with no talent?
Watching this clip of Neil Diamond in 1966, I had a sudden thought. He looks like a man. Even with the long, shaggy hair. If you took all the little shites that make pop/indie music in 2007, and lined them up, it would probably look like a primary school outing. They don't just look like effeminate kids, they sound like lobotomised effeminite kids. This is going to sound totally gay, but isn't: where have all the men gone? Where are the all the Robert Plants, the Ozzy Osbournes, the Jimi Hendrixes, the Jim Morrisons and the Roger Waters? These guys were not children.
The great question is, is pop/indie music in 2007 crap because its made by children, or crap because its made by people with no talent?
Lib Dem puts on blindfold, sticks pin in calendar
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6292863.stm
As soon as I saw the headline 'Quit Iraq by October - Lib Dems', I knew what I wanted to find out from the story. Why October? Why not September? Or November? Within a few seconds, my expectations began to sink... as the paragraphs went by, there seemed to be no discussion of this point. Could it be that thats the beginning of the school year, so the squaddies would be back in time to see their kids off to school? Maybe because the days start to get shorter, and there's less fighting time? Perhaps October is just a very auspicious time of year for Lib Dems.
We'll never know, because Ming 'the fragile' Campbell didn't bother to say. This reinforces in a way that is completely unnecessary the completely light-weight, jury-rigged, thoughtless nature of Lib Dem policies. Do this! Don't do that! the Lib Dems intone in their completely arbitrary way. But then a thought occured to me- maybe what the Lib Dems were suggesting was that THEY are going to quit Iraq by October; all the massed squadrons of Lib Dem personnel will be out. Thats fine! They can return to Somerset and Scotland and all the other hives of Lib Dem activity and resume their intense discussions of Street Light placement and meals-on-wheels for the under14's. As long as they butt out of the discussion of the new Iraqi settlement, the rest of us will be happy.
As soon as I saw the headline 'Quit Iraq by October - Lib Dems', I knew what I wanted to find out from the story. Why October? Why not September? Or November? Within a few seconds, my expectations began to sink... as the paragraphs went by, there seemed to be no discussion of this point. Could it be that thats the beginning of the school year, so the squaddies would be back in time to see their kids off to school? Maybe because the days start to get shorter, and there's less fighting time? Perhaps October is just a very auspicious time of year for Lib Dems.
We'll never know, because Ming 'the fragile' Campbell didn't bother to say. This reinforces in a way that is completely unnecessary the completely light-weight, jury-rigged, thoughtless nature of Lib Dem policies. Do this! Don't do that! the Lib Dems intone in their completely arbitrary way. But then a thought occured to me- maybe what the Lib Dems were suggesting was that THEY are going to quit Iraq by October; all the massed squadrons of Lib Dem personnel will be out. Thats fine! They can return to Somerset and Scotland and all the other hives of Lib Dem activity and resume their intense discussions of Street Light placement and meals-on-wheels for the under14's. As long as they butt out of the discussion of the new Iraqi settlement, the rest of us will be happy.
Tuesday, January 23, 2007
Iran the major regional power
" Middle East
There is no obvious regional power in the Middle East, especially after the instability following the fall of the former regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are three Middle power states with considerable power and influence in the region: Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. (These are ranked by the NMC scores from the Correlates of War Project.[2])
Turkey more easily fits the traditional definition of a regional power, with by far the largest military budget, the highest GDP, and also the largest population and a stable secular democratic government. Its influence is more effective out of Middle East region, with the Turkish Armed Forces involvement in peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, which is seen as the strongest Inter-Military Cooperation Power in the world. Turkey is a member of G20, which is a group consisting of 19 of the world's largest economies. As of 2006, Turkey is in accession negotiations to join the European Union which is an emerging superpower already. Turkey is the successor to the Ottoman Empire which was considered a Great Power spreading over three continents for over six hundred years. If Turkey joins the European Union and the European sphere, it might trade its influence on Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations for European ones, effectively changing regions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power
Every time I read an article in the mainstream media, I now read some version of the following, "Iran, the emerging regional power..."
Does this stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all? One of the best indicators of Irans real standing in its own region, let alone the world, is the utter desparation of its leaders to get nuclear weapons. Exactly as Saddam Hussein felt he was a big fish but with a little mans weapons, the Iranian Mullahs want to be big fish, but they're armed with 1970's technology. Not only that, the economy that underlies that '70s technology is faltering. Every indication is that a number of factors, including very widespread cynicism and disenchantment with the governing elite, militate against Iran being even as strong as it is for very long. But just as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons gave Saddam a huge boost in perceived power in the middle east for the time he possessed them, the same can be true for the Mullahs. And from what they say publicly, we can easily believe that for them, it would be enough to have the weapons to destroy Israel and swagger about the middle east, even if at the same time their people were sitting around with no work and a failing economy.
Iran is not a regional power, but with nuclear weapons it would be. We cannot be allow it to happen. You don't give madmen terrible, destructive toys to play with.
There is no obvious regional power in the Middle East, especially after the instability following the fall of the former regimes of Afghanistan and Iraq. There are three Middle power states with considerable power and influence in the region: Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia. (These are ranked by the NMC scores from the Correlates of War Project.[2])
Turkey more easily fits the traditional definition of a regional power, with by far the largest military budget, the highest GDP, and also the largest population and a stable secular democratic government. Its influence is more effective out of Middle East region, with the Turkish Armed Forces involvement in peacekeeping operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Kosovo and Somalia. Turkey has been a member of NATO since 1952, which is seen as the strongest Inter-Military Cooperation Power in the world. Turkey is a member of G20, which is a group consisting of 19 of the world's largest economies. As of 2006, Turkey is in accession negotiations to join the European Union which is an emerging superpower already. Turkey is the successor to the Ottoman Empire which was considered a Great Power spreading over three continents for over six hundred years. If Turkey joins the European Union and the European sphere, it might trade its influence on Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations for European ones, effectively changing regions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_power
Every time I read an article in the mainstream media, I now read some version of the following, "Iran, the emerging regional power..."
Does this stand up to any kind of scrutiny at all? One of the best indicators of Irans real standing in its own region, let alone the world, is the utter desparation of its leaders to get nuclear weapons. Exactly as Saddam Hussein felt he was a big fish but with a little mans weapons, the Iranian Mullahs want to be big fish, but they're armed with 1970's technology. Not only that, the economy that underlies that '70s technology is faltering. Every indication is that a number of factors, including very widespread cynicism and disenchantment with the governing elite, militate against Iran being even as strong as it is for very long. But just as Nuclear, Biological and Chemical weapons gave Saddam a huge boost in perceived power in the middle east for the time he possessed them, the same can be true for the Mullahs. And from what they say publicly, we can easily believe that for them, it would be enough to have the weapons to destroy Israel and swagger about the middle east, even if at the same time their people were sitting around with no work and a failing economy.
Iran is not a regional power, but with nuclear weapons it would be. We cannot be allow it to happen. You don't give madmen terrible, destructive toys to play with.
Irans teeth are pulled
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/6289891.stm
A two-pronged (at least) offensive is in progress- the top of the tree, the Quds Brigades Iranian meta-organisers are being pinched off; and at the bottom, the foot-soldiers of the Mahdi army are being rounded up wholesale and their unit commanders killed or taken out of the situation. At last! I would slightly criticise the US military middle-rankers and Pentagon brass for having taken so long to grasp this nettle, but I guess up til now the political situation demanded that Maliki's buddies in the Badr and Mahdi be given a loose rein. Not any more. The militias are rightly seen as the invisible armies keeping the Iraq situation white-hot, and providing cover for all the plain old thugs and criminals who make life absolute hell for many ordinary Iraqis.
We are definitely entering a new phase. Al-Qaeda have felt it necessary to mock the new offensives; that means it hurts and its working. Good.
A two-pronged (at least) offensive is in progress- the top of the tree, the Quds Brigades Iranian meta-organisers are being pinched off; and at the bottom, the foot-soldiers of the Mahdi army are being rounded up wholesale and their unit commanders killed or taken out of the situation. At last! I would slightly criticise the US military middle-rankers and Pentagon brass for having taken so long to grasp this nettle, but I guess up til now the political situation demanded that Maliki's buddies in the Badr and Mahdi be given a loose rein. Not any more. The militias are rightly seen as the invisible armies keeping the Iraq situation white-hot, and providing cover for all the plain old thugs and criminals who make life absolute hell for many ordinary Iraqis.
We are definitely entering a new phase. Al-Qaeda have felt it necessary to mock the new offensives; that means it hurts and its working. Good.
Listen and obey the people who hate you
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm
The America-haters of Britain have clubbed together to tell the US it needs to 'Listen more'. What they mean is, listen to us, and do everything we say. Now why would America want to do that exactly? America is liberal, sure, and it supports free speech, and it has absorbed a huge amount of unfair and mendacious criticism from the rest of the world, who very often have huge beams to America's tiny motes. But why would it listen to these liars, nay-sayers and haters? What gain would that be to America?
One thing it would not do would stop the criticism. In fact, if the liars and critics thought they were succeeding, the volume would go up to 11 (for those Spinal Tap aficianados among you). People hate America because it is strong, it is rich, it doesn't pay lip service to the moronic socialist/PC pieties, and it doesn't rush off on every enviro-bullshit bandwagon. The strong and the rich always attract the hatred of the weak and the lazy. They take strength and prosperity as a personal affront. Only when America is weak and poor can expect to be accepted into the great circle of corrupt, poverty-stricken, barbaric governments.
And you know- I don't think that looks like a very good deal, even from English shores.
The America-haters of Britain have clubbed together to tell the US it needs to 'Listen more'. What they mean is, listen to us, and do everything we say. Now why would America want to do that exactly? America is liberal, sure, and it supports free speech, and it has absorbed a huge amount of unfair and mendacious criticism from the rest of the world, who very often have huge beams to America's tiny motes. But why would it listen to these liars, nay-sayers and haters? What gain would that be to America?
One thing it would not do would stop the criticism. In fact, if the liars and critics thought they were succeeding, the volume would go up to 11 (for those Spinal Tap aficianados among you). People hate America because it is strong, it is rich, it doesn't pay lip service to the moronic socialist/PC pieties, and it doesn't rush off on every enviro-bullshit bandwagon. The strong and the rich always attract the hatred of the weak and the lazy. They take strength and prosperity as a personal affront. Only when America is weak and poor can expect to be accepted into the great circle of corrupt, poverty-stricken, barbaric governments.
And you know- I don't think that looks like a very good deal, even from English shores.
How many would be dead?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6289581.stm
How many people who are alive right now would be dead if we weren't constantly breaking up Islamic murder cells? What would the politics of Britain be like if we didn't have very effective secret services?
There is a very vocal section of our population who believe that Islamic terrorism is a myth perpetrated on the lovely, peaceable Muslims by the great Satan Bush and the boy satan Blair. In a strange way, they are enabled in this view by the highly effective identification and destruction of Islamic murder cells by the British Secret Service. So far, only two groups have managed to take to full fruition their murderous intentions; the 21/7 ones only failing due to faulty chemistry. But week after week, we hear of these cells being rounded up, any one of which could have potentially killed hundreds, if not thousands of people.
The British are not a particularly peaceable nation. One of our national pastimes is the throwing-out-time pub fight. I'd say there would only need to be a couple more successful bombings within Britain before there is a visceral and violent reaction against the Islamic population. Throughout English history, groups who bring unwanted ideologies or violence to Britain have been subject to robust resistance from the natives, especially if they are non-natives.
What is more, when I listen to Muslims, especially young ones, talking about the current situation, they seem to be willing exactly this kind of violent reaction upon themselves. Only people who have never lived through a situation like that, which I have, would be so blase about bringing the sword of Damocles down upon their own heads. My every day experience walking the streets of London is that ordinary English people are sick to death of being put upon. Put upon by the Politically Correct legions, put upon by all the different minorities clamoring to have their interests put before everyone elses, put upon by the political class who have no idea what is going on in British towns and cities, put upon by the Police who consider white people to always in the wrong.
This situation does not have a long shelf life.
How many people who are alive right now would be dead if we weren't constantly breaking up Islamic murder cells? What would the politics of Britain be like if we didn't have very effective secret services?
There is a very vocal section of our population who believe that Islamic terrorism is a myth perpetrated on the lovely, peaceable Muslims by the great Satan Bush and the boy satan Blair. In a strange way, they are enabled in this view by the highly effective identification and destruction of Islamic murder cells by the British Secret Service. So far, only two groups have managed to take to full fruition their murderous intentions; the 21/7 ones only failing due to faulty chemistry. But week after week, we hear of these cells being rounded up, any one of which could have potentially killed hundreds, if not thousands of people.
The British are not a particularly peaceable nation. One of our national pastimes is the throwing-out-time pub fight. I'd say there would only need to be a couple more successful bombings within Britain before there is a visceral and violent reaction against the Islamic population. Throughout English history, groups who bring unwanted ideologies or violence to Britain have been subject to robust resistance from the natives, especially if they are non-natives.
What is more, when I listen to Muslims, especially young ones, talking about the current situation, they seem to be willing exactly this kind of violent reaction upon themselves. Only people who have never lived through a situation like that, which I have, would be so blase about bringing the sword of Damocles down upon their own heads. My every day experience walking the streets of London is that ordinary English people are sick to death of being put upon. Put upon by the Politically Correct legions, put upon by all the different minorities clamoring to have their interests put before everyone elses, put upon by the political class who have no idea what is going on in British towns and cities, put upon by the Police who consider white people to always in the wrong.
This situation does not have a long shelf life.
Monday, January 22, 2007
Mark Daily: a man we should thank
This made me feel extremely humble, and very sad.
Sunday, October 29, 2006
WHY I JOINED
Current mood: optimistic
Why I Joined:
This question has been asked of me so many times in so many different contexts that I thought it would be best if I wrote my reasons for joining the Army on my page for all to see. First, the more accurate question is why I volunteered to go to Iraq. After all, I joined the Army a week after we declared war on Saddam's government with the intention of going to Iraq. Now, after years of training and preparation, I am finally here.
Much has changed in the last three years. The criminal Ba'ath regime has been replaced by an insurgency fueled by Iraq's neighbors who hope to partition Iraq for their own ends. This is coupled with the ever present transnational militant Islamist movement which has seized upon Iraq as the greatest way to kill Americans, along with anyone else they happen to be standing near. What was once a paralyzed state of fear is now the staging ground for one of the largest transformations of power and ideology the Middle East has experienced since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire. thanks to Iran, Syria, and other enlightened local actors, this transformation will be plagued by interregional hatred and genocide. And I am now in the center of this.
Is this why I joined?
Yes. Much has been said about America's intentions in overthrowing Saddam Hussein and seeking to establish a new state based upon political representation and individual rights. Many have framed the paradigm through which they view the conflict around one-word explanations such as "oil" or "terrorism," favoring the one which best serves their political persuasion. I did the same thing, and anyone who knew me before I joined knows that I am quite aware and at times sympathetic to the arguments against the war in Iraq. If you think the only way a person could bring themselves to volunteer for this war is through sheer desperation or blind obedience then consider me the exception (though there are countless like me).I joined the fight because it occurred to me that many modern day "humanists" who claim to possess a genuine concern for human beings throughout the world are in fact quite content to allow their fellow "global citizens" to suffer under the most hideous state apparatuses and conditions. Their excuses used to be my excuses. When asked why we shouldn't confront the Ba'ath party, the Taliban or the various other tyrannies throughout this world, my answers would allude to vague notions of cultural tolerance (forcing women to wear a veil and stay indoors is such a quaint cultural tradition), the sanctity of national sovereignty (how eager we internationalists are to throw up borders to defend dictatorships!) or even a creeping suspicion of America's intentions.
When all else failed, I would retreat to my fragile moral ecosystem that years of living in peace and liberty had provided me. I would write off war because civilian casualties were guaranteed, or temporary alliances with illiberal forces would be made, or tank fuel was toxic for the environment. My fellow "humanists" and I would relish contently in our self righteous declaration of opposition against all military campaigns against dictatorships, congratulating one another for refusing to taint that aforementioned fragile moral ecosystem that many still cradle with all the revolutionary tenacity of the members of Rage Against the Machine and Greenday. Others would point to America's historical support of Saddam Hussein, sighting it as hypocritical that we would now vilify him as a thug and a tyrant. Upon explaining that we did so to ward off the fiercely Islamist Iran, which was correctly identified as the greater threat at the time, eyes are rolled and hypocrisy is declared. Forgetting that America sided with Stalin to defeat Hitler, who was promptly confronted once the Nazis were destroyed, America's initial engagement with Saddam and other
regional actors is identified as the ultimate argument against America's moral
crusade.
And maybe it is. Maybe the reality of politics makes all political action inherently crude and immoral. Or maybe it is these adventures in philosophical masturbation that prevent people from ever taking any kind of effective action against men like Saddam Hussein. One thing is for certain, as disagreeable or as confusing as my decision to enter the fray may be, consider what peace vigils against genocide have accomplished lately. Consider that there are 19 year old soldiers from the Midwest who have never touched a college campus or a protest who have done more to uphold the universal legitimacy of representative government and individual rights by placing themselves between Iraqi voting lines and homicidal religious fanatics. Often times it is less about how clean your actions are and more about how pure your intentions are.
So that is why I joined. In the time it took for you to read this explanation, innocent people your age have suffered under the crushing misery of tyranny. Every tool of philosophical advancement and communication that we use to develop our opinions about this war are denied to countless human beings on this planet, many of whom live under the regimes that have, in my opinion, been legitimately targeted for destruction. Some have allowed their resentment of the President to stir silent applause for setbacks in Iraq. Others have ironically decried the war because it has tied up our forces and prevented them from confronting criminal regimes in Sudan, Uganda, and elsewhere.
I simply decided that the time for candid discussions of the oppressed was over, and I joined. In digesting this posting, please remember that America's commitment to overthrow Saddam Hussein and his sons existed before the current administration and would exist into our future children's lives had we not acted. Please remember that the problems that plague Iraq today were set in motion centuries ago and were up until now held back by the most cruel of cages.
Don't forget that human beings have a responsibility to one another and that Americans will always have a responsibility to the oppressed. Don't overlook the obvious reasons to disagree with the war but don't cheapen the moral aspects either. Assisting a formerly oppressed population in converting their torn society into a plural, democratic one is dangerous and difficult business, especially when being attacked and sabotaged from literally every direction. So if you have anything to say to me at the end of this reading, let it at least include "Good Luck"
Mark Daily
Quoted from http://michellemalkin.com/archives/006723.htm
Mark Daily died along with three other Marines on Monday 15th January 2007, and the world is much the poorer for his loss. His words are strong and true. What a great tragedy that men like him have to die so Iraq has a shot.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)