About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 0

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 7:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Andre,

I think you are right on a most of your points. The one thing I disagree with, as you probably would guess is this:
At the very least, Israel should attempt to kill every last one of the southern Lebanese -- the military combatants and the "innocent civilians" -- who support the military wing of Hezbollah morally, verbally, and financially. Even those Lebanese throughout the country who only indirectly back them, and passively allow the militants to live and hide among them, should be targeted.
I abhor the civilian casualties. I do recognize that Hezbollah receives at least tacit support from many of the Lebanese people. I recognize that Hezbollah hides amongst them for propoganda purposes. I recognize that civilians will be killed in the progress of the war. For these casualties I blame Hezbollah for starting it and using these people as shields.

If Israel were to target and kill everyone in lebanon, southern or otherwise, they would be wrong.  They would lose exactly what they are pursuing, peace and security. They need to do what they are doing and convince the Lebanese that it is up to them to stop supporting Hezbollah and up to them to boot them the hell out of Lebanon.

Ethan


Post 1

Tuesday, August 8, 2006 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I first read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in 1992. This kind of garbage is a complete and total embarrassment to anyone who has ever called himself or herself an Objectivist. If I had seen this kind of nonsense back in 1992, I doubt I ever would have taken Rand seriously.

But once you examine the psychology of some self-proclaimed Objectivists (SPO's), you understand why. As another thread on this forum discusses, many of them are just full of rage. As a result of such rage, these SPO's they look for villains and divide the world into "we" and "they." The "we" team can do no wrong. The "they" team has no rights and is an outlaw, and it is okay to kill all of them.

With all the agendas involved and the long history of violence in the Middle East, it is probably impossible to tell at this point who started it.

As an American, I advocate national self-interest. That means strict neutrality and only defending oneself when attacked.

I am reading some accounts that say that the Israelis soldiers kidnapped were actually on Lebanese soil at the time. And of course, this was just a response to Israel slaughtering some people on the beach back in June.

Throughout history, Israel has not discriminated in its use of terrorism. They did so against the British back in the late 1940's. Of course, this terrorism against the Brits was completely unnecesary. Mister Ghandi in India proved this. During World War Two, the Israelis terrorists in the Stern Gang was actually trying to collaborate with the Nazis against the British.

Israel has no moral high ground. They never have and never will.

It's probable that they have staged something. Before Germany attacked Poland in 1939, they had dressed up a prisoner in a Polish uniform and then shot him and left him for dead. Then they used this picture as propaganda to claim that Polish insurgents had tried to attack a German radio station at Gleiwitz.

There is little doubt that Israel's days are numbered. They have a terribly low birth rate and will eventually be over run, unless their corrupt leadership is willing to give its advocacy of violence. This is very much aided and abetted by the very corrupt government in the District of Criminals in the USA.

During World War Two, the Germans made a horrendous blunder when they bombed Belfast. Belfast is, of course, in Northern Ireland and officially part of the United Kingdom. Ireland (the Irish Free State) was officially neutral throughout the war.

But the bombing of Belfast unified Ireland as had never happened before. Irish President Eamon de Valera said simply: "they are our people." About 70,000 Irishmen joined the British armed forces as a result of the Belfast Blitz. Germany also had an "accidental" bombing of Dublin as well.

Israel has now done its own Belfast Blitz. Only a minority of Lebanese supported Hezbollah before the war. Now, Lebanon is nearly fully behind Hezbollah. This is no doubt due to Israel's second aggression against the state. Hezbollah, of course, came into existence as a result of the first invasion of Lebanon in 1982. Many of the Lebanese, no doubt, view this as a desperate act of survival.

I also am beginning to think that the survival of the Objectivist movement is at stake. The advocacy of war is an embarrassment to the movement and a public relations disaster.

But I also see it as an opportunity to re-align the movement. The war hawks can all go to the ARI cult. Objectivists who believe in peace and liberty can go somewhere else.

Chris


Post 2

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 6:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Israel suffered a catastrophic defeat yesterday. It was in Connecticut.

Good-bye and good riddance, Joe Lieberman. Here are some other aspects of this reprehensible man:

F rating from Gun Owners of America
Co-sponsor of Family Entertainment Protection Act (video game censorship)
Co-sponsor of 1990 Clean Air Act

Chris

(Edited by Chris Baker on 8/09, 6:42am)


Post 3

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 10:40amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jesus Christ Chris... what a tool. Hezbollah's stated goal is the destruction of Israel and has nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ethan: The issue of the best moral, strategic, and practical way to deal with enemy civilians in wartime is interesting and important, but it's a rather specialized subject, and one I haven't studied. Some people, like graduates from military colleges, probably have strong insights here which I lack.
 
Almost all the news reports I've heard indicate Hezbollah is utterly interwoven into Lebanese society. A very recent poll by the Beruit Society for Research and Information indicates 87% Of Lebanese favor Hezbollah over Israel, including 80% of the Christians. As far as I call tell, virtually all Lebanese are responsible for and guilty of causing this war, thus they should pay the price. Every day more truly innocent Israeli soldiers and civilians are getting maimed and dying -- and their whole country is suffering horribly. This is an outrage which must be stopped.
 
I also agree that Israel is looking for "peace and security," as is practically every other polity on the globe, in practically every other regard. This is exactly the problem. They need to look for "liberty and justice." Peace and security (and stability) are meaningless or detrimental without them. The world today -- even in America and Israel -- has very false and failed political goals and ideals.
 
By the way, there may be a new loathsome phrase soon to join the worldwide lexicon. To compliment the obnoxious and suicidal "peace process," we may soon add "the political process." I heard Nasrallah advocate it. It seems to mean: appease, retreat, negotiate forever, and compromise between good and evil.


Post 5

Wednesday, August 9, 2006 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris: I appreciate the length and passion of your comments but I'm not sure what you consider to be the superior alternative. Israel accepted about 800 Qassam rockets and much else from Hamas and Gaza for the past year and was very "proportionate" in their response. Was this moral and wise? Did Israel perhaps overreact?! They also suffered a similar fate from Hezbollah and Lebanon over the past 6 years. What would have been the proper non-overreaction?

I wonder: Do you think America morally should have negotiated a peace treaty with Germany and Japan in 1944 or 1945? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, morally or practically wrong? If so, how many more Americans needed to be sacrificed to obtain what I suppose is your version of humanity and moral goodness?

You say:

Israel has no moral high ground. They never have and never will.

I can't even guess what this means. Israel seems to have been a paragon of virtue and morality for 60 stunning years next to its neighbors. I find Israel to be the most heroic nation on earth.

You say:

I also see it as an opportunity to re-align the movement. The war hawks can all go to the ARI cult. Objectivists who believe in peace and liberty can go somewhere else.
I want individual rights defended absolutely. I want good to win out over evil and civilization over barbarism similarly. I'm never amoral and unprincipled, and I sympathize with the victim always. No appeasement of evil and tyranny and aggressive jihadist war for me.


You also say:
I first read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal in 1992. This kind of garbage is a complete and total embarrassment to anyone who has ever called himself or herself an Objectivist. If I had seen this kind of nonsense back in 1992, I doubt I ever would have taken Rand seriously.

I get this a lot. My attempts at analysis and commentary are unapologetically fearless and aimed directly at the sky. I'm even willing to bash Ayn Rand if I think truth, justice, and morality demand it. I don't write for weaklings and losers.You have to have something of the hero in you -- otherwise you're better off never reading me at all.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder: Do you think America morally should have negotiated a peace treaty with Germany and Japan in 1944 or 1945? Was the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo, and the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, morally or practically wrong? If so, how many more Americans needed to be sacrificed to obtain what I suppose is your version of humanity and moral goodness?
Many of Truman's advisors believed that Japan was on the verge of surrender before dropping the bombs. What you fail to understand is how dropping those bombs harmed the credibility of US foreign policy. Many countries do fear that the US will initiate a nuclear war again, because the US is the only country that has used nuclear weapons in warfare.

Credibility comes from having consistent, moral principles. A country doesn't get it by flip-flopping (i.e., aiding Hussein in the 1980's then taking him out in 2003). More importantly, credibility leads to respect.

How do you get respect? It's hard to tell. I think you get it by being fair, by standing your ground without being overly aggressive, and by living life to a higher standard.

The democracy here is quite suspect (electronic voting). The US certainly can't bring democracy to other countries.

I do not believe that any negotiated peace was possible with Hitler. He was crazy. However, more possibly could have done to help the German resistance in overthrowing him.
I can't even guess what this means. Israel seems to have been a paragon of virtue and morality for 60 stunning years next to its neighbors. I find Israel to be the most heroic nation on earth.
My winner for this award is Estonia, for all the things they have done the past 15 years. Over the long term, my winner is Switzerland. New Zealand is also in the running.

A few years ago, I remember talking to one of my Jewish associates. He's also quite a socialist. I mentioned to him that some Objectivists are in love with Israel. He responded in shock: "They know it's socialist, don't they?"

Israel does do well with regard to personal, civil liberties for Israelis. They consider women to be equals, which is certainly a contrast to anyone else in the Middle East.

Another Jewish friend of mine told me about her trip to Israel and how she was quizzed at the airport. She said they asked her questions like: "Are you Jewish?" "Do you celebrate Yom Kippur in your home?"

Desmond Tutu doesn't see any difference between Israel and Apartheid. Today South Africa is a basket case, but it scores higher in economic freedom today than Israel does.

The first thing Israel could do to gain some higher moral ground is give capitalism a try. A nation where about 80% of the land is owned by the government hardly seems like a free market.

Home ownership is one of the best ways to maintain and achieve stability in any society. It gives people an investment in their community. I do not know how this would be done.

Israel does seem to be going in the right direction with regard to economic freedom. It did get off to a very bad start with the kibbutz and Labor Zionism. I hope it works out.

I have only known three Israelis in my life, and they were all great people. Most people aren't particulary political or ideological. They just want to live their lives. I think this applies to both sides.

If I was dictating US policy, I would cut off all the aid to Israel and throw all their lobbyists out of the country. However, I would maintain trade with Israel, just as I would with any other nation.

While Israel has few natural resources, it has done well. It has a large population of geeks, and Israel would be the greatest beneficiary of a free market and peace. Perhaps, the more ambitious Arabs would even see it as "the place to get rich." I think this is how they see Dubai in some respects.

And yes, I would also open trade with both Iran and Cuba.

Cutting off trade rarely works. In the case of Cuba, it gives Castro an excuse for his many failures. Isolating "rogue" nations just makes them cling to the chains that bind them. After 9/11, I suggest that somebody should drop a million copies of Playboy on the Middle East. If I had the money, I might try it myself.

The most sensible leader in the Middle East today seems to be King Abdullah of Jordan. He has been critical of both Israel and Hezbollah, and he's much closer to what is going on than anyone in the US is. His main interest is keeping Jordan out of it.

While I don't think Jordan is an ideal nation, it does seem to be one of the better nations over there. Jordan does get better ratings than Israel in economic freedom, although Freedom House only gives it a "partly free" rating.

How would I deal with terrorist acts committed by foreigners on American soil? Ron Paul said this on 25 September 2001:

http://www.house.gov/paul/congrec/congrec2001/cr092501.htm

The founders and authors of our Constitution provided an answer for the difficult tasks that we now face. When a precise declaration of war was impossible due to the vagueness of our enemy, the Congress was expected to take it upon themselves to direct the reprisal against an enemy not recognized as a government. In the early days the concern was piracy on the high seas. Piracy was one of only three federal crimes named in the original Constitution.
 
Today, we have a new type of deadly piracy, in the high sky over our country. The solution the founders came up with under these circumstances was for Congress to grant letters of marque and reprisal. This puts the responsibility in the hands of Congress to direct the President to perform a task with permission to use and reward private sources to carry out the task, such as the elimination of Osama bin Laden and his key supporters. This allows narrow targeting of the enemy. This effort would not preclude the president's other efforts to resolve the crisis, but if successful would preclude a foolish invasion of a remote country with a forbidding terrain like Afghanistan- a country that no foreign power has ever conquered throughout all of history.
 
Lives could be saved, billions of dollars could be saved, and escalation due to needless and senseless killing could be prevented. Mr. Speaker, we must seriously consider this option. This answer is a world apart from the potential disaster of launching nuclear weapons or endless bombing of an unseen target. "Marque and reprisal" demands the enemy be seen and precisely targeted with minimal danger to others. It should be considered and, for various reasons, is far superior to any effort that could be carried out by the CIA.

Israel could do the same thing. The leaders of both Israel and the US could learn a lot from men like Washington and Jefferson.


Post 7

Thursday, August 10, 2006 - 10:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My attempts at analysis and commentary are unapologetically fearless and aimed directly at the sky. I'm even willing to bash Ayn Rand if I think truth, justice, and morality demand it. I don't write for weaklings and losers.You have to have something of the hero in you -- otherwise you're better off never reading me at all.
I have been extremely critical of Rand's psychology on this board. Look on the "banter" forum for the thread "my pathetic life."

Chris


Post 8

Friday, August 11, 2006 - 4:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm going to agree with much of Chris says.  I think the contradiction in the essay is that "Israel" is treated as a person with rights, rather than a society with an illegitimate government that is funding war by stealing money from its citizens.  Also, individualism demands that each person has a right to life, which means no one should kill him for the acts of others.  So a single innocent lebanese person does not deserve to die just because his fellow lebanese men voluntarily fund Hezbollah.  And if you think that the lebanese who are on Hezbollah's side deserve to die for their ideas, then you must also believe that all people who entertain marxist ideas in the US deserve to die.  That's the vast majority of the population.  I'm going to write an essay on this topic and submit it.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 11:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, Go,

One writer on REASON's site made the point that Israel could have divided Lebanon. Treat part of it as "Hezbollahland" and leave the rest alone. This divide-and-conquer technique has been used in warfare in the past many times. It has often been successful. Hitler, for example, played the Czechs and Slovaks against each other as well as the Croats and the Serbs. He was very foolish, however, to bomb Belfast. While the people of Belfast were citizens of the UK, the rest of Ireland was not happy about it at all.

But instead Israel attacked everyone in Lebanon and made everyone in Lebanon their enemy. The Christians in Lebanon were sympathetic to them. They are no longer. In many respects, it just reflects the way that Israel has continued to marginalize itself.

Egomania is the fatal disease of all conquerors. Israel has a whole lot of it, reflected in part by the egomania of Bush and his cronies. It's amazing just how arrogant they are. It will also be their downfall.


Post 10

Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 12:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
GoCapitalism, your comments are absurd. You say:

I'm going to agree with much of Chris says. I think the contradiction in the essay is that "Israel" is treated as a person with rights, rather than a society with an illegitimate government that is funding war by stealing money from its citizens.


And yet what do you call Hezbollah and rest of the Middle East? Why is Israel the evil nation that steals from its citizens to fund a war of self-defense, while Muslim nations who also steal from their fellow citizens to fund an unprovoked war of terrorism? Israel is treated as a nation of individuals with a government who's function is to protect those individuals. It's called self-defense. One individual is not powerful enough to stop an onslaught of an invading army, which is why many individuals in one geographical area institute an army run by a government to protect themselves from initiations of force.

Also, individualism demands that each person has a right to life, which means no one should kill him for the acts of others.


Typical words used by an anarcho-capitalist. There is a huge thread discussing market anarchism that Robert Bidinotto sufficiently gave a good intellectual thrashing to. No need to hash it out again. I suggest you read it. Governments are created to protect individuals from initiations of force. A legitimate government uses force as means of retaliation such as what Israel is doing, not all force is evil. Only initiations of them are. You have to understand that distinction. And it is not immoral for others to defend your rights as it is in their self-interest to do so.

E.g. Why should I care if someone in Alabama is murdered while I sit here in Connecticut? When I pay my taxes for a government to punish that murderer, am I not a party to that punishment? After all I had nothing do with what happens in Alabama, so what right do I have to financially contribute to his punishment? I sure as hell am not immoral for contributing to that murderer's punishment as it is in my self-interest to see that. Anarchy is a short ride to oppression and a destruction liberty. It is contrary to my self-interest to see that happen.


...if you think that the lebanese who are on Hezbollah's side deserve to die for their ideas, then you must also believe that all people who entertain marxist ideas in the US deserve to die. That's the vast majority of the population. I'm going to write an essay on this topic and submit it.


What an absurd moral analysis! So the person that is a party to conspiracy of murder should not be punished? It's ok if I pay someone to murder an individual so long as I'm not the one pulling the trigger? So if I contribute to Hezbollah's finances that result in for example blowing up an Israeli bus of civilians I'm not responsible for their deaths? Or is it ok I don't report a murder that I witnessed to the police? Is it moral to be passive while others around me are being slaughtered? Is the choice of inaction not itself a choice with moral consequences?


Post 11

Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 3:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

what do you call Hezbollah and rest of the Middle East? Why is Israel the evil nation that steals from its citizens to fund a war of self-defense, while Muslim nations who also steal from their fellow citizens to fund an unprovoked war of terrorism?

I apologize if I was not clear.  By arguing against israel, I did not mean to imply that Hezbollah is right.  Both sides in a conflict can be wrong, and to different extents.  I do not understand what "evil nation" means.  Israelis are not all evil...but they do have an oppressive government, just like every other government on earth.  It is odd to me that people find it easy to criticize the US government for its oppression, but difficult to criticize the Israeli government, which is even more socialist.

not all force is evil. Only initiations of them are
I agree with this statement.  But it does not follow that there are no moral limits on what a government can do in self-defense.  If A steals a penny from B, it is wrong for the government to kill A, and it is incredibly wrong to kill A's brother, even if it justifies it on the basis of 'self-defense'.  Why? because A's brother did not commit the crime!  Only individuals can be guilty, not societies.  The lebanese are not all a bunch of evil terrorist supporters who deserve to die. 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, August 12, 2006 - 5:12pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I do not understand what "evil nation" means


You can't be serious? What would you have called the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany anything other than an evil nation?

The lebanese are not all a bunch of evil terrorist supporters who deserve to die.


I agree with this but why haven't the Lebanese who are not terrorists and don't support Hezbollah not taken up arms to rid their country of these murderous thugs? What would you do if you lived in a country where terrorists have free reign and can come and go as they please? You think you would have no moral responsibility to get rid of them? They can attack your neighbors and kill them as much as they want so long as they don't kill you? Then what would you expect of your neighbors? Why would they not be justified in killing these murderous thugs who live in your backyard, among you, while you did nothing to stop them? How could you possibly cry foul when an errant bomb landed on your home when you did nothing to prevent the problem of Hezbollah taking power in the first place? You would have no right to complain or seek impunity from your choice of inaction! You must suffer the consequences of your choice to not act, to not get rid of the people that are killing your neighbors. The Lebanese who don't support Hezbollah have not done enough to stop them. And if they really cared, they'd join the Israelis in arms. If anything, Israel by exercising it's right to self-defense is doing these Lebanese a favor by getting rid of these thugs.



Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The Lebanese who don't support Hezbollah have not done enough to stop them.
Does this also mean that the families of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer should be punished for the murders that they committed? Does that mean that Fidel Castro's sister (who has been in America for years) should be arrested because she did nothing to stop him?


Post 14

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Chris,

Do you really think those are comparable examples? An individual murderer and a large state sponsered military organization? Really?

Ethan


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Not to mention Ethan Chris completely missed the point of the analogy and unwittingly further proved my point. If Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer's family knew they were murdering people (which they didn't) and didn't report this to the police, this would be a crime called Obstruction of Justice. Their choice of inaction would have a consequence. And why would Fidel Castro's sister be arrested? She fled the country, that's one of the things you can do under tyranny, to flee. You can either flee or fight under a tyranny. To stay and do nothing is a choice of which you must live with those consequences. If Fidel Castro's sister stayed in Cuba (and Cuba invaded another country) and she did nothing, then she would have to live with her choice of inaction.

But hey, thanks for proving my point Chris!


Post 16

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 11:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now that there was a cease-fire earlier today, the governments of Israel and America -- so inept at fighting jihad -- both loudly proclaim that they won the war. But saying it doesn't make it so. The fact is Islamic jihadism kicked the ass of Western liberalism in Lebanon -- just as it's doing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Here's the reality:

  • When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 -- after 18 years if occupation -- it said it would hold the government of Lebanon responsible for any future attacks. But it didn't.

  • When Hezbollah raided across the border and killed 8 soldiers and took 2 more hostage, Israel said it would hold the government of Lebanon responsible. But it didn't.

  • Israel initially accurately called this "an act of war" "by Lebanon." But it didn't attack "Lebanon," and it certainly didn't wage any kind of serious war. It almost entirely fought in the south a kind of bizarro skirmish with immense effort to avoid damaging enemy infrastructure and hurting their "innocent civilians." This irrational and foolish practice, in turn, was exactly what its enemies didn't do.

  • Israel said it would destroy Hezbollah. But it didn't. 

  • After some pantomime and failure, Israel said it would at least disarm Hezbollah. But it didn't.

  • After some more pantomime and failure, Israel said it would at least significantly degrade Hezbollah. But it didn't.

  • Everyone knows it'll only be a tiny amount of time before Syria, Iran, and others rearm them, and Hezbollah will end up with far more weapons. And after this victory, recruitment will be easy. So it'll only be a tiny amount of time before Hezbollah ends up with far more fighters.

  • Israel fought to get back its 2 kidnapped soldiers. But it didn't.

  • Almost without a doubt, Israel will do here what it's miserably done in the past for over half a century. Israel will call upon its usual intense depravity and suicidal nature, and then trade thousands of hard-core enemies for a handful of Jews. Aggression and evil will be rewarded and emerge victorious, as they always do in self-hating Israel.

  • Hezbollah will remain in the Lebanese government -- and probably become much stronger.

  • Israel's enemies Syria and Iran will go unrestrained. Indeed, these participants weren't even mentioned in the cease-fire resolution. So they'll continue to aid and arm the jihadists in Lebanon and Gaza. (And Iraq and Afghanistan -- which is just payback for America's depraved calls for "restraint.")

Earlier today Israel's pathetic leader vainly promised that "next time Israel will do better" -- a fraud and joke so bitter and horrific that one can't even mock it. Olmert needs to resign -- or be jailed for treason.

In the worldwide War against Jihad, the good guys lost another. One thing is certain: Israel and America will regret this day for years or decades to come. The Day of the Mushroom Clouds grows closer for both illiberal self-destructive nations.

(Edited by Andre Zantonavitch on 8/14, 11:16pm)


Post 17

Tuesday, August 15, 2006 - 6:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now that there was a cease-fire earlier today, the governments of Israel and America -- so inept at fighting jihad -- both loudly proclaim that they won the war. But saying it doesn't make it so.
This is just grandstanding for their constituencies. If these guys think it's a victory, they are extremely deluded. It's a cease-fire, which is nothing more than both sides agreeing to a time out.
The fact is Islamic jihadism kicked the ass of Western liberalism in Lebanon -- just as it's doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
No, this is definitely not Western liberalism. Western liberalism is the philosophy of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland. Western imperialism/welfare-statism/corporate-welfare-statism is what got its butt kicked. Western liberalism has absolutely nothing to do with America's government today.
When Israel withdrew from Lebanon in 2000 -- after 18 years if occupation -- it said it would hold the government of Lebanon responsible for any future attacks. But it didn't.
It looks like the egomania of their politicians is finally getting the best of them.
When Hezbollah raided across the border and killed 8 soldiers and took 2 more hostage, Israel said it would hold the government of Lebanon responsible. But it didn't.
Some accounts indicate that this may have taken place on Lebanese soil. We'll probably never know. Both sides have tremendous credibility problems.
Israel initially accurately called this "an act of war" "by Lebanon." But it didn't attack "Lebanon," and it certainly didn't wage any kind of serious war. It almost entirely fought in the south a kind of bizarro skirmish with immense effort to avoid damaging enemy infrastructure and hurting their "innocent civilians." This irrational and foolish practice, in turn, was exactly what its enemies didn't do.
This isn't what I have heard. One of their first targets was the nation's only major airport. This effectively trapped anyone who wanted to leave, including many Americans. They also turned any allies they might have had in Lebanon into enemies.
Israel said it would destroy Hezbollah. But it didn't.
The arrogance of the Bush administration has rubbed off on them. This article indicates that Bush and Cheney were involved in the planning of the attacks.
And after this victory, recruitment will be easy. So it'll only be a tiny amount of time before Hezbollah ends up with far more fighters.
A lot of them may be Lebanese Christians. This is something they wouldn't have had before the recent skirmish.
Almost without a doubt, Israel will do here what it's miserably done in the past for over half a century. Israel will call upon its usual intense depravity and suicidal nature, and then trade thousands of hard-core enemies for a handful of Jews. Aggression and evil will be rewarded and emerge victorious, as they always do in self-hating Israel.
Perhaps, they will get some corrupt American politicians to go after an enemy for them. They have bribing them for half a century. I'm getting the feeling, however, that most American are finally getting sick and tired of paying for it though.

I read an article that compared Israel to Serbia and the USA to Russia in 1914. I don't think George Bush wants to meet the same fate as Czar Nicholas did.

Israel hates itself anway. Just look at all the socialists they have voted into power.
Israel's enemies Syria and Iran will go unrestrained. Indeed, these participants weren't even mentioned in the cease-fire resolution.
Doug Casey visited Syria back in 2005 and wrote an article about in his April 2005 issue of International Speculator:

In Syria, my impression is that most people pay lip service to Islam, much as the French do to Christianity....
While many older women wear headscarves, very few wear an abbaya. Just as many young women sport an exposed midriff....
But now anyone under the age of 40 sees it as a corrupt and counterproductive anachronism that serves mostly to ineffectively limit their supplies of hip-hop CD's, imported jeans, and Internet cafés. Half of the 18-million population is under 20, and a quarter of the working age population is unemployed. Exposed for the first time-and just in the last decade or so because of the computer, the VCR, and the satellite dish-to the salubrious influence of the West, these folks are ready for a change.
Left alone, the pathetic old Baath dinosaur would likely die of its own accord. Exactly the way the Soviet Union did, and for exactly the same reasons (this concept is explored in detail in my Reagan obituary, IS XXV No. 7, July 2004). It's not only unnecessary, but totally counterproductive to threaten places like this with military action. The place is an economic disaster area, with no meaningful exports but oil. And that's coming to an end. Production is about 525,000 bpd, domestic consumption is 275,000, leaving 250,000 bpd for export. But the fields (like most in the world today-which is another story) are in decline, and it's estimated that Syria will be a net oil importer in five years. That alone guarantees that the remainder of Syrian troops in Lebanon will be withdrawn sooner rather than later.

Unlike the Chinese Communists, the Syrian Baaths haven't truly liberalized the economy, not realizing that if people earn more they can extort more. The police state, however, has mellowed considerably since Hafez died, and the trend is likely to accelerate. At least if the U.S. keeps its hands off the place. Bush's general saber-rattling serves to do nothing but possibly unite large elements of the Syrian population around the Baath....
The young Assad appears to be surrounded, at once, by young technocrats who want to see Syria join the modern world, and a bunch of old thugs from the military and security apparatus who don't want their rice bowls broken. If the old thugs are smart, they'll take the billions they've stolen, and retire to Geneva while they still can.
My conclusion? As was the case with Iraq, the reality of Syria is vastly different from the propagandistic view disseminated by the U.S. Government. It's a small, poor, quiet, old, and passive country. Its inhabitants have been suppressed by a socialist government for the last 50 years, but that form of government is about to die, and, like a dead rat, be tossed onto the garbage heap of history....
The last 50 years will eventually be seen as an insignificant blip on the 5000 year screen of their history--exactly as the reign of the Emperor Mao is proving to have been for the Chinese. As long as somebody doesn't invade and turn the place into a second Iraq....
Opportunities? Few, and hard to take advantage of at this point. The outlook? Good. Things have improved considerably, all by themselves, in the last five years, and I expect they'll improve radically over the next five.


In the worldwide War against Jihad, the good guys lost another. One thing is certain: Israel and America will regret this day for years or decades to come.
This is Israel's fight, not America's.

That being said, I really do support the right of American citizens to enlist in foreign armies. Apparently this is illegal right now. I think many Americans realize that the military should be used for self-defense, not for stirring up beehives around the world.

But I do want to encourage all those who love Israel (more than they love America, even though they live here) to put down their pom-poms and pick up a rifle and bayonet. It's a shame that America's government discourages this.


Post 18

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 1:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Haaretz photographer Yaron Kaminsky was beaten Tuesday by three Israel Defense Forces officers near the community of Zar'it on the northern border with Lebanon."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/750876.html

It looks like the IDF is picking fights with everyone.
 
 


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.