Ol' Dave is shilling for the Chalabster again.
"And in truth he's not an easy man to understand. He is subtle, sometimes guileful, working in the service not of the United States (though he has sought and accepted US aid), not of Israel (though he's often accused of that), not of himself (there are less dangerous ways of making a living than fighting Saddam Hussein) - but, to borrow a phrase of Charles DeGaulle's, of a "certain idea" he has had of Iraq."
Bull excrement. He may not be working for the US, or Israel, or Iran, but he is working for himself. There are less dangerous ways to make a living than fighting Saddam, but few have the ability to make him and his family the new scions of an oil-rich country.
The idea that Chalabi couldn't possibly be working for his own benefit because he can make a good living, and even be rich, doing something less hazardous than running an Iraqi opposition movement and then trying to get power in the new Iraq is absurd. People who are rich and powerful are generally interested in getting more rich and powerful. If all people ever wanted was enough, how come Hitler and Napoleon kept conquering more countries until they were stopped by outside forces?
As Steve Sailer has pointed out, the change of regime to enriched Chalabi's family.
"Iraq's new prime minister-designate, Iyad Allawi, is the cousin of the defense minister Ali Allawi, who is Chalabi's nephew. Whether Iyad and Ahmed will be clannish colleagues or relative rivals is impossible for me to predict, but clearly the regime we are creating will be rife with dynastic intrigues."
And don't forget nephew Salem Chalabi, who is invovled in the prosecution of Saddam.
There are two heories on why the neocons love Chalabi so much:
(1) Because he has promised to be friendly to Israel. This either means that the neocons are stupid (as Chalabi would, I believe, sell out Israel in a second if it furthered his ambitions) or else are confident that they can keep him on their side (if he was, as seems likely, leaking secrets to Iran, it is possible that this was because he wasn't getting the power he thought he deserved. In this case, they might think that they could buy him back with by promising him more power.
(2) There's another option that is mentioned also by Steve Sailer. If true, it's a serious charge, so I'll remain coy at this point. But it wouldn't surprise me if it were true.
That is all for now.
Wednesday, February 16, 2005
On to Syria?
Justin Raimondo thinks that the Bush administration is pushing for a war with Syria. I can't say that I disagree. Matt Yglesias endorses the idea that we should take action against Syria if it turns out that Syria was involved in the murder of Rafik al-Hariri, although he doesn't say whether that action would include incasion and conquest.
I'm not certain that Matt is correct in this. Even if Syria were involved, I don't see why we have the responsibility of takinbg care of the problem.
The War Nerd thinks that Bush will attack Iran. No, he knows that we don't have enough troops and that we can't possibly afford such an attack. But he thinks that that is exactly why Bush will attack. Because Bush has no common sense.
On that cheerful note, let me say:
That is all.
I'm not certain that Matt is correct in this. Even if Syria were involved, I don't see why we have the responsibility of takinbg care of the problem.
The War Nerd thinks that Bush will attack Iran. No, he knows that we don't have enough troops and that we can't possibly afford such an attack. But he thinks that that is exactly why Bush will attack. Because Bush has no common sense.
On that cheerful note, let me say:
That is all.
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Monday, February 14, 2005
More on the Iraqi Election Results
Matt Yglesias revises a previous statement about the Iraqi Transition National Assembly.
Apparently, a simply majority can do a lot of things, which makes the fact that the UIA didn't get a majority meaningful, contra my previous post on the subject.
So Steve Sailer's "Nelson Mandela thesis" is beginning to look more likely (as we now have a motive!)
That is all.
Apparently, a simply majority can do a lot of things, which makes the fact that the UIA didn't get a majority meaningful, contra my previous post on the subject.
So Steve Sailer's "Nelson Mandela thesis" is beginning to look more likely (as we now have a motive!)
That is all.
What's Wrong with Liberals
Nicole Colson on Counterpunch claims that pro-choicers aren't trying to force their beliefs on us, but I notice that she thinks that taxpayers ought to be forced to pay for abortions through Medicaid.
I also notice that she seems to think that suggesting that abortion is not entirely a good thing is anti-choice, and apparently thinks that it is oppressive that Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority feels that people should work for there to be fewer abortions (by which Ms. Smeal obviously means nothing more than that we should work to prevent unwanted pregnancies).
Apparently, Ms. Colson believes that we should work for there to be more abortions. And that's the problem with Counterpunch. I do sometimes (often, really) read it because of its antiwar stance. But they that write for it are mainly a strange bunch, and half of what they write is B.S. (albeit sincere B.S.). That is why they don't have a link on my links page.
That is all.
I also notice that she seems to think that suggesting that abortion is not entirely a good thing is anti-choice, and apparently thinks that it is oppressive that Eleanor Smeal of the Feminist Majority feels that people should work for there to be fewer abortions (by which Ms. Smeal obviously means nothing more than that we should work to prevent unwanted pregnancies).
Apparently, Ms. Colson believes that we should work for there to be more abortions. And that's the problem with Counterpunch. I do sometimes (often, really) read it because of its antiwar stance. But they that write for it are mainly a strange bunch, and half of what they write is B.S. (albeit sincere B.S.). That is why they don't have a link on my links page.
That is all.
More Intersting News from Steve Sailer
At the risk of appearing to be a shill, Steve Sailer has an interesting article up on VDARE.
That is all.
That is all.
Sunday, February 13, 2005
Is the Fix in?
More thoughts from Steve on the historic elections.
UPDATE: Apparently, a simple majority does not have meaningful power in Iraq. That is, you need at least a 2/3 majority to agree to the Constitution, so there may not be any reason per se to care if the UIA had more or less than 50% of the vote.
UPDATE II: Actually, a majority may have some power after the 2/3 supermajority decides some things, according to the comments under the post I lonked to. *Sigh*. This is complicated.
UPDATE: Apparently, a simple majority does not have meaningful power in Iraq. That is, you need at least a 2/3 majority to agree to the Constitution, so there may not be any reason per se to care if the UIA had more or less than 50% of the vote.
UPDATE II: Actually, a majority may have some power after the 2/3 supermajority decides some things, according to the comments under the post I lonked to. *Sigh*. This is complicated.
Maybe They All Had to go REAL Bad!
Hear ye, hear ye.
The most influential piece of art has been chosen.
That is all.
May God have mercy on our society.
The most influential piece of art has been chosen.
That is all.
May God have mercy on our society.
Hey, John Paul II, Bill Buckley Wants You DEAD!
As an evangelical, I am not particularly impressed with the Pope.
However, even I take shock at this.
Dale Steinreich has a theory as to the real reason why Buckley is hoping for the Pope's demise.
That is all.
However, even I take shock at this.
Dale Steinreich has a theory as to the real reason why Buckley is hoping for the Pope's demise.
That is all.
Saturday, February 12, 2005
Friday, February 11, 2005
February a Quiet Month?
So far, therethere have been only 16 coalition fatalities in Iraq this February (12 hostile, 4 non-hostile).
On the other hand, there is a lot of violence against Iraqis, much of it directed against those who want to sign up for the new security forces, and some of it directed against Shia (presumably by Sunnis), although I'm certain that Fox News will tell us that the violence is just directed against Iraqis as a whole for being so virtuous and democratic-minded.
I have a feeling that the general spin will be that this shows the insurgents' true colors, that the war is now being taken up against the Iraqis (who were always the targets thus showing how beneficient and pro-Iraqi we are and how anti-Iraqi the insurgents are, (so see, it was a liberation, there is no occupation, and the Iraqis love us except for those pesky Syrians and Iranians coming across the border).
The more realistic explanation is that we have pulled back to reduce our casualties, and the Iraqis are bearing the brunt of the chaos that results, either from Sunni terrorists looking to start a civil war, or from insurgents looking to kill the Iraqi National Guard as collaborators.
Fatalities dropped markedly last February, too. It didn't change anything long-term.
That is all.
On the other hand, there is a lot of violence against Iraqis, much of it directed against those who want to sign up for the new security forces, and some of it directed against Shia (presumably by Sunnis), although I'm certain that Fox News will tell us that the violence is just directed against Iraqis as a whole for being so virtuous and democratic-minded.
I have a feeling that the general spin will be that this shows the insurgents' true colors, that the war is now being taken up against the Iraqis (who were always the targets thus showing how beneficient and pro-Iraqi we are and how anti-Iraqi the insurgents are, (so see, it was a liberation, there is no occupation, and the Iraqis love us except for those pesky Syrians and Iranians coming across the border).
The more realistic explanation is that we have pulled back to reduce our casualties, and the Iraqis are bearing the brunt of the chaos that results, either from Sunni terrorists looking to start a civil war, or from insurgents looking to kill the Iraqi National Guard as collaborators.
Fatalities dropped markedly last February, too. It didn't change anything long-term.
That is all.
Translating Rumsfeldian
According to this, Rumsfeld is blaming Syria and Iran for the Iraq insurgency.
Translation:
(1) Iraqis love us and love democracy and loveChalabi Allawi. The only reason why there is still an insurgency must be non-Iraqis.
(2) I want to attack Syria and Iran next.
That is all.
Translation:
(1) Iraqis love us and love democracy and love
(2) I want to attack Syria and Iran next.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)