Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Much ado about trifles | Main | That ever-present 'wage gap' »

Monday, June 11, 2007

Lieberman got the point

Not that I personally want a military strike against the Iranian people, though I don't mind a direct strike against the ruling ayatollahs, but me thinks Sen. Lieberman is fully able to understand the stakes. Joe Lieberman wants the US to go after the regime for its involvement in Iraq.

I applaud his courage and honesty! And I do think he's too good to be an independent. He's got to join the GOP camp.

Posted by Winston on June 11, 2007 in International Affairs | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e008c3b5ab8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lieberman got the point:

Comments

I think this regime is just as bad as Hitler was. So why wait?

When a person has a cancer, does she wait to get a treatment? Iran has a cancer and USA is able to do the treatment. It might be quite messy, but letting the mad mullahs get nukes would be much much worst.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-11 8:10:40 PM


Iran is getting away with murder, it's about time they felt the pain. Missile strikes on their Command structure would send an appropriate message to the world and the people of Iran.

Nobody would care if Iran had nukes if they were a real democracy that respected human rights and individual freedoms, they could waste all the money they want on them if that were the case.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-06-11 9:17:18 PM


well put Philanthropist! thnx

Posted by: Winston | 2007-06-11 9:24:06 PM


For what it is worth…

We learn from history that we don't study history.

Thus the following historical hypothetical: "If a foreign power had done to the US, what we've done to Iran since 1953, how would we’ve reacted... and continue to react?"

If the US had suffered decades of brutal police-state imprisonments, beatings, and executions... all aided, abetted and backed by a foreign power, how would we react to that power once the imposed police state was swept aside?

Then also consider the following historical hypothetical: "In the 70's, the US went from a oil exporter to an oil importer. If a dominant foreign power told the US during the oil crisis, 'Sorry guys, we don't trust you with nuclear energy. Once your oil is depleted, we expect you freeze in the winter, broil in the summer, walk if you want to travel, and return to a poverty-stricken third-world status.' How would we have reacted?"

I was in the Orient during the early 70's, but as I recall, Americans back home were none too happy with the results of the oil embargo... and by comparison that was merely a temporary inconvenience.

A teacher once stated, "If you reverse the circumstances and still find yourself happy with the results, then you've discovered the essence of an ethical decision."

If I assume I'm right simply because I'm stronger than anyone else, I'm arrogant. If I attempt to enforce that arrogance, I'm a bully. If I kill others who have not attacked me to enforce that arrogance, I'm a murderer.

I wholeheartedly believe in self-defense, both on a personal and national level. But preemptive attack is not self-defense... not on a personal level, nor on a national level, it is but naked aggression.

In my home town, a bravado invaded a home and killed the occupants… to teach them and their surviving family members a lesson in humility. I condemned him to death row. If I don’t tolerate such nonsense with my neighbors, then why should I tolerate the same kind of behavior from the people who claim to represent me?

We don't like it when we as a nation are bullied, though admittedly it's been a few years since that last happened. So what God given right makes it acceptable for us to bully others?

Regarding Houle’s comment: “When a person has a cancer, does she wait to get a treatment? Iran has a cancer and USA is able to do the treatment. It might be quite messy, but letting the mad mullahs get nukes would be much much worst.”

When did you last submit to involuntary surgery? Not recently? No? Certainly you will have no problem if the CDC decided this or that part of your anatomy needs to be sliced off… for your own good, of course. And while the procedure might be quite messy and painful, I expect you will dutifully submit without protest.

With regard to philanthropist’s comment: “Iran is getting away with murder, it's about time they felt the pain. Missile strikes on their Command structure would send an appropriate message to the world and the people of Iran.”

Are missile strikes on the Command structure the appropriate response for engaging in proxy war? If so, then you’ll not protest when any of the recipients of our past proxies target missile strikes on Washington and New York.

Is not turn-about fair play?

No?

Then by which special rule-book do you operate?

--Keith

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-11 11:58:27 PM


Pre-emption is not self defense? That is a pretty idiotic black and white argument. Pre-emption can definately be self-defense. To not considerate it is just following a fool's advice.

Posted by: Faramir | 2007-06-12 12:00:26 AM


If I take your declaration literally, then I am perfectly justified in killing you now because some time in the future you might be a threat.

I believe you would find that unpalatable.

Threat potential is a continuum.

Threats that are far removed in time, distance, or logic require “passive” responses. As threats become imminent my options become constrained. At some point my response may be “aggressive” because I lack the skill, tools, time or space to do otherwise.

For example, if from ten feet away, a man runs toward me with a knife in an out-thrust hand, I need not wait until actually cut before avoiding, disarming or incapacitating the attacker – even if such actions harm the attacker.

However, self-defense does not permit an unprovoked attack.

For example, assume that from ten miles away, I find that a man is running towards me with a knife in out-thrust hand. That action on his part does not justify harmful actions on my part. Due to the time required for a running man to cross that distance I have a vastly larger set of available options: I can leave the area, I can hide, I can misdirect, or I can enter a building and bar it against his entry. Furthermore; from that distance I cannot reasonably infer the man’s intentions. Even if I could correctly determine his intentions at ten miles, he may have a change of heart before he comes close enough to do me injury.

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-12 12:12:02 AM


Keith,

If someone says that as soon as they get nukes that you and all others will live under their rule, (as Iran has), then a first strike is indeed justified. No matter how much moral relativity you try, Iran does not equal the U.S.A.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-12 8:42:18 AM


Keith,

You are in denial.

Know this ... Islamic Jihad!
If you understand what that means, then you will shut up and let your betters protect your ass.

Ethical decision making doesn't apply to madmen. These phycoreligionists have been up to no good for centuries. It's only since they managed to steal enough of our technology, rip off enough of our money selling us oil. I did say selling didn't I. We don't steal their oil. We set them up in the oil business. The only revenue generator they have.

What are they doing with the dough? Are they building infrastructure, diversifying their economies, building universities, hospitals noooooooooooo they are building nukes and supporting terrorism while they for bid their women to walk freely in the streets.

You are a very morally confused person Keith. So again, it would be best if you just shut up and let your betters try to protect you.

Posted by: Yanni | 2007-06-12 9:38:14 AM


Keith, thank you for the considered and thoughtful postings. The "might is right" mentality seems to always either ignore the lessons of history or twist the historical facts into unrecognizable shapes.

Another Canadian was killed today in Afghanistan. In addition, several Afghani personnel were killed by American friendly fire. In Iraq, both the civilian and American body counts continue to rise. All of this to what purpose? The powers that be who have obtained power in these nations are not Mandelas or Ghandis, but self-serving and in pursuit of agendas that are an anthema to our values. Expanding these types of conflicts will only strengthen the current Iranian regime as it waves the flag to its population against the "enemy outide the gates". This is no different then to what Bush and others have done in the States, feeding and nurturing paranoia in that society.

Canadians need to be very clear that we stand against this type of escalation, but I greatly fear the Harper agenda is to promote the opposite.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-12 10:11:38 AM


Keith, your attempt to use logic with these clowns is fruitless!! The Americans will onw try to convince their increasingly stupid populace that Iran could "nuke" the U.S. Iran could not "nuke" the US any more than Iraq could have attacked the US with WMD's (something about distance that Americans don't understand, not knowing where either "Eye-Ran" or "Eye-Rack" are!!).

The two common themes on Iran and Iraq are: oil and Israel. US greatly needs control of that oil (maybe the colonial folks should have not crossed the Atlantic but colonized Persia instead). The second is Israel, which has shown that it is more than capable of responding with "appropriate force" (ha, ha, Steve Harper!!). Lieberman, like all American (and Canadian) Jews, puts Israel before the common sense interests of his own place of birth.

In the words of his own people, Lieberman is a "schmuck". He HAS to be an Independent because his social views are not rigid enough for the Taliban Christian fundamentalists in the GOP (he's not into stoning homosexuals and fire-bombing abortion clinics, and forcing all non-Christians to speak in tongues). But his beligerant approach to Foreign Policy, predicated by the protection of his beloved Israel, got him turfed from the Democrats.

All I can say, Joe Lieberman is: "OY VEY!!"

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 10:28:33 AM


Useful idiots are out in number I see. Of course they were also in the 30's and even during WW II, the difference being that during the war they were prosecuted for being traders.

The most disgusting thing is the number of brave soldiers who died so that these useful idiots have the freedom to spout and promote their rubbish.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-06-12 10:39:08 AM


Alain, your post (as usual) has nothing to do with this topic. You see, we're not so stupid to fall for your "connect the dots that don't make sense" logic. Iran has nothing to do with the 30's. Nazi Germany WAS a threat to world stability. Today, the United States is the THE threat to world stability. They're just very articulate about it. The leaders of Iran, Iraq, Al Qaeda are ont so atriculate, and also don't have the tanks, bombs, and fighter jets to fool people about "pre-emptive war".

Actually, I welcome a U.S. attack on Iran - with heavy casualties for the Americans. Americans have proven that they value non-American life very little (if at all). However, the death of even ONE soldier of their own does get noticed. They could care less how many Iraqis have died, but ow that the American numbers are going up, they have no stomach for that war. Let the same thing happen in Iran, I say.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 10:46:15 AM


Paul G: Let's see your list of christian stoning homosexuals, and firebombing abortion clinics. I'd like to compare it to all the Jihadist atrocities, and compare them then to the "anti-war" protests or anti-globalization protests that turn violent.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-12 10:49:21 AM


Nice try, Markalta, but I don't support those causes either. I quite enjoy it when the water cannons are turned on the anti-globalization protesters. And I have on problem bombing Jihadists, Saddam being hanged or his ons being obliterated. However, I wouldn't have chosen to have tens of thousands of Iraqis die in the process.

You see, unlike the right-wing apologists here, I don't subscribe to "you're either with us or against us". I can decry both Palestinian suicide bombers blowing up innocent folks enjoying their pizza and Israel government policy that humiliates Palestinians and steals their land. 9-11 was probably the most horrific event of my lifetime, but that doesn't mean that I can defend invading a country (Iraq) that had nothing to do with 9-11 or any other action against the U.S. (the U.S. might be justified in going after Iran for their actions against the US in the Middle East (as opposed to "nukes", moreso than any aggression against Iraq).

That's always my quarrel here: it's easy to point out the attrocities perpertrated by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban. They're pretty damn obvious. Well, to me, so are many actions by Israel and the U.S., yet people here will try and justify them. Both sides are indefensible. But perhaps because I don't see the world in "with us or against us" terms, and I don't subscribe to this "evil enemy". Piss enough people off with unfair Foreign Policy, and yes, you will have your share of "evil enemies". Keep your nose out, as we did in pre-Harper Canada, and people wil like you and there will no threat of "terrorism".

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 11:08:48 AM


That's "NO problems bombing Jihadists, or obliterating Saddam's SONS".

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 11:09:56 AM


I should have typed traitors instead of traders, otherwise I rest my case.

Posted by: Alain | 2007-06-12 11:14:28 AM


Alain, re-read my post. To me, a "traitor" supports your enemy. I haven't seen anyone here support the Taliban, the current enemy in combat with MY country (CANADA).

I'm not American or Jewish, so I'm under no obligation to support either of those countries.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 11:21:25 AM


Correction: Jewish, being support for Israel.

Posted by: Paul Gallagher | 2007-06-12 11:22:20 AM


PG: Keeping your nose out doesn't seem to matter. Where have Thailand buddists been perpetrating acts against the M.E.? The list goes on and on. The jihadists don't need justification from wrongs being commotted against them, they have all they need in the Koran.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-12 12:08:16 PM


PG: Keeping your nose out doesn't seem to matter. Where have Thailand buddists been perpetrating acts against the M.E.? The list goes on and on. The jihadists don't need justification from wrongs being committed against them, they have all they need in the Koran.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-12 12:09:15 PM


"They can't believe that they have immunity for training and equipping people to come in and kill Americans," he said. "We cannot let them get away with it. If we do, they'll take that as a sign of weakness on our part and we will pay for it in Iraq and throughout the region and ultimately right here at home."

I do not disagree with Lieberman here, but I do wonder why this does not stand for Saudi Arabia and Pakistan who fund, train and arm people to kill more Americans than any other Islamic group combined?

This always comes back to my question on the sanity of the US administrations that get into these messes.

I think that Iran's threats to use nukes on Israel need to be taken seriously, and an air strike on nuclear facilities may be in order. But we better be prepared for a potential escalation that could turn into a World War.

That in itself makes this a very difficult decision, and if there is anyway of diffusing this bomb without military action that should be pursued first. An embargo on Iranian oil exports might be a better way to go, cut off her revenue and see how long they're willing to continue developing nukes.

Let's face it the deeper you go into the mid east, the deeper the conflict, and with the US setting up jihadists states in Europe we can have many war fronts here that will cost millions of innocent lives.

So in a round about way I'm all for military action, but only after every possible step has been taken to bring Iran to her senses.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 12:41:12 PM


Now someone up there said something about Taliban Christians, what freaking planet are you from?

How can any sane individual compare the Taliban with even the most hard core fundamentalist Christians?

Nobody is out there killing or leading armies in the name of Jesus. There isn't a country on earth that is making statements that we need to kill or attack anyone because Jesus commands it. Please give up that crap, if you want to make arguments about the validity of an attack on Iran, you may have some arguments, just keep them to coherent arguments.

Nothing pisses me off more than comparing Islamists to Christians, and if your coming back with the crusades, that was 1000 years ago and it was justified. Over 300 years of non stop aggression on Christians had to have a blow back at some point, it happened it's over, get over it.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 12:56:51 PM


Now someone up there said something about Taliban Christians, what freaking planet are you from?

How can any sane individual compare the Taliban with even the most hard core fundamentalist Christians?

Nobody is out there killing or leading armies in the name of Jesus. There isn't a country on earth that is making statements that we need to kill or attack anyone because Jesus commands it. Please give up that crap, if you want to make arguments about the validity of an attack on Iran, you may have some arguments, just keep them to coherent arguments.

Nothing pisses me off more than comparing Islamists to Christians, and if your coming back with the crusades, that was 1000 years ago and it was justified. Over 300 years of non stop aggression on Christians had to have a blow back at some point, it happened it's over, get over it.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 12:57:52 PM


This whole War on Terror-thing is just spiralling out of control.
At first, the enemy was Osama bin-Laden and Al Qaeda, then the Taliban, then Saddam Hussein, then the Sunnis, then the Shia, now it's the Iranians. The list of enemies is growing by the day and the Americans only have themselves to blame.
Talking tough with Iran, politicians talking openly about bombing it, having a carrier group off it's waters ready to strike just feeds into the sense that Iran is going to get destroyed, soon. The hardliners in Iran use this fear of imminent destruction to keep themselves in power the same way that Bush used fear to get him back into the White House in '04. Iranians have seen the results of Iraq's "liberation" and it's not a pleasant sight.
All the US is doing is making Ahmadinejad look like a rock star for standing up to the US and leading the world into another needless war.
Thank God we stayed out of Iraq, don't say that nearly enough.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-12 1:19:55 PM


Robin:

I'd be curious as to what you believe the reasons are for the out-of-control violence in Palestine between Hamas and Fatah.

Or, the destruction of the Buddhist rock carvings in Afghanistan.

Or, maybe you could explain why Buddhists riding bicycles in Indonesia are often the target of jihadists.

Perhaps you could explain why Sunnis and Shiites have been slaughtering each other for 1400 years.

Is that also due to American imperialsim or is there something else at play here, somthing within the philosophy which says it's OK ot be violent?

Hang on, America was only founded just over 200 years ago and generally stayed to themselves until less than 100 years ago.

Could it actually be something other than the presence of the US which angers these human beings?

I know one thing for sure. A mosque is the only ‘religious' building where the people entereing have the potential to come out angrier than they went in.

Draw your own conclusions. You're entitled to your opinions, but not your facts.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-12 1:51:05 PM


Niv, I can understand your frustration on the Christian/Islamist equation. Please understand why this arises from time to time.

I've spent a bit of time lately surfing numerous websites including, out of interest, some of the neocon ones based in the States. Time and again what you see is commentators and bloggers sketching the situation in central Asia as a holy war. Race and religion are central features, accepted as givens, for killing the "enemy".

American culture is complex and certainly this is a minority opinion, but its there. Thankfully, it is much less prevalant in Canada, but if you read between the lines there are some correspondents on this website that come dangerously close to this viewpoint.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-12 1:53:28 PM


Hey munroe:

Stop avoiding those economic questions I've posed to you Why the Left is Always wrong.

Posted by: set you free | 2007-06-12 1:55:57 PM


set you free wrote: I know one thing for sure. A mosque is the only ‘religious' building where the people entereing have the potential to come out angrier than they went in.

Not quite. This can happen with Scientologists when they find out they are inhabited with body thetans.

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-12 2:07:31 PM


Set you free, please check my recent post on the other topic. My dear friend the Zeus (a puppy in real life) screwed me up a bit. Avoiding debate is not my style. In some ways, I do it for a living.

Posted by: munroe | 2007-06-12 2:19:23 PM


The trolls will recognize themselves.

The best way to understand the situation is to get first grade information. So, trolls, read Whalid Shoebat: Why we want to kill you.

The situation is very similar to Hitler. Hitler wanted to establish world domination and kill the jews. The mollahs want world domination and kill the jews. Back in the time of nazis, there was a strong collaboration between the muslims and Hitler. To the point that there were thousands of arabs fighting in Hitler's army.

It is well past time to strike Iran.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-12 2:42:29 PM


The US is making things worse by sticking their noses into places where they don't belong, and not wanted. Where there wasn't an enemy before, there is now. It's like they cannot survive without someone to fight against.
This with us or with the terrorists nonsense makes people who oppose American Empire an enemy. Neoconservatism is a cancer, like radicals everywhere, they want to rule the world and crush anyone who opposes them. They promote militarism instead of defence, ideology over pragmatism and, fortunately, are taking a beating south of the border because of it.
Why do people kill each other? Muslims killing Buddhists, Jews killing Arabs, Arabs killing Jews, Catholics and Protestants in N Ireland not that long ago.... seems to me that people can always find an excuse to kill each other. Galls me when murderers claim that their rationale is 'freedom' or in the name of whatever god they claim tells them to strap a bomb to their chest or to bomb and invade Iraq.

Posted by: Robin | 2007-06-12 3:18:46 PM


Rémi Houle wrote: To the point that there were thousands of arabs fighting in Hitler's army.

Didn't thousands of arabs also fight for the French during WW2?

Posted by: St Albion Parish News | 2007-06-12 3:27:37 PM


Robin: You say that "they want to rule the world". You seem to be referring to Americans, but think about all the countries that the U.S. has annexed or taken over since they got the A-bomb. (I can't think of one) They certainly had the power to do it, but they didn't did they?

So take your moral relativism and stick it. The U.S. is the good guy. Get over it already.

Posted by: Markalta | 2007-06-12 3:36:20 PM


. . . whereas the Commies took over Poland, Romania, East Germany, Hungary, Albania, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, Cambodia, China. . .

But only Reagan called the USSR an empire - an evil one at that.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 4:20:43 PM


YOU JUST GOTTA SEE THIS!

YouTube has Gore spouting off against George H. W. Bush in 1992 and saying that Iraq HAS weapons of mass destruction and HAS ties with terrorists!

"Gore Blasts G.H.W. Bush for Ignoring Iraq Terror Ties"

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/1602.html

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 4:27:44 PM


Paul
"That's always my quarrel here: it's easy to point out the attrocities perpertrated by Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, the Taliban. They're pretty damn obvious. Well, to me, so are many actions by Israel and the U.S., yet people here will try and justify them. Both sides are indefensible. But perhaps because I don't see the world in "with us or against us" terms, and I don't subscribe to this "evil enemy"."

I don't suscribe to the "with us or against us" term either, so why do you mention it? I do, however, still subscribe to the idea that this is an "evil enemy" .

Piss enough people off with unfair Foreign Policy, and yes, you will have your share of "evil enemies".

Do nothing in the face of evil enemies and you still have your share of evil enemies anyway...only this time they like the odds.

"Keep your nose out, as we did in pre-Harper Canada, and people wil like you and there will no threat of "terrorism"."

Still looking for the Topeka 17? Apparently you missed the plot to blow of a Montreal Jewish neighbourhood in the 90's by the same people involved in the plot to blow up LAX in 1999. Two full years before 2001, 4 years before the removal of Saddam.

Again Paul, I asked you this before. What business is it of Bin Laden and his followers what the US foreign policy is? That is for his country to contemplate and the last I heard...he was neither king nor foreign minister.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-12 5:10:07 PM


Concerning Israel, read the bible. Anyone against Israel will harvest disaster. This has been going on for thousands of years and people still don't get it.

What was the harvest of Hitler? A gigantic disaster and his country divided in two. Just watch what will happen to Iran.

Posted by: Rémi Houle | 2007-06-12 5:28:15 PM


h2o273kk9

I have to disagree with you on the pre-Harper notion. The Liberal government was more than willing to go along with the Democrats as their politics seem to coincide with each other. The difference is that the left leaning media can praise Canadian involvement when it echoes the Clinton policies, but jumps all over Harper if it appears he's going along with a right leaning party.

Big difference here is that the Liberals put us into Afghanistan, they made the agreement with the US for us to move into the Kandahar region as they were leaving office. Somehow these large events go unnoticed in our media and blame is thrown where it shouldn't.

Stephen Harper recognizes we're in a war and is at least trying to make a difference for the Afghan people. My fear is that in light of the ornery neighbours, ie Pakistan it is a long shot that peace will prevail in that country.

Going back to my point on the Liberals, they had us involved in the bombing of Yugoslavia, we were involved in Bosnia, and as ironic as it all is Kosovo will gain its Independence thanks in some part to the Liberal government. It seems that it's ok to partition a sovereign country when it's not your own.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 5:37:29 PM


It's ok with me if Canada is partitioned, whether it's Quebec leaving or Alberta - or both, for that matter.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 5:40:04 PM


Crap, I think I misread you post.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 5:40:52 PM


I'd be ok with Ontario going personally.

Posted by: niv | 2007-06-12 5:41:58 PM


Ontario won't go - they like to lord it over the other provinces.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 5:45:00 PM


Niv,
I can't argue with your post as we pretty much agree. I was debating Paul's assumption that we can avoid terrorism by avoiding conflict. Just because we may avoid a conflict doesn't mean the conflict will avoid us.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2007-06-12 5:53:39 PM


Left leaning numbskulls are the only people in the world that want others to believe there is a moral equivalency between all nations - but none of them believe that themselves, they all spout nonsense.

No one believes the US, Iran, Cuba and North Korea are moral equals, no one. Proof? How many people are desperate to leave the US and emigrate to any one of those nations? None. Not even the oil rich one. Stick it lefty numbskulls.

Posted by: philanthropist | 2007-06-12 9:30:37 PM


But Michael Moore assures us that Cuba's health system is better than the US one.

Of course, that would explain why Castro sent for a Spanish doctor to operate on himself with imported Spanish medical equipment. But then, when you are worth over $900,000,000, that's to be expected, I guess.

I wonder if Moore will get his liposuction in Havana or at the Mayo Clinic in Minnesota. Nah. I don't wonder at all.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 9:40:49 PM


BTW, if you check out the US Leftoid sites that carry articles like this about Lieberman, you will see the most anti-Semitic comments you could imagine, similar to those from 1930's Germany.

Welcome to the new home of anti-Semitism: the modern Left.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 9:57:13 PM


We learn from history that we do not study history...

If I take Markalta's statement at face value, then I must logically conclude Markalta favors an immediate first strike against all communist countries that have nukes... to wit China, and North Korea, (and if it had not already "collapsed", the USSR). All have nukes, and communist philosophy cannot forever tolerate the existence of a non-communist enclave...

Carrying Markalta's statement to its logical conclusion, we should have nuked all nuclear-equipped communist nations at the first opportunity. And given that we've missed the first opportunity by a few decades, we should do so, now, immediately, without hesitation or thought of consequence...

In terms of brutality, butchery and murder, the communists make the modern followers of radical Islam well behaved children by comparison. Even Hitler's atrocities pale to the multiple genocides perpetrated by communists.

Why so gung-ho on Islam? Seems like the classical "Strain at a gnat, swallow a camel" (Matt. 23:24)

--Keith

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-12 9:59:08 PM


I haven't seen any Chinese suicide bombers in the news lately, or the Chinese President say that he wants to destroy Israel and then the US - but I've been busy on this site for a while now - so I might have missed it.

Posted by: obc | 2007-06-12 10:10:51 PM


We learn from history that we do not study history...

OBC, Chinese suicide bombers?

Suicide bombings are desparation tactics. If the Chinese want mass casualties, they've plenty of nukes, as well as conventionial and non-conventional delivery systems.

Or for the more subtle, they could simply mislabel diethylene glycol as glycerine, and claim that "... diethylene glycol had been used in toothpaste in China for years, and that producers did not believe it was very harmful."

Who manufactured the food and health products you used today? Don't know? Who manufactured the ingredients? How much are from China?

Or given that China recently had more than a trillion US dollars, suddenly dumping those dollars could trigger a royal economic collapse.

The US is leveraged... in other words, we are in debt past our eye-balls.

Total US debt in 2004 was $40T or approximately $136,500 per person. Total US Debt is defined as all US debt, public and private. In other words it is the sum of federal and state & local governments, international, and private debt, including households, business and financial sector debts, and federal debt to trust funds (such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc).

Not only does the Total US debt greatly exceed the US Income, the debt growth rate greatly exceeds the Income Growth Rate. As of 2004, the Total US debt was somewhat more than 425% of the National Income and growing.

I just checked. As of March 2007, the Total US debt is up to $48T (or ~$160,000 per man, woman and child in the US). Can you pay your family's fraction of that debt? No?

A grand economic collapse now, could make the Great Depression look like a pleasant stroll through the park. Our exposure is greater and our position is more precarious now than in 1929.

The Chinese have already started dumping dollars. They really have no choice. The Federal Reserve has devalued each dollar to near worthlessness. Its just a matter of whether the Chinese dump dollars quickly or slowly.

To twist a phrase, we bought the rope from the Chinese, tied it around our necks, tossed the free end over the yardarm, handed it to them and asked them "pretty-please" to not let go... and you are worried about a few rable rousers in the Middle East?

Please permit me a gentle suggestion... turn off the tube, put down USA-Today, look around, read, and think for yourself...

People, and I'm not talking just about geriatric old fools like myself, have long memories. If you've lived or studied in the Orient, maybe you'll remember some reprisals are generations in the making.

Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao all had some very interesting things to say, about us, the US, the West, war and Life. If you let yourself be continually distracted by the talking heads on the tube, you wont notice the gun barrel screwed into your ear until way too late...

For example, here are some nice, cozy, sentimental quotes from the late Chairman Mao...

If the U.S. monopoly capitalist groups persist in pushing their policies of aggression and war, the day is bound to come when the people of the whole world will hang them. The same fate awaits the accomplices of the United States.
Speech at the Supreme State Conference (September 8, 1958).


Every Communist must grasp the truth; "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."
"Problems of War and Strategy" (November 6, 1938),
Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 224.


The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds well universally, for China and for all other countries.
Ibid. p. 219.


People of the world, unite and defeat the U.S. aggressors and all their running dogs! People of the world, be courageous, and dare to fight, defy difficulties and advance wave upon wave. Then the whole world will belong to the people. Monsters of all kinds shall be destroyed.
"Statement Supporting the People of the Congo (L.)
Against U.S. Aggression" (November 28, 1964),
People of the World, Unite and Defeat the
U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., p. 14.


Chairman Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot, all put words into action. Death estimates for Mao range over 30,000,000. Stalin's repression combined with the starvation of the Ukraine, killed 10,000,000 to 30,000,000 and Pol Pot murdered 1/3 the Cambodian population.

While fortunately none of those sanguinary figures still breathes, their philosophical brothers still rule.

I'm not denying radical Islam is a problem. It's just not very high on my priority list.

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-13 1:40:28 AM


Yanni, must I assume from your comments you claim to be my better?

If so, in what way?

Are you a military vet? No? A current serviceman? No? Perhaps you’re an expert in martial arts? No? An expert sniper? No? Then son, how do you expect to save my sorry ass?

If I’m wrong and you are a vet, or a current serviceman, my apologies for assuming otherwise. I’m ex-USARMY… enlisted, not drafted back during the tail end of that little fiasco in the Orient.

You say I am “a very morally confused person.” My question, have you looked in a mirror recently? Given your rant and tone, sounds like you've confused me and thee.

Ethical decisions are not a shield for my opponent -- they are a shield for me. Ethics keep me from killing those who just annoy.

Posted by: Keith | 2007-06-13 2:52:15 AM


1 2 3 4 Next »

The comments to this entry are closed.