Earlier I suggested that Joseph Farah had a solution to Lebanon's demographic problem.
Well, he is coming awfully close - he essentially wants to expel a large number of Shiites.
Now, I am not certain of his claims that Hezbollah-supporting Shiites are Iranians rather than Lebanese Arabs (in fact, I am uncertain how much support from Iran Hezbollah gets), but this should be something that can be checked. Any readers want tot take me up on this? If they are mostly native Lebanese Arabs, then Farah is essentially advocating ethnic cleansing in order to get his ethnic group (Lebanese Christians) back in control (apparently his solution to the discrepancy between the demographics of Lebanon and the representation proportions in the parliament is that they should be brought into balance, but by making the population reflect the parliament rather than letting the parliament reflect the population).
Of course, one of Farah's statements seems to me to be rather dishonest:
"There were always Shiites in Lebanon. But before the Iranian revolution, they were a peaceful people, easily assimilated into the country's diverse population of Sunnis, Druze and Christians."
Were any of Lebanon's peoples ever peaceful?
It seems to me that "democracy" and "freedom" are for Farah codewords meaning: making sure that my guys are the ones in power.
That is all.
Friday, March 11, 2005
Hack Kelly: We Should Occupy Lebanon
Reading between the lines of Jack "The Hack" Kelly's latest screed, what he is essentially suggesting is that the US and its allies (including France in this case) should taker over occupation duty rom Syria and assume the role of keepers of the peace (i.e. we will prevent hte outbreak of a second civil war like Syria has been doing for the past 15 years).
Of course, maybe I'm being cynical. After all, the Lebanese Cedar Revolutionaries will likely welcome us with open arms, won't they?
Probably. But they also welcomed the Israelis back in the early 80s. I somehow doubt that their love will be more long-lasting this time.
That is all.
Of course, maybe I'm being cynical. After all, the Lebanese Cedar Revolutionaries will likely welcome us with open arms, won't they?
Probably. But they also welcomed the Israelis back in the early 80s. I somehow doubt that their love will be more long-lasting this time.
That is all.
Thursday, March 10, 2005
Farah has Gone Insane
According to Joseph Farah, we should use tactical weapons to get bin Laden, even if it doesn't actually accomplish anything.
I'm not against the idea that we should get bin Laden, but not if it requires us to nuke someone and if it also doesn't really affect anything.
I think we need to put more effort into finding him, but we should do it the smart way (espionage), and not get sidetracked with visions of nuclear revenge. I get the impression that Farah's entire solution to bin Laden is to kill a whole lot of Muslims on the assumption that that will somehow smoke him out. In fact, his entire solution to the terrorism problem seems to involve a lot of making war and masssive attacks on countries, so it's not surprising that he thinks of the same things when talking about finding bin Laden.
That is all.
I'm not against the idea that we should get bin Laden, but not if it requires us to nuke someone and if it also doesn't really affect anything.
I think we need to put more effort into finding him, but we should do it the smart way (espionage), and not get sidetracked with visions of nuclear revenge. I get the impression that Farah's entire solution to bin Laden is to kill a whole lot of Muslims on the assumption that that will somehow smoke him out. In fact, his entire solution to the terrorism problem seems to involve a lot of making war and masssive attacks on countries, so it's not surprising that he thinks of the same things when talking about finding bin Laden.
That is all.
On Lebanon
Lawrence Auster has a clear head when it comes to Lebanon, and of the civil war and its causes.
My guess is that Joseph Farah and others who blame everything on Syria are planning on blaming Syria when unoccupied Lebanon re-erupts into a civil war (oh, everything was peaceful! Syria deliberately stirred things up to make it look like the occupation was justified!) and then suggesting an Israeli occupation to end it.
Farah definitely is upset that Israel left, although to be fair he implies that it would have been all right if they had given the Christian militias sufficient warning.
Of course, in reality I have a feeling that he has a solution for the demographic imbalance - let's just say that it is one he has suggested elsewhere in the Arab world. And let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if he suggests that we don't give much of a warning or evacuation period.
That is all.
My guess is that Joseph Farah and others who blame everything on Syria are planning on blaming Syria when unoccupied Lebanon re-erupts into a civil war (oh, everything was peaceful! Syria deliberately stirred things up to make it look like the occupation was justified!) and then suggesting an Israeli occupation to end it.
Farah definitely is upset that Israel left, although to be fair he implies that it would have been all right if they had given the Christian militias sufficient warning.
Of course, in reality I have a feeling that he has a solution for the demographic imbalance - let's just say that it is one he has suggested elsewhere in the Arab world. And let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised if he suggests that we don't give much of a warning or evacuation period.
That is all.
Wednesday, March 09, 2005
More on Giuliana Sgrena
Arthur Chrenkoff has some pictures which seem to indicate that Giuliana Sgrena's account (particularly the part about 300-400 bullets) is somewhat less than accurate.
That is all.
That is all.
Tuesday, March 08, 2005
More Wit and Wisdom from Steve Sailer
This is a gem:
"Holding elections doesn't solve the problem that some men will always feel the only thing preventing them from winning elections are the current boundaries."
That is all.
"Holding elections doesn't solve the problem that some men will always feel the only thing preventing them from winning elections are the current boundaries."
That is all.
Monday, March 07, 2005
Selling the War; Selling the Enemy
This article gives a good explanation, of our primary failing in Iraq. Our army is designed to fight traditional command-and-control hierarchical armies. so it keeps interpreting the Iraq War in that light.
All this business that the real villains have to be states like Iran and Syria, or that Zarqawi is behind the resistance, and all of the assumptions that once we capture Zarqawi we will deal the insurgency a fatal blow (whenver they announce excitedly how close we are to capturing Zarqawi, the subtext is that doing so will somehow cripple the insurgents), comes from assuming that the enemy is the one we were trained to face.
One thing I disagree with Tom Engelhardt and Michael Schwartz on, though, is that we cannot defeat the insurgency with the army we currently have.
Even a decentralized guerilla resistance can be defeated by an army with the technology we have. The problem is, it would rob us of our humanity to end it. Because the only way to end it with the army we currently have is to simply start wiping out the ethnic groups most associated with the resistance, i.e. the Sunni Arabs.
If we are willing to go to some big Sunni Arab towns, round up the residents, and kill 100,000 of them, and then in order to control them in Northern ethnically-mixed towns, arm the Kurds and tell them it's open season on Sunni Arabs, I'm certain a lot of them would be willing to reduce the Sunni Arab population for us. I'm not certain about the Shiites, as they are Arabs and somewhat closer to the Sunni Arabs, but if they thought it would increase their power, and if we made some veiled threats about what we would do if they made common casue with the Sunnis, we could probably get them to help us on that, too.
Of course, none of this would mean that we wouldn't start getting trouble from the newly ascendant Kurds and Shiite Arabs, or from other countries.
However, it would stop the current insurgency, and I have a feeling that if casualties start going up again, eventually we will begin to move toward this option.
And that will NOT be good.
That is all.
All this business that the real villains have to be states like Iran and Syria, or that Zarqawi is behind the resistance, and all of the assumptions that once we capture Zarqawi we will deal the insurgency a fatal blow (whenver they announce excitedly how close we are to capturing Zarqawi, the subtext is that doing so will somehow cripple the insurgents), comes from assuming that the enemy is the one we were trained to face.
One thing I disagree with Tom Engelhardt and Michael Schwartz on, though, is that we cannot defeat the insurgency with the army we currently have.
Even a decentralized guerilla resistance can be defeated by an army with the technology we have. The problem is, it would rob us of our humanity to end it. Because the only way to end it with the army we currently have is to simply start wiping out the ethnic groups most associated with the resistance, i.e. the Sunni Arabs.
If we are willing to go to some big Sunni Arab towns, round up the residents, and kill 100,000 of them, and then in order to control them in Northern ethnically-mixed towns, arm the Kurds and tell them it's open season on Sunni Arabs, I'm certain a lot of them would be willing to reduce the Sunni Arab population for us. I'm not certain about the Shiites, as they are Arabs and somewhat closer to the Sunni Arabs, but if they thought it would increase their power, and if we made some veiled threats about what we would do if they made common casue with the Sunnis, we could probably get them to help us on that, too.
Of course, none of this would mean that we wouldn't start getting trouble from the newly ascendant Kurds and Shiite Arabs, or from other countries.
However, it would stop the current insurgency, and I have a feeling that if casualties start going up again, eventually we will begin to move toward this option.
And that will NOT be good.
That is all.
Correction: Matt Hale a Separatist, not a Supremacist
In a previous post I referred to Matt Hale as a "white supremacist."
According to his mother (as interviewed by Greta van Susteren) he is a white separatist, not a white supremacist (i.e. he believes that the races should be separate but does not believe that whites are superior to non-whites).
White supremacists, white nationalists, and white separatists (I am none of these things) are different things, and I'll try to post about that in more detail later.
In any case, whether or not Matt Hale is violent and whether or not he has anything to do with the murder of Judge Lefkow's husband and mother, I do not wish to misrepresent his views and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my referring to him as a white supremacist.
That is all.
According to his mother (as interviewed by Greta van Susteren) he is a white separatist, not a white supremacist (i.e. he believes that the races should be separate but does not believe that whites are superior to non-whites).
White supremacists, white nationalists, and white separatists (I am none of these things) are different things, and I'll try to post about that in more detail later.
In any case, whether or not Matt Hale is violent and whether or not he has anything to do with the murder of Judge Lefkow's husband and mother, I do not wish to misrepresent his views and I apologize to anyone who was offended by my referring to him as a white supremacist.
That is all.
Henley's Theory
Jim Henley has the best explanation so far about the US military firing at Giuliana Sgrena.
Sunday, March 06, 2005
Bloggers v. McCain-Feingold
An interesting post by Richard Poe. Unfortunately, Mr. Poe refuses to acknowledge the responsibility of George W. Bush for this, as HE WAS THE ONE WHO SIGNED MCCAIN-FEINGOLD.
But of course, Richard Poe can never, ever criticize President Bush.
Look at his original post criticizing the Supreme court for upholding McCain-Feingold. Note the total absence of criticism for Bush.
Anyone who read much of his blog in the weeks up to the election knows that he refused to say anything bad in any way about Dubya. And he hasn't seemed to change at all now that Bush is eleceted and in fact wants to continue the dynasty by electing his brother.
Considering that his undying loyalty to El Presidente, his call to liberal bloggers to renounce Hillary Clinton and George Soros seems rather hypocritical. And of course, he sees Clinton and Soros as the source of all this evil, rather than seeing them as one tentacle of the statist octopus, which consists of all people who see the government's role as to shape society. His concentration on Soros and Clinton, in my opinion, distracts us from the real issue, which is the cancerous nature of governments in general.
I think Henry David Thoreau had something to say about this.
That is all.
But of course, Richard Poe can never, ever criticize President Bush.
Look at his original post criticizing the Supreme court for upholding McCain-Feingold. Note the total absence of criticism for Bush.
Anyone who read much of his blog in the weeks up to the election knows that he refused to say anything bad in any way about Dubya. And he hasn't seemed to change at all now that Bush is eleceted and in fact wants to continue the dynasty by electing his brother.
Considering that his undying loyalty to El Presidente, his call to liberal bloggers to renounce Hillary Clinton and George Soros seems rather hypocritical. And of course, he sees Clinton and Soros as the source of all this evil, rather than seeing them as one tentacle of the statist octopus, which consists of all people who see the government's role as to shape society. His concentration on Soros and Clinton, in my opinion, distracts us from the real issue, which is the cancerous nature of governments in general.
I think Henry David Thoreau had something to say about this.
That is all.
Interesting Article
Apparently due to a "glut" of adoptable black babies in the US, a lot of black babies are now being adopted by foreigners.
On the whole I am glad that someone is adopting them, as it is always good for babies to have parents.
On the other hand, the fact that there are not a lot of people in the US who want to adopt black babies is rather sad, particularly when there are so many couples who are waiting to adopt but who are unwilling or unable to adopt black children.
I would say that is all, but I think that there will be a lot more to be said on this subject after giving it some more thought.
On the whole I am glad that someone is adopting them, as it is always good for babies to have parents.
On the other hand, the fact that there are not a lot of people in the US who want to adopt black babies is rather sad, particularly when there are so many couples who are waiting to adopt but who are unwilling or unable to adopt black children.
I would say that is all, but I think that there will be a lot more to be said on this subject after giving it some more thought.
Casualties for March
Coalition fatalities for March are at 14 so far,
11 of which are hostile (10 if you don't count the friendly-fire death of hostage negotiator Nicola Calipari).
At this point last month (February 6), there were 12 fatalities, (10 hostile, 2 non-hostile).
On the other hand, looking only up to February 4 (the last fatalitiy listed for this month is March 4, and it will another day or two before we find out whether there were any fatalities on March 5, and March 6 isn't even over for another 3 to 4 hours (using Iraq's time zone).
So by February 4, the stats were 8 dead (7 hostile, 1 non-hostile).
That is all.
11 of which are hostile (10 if you don't count the friendly-fire death of hostage negotiator Nicola Calipari).
At this point last month (February 6), there were 12 fatalities, (10 hostile, 2 non-hostile).
On the other hand, looking only up to February 4 (the last fatalitiy listed for this month is March 4, and it will another day or two before we find out whether there were any fatalities on March 5, and March 6 isn't even over for another 3 to 4 hours (using Iraq's time zone).
So by February 4, the stats were 8 dead (7 hostile, 1 non-hostile).
That is all.
John Batchelder a Liar
I saw John Batchelder on Fox News this morning.
According to him, the Syrians want to keep troops in Bekaa Valley becasue that's where Saddam's WMDs were hidden. Also, they were going to help Hezbollah to commit terrorist acts there in order to justify the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
What is happening is this:
(a) The WMD issue is a ploy to give us an excuse to attack Syria, or else something the neocons made up in order to explain the Syrian's reluctance to leave Lebanon; in otehr words, it gives us a reason to demand strongly that Syria leave completely. Therefore, if Syria doesn't for security reasons, or because they are afraid that their absence will cause Lebanon to fall apart, we can impugn their motives and thus justify attcking them.
(b) The business about Syria destablilizing Lebanon is just another in a long series of neocon lies to excuse the likely result of ending the Syrian occupation; civil war. Part of the reason for the occupation is that Lebanon has a long history of its various ethnic groups killing each other. In order to impugn Syria, the neocons have to explain the civil war as caused by Syria, as I explained earlier. In order to maintain this assertion, and in order to make Syria's occupation appear entirely unjustified, and in order to avoid the US taking the blame if and when Lebanon falls back into civil war, any unrest after Syria leaves has to be blamed on Syria.
Batchelder also stated that Iran might have bought a small nuclear weapon to detonate in Lebanon and blame on Israel. Seeing as I see no benefit to either Israel, or Syria, or Iran, from such an occurrence (Iran and Syria would be targeted for sure if such a thing happened, and if Israel wants to push us into war with Syria, it can do so without causing a nuclear explosion in their backyard, which would also kill a lot of their Lebanese Christian friends), I think that if a bomb explodes, it is unlikely that any of those countries would do it; therefore, I'm not cetain what he is trying to cover up with that statement (assuming he is covering for a likely nuclear attack in Lebanon and not just trying to scare us with WMD stories).
That is all for now.
According to him, the Syrians want to keep troops in Bekaa Valley becasue that's where Saddam's WMDs were hidden. Also, they were going to help Hezbollah to commit terrorist acts there in order to justify the Syrian occupation of Lebanon.
What is happening is this:
(a) The WMD issue is a ploy to give us an excuse to attack Syria, or else something the neocons made up in order to explain the Syrian's reluctance to leave Lebanon; in otehr words, it gives us a reason to demand strongly that Syria leave completely. Therefore, if Syria doesn't for security reasons, or because they are afraid that their absence will cause Lebanon to fall apart, we can impugn their motives and thus justify attcking them.
(b) The business about Syria destablilizing Lebanon is just another in a long series of neocon lies to excuse the likely result of ending the Syrian occupation; civil war. Part of the reason for the occupation is that Lebanon has a long history of its various ethnic groups killing each other. In order to impugn Syria, the neocons have to explain the civil war as caused by Syria, as I explained earlier. In order to maintain this assertion, and in order to make Syria's occupation appear entirely unjustified, and in order to avoid the US taking the blame if and when Lebanon falls back into civil war, any unrest after Syria leaves has to be blamed on Syria.
Batchelder also stated that Iran might have bought a small nuclear weapon to detonate in Lebanon and blame on Israel. Seeing as I see no benefit to either Israel, or Syria, or Iran, from such an occurrence (Iran and Syria would be targeted for sure if such a thing happened, and if Israel wants to push us into war with Syria, it can do so without causing a nuclear explosion in their backyard, which would also kill a lot of their Lebanese Christian friends), I think that if a bomb explodes, it is unlikely that any of those countries would do it; therefore, I'm not cetain what he is trying to cover up with that statement (assuming he is covering for a likely nuclear attack in Lebanon and not just trying to scare us with WMD stories).
That is all for now.
Saturday, March 05, 2005
About Giuliana Sgrena
Pier Scolari, her boyfriend (not to be confused with Peter Scolari of Bosom Buddies and Newhart fame), claims that she was deliberately attacked because she had information that the US military didn't want to get out.
My immediate thought is that I'd like to hear what the information is that is supposedly the reason she was shot at. It seems to me that unless she has something REALLY big, it will be a hard story to sell. If she had been killed, then whatever she knew could possibly be lost, and so there would be no way to prove things one way or the other.
However, as she has survived, I expect her to make public whatever it is she knows or for her boyfriend to retract the statement. The fact that I opposed this war does not mean that I will accept every theory by every antiwar person based entirely on their say-so; I want proof.
So I call on Pier Scolari and Giuliana Sgrena to put up, or apologize.
That is all.
My immediate thought is that I'd like to hear what the information is that is supposedly the reason she was shot at. It seems to me that unless she has something REALLY big, it will be a hard story to sell. If she had been killed, then whatever she knew could possibly be lost, and so there would be no way to prove things one way or the other.
However, as she has survived, I expect her to make public whatever it is she knows or for her boyfriend to retract the statement. The fact that I opposed this war does not mean that I will accept every theory by every antiwar person based entirely on their say-so; I want proof.
So I call on Pier Scolari and Giuliana Sgrena to put up, or apologize.
That is all.
Friday, March 04, 2005
And Now for Some Eye-Candy
Here is a sexy but work-safe picture (unless you work for a company that makes IBM-style PCs or PC components).
I think I'm in love.
That is all.
I think I'm in love.
That is all.
I Hate John McCain
Bradley A. Smith (the Federal Election Commission guy, not to be confused with Bradley R. Smith the Holocaust-denier) explains how McCain-Feingold may stifle internet political speech.
That is all.
That is all.
Another Reason we Shouldn't Have Gone to War in Iraq
One consequence of Vietnam was that we took in a large number of Hmong refugees.
Considering some of the problems that the Hmong seem to have brought to the US, do we really want to be involved in a war in the Middle East that will evnetually require us to resettle all the refugees created by the conflict, or by the new regime(s), or who might have feld anyway but who might now see an opening to go to the US?
That is all.
Considering some of the problems that the Hmong seem to have brought to the US, do we really want to be involved in a war in the Middle East that will evnetually require us to resettle all the refugees created by the conflict, or by the new regime(s), or who might have feld anyway but who might now see an opening to go to the US?
That is all.
HR 418 - REAL ID - Even VDARE Skeptical?
This article by Bryanna Bevins confirms my suspicions that the REAL ID bill is not a good idea, even though it theoretically will help us to stop illegal immigration.
That is all.
That is all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)