Re: the frikkin' holdup...

The Saddamites, despicable as their motives are, and like most scumbags, twist their lies like taffy from strands of truth. We've spent many tens of billions on the war in Iraq, and we're not more directly secure from it: Iraq certainly did not have the capacity to attack the US, nor - unlike Iran - were they moving in that direction. In retrospect, we simply didn't get our money's worth from that war.

In a sense, perhaps we're indirectly more secure, but only if our enemies are stupider than I suspect. We set conditions on Iraq after the first aborted invasion and, after a decade of letting them fire on our air patrols, we enforced those conditions. But are our enemies, in fact, moronic enough to think that we've committed to a new no-tolerance-for-bullshit principle? Not when we've already tolerated further bullshit, both in and out of Iraq.

The only thing that could now make the war in Iraq worthwhile is the unlikely event of using our fantastic strategic situation, there and in Afghanistan, to charge in and blow the crap out Ahmadinejad and his psychotic cronies. But that ain't gonna happen.

None of these strands of truth, of course, excuse the Saddamites; they only serve as cover for their real agenda of diplomacy-above-all. That's especially apparent given their apparent unwillingness to admit when they've been wrong; where's the coverage of some of the biggest Iraq news of the year, aside from on Fox? See http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200499,00.html.

So what's the holdup? It's the Saddamites, but more, it's a culture that gives them the moral high ground. Principled, take-no-prisoners self-preservation isn't defensible under altruism, so those who want to keep civilization safe are reduced to arguing concretes. "Were we justified in going into Iraq?" turns into "Was the intelligence reliable?" turns into "Who at the CIA was aware of a single threat notice prior to 9/11?" - and multiplied by however many bored intellectuals exist to drag up such questions, the hashing-out can go on indefinitely. Meanwhile, the world does not wait to fall apart.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=23655

It's a philosophical, moral, and public relations disaster for Israel to apologize for Qana. So too for all the other injuries and deaths of "innocent civilians." Except for children, none are innocent. And the Lebanese and their parents are to blame for all.

If Israel had even a modicum of rationality or self-confidence it would demand that the appeasing, conniving, Lebanese government apologize to its people for the recent massive destruction of property and lives. Then it would demand that they surrender -- or else.

Allowing and supporting a 10,000-man, 15,000-missile jihadist militia on the border with Israel is neither just, nor moral, nor wise. Such a depraved act on the part of the Lebanese government practically begs for devastation and doom.

For the Israelis to abjectly apologize(!) for their ginger and timid war behavior -- when they're the victims here, and Jewish suffering is immense -- puts their philosophical and moral bankruptcy on high display. In the end, Israel has only one enemy of any power -- only one enemy which can seriously hurt her. No, not Eqypt or even a nuclear-armed Iran. It's her own evil, self-hating, self-destructive ideology. The Age of Reason and liberal era died out over two centuries ago -- and you can really see it on both sides of the current conflict.

In many ways, you really have to admire the Jews of the Middle East. Despite being outnumbered fifty or one hundred to one in all their wars, and despite going up against enemies of almost limitless fanaticism and savagery, the dynamic Jews simply refuse to lose. Their will to survive against all odds is truly great.

But in many ways, you really have to revile and hate the Jews too. They simply refuse to win. Every hard-fought, inspiring, military victory is quickly followed by a masochistic, crushing, diplomatic defeat. These miserable, pathetic, Jew-bastards surrender and retreat as much as possible, and as quickly as they humanly can. It's beyond disgusting. After every heroic triumph these guys are chomping at the bit to undercut and subvert themselves -- they irresistibly yearn to gut their own self-interest. The whole country seems a madhouse.

Will the Israelis ever make the Arabs pay for their limitless crimes? Will they ever gain some desperately-needed and utterly-earned territory? Will they ever expel the genocidal enemies from their midst?

Evidently not. Too rational and moral for their tastes, I guess. Self-vivisection, self-immolation, and suicide seem to be a way of life for the Israelis.

Hamas and Hezbollah aren't their enemies. Neither are Syria  and Iran. Not even Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. To find their deadliest opponent by far, the Israelis need to look in a mirror.

"The crazy thing is, the more severe Lebanon's defeat, the more likely it is that Israel will comply with these "unconditional" terms."

There is a propaganda war going on simultaneously. The enemies of the west punch well above their military might on this front, aided and abetted by the many traitors who live among us.

Watching the Israel-Lebanon incident unfold has transformed me into more of a warhawk than I ever thought possible.  It's clear that the deaths in Qana are the responsibility of Hezbollah.  Israel rightly proclaimed last week that any village from which rockets are fired will be "flattened" and utterly annihilated.  They haven't made good on this proclamation, but they should.  It is the only way to get the militants to stop attacking them.

The Lebanese Prime Minister recently had the gall to say that he will "accept nothing short of an immediate and unconditional cease fire," and he explicitly sanctioned a Hezbollah response to the Qana airstrike.  How is it possible for an aggressor nation, that is being soundly defeated in a war, to seriously demand the de facto *surrender* of the country that is kicking its ass?  The crazy thing is, the more severe Lebanon's defeat, the more likely it is that Israel will comply with these "unconditional" terms.

Brook/Epstein/Journo have got it right.  The only thing that makes Israel's defeat possible is the philosophy of altruism on which Just War Theory stands.  I know that many of you who express concern for the "rights" of non-combatants believe that your opinions are founded on political theory, but when you see that the practical results of your beliefs are antithetical to our survival, it's time to check your premises.

--Dan Edge

Every time I check my email, next to the news headline about Israel and airstrikes, I see a picture of a Palestinian holding a dead baby with calls for cease-fires. Fucking Bullshit. WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE AGAINST HEZBOLLAH?

You know..when it became clear that Iran was operating within Iraq(and there is undeniable evidence of this fact), the U.S. should have responded immediately. Even under the mind-numbingly stupid international legal regime, Iran's actions in Iraq can be construed as "acts of aggression" or "acts of war." The fact that the U.S. remains unresponsive sends a message that we are weak and indecisive (which is, of course, precisely the opposite of the message we should be sending). Frankly, I'm getting damn tired of all this kow-towing to evil jackasses. Call me a warmonger...in this case I am...and I have factual basis for being so.

Saddam's cock-suckers, that's what. Among Europe's political "leaders," the western media generally, & even, it seems—Galt help us—within Objectivism. They claim to believe that Iran should have been targeted before Iraq, but in truth, had that happened, they would have opposed that as well. And all their wailings have intimidated a confused conservative named Bush.

Trendy lefties love to say we're getting bogged down in another Vietnam. They would be right, inasmuch as we're up against hellishly proliferating guerrilla-types who want to increase in number the more you kill them tentatively and piece-meal rather than wiping them out. We didn't seem to have trouble knowing what to do with Japan. (Things were so un-PC back then, the enemy was called "the Japs." Imagine the outrage from the trendy lefties if we made up not-so-nice names for the raging enemy.)

Anyway, what do y'all make of the rather convenient fact that we now have forces both to the east and to the west of Iran? If the whole world hasn't gone crazy, Iran should be in utter fear that its sworn enemy has it nearly surrounded and hinting in Don Corleone-like ways that it ought to shape up.

What is the frikkin' holdup, anyway? Iran is known to sponsor terrorism, it's known to execute people for having consensual sex, it's known to be a intellectual-moral-cultural-existential cesspool that requires cleansing. What are we waiting for, diplomacy to take its course and the global consensus (or whatever Kerryite appeaser-wording it is) to approve? Can you just imagine if we had taken this kind of course with Japan? We might still be fighting them today, or habitually putting up with their slimy back-channel innocent-shield cockroach guerilla kamikazi suicide proxy-attacks.

All coverage that I have seen of the bombing of the house in Qana, in the heart of an area from which Hezbollah missiles are being fired at Israel, has blamed Israel for the lives lost. This in fact is a prime example of what Jason is talking about—the responsibility is Hezbollah's. Israel warned everyone to get the hell out of there, & no one did. Now Israel, under U.S. pressure (scratch what I wrote about Condoleezza for President), has announced a ceasefire, with no reciprocal gesture from Hezbollah. No mention of that in the media, nor of whatever carnage has been wrought by the Hezbollah rockets. Nor of the fact that this whole latest round of hostilities is the result of Hezbollah aggression, part of its campaign to eliminate Israel. Disgraceful.

"Saying "Let's engage in diplomacy with Hezbollah, Iran, N. Korea et al" is equivalent to saying "let's discuss this rationally" to the thug who has a gun pointed at your head."

US governments (particularly Bush Snr's) pressured the UK into such discussions with IRA. As a result, thousands of IRA thugs roam the streets of Ulster and Britain.

He has made one of the better posts on this subject. The best Israel can do is tell people to get out of the way. In this context it would seem (from someone who gets his "intelligence" on FOX and CNN) that Israel should invade with overwhelming ground and air force and win control over southern lebanon as quickly as possible.  Civilian casualties are the fault of Hezbollah and those irrational people who fail to heed the repeated warnings.

- Jason

Saddam was not a supporter of Al Quaeda. He could have been tackled after Al Quaeda and its supporters had been defeated. The Iraq war has weakened the ability of the allies to defeat Al Quaeda. In fact, it strengthened Al Quaeda and gave it a new cause as a basis for recruitment. Tactically, Bush had made huge errors.

Bush has made significant blunders, but the problem with your above statement is that any invasion of an Arab country, whether it was going to be Iraq or someplace else, would turn the country into a theatre of Jihad. Bush didn't create any new cause - he merely opened another front. Unfortunately we're going to lose on every front until the West decides to fight properly.

As far as Lebanon is concerned, Israel has every right to invade and take on Hezbollah. My opposition is to the bombing of areas where is no Hezbollah presence. The unnecessary killing of civilians only helps Hezbollah.

No it doesn't. No one has rallied to Hezbollah's side who was previously pro-Israel. Nasrallah became the most admired man in the Middle East the very day Israel began to bomb Southern Lebanon (they took polls, and he was the clear winner) -- before the invasion. The majority of Arabs in the region will worship anyone who fights Israel, for any reason. The exception is the Christian Lebanese, who haven't let civilian casualities change their minds at all. They're still luke-warm pro-Israel (or ambivalent) and virulently anti-Hezbollah.

Hezbollah has made human shields of the population of Lebanon, and most Lebanese have either applauded or sat back and let it happen over the last five years. There's simply no way you can destroy Hezbollah without aiming at civilian infrastructure. The "Army of God" isn't just an army; it's a party, it's a propoganda machine, it's the airport and the bridges and the underground bunkers and the communications lines. It's the people with whom they do business. Etc.

The best you can do is warn people to get out of the way, so long as that warning doesn't undermine any specific operation. But observe that when Israel started bombing the southern villages and warned people beforehand, Hezbollah was willing to set up roadblocks to keep people from escaping.

Diplomacy can "work" with thugs, John, if it's a tactic for gaining an advantage, but not if it's a way to let them get their way under the smokescreen of "peace" as a desirable primary. The good guys should want peace, but only on good-guy terms.

--Brant

Yaron Brook is dead on (Linz, thanks for posting that...) Diplomacy doesn't work with thugs. Saying "Let's engage in diplomacy with Hezbollah, Iran, N. Korea et al" is equivalent to saying "let's discuss this rationally" to the thug who has a gun pointed at your head.

A war must have a defined enemy who must be defeated. The term "war on terror" is too vague - like the "war on drugs". The enemy is Al Quaeda and its supporters/funders. That is who we should formally declare war on.

Saddam was not a supporter of Al Quaeda. He could have been tackled after Al Quaeda and its supporters had been defeated. The Iraq war has weakened the ability of the allies to defeat Al Quaeda. In fact, it strengthened Al Quaeda and gave it a new cause as a basis for recruitment. Tactically, Bush had made huge errors.

As far as Lebanon is concerned, Israel has every right to invade and take on Hezbollah. My opposition is to the bombing of areas where is no Hezbollah presence. The unnecessary killing of civilians only helps Hezbollah.

Ayman al-Zawahiri, 2nd in command of Al-Queda, said toady "all the world is a battlefield open in front of us."

"The war with Israel does not depend on cease-fires. ... It is a jihad (holy war) for the sake of God and will last until (our) religion prevails ... from Spain to Iraq," he said. "We will attack everywhere."

Do we need a more exclicit declaration of war?  When will the US declare war?  I agree with those who say that we must demand the unconditional surrender of Al-Queda, Hezbollah, and other Islamic Totalitarian groups, no matter what countries they are hiding in.

--Dan Edge

"We are teaching the Islamic totalitarians in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran that their goal of destroying us is legitimate; that aggression is practical; that the more aggressive they are, the more we will surrender."

Yep, that pretty much sums it up.

Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur!

Death to Diplomacy
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
By: Yaron Brook

Irvine, CA--Even those who blame Hezbollah and Hamas for initiating war on Israel claim that Israel's retaliation must be halted, because ultimately only diplomacy can yield a long-term resolution. They say the same about how America should handle the nuclear-bomb-chasing North Korean and Iranian regimes. "But the advocates of diplomacy with our enemies are dead wrong--such 'diplomacy' necessarily encourages aggression and paves the road to catastrophes," said Dr. Yaron Brook, executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute.

"Diplomacy is only proper between nations with interests in common. It is not possible with committed enemies such as Iran. One cannot reach a mutually beneficial settlement by compromising between an aggressor's lust to kill you and your right to live. 'Diplomacy' today is a euphemism for appeasement. It is the coward's attempt to mask total surrender to an aggressor as a practical and moral policy.

"Sixty years ago Europe's 'diplomacy' with Hitler encouraged him to start World War II. The U.S.-Israeli embrace of 'diplomacy' encouraged Hezbollah and Hamas to start the current war--just as America's 'diplomacy' with North Korea abetted that regime's nuclear program--just as America's 'diplomacy' with Iran emboldens it to continue its nuclear quest and its ardent financing of Islamists like Hezbollah and Hamas."

Elan Journo gets it pretty much right. The parallels between Israel and America are huge. Each is fighting almost the same battle.

I'm surprised more people aren't paying attention to this seminal fight. It may seem like a small war, but in some ways the fate of Western Civilization hangs in the balance. This is about as pure an instance of Good vs. Evil as you can get. And if America really wants to win the War on Jihad, it probably needs Israeli help, and vice-versa.  

Recently America has decided to give $50 million in "humanitarian" aid to Lebanon, and Israel has foolishly decided to open up a corridor for this and other aid to Lebanon. Both acts are unbelievable. This sounds like giving money and moral sanction directly to Hezbollah and jihadism!

And the Prime Minister of "liberated" Iraq now openly says he's on the side of Hezbollah, terrorism, and the jihadists. Guess we Americans really taught those guys freedom well!

Seriously -- it now looks like Israel will probably lose the war. No one in Israel is saying to the Lebanese or Hezbollah: "Stop rocketing our cities or we'll take your land and kill every last one of you bastards!" No one in Israel is pressing for unconditional surrender. Moral clarity and philosophical confidence seems hugely lacking.

One result of a Hezbollah victory could be an emboldened Islam and a dispirited West which ultimately results in suitcase nuclear devices simultaneously exploding in West Jerusalem and Tel Aviv. Next up might be similar attacks upon New York, Washington, Los Angeles, and Chicago. Let's hope Israel wins this one.

I was 13 years old and living in my native Scotland in 1974.

"Rand opposed ALL foreign aid as altruism. There were NO exceptions."

Uh, huh.

"Israel and Taiwan are the two countries that need and deserve U.S. help—not in the name of international altruism, but by reason of actual U.S. national interests in the Mediterranean and the Pacific." The Ayn Rand Letter Vol. III, No. 24 August 26, 1974 The Lessons Of Vietnam

She does not specify the kind of help she means here, though since neither country needs economic aid I assume she means military support, e.g. we make sure they have all the armaments and military technology they need and offer them assistance in the event that they are attacked.

Foreign aid as such is not inherently altruistic. Military aid to another country is a form of foreign aid, and that is the sense in which I was using it; I apologize for not making that clear. It is currently in our best interests that Israel remain intact as a nation, mainly due to its nuclear capabilities (as I mentioned earlier). I do NOT support financial gifts to artificially bolster their economy; if they can't keep it running, that's their own damn problem.

That country needs to be scoured to be rid of its nuclear capability and deprived of its oil asset so it or a portion of it cannot be used to subsidize its war against the US and Israel. "Pressure" from Europe, China, Japan won't affect it in the least, assuming the use of such to begin with. The really big, short-term problem is that there is a war on that is not being acknowledged by the West. The other big, immediate problem is the waste of US assets in Iraq for over three years.

--Brant

Israel doesn't need our foreign aid -- and they ought not get a drop. If American citizens wish to donate their dollars to the Israeli military, that should be their choice. However, Israel desperately needs America's moral support to destroy the jihadists, but that's not something that America is capable of offering at present. Of course, Israel should be allowed to buy American military hardware. In the short term, if America grew a pair, I could see the value of a military alliance in the war against militant Islam. But foreign aid? NO.

Nonethless, I wouldn't campaign for eliminating foreign aid to Israel now, not just because we're spending so much more on so much worse, but also because that move would only be supported by the worst kinds of people, namely those who think of Israel as another Nazi Germany for attempting to defend itself against death-worshipping Islamisic totalitarians.

-- Diana Hsieh
diana@dianahsieh.com
NoodleFood

What about Ragnar Danneskjold in Atlas Shrugged?

Rand opposed ALL foreign aid as altruism. There were NO exceptions.

Have you ever looked at a map showing the distribution of oil wells and pipelines in Iran? Seizing and holding these assets would be an extremely iffy project.

The U. S. imports no Iranian oil period, so in reality it would be hard for them to hurt us directly, oil wise. They could try by cutting their own throats and stopping sales to other countries which would drive overall prices up but it would probably do them a heck of a lot more damage economically than us. Europe, Japan and China buy the largest percentage of Iran's oil and they should be a the forefront of pressure on Iran and it's leaders.

L W

What is needed is a division of labor. The US lets Israel go its own way and deal with its local threats while the US deals with Iran by breaking that country up and seizing its oil assets.

If Israel stands on its own feet it will be able to more effectively defend itself. It will also have to get rid of its socialism as unaffordable absent US economic aid.

While I agree with the article's main point about appeasement--most of the article--the rest is basically an unthinking, genocidal, ignorant, chest-beating hodgepodge providing no final solution other than the genocide. I would speak to "nuance" except Linz ...

--Brant

...to give aid to the only country in the Middle East that isn't trying to kill us. I would say it's definitely in our best interest to keep Israel from being overwhelmed, especially because it has nuclear weapons. We'd all be in trouble if Jihadist terrorist organizations suddenly got the ability to do what they've been swearing to do all this time and kill anyone who doesn't submit to Islamic rule.

How much does Israel receive in foreign aid from the US? Billions of dollars I believe. It depends on American altruism.

What I like about this is that a general audience can understand it. He states the principle and then applies the principle. Any honest person who comes across this will want to have a second look if they are conflicted about American foreign policy. An effective article.

Chalk one up for ARI; the above commentary shows the kind of intellectual balls we'll need to win this conflict. A breath of fresh air for those of us who are surrounded by spineless worms who do nothing but shake their fingers and say "Oh no, the Iranian puppets are being bad again!"

*goes of to vomit in a basin*

Roger Waters, just because you wrote an album called THE WALL, and sang "tear down the wall," and played a concert at the former Berlin Wall, doesn't mean you know what you're fucking talking about. Some walls are there for good reason..."good fences make good neighbors." Fucking prick. This is a good example of why rock stars should not be venerated for talking politics.

"Roger Waters, founding member of super group Pink Floyd, has visited the East Jerusalem village of Abu Dis ahead of his performance in the Arab/Israeli Peace Village today (22 June). He called for an end to the on-going Israeli Occupation.

Waters moved today’s concert from Hayarkon Park outside Tel Aviv after discussions with Palestinian artists, as well as Israeli refuseniks, who called on him to use the gig as a platform to build solidarity with those fighting the injustices of Israeli foreign policy.
He has taken part in a tour, with War on Want, of the occupied Palestinian territories, and seen for himself the hardship endured in towns like Bethlehem.
Waters, who has a lifelong commitment to social and global justice, helped launch the UK group War on Want’s campaign against the Israeli Wall two years ago.
Waters said: “The peace village provides a great backdrop to this concert and performing a gig there, where Arabs and Jews live together in a peaceful community, symbolises my support for all those on both sides who reject extremism and violence in their quest for a just peace.”
War on Want spokesperson Nick Dearden said: “We need musicians like Roger Waters taking this sort of principled stand. It is through statements and gestures like these that we can bring Palestine to the attention of the world, and ensure a better future for the region.”