Some Predictions and Wishes for 2008

From the desk of Michael Huntsman on Mon, 2007-12-31 10:15

I said to the man who stood at the Gate of the Year,
"Give me a light that I may tread safely into the unknown".

As I write, in solsitio brumali, I am much in need of a light to see clearly into 2008. For bookmakers, clairvoyants and bloggers, prediction is a risky business and always likely to lead to copious amounts of egg on the face. But no one could say other than that 2008 will be another fascinating year.

The death of Benazir Bhutto inevitably dominates one’s thoughts. In early Autumn an American commentator on the BBC, whose name I cannot now recall, but who spoke plain, sound common sense made one short but telling point which drew my attention: “the one thing that really frightens me is Pakistan, it keeps me awake at night”. His analysis was both sobering and chilling and, as it turns out, prescient.

Pakistan is surely the tinderbox upon which the West must deploy its greatest skill to encourage it to stability. The alternative, that it and its nuclear arsenal might fall into the hand of Muslim fundamentalists, is too awful to contemplate. With some signs that the Army is not entirely loyal, especially on the NW Frontier where Al-Qaeda has its bolt-holes, the chances of a major collapse of the existing order cannot be discounted. Failure is not an option for the West.

In November climaxes the almost permanent campaigning for the White House these days. I am fascinated by the USA’s political processes and electoral system which have some echoes of our own but are largely so different. I love the idea of the caucus which our Conservative party in Britain might with advantage adopt for candidate selection.

Pay careful attention to the role of the internet in general and blogging in particular as I believe both will play an increasingly important part in politics both there and here.

How would I vote? In the Democratic primaries, my vote would go to the deeply poisonous Mrs. Clinton on the grounds that she will have the effect of uniting her Republican opposition and getting their vote out that much easier. Of the Republicans I would choose Giuliani. He made a good fist of New York’s Mayoralty, strikes me as a pragmatist and, though tough, is no ideologue.

Romney and Huckabee would make any Englishman uncomfortable as we avoid mixing politics and religion, an irony considering that we have an Established State Church and the USA specifically does not.

Huckabee, as I understand it, is one of those gentle but intellectually challenged souls who believes the Bible literally to be true: that is a matter entirely for him, of course, but I do wish he would tell us how Moses managed to get two of every animal, plant and so forth that has ever existed on Earth into one vessel and just how big it was…

In the Presidential Election I would be a natural Republican supporter, though not if the candidate was again George W. Bush. His tenure has not been illustrious: his handling of the economy has been inept, he has managed to make a hash of an eminently winnable and justified war and I would find supporting someone who fell in love with Blair so much almost impossible.

Turning to British politics, we have just come through perhaps the most extraordinary nine months: one wonders how 2008 can match it. Brown’s transition, as Vince Cable of the Liberal Democrats so pithily put it, from Stalin to Mr. Bean who, instead of bringing order out of chaos, has brought chaos out of order, has been astonishing. I liked this in The Daily Telegraph which, I reckon, hits the nail on the head.

Brown is essentially a creature of the 1970s by which time he was engaged full-time in Scottish Labour politics. Apart from a short period in his late twenties and early thirties when he was a Politics lecturer and then a Broadcast journalist, he had no experience in his formative years of the real world outside the narrow confines of tribalist Scottish politics.

Worse, for seventeen of the twenty-four years as an MP he has held, as shadow or in office, a Treasury brief. Since 1992 he has done nothing else, contributing, one suspects, to the lumpen way he has responded to the exigencies of being Prime Minister, an office which requires a breadth and depth of experience and vision which his career path could never give him.

I will stick my neck out and predict that he will fail to recover his position in 2008. The economy looks set, at best, for a difficult period which will fatally undermine his record for economic competence. He has a modus operandi which may have served well in the Treasury but which is wholly unsuited to the Premiership and which he is organically incapable of adapting to its needs.

He has chosen his Cabinet on the basis of excluding any potential rival (David Miliband was carefully exiled to the Foreign Office where it is difficult to build a powerbase and which offers many opportunities for blunder) and has therefore ended up with a select group of inexperienced and incompetent nobodies who will serve up a string of disasters upon which his administration will be wrecked. It is possible he might yet be deposed as Labour MPs contemplate oblivion.

In the meantime David Cameron’s star will, if he works hard and keeps a clear head, be in the ascendant.

My one wish from him is a consistent policy on the Treaty of Lisbon. He has promised a referendum on the unratified Treaty and that he would campaign against it on the basis that it is not in Britain’s interest. Yet he and William Hague have fudged so far what their policy is on a Treaty that had come into force by the time he wins an election. The Treaty does not cease to be against our interests by coming into force: indeed it becomes more inimical. We must persuade him to offer the possibilities of renegotiation, derogation or denunciation, for doing nothing would be dishonourable and dishonest.

Hopefully, any world economic downturn will be mild and short in effect. The Northern Rock collapse sent a chill down the spines of many. The world ‘credit crunch’ is a cause for alarm in the UK in particular given the extent to which Gordon Brown as Chancellor has allowed debt to build up throughout the UK economy. His plan for a wholly premature general election, later cravenly abandoned, prompted the question: what does he know about the economy in 2008 which might make him want an election now?

Elsewhere keep a careful watch on the military build up of both Russia and China. Each of these is a potential enemy for the middle quarters of the 21st. Century. The USA and the UK must not allow themselves to be totally distracted by Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and in particular must not allow their Armed Forces to be dominated in terms of doctrine, equipment, training and outlook by the sort of light wars now being fought in the Middle East.

Lastly there is Belgium.

One’s attention is drawn to two things.

Firstly that power has been devolved both downwards to Flanders and Wallonia and upwards to the EU to such an extent that a modern industrial state can run for six months without a government. This is a stark reminder of the extent to which the nation state has been emasculated within the EU.

Secondly, how can one call an election legitimate that leads to the acknowledged losers being rewarded with a new mandate? That is the unsatisfactory result of Belgium’s 2007 General Election which may be a short-term fix but will do little to enhance the validity of a system already struggling against a serious democratic deficit.

Belgium’s political crisis may just be beginning in earnest.

@Kapitan Andrey Dekapitatovich Totalitarionov

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Wed, 2008-01-02 21:28.

You seem to pay a lot of "multicultural respect" to people who would not hesitate to decapitate you, captain oh my captain of the "dead foe society".

Having been busy all day, I first did not want to respond to your bad faith, but the temptation is just too strong: I needed to provide you with a reply. 

My new comments are preceded by the acronym NC. 

Norman Conquest: There is always an Anti-American hiding behind a Bush basher. More of the same, I am afraid.
 
One can say little for what is behind a Bush-defender these days. I suppose your comment can be translated as: "you're either with us or against us". Again, more of the same. Since when did Bush acquire this Hitlerian association with the American nation? Do you believe that all those Democrats, undecideds and Republicans that oppose the Bush administration are anti-American?

NC: Yes, absolutely. The worst Anti-Americans are to be found in the US, not in Old Europe. Not even in Moslem countries, including France. Several Republicans should be blamed for succumbing to electoral pressure, no doubt. Call it "opportunism" at best or "cowardice" at worst. Just as one can say that the May 1968 Revolution in France was against what Europe was standing for at the time. Given this generation is in power now, you can see the result. Defending President Bush's policies is something difficult, more difficult than echoing the NYT's rant. You could acknowledge this because you know it's true. Your approach is much more comfortable than mine. No risks.

Norman Conquest: President Bush has courageously implemented difficult policies that are good for America, even they are not necessarily popular (who cares about popularity?). You simply don't get it.
 
Au contraire, my comments pertained to public speaking not policy-making. If you are going to cover the latter, then you will have to account for the 'credit' that Congress and the rest of the executive should receive for these "difficult policies that are good for America", in your opinion. I for one was under the impression that democratic republics were designed such that absolute rulers were no longer required and that their offices were relegated to figurehead roles...

NC: You've been using French phrases throughout your text. Are you upset that I know French, dear? Is it my fault if I sit in between two great cultures? I don't consider President GWB as an absolute ruler. He was elected and re-elected with an overwhelming majority. That's democracy. And he was elected to do a job. Like I've said, I will get back to you with more on the Bush legacy LATER, not now, because the moment is not appropriate. Well, if you want reform, you need committed people, not assholes (gosh, I am being rude) such as the new "provisional" Belgian government, provisional till 2009 for sure. I hope to be wrong, of course. 

Norman Conquest: According to you, Americans are idiots.
 
Actually I never made that claim. I indicated that anti-Americanism existed and also noted that it was "insupportable". If you knew how to read properly, we wouldn't be hashing this one out.

NC: You're right, sorry. How much do you take to teach a committed Republican Bush backer how to read?
 

Norman Conquest: You've been in Flanders too long...
 
Really?

NC: I was just kidding you here. I love Flanders very, very much.

@KAPPERT

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Wed, 2008-01-02 20:55.

Well, you've made fun of me with "conquerors". So I just wanted to show you that I could make fun of you as well. I am very good at satire, better than you may think. A real master.

Now let's be serious for a sec: all you are proposing is Ghandi, right? I mean, it's a bit weak, not to say irrelevant, to deal with Moslem extremism.

Should anything more "ballish" ever cross the blind pacifist's mind of yours, then please do no hesitate to let us know. Thanks.  

Re: Answers

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-01-02 17:49.

Thank you,Kappert.So,if,as you claim, Gandhi is the reason why India is the "greatest" contemporary democracy,perhaps you could suggest how,in your opinion,the next U.S. president could learn from Gandhi.Any ideas? 

objective for the 21st century

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-01-02 20:22.

What the next U.S. president could learn from Gandhi. Any ideas?

Considering Gandhi and the U.S. President world leaders, it would be an enormous step forward to proclaim non-violence as only reasonable objective for mankind. Just check the immense prestige of people like Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King, Willi Brandt, Mohammad Khatami, Mother Teresa, Eleanor Roosevelt, Dag Hammarskjøld, Anwar Sadat, ... ...

Reality Check

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-02 20:38.

@kappert:

Ever see the film "Ben Hur"? There is a scene where a follower of the new Christian sect tells a friend that all men are brothers and that we should put down all our weapons.

His friend comments to another that "Benjamin is a good man, but until all men believe the same, we must still keep our swords bright".

In Reply to Norman Conqust

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-01-02 16:17.

Norman Conquest: There is always an Anti-American hiding behind a Bush basher. More of the same, I am afraid.

 

One can say little for what is behind a Bush-defender these days. I suppose your comment can be translated as: "you're either with us or against us". Again, more of the same. Since when did Bush acquire this Hitlerian association with the American nation? Do you believe that all those Democrats, undecideds and Republicans that oppose the Bush administration are anti-American?

 

Norman Conquest: President Bush has courageously implemented difficult policies that are good for America, even they are not necessarily popular (who cares about popularity?). You simply don't get it.

 

Au contraire, my comments pertained to public speaking not policy-making. If you are going to cover the latter, then you will have to account for the 'credit' that Congress and the rest of the executive should receive for these "difficult policies that are good for America", in your opinion. I for one was under the impression that democratic republics were designed such that absolute rulers were no longer required and that their offices were relegated to figurehead roles...

 

Norman Conquest: According to you, Americans are idiots.

 

Actually I never made that claim. I indicated that anti-Americanism existed and also noted that it was "insupportable". If you knew how to read properly, we wouldn't be hashing this one out.

 

Norman Conquest: You've been in Flanders too long...

 

Really?

@Kapitein Andre

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-02 17:30.

"each and every female African slave was raped and usually impregnated by her White American owner"

From: http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2801#comment-22092

Again, where is your substantiation for such a statement? Before you go off making criticisms of President Bush's intelligence why don't you answer my request regarding your idiotic statement?

Or was this only in your dreams?

tone deaf?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Wed, 2008-01-02 14:49.

@ kappert

 

Still waiting for an answer to my first question.Meanwhile,here's my follow up.

 

If India is the "greatest democracy", a) How did India achieve that status? and b) Where in the world league of democracies do you place the USA and why?

answers

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-01-02 15:33.

Sorry about the delay.
Q: If you were president Bush,how would YOU have responded to the events of the morning of September 11,2001?
Get the police doing the job, how could this happen. Maybe, if there are proofs, sent a dedicated team to get Mr bin Laden. I wouldn't have bombed Afghanistan, nor Iraq.
a) How did India achieve that status (of democracy)?
You have heard of Mohandas Gandhi, haven't you?
and b) Where in the world league of democracies do you place the USA and why?
Since 1776 in the top league due to check and balances.

@kappert

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-02 17:42.

"Q: If you were president Bush,how would YOU have responded to the events of the morning of September 11,2001?

Get the police doing the job, how could this happen. Maybe, if there are proofs, sent a dedicated team to get Mr bin Laden. I wouldn't have bombed Afghanistan, nor Iraq."

BINGO! That's what President Clinton would have done!

Good job! /sarc

Reply

Submitted by Yitzhak on Wed, 2008-01-02 10:15.

@Marcfrans

I agree with you “Brain” from “hot air” is wrong.

I would just like to expand on your 2nd point. Mr. Sharif was pardoned by Pakistani president during the time when Mr. Mushraff was Chief Executive of Pakistan. Mr. Sharifs father known as elder Sharif submitted an application on behalf of his sons to then Chief Executive Gen. Mushraff asking for pardon from all charges Gen. Mushraff signed it on condition that sharif’s would go in to exile and forwarded it to Pakistani president that time name Mr. Tarar. Mr. Tarar pardoned sharif brethrens and they were sent to Saudi Arabia. Sharif brethrens were allowed to contest in 2002 elections. according to some reports Saudi’s brokered an agreement between Mushraff and Sharif’s that Sharif’s would not contest 2008 election but would be allowed to contest in next which some Pakistani’s believe would be before 2010.

Hillary probably understands Pakistan better out of all candidates may be McCain is also at same level.

NYC under Mayor Giuliani there is nothing to argue about. In my view Giuliani should remind US Public more about his days as NYC Mayor. I lived in NYC during Giuliani era and I admire his work. Without a question city became safest under Mayor Giuliani.

President Bush’s Pakistan policy is reasonable in current situation. Although I disagree with putting all chips on Mushraff but on the other hand administration is very well connected with New Army chief Gen. Kiyani so in my view things are not so bad.

If Obama wins presidency I see a disastrous change in Pakistan policy. A Giuliani presidency would possibly keep BUSH Pakistan policy with some improvements.

I would say America you are going to chose not just an American president but free world’s leader also. so if  ya’ll are thinking about voting for Hussein Obama or “vote for Hillary get Bill Clinton free” think about it before you vote……  

 

@HenrikRClausen

It’s absolutely naïve to think about Dividing Pakistan. I don’t think if you even understand anything about Pakistan.

Pakistan was never a democracy never will be. The real custodian of Nukes and State of Pakistan is Pakistani Military. Politicians and Pakistani Public are not policy makers nor do they have any say in policy making Military establishments sets the policies. The best way to deal with Pakistan is to keep Pakistani military establishment US & west friendly. Pentagon and CIA have strong links and are well respected with in Pakistan Military and almost all of current commanders studied in UK or US and are mostly pro-West. Musraff is Sandhurst graduate, Gen Kiyani(New Army Chief) is C&GSC Fort Leavenworth graduate. Destabilising Pakistan or trying to divide Pakistan is like giving Islamofascists carte blanche. Pat Buchanan wrote a good article about Pakistani military establishment that we should never closer our military collages to Pakistani military and keep training the next leadership in western Military collages. It’s not perfect solution but that’s the best way to keep them on our side. And lastly don’t forget Pakistan’s “all weather friend” China.

 

@atheling

You are no different then a “9/11 Truther” they blame President Bush and you are blaming ex-president Clinton. People blaming any administration for horror’s of 9/11 disgust me.

In reply to marcfrans RE: New York and Bush

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-01-02 08:50.

marcfrans: As to Giuliani?  Well, it would appear that you are too young to know or understand what NYC was like (crimewise, economy-wise, and corruption-wise) before Giuliani cleaned things up, quite effectively.  The last thing NYC needs is to go back to Dinkins-style government.

 

A correlation does not necessarily mean a cause-and-effect situation. Certainly Levitt, Donohue and Dubner would counter that New York's fall in crime had little to do with Giuliani's policies...

 

marcfrans: ...in defense of Bush, it must be said that everybody can have brief memory lapses, and it also depends a bit on when a particular question gets asked. Perhaps Bush was 'ambushed' by journalists...

 

President George W. Bush should be prohibited from public speaking on the grounds that he is degrading America's image. Either the man is an utter goof or he is playing dumb. From general ignorance of myriad facts to ridiculous grammatical errors, Bush's addresses only confirm that global consensus that Americans are idiots. Of course this prejudice is insupportable on the face of it. Nonetheless it exists, even if it merely stereotypes American 'white trash'. Ultimately, I do not see how you can defend him at all. His idiocy boggles one's imagination, although so does Hillary's lack of femininity.

@KAPITEIN ANDRE

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Wed, 2008-01-02 12:08.

"President George W. Bush should be prohibited from public speaking on the grounds that he is degrading America's image. Either the man is an utter goof or he is playing dumb".

There is always an Anti-American hiding behind a Bush basher. More of the same, I am afraid. Besides, if you consider Jacques Chirac, he spoke perfect, even sophisticated French and had no accent, but I am afraid the content lacked in substance. Chirac was like a sleeping pill. A lot of noise just like an empty keg. As usual.

President Bush has courageously implemented difficult policies that are good for America, even they are not necessarily popular (who cares about popularity?). You simply don't get it.

It's always the same rant we get from so-called European (paleo?)conservatives like your dear self, Drew.

According to you, Americans are idiots. What should we say about Old Europe then? The US has the best, i.e. most flexible and efficient economy in the world. It also has the best universities, attracting the world's best students. Strange for a country of idiots, ain't it?

In Old Europe, each sensible attempt at economic and/or education reform has systematically been undermined by socialists disguised as conservatives. You've been in Flanders too long, Captain Drew(or should I say Deedee d'Antwerp?).

Anyway, like I wrote yesterday, I'll get back to the BJ with more on the Bush legacy later.

In Reply to Michael Huntsman

Submitted by Kapitein Andre on Wed, 2008-01-02 08:34.

Huntsman: Pakistan is surely the tinderbox upon which the West must deploy its greatest skill to encourage it to stability. The alternative, that it and its nuclear arsenal might fall into the hand of Muslim fundamentalists, is too awful to contemplate.

 

It is already evident that weapons of mass destruction cannot be denied to the West's enemies. Time for plan 'B'.

 

Huntsman: Pay careful attention to the role of the internet in general and blogging in particular as I believe both will play an increasingly important part in politics both there and here.

 

True.

 

Huntsman: Elsewhere keep a careful watch on the military build up of both Russia and China. Each of these is a potential enemy for the middle quarters of the 21st. Century. The USA and the UK must not allow themselves to be totally distracted by Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan and in particular must not allow their Armed Forces to be dominated in terms of doctrine, equipment, training and outlook by the sort of light wars now being fought in the Middle East.

 

Agreed. The West should concentrate on integrating Russia with Europe such that strong political and economic bonds can constrain the former's isolationist and anti-American stance. Naturally, Western Europe could benefit greatly from the fervent nationalism and market-friendly attitudes in Eastern Europe at a time when its welfare states are no longer compatible with increased global economic competition and the ascendancy of the tertiary sector (esp. finance and speculation), and it suffers from cultural malaise.

China is a tricky one. On the one hand, Beijing may be the single largest Westfalian threat facing the West and its greatest competitor for natural resources. On the other, encouraging secessionist and pro-democratic movements may backfire, especially as Beijing seems increasing conciliatory.

@atheling

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Wed, 2008-01-02 02:02.

The victory in this lawsuit will not be the eventual disposition of the ruling.  The victory will come when a judge accepts the suit and permits it to go to trial.

The Discovery Process is the goal here.  Once a judge accepts this case, Savage is going to demand a total accounting of the internal finances of CAIR.. and that will be where the damage is done.

 

@Vincep1974

Submitted by atheling on Wed, 2008-01-02 02:17.

Points well taken.

I hope that any American (or anyone else) who is interested in protecting free speech and the encroachment of Islamic domination will be moved to donate to Savage's legal defense fund.

Thinking out of the 'box'

Submitted by marcfrans on Wed, 2008-01-02 00:53.

@ Atlanticist

Let's think briefly "out of the box" - very briefly only - and say something in defense of Hillary Clinton.  It would appear that "Brian" from "Hot Air" got it even more wrong than Hillary.

First, at the beginning of the little video, Hillary used the word "assassination" clearly in reference to Benazir Bhutto, not to her father.  So, the claim that Hillary did not know that Benazir's father had been executed (rather than assassinated) is false.

Second, at the end of the tape, it is not entirely clear whether the word "he" refers to Musharraf or to someone else. It could be interpreted to refer to Nawaz Sharif or to some other candidate (either from Sharif's party or Bhutto's).  So, the claim that Hillary is not aware of the difference between the past election for the Presidency and the coming one for the Prime Minstership, is not substantiated.  

At the same time, it is true that Hillary seems unaware that Sharif 'technically' (as a convicted felon) cannot run for the Prime Ministership.  But, it is also true (if I am not mistaken) that the Pakistani government has not made a clear statement on that.  They certainly did not block him from returning from exile.  It could be argued that Hillary left that matter 'open'.

Finally, these 'subtleties' are not really comparable with Bush not knowing the name of Musharraf.  However, in defense of Bush, it must be said that everybody can have brief memory lapses, and it also depends a bit on when a particular question gets asked.  Perhaps Bush was 'ambushed' by journalists, whereas Hillary entered a TV studio to discuss current events just before an election.

Conclusion (I think):  Hillary is generally better 'thinking on her feet', but often has 'bad' instincts and goals.  Bush has better 'instincts', but is not a 'smooth talker' about foreign policy.

@ Atheling

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-01-01 23:07.

I might be mistaken but I have a feeling kappert's response will switch from 'Kant' to 'Cant'.

 

Happy New Year !

@ATLANTICIST-911

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 22:22.

Answering this question is a challenge. However, I would like to suggest the following:

First, our Germaniac Freu(n)d Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have set up an observatory of terrorism desirably funded by the EU. Clooney would have asked: "What else?"

Second, Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have called for a demonstration in central Brussels against US architects who "take huge bribes to build weak structures". A bit like the Berlaymonster, if you like.

This ugly building is home to the European Commission.

Third,  Herr Kassper von Munchausen would have invited terrorists to have talks about how to end terrorism, just as you would have talks with the mafia about ending mafia activities.

Fourth, the conclusions of these talks would be submitted to the UN. A few amendments would be introduced, e.g. the zakuskis have been omitted. Shit!

Fifth, America is the enemy and more action needs to be taken against it. Come on, America, be less capitalistic. Adopt the EU social model and subsidize your economy.   

@Norman Conquest

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2008-01-01 23:00.

And don't forget, he would have held a colloquium on "What would Kant do?" (aka what kan't we do?)

@KAPPERT

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Tue, 2008-01-01 22:05.

Q: If you were president Bush,how would YOU have responded to the events of the morning of September 11,2001?

@HERR KASSPER VON MUNCHAUSEN

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 21:58.

-What was it, what upsets you? The islamic creationist? Not knowing about Kant has nothing to do with being religious or not

NC: YOU've referred to protestantism. Look, I don't care about Kant.

-it's a philosophy affecting everybody.

NC: Well, I am not affected by Germaniacs.

-Kant invented, just like Freud, a framework which convinces human beings.

NC: So Kant is an inventor now. That's news to me. I thought he was a philosopher. I don't like the "framework which convinces human beings". It sounds rather like the box [the straitjacket] that convicts human beings. As regards your friend Freud, he does not mean anything to me.  

-Clever, ei! Specially when it has nothing to do with science. We have a lot of these charlatans through the centuries. The terrorists who seized power in Germany in the 30s were elected, just like Bush and, surprise, even Saddam. Only kings usurpate the throne!

NC: I don't see why GWB is a terrorist and how he seized power. America is the world's greatest democracy, wezzer you leik it or nawt, Herr Kassper. Granted, Herr Kassper of the SSigmund Leuft, the US has its flaws. But when I look at Old Europe, I want to vomit and I do - hang on, bear wizz mich, I am going to the loo right now - ach, feels better nau.

You're an exss-kapper-ating relativist for sure. 

 

You ton't laaff, Herr Kassper?

tone

Submitted by kappert on Wed, 2008-01-02 13:15.

Now it's my turn to call out watch your tone. I understand perfectly that it is easier to digest a "They've done a helluva job in Iraq (applause)" then to analyze what the job was about. Not being interested in science and much less in humanities is no predicate. I totally agree that most atrocities of mankind have their origin in Europe (you call it Old Europe). Mixing up 'leftist' with 'freudians' and 'SS' makes no sense. Read Jonathan Littell's book on WWII about that. By the way, the greatest democracy is India.

Dividing Pakistan?

Submitted by HenrikRClausen on Tue, 2008-01-01 20:45.

The Bhutto assassination leaves a deep wound in the 'democracy' of Pakistan. Quotes, because it just doesn't function, and didn't for decades. Corruption, coups & radical Islam is making a mockery of it. Killing Bhutto may be just what it takes to utterly destroy it.

Or destroy Pakistan. Which just might be the better option.

Pakistan is actually an artificial state, composed of 'nations' of varying ethnicity and language, and wildly varied geography, too. It's a composite left behind after the British left India in 1947, but in contrast with India proper, Pakistan is a failed state. With miserable politicians, too. Bhutto may have been popular, but her acts when in office were not amazing. She let the Islamist groups grow stronger while neglecting such important issues as the public education system. Perhaps she is even the victim of her own policies towards the Islamists. There are many other than Al-Qaeda, for instance the equally brutal Laskhar-e-Toiba, which merrily mounts severe suicide attacks.

Corruption is the bane of confidence in the political system, and it is traditionally rampant in Pakistan. Bhuttos husband earned his nickname "Mr. 10 %" for a reason. I have a notion that corruption tends to be a worse problem when politicians need to plan an "early retirement" - being kicked out of office or towards jail. Bhutto herself didn't make it that far, though, which is worse. Able persons probably will steer clear of politics as the risk of untimely death is rather significant. But able persons are needed.

Now, what if the provinces were given greater autonomy, with a direction towards ultimately dissolving Pakistan? Locally elected leaders with a greater feeling of responsibility and identification towards their own ethnic group, which would be who they are supposed to benefit. Less corruption, possibly. And an identification that lies somewhere outside of Islam, for a change, which would make an interesting barrier against the Taliban/Al-Qaeda/Jihad Islamea etc. groups who want to take over all of Pakistan in one fell swoop.

Yes, there are nukes to worry about. Possibly one or two of the mini-Pakistans would be responsible for those, probably with Western aid. It can't be any more difficult than our current need to keep all of the country afloat - a venture that looks increasingly doomed.

I think we should quietly consider that Pakistan falling apart might not be such a bad thing, after all.

HAIL KASPERT, GHOST OF THE GERMANIC NATION'S HOLY ROMAN EMPIRE

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 20:41.

You can keep your allusions and insults for your fellow Liberal Leftists, Mister.

Who cares about Kant? He is "passé", because he has been superseded by much better philosophers since then.

Moreover, I really Kant understand why Kant should be any Kant of reference here.

I am not living in the Middle Ages, nor in the Rennaissance, my dear.

In the word "German", there is the word "germ". Do you know what they do with germs?

Now this will be my last response to your nonsense. Thanks for your input with no output.

I have enjoyed this exchange anyway, knowing you do not have any relevant argument. Only intellectual blackmail.

My comments:

-Who's talking about America's friends? - I am.

-Unfortunately, I'm talking about mankind! As far as I know, Kant was a German, a protestante, - Who cares? You're not religious anyway.

-who practically never left his home and whose philosophy is still predominante in circles who believe that man is the outmost invention in this world. - This seems to contradict Comrade Charlie, doesn't it?

-I was talking about young people who do not have any moral or values any more, because modern politics does not deliver these values. - Yeah, but it's neither Bush's, nor Hussein's fault!

-I do not use categories like you describing people in a burocratic manner to put them to Guantánamo, we had that in the 30s to learn as History is full of these kantian superbeings judging on others. - Well, Gitmo would have been a pre-emptive solution for the terrorists who seized power in Germany in the 30s, no? But ok you don't like pre-emptive solutions.

-Al Queda is not a country and human races do not exist, I don't know where you got that idea in my text? - True, that was in another Bosch (what's in a name?) Ferretti posting. Sorry. I mean it.

-Thank you for admiring my courage, the Geneva Convention is one of the few highlights in human existence. - This remark was only ironical. YOU raised the issue posed by the GC, assume it.

you didn't laugh?

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-01-01 21:25.

What was it, what upsets you? The islamic creationist? Not knowing about Kant has nothing to do with being religious or not - it's a philosophy affecting everybody. Kant invented, just like Freud, a framework which convinces human beings. Clever, ei! Specially when it has nothing to do with science. We have a lot of these charlatans through the centuries. The terrorists who seized power in Germany in the 30s were elected, just like Bush and, surprise, even Saddam. Only kings usurpate the throne!

@KAPPER[mine]FIELD - Hi Dave!

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 19:57.

You're the David Kapper[mine]field of politics.

I mean, you do not even address the points that are made to you.

The only response we get is tantamount to intellectual blackmail.

According to you, America's friends are people who: 

"lack morality and ethics that conduct right to manifested ignorance of international conventions, and turn society fragile to misuse. These shallow behaviors allow a distortion of values which end up in juvenile delinquency, as we can see in Germany, France and Holland this very week, and we experienced in several school shootings. Instead of defending the indefensible, one may meditate while young people are simply beating the elder ones. How is it possible that there are no values or ethics anymore and anything goes".

Great! I admire your courage.

So, is this all you have against us? Apparently, you haven't even bothered to read what I've posted in relation to the Geneva Convention. Of course, it's certainly rubbish to you. Well, do not raise the issue then. 

Moreover, I did not know that Al Qaeda was a country, in which case, we, the West, really, really have a problem, and I didn't know that Islam was a race, something you haven't suggested, of course.

Hey Dave, whose side are you on, chap? Have fun, hey!!!

Oh and before I forget, I am a creationist. You see, Papa Tango Charlie [Darwin] has failed to entirely convince me that man is ONLY an "intelligent" ape. And yeah, I've found the missing link between ape and man: Leftists!!!

Who's talking about

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-01-01 20:32.

Who's talking about America's friends? Unfortunately, I'm talking about mankind! As far as I know, Kant was a German, a protestante, who practically never left his home and whose philosophy is still predominante in circles who believe that man is the outmost invention in this world. I was talking about young people who do not have any moral or values any more, because modern politics does not deliver these values. I do not use categories like you describing people in a burocratic manner to put them to Guantánamo, we had that in the 30s to learn as History is full of these kantian superbeings judging on others. Al Queda is not a country and human races do not exist, I don't know where you got that idea in my text? Thank you for admiring my courage, the Geneva Convention is one of the few highlights in human existence. So I was right to recommend Harun Yahya: look at http://www.harunyahya.com/ Enjoy it, it matches with you.

Pre-Emptive?

Submitted by Andrew X on Tue, 2008-01-01 19:24.

Hey Bosch, keep plugging away, everyone needs a thick skin here, including me, you, and your detractors.

 

Now then, and interesting point with: “Being a policeman is different than being an invader. The Bush Doctrine is about pre-emption: it rejects the notion that we should respond, which is what cops do, and favors attacking first.”

 

It could be argued that cops do not necessarily only “react”. If they see a house with drugs and weapons flowing into it, they most certainly are going to “react” to that, rather than wait for the drugs to be dispersed down the line, or for the weapons to be used. If those weapons DID kill a couple kids while the cops were just sitting there with binocs watching the house, the Chief of Police and even the Mayor might have some explaining to do.

 

This, amazingly enough, segues directly to another issue on this very posting; namely Mr. Giuliani’s leadership. Virtually his entire policing strategy relied upon “Broken Windows”. That theory says that a house with a broken window that stays broken for a while, will soon see another broken window, then another, then a broken door, and eventually be looted entirely, because as long as that broken window stays, the message is sent to the entire neighborhood that no one cares about this house, do what you will.  

 

In policing, you do NOT ignore the subway jumpers, the pickpockets, the panhandlers, etc to focus on the murderers and rapists, because the former will CREATE an environment where latter can run rampant. Crack down on the former, and the latter will get the message real quick.

 

So Mr. Bush and many others could say quite truthfully that it is the refusal of the UN, most of Europe, and (if I may tip my hand), assorted lefty nitwits, to continually apologize for terrorism and tyranny, to place blame for it anywhere but where it belonged, etc etc, let the “broken windows” of Palestinian thug politics fester forever, rabid tyrannies go unconfronted forever, and so forth, that allows these problems to grow from a broken window to a looted house. Add WMD, and the house is now burned to the foundations, all because a window broke and everyone turned away and said it’s not my problem.

 

Mr. Bush said, post 9-11, "this is what a looted house (in Manhattan) looks like. And it IS our problem."

 

Does that make it pre-emptive?

 

So be it.

@Atheling

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 19:15.

You're just great.

As regards President Bush's record, we'll get back to that later. There are lots of positive things to mention. Actually, given the difficulty of our times, I think that overall GWB has a good, if not excellent, record.

"Thinking out of the box" or "outside of the box" means that you don't want your judgement to be paralysed by political correctness and/or preconceived ideas that are supposed to reassure your interlocutors. The correlation also implies that you don't fear contradiction. The French have invented the pret-a-porter (ready to wear) and the Left, the "pret-a-penser". After the separation of church and state, shall we eventually get the separation of socialism and state, of Hillary and state, of global warming and state?

Bosch Ferretti

Submitted by Vincep1974 on Tue, 2008-01-01 18:27.

"Giuliani's foreign policy advisors are the most reckless of the reckless neocons, led by Norman Podhoretz, a man who would have us bomb Iran tomorrow "

 

Talk about reckless!  Letting Iran have the bomb is suicidal.

@FERRETTI

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 18:26.

I didn't know that, given President Bush's and the GOP's ratings, the Republican position was mainstream. If so, it's good news. But I really doubt it, sorry.

However, I've just received this good news highlighting another big difference between Right and Left: the latter fears contradiction whereas the former does not. At least as regards the latter this was true till today: Times defends hiring The Weekly Standard's conservative Kristol

http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=27C89DDB-3048-5C12-00ED609D9DC371C5

Apparently, things are changing for the better at the NYT.

 

@KAPPER

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 17:21.

Thank you very, very much indeed for this brilliant piece of disinformation inspired by superb moral relativism. Your brains have probably been neutralised by the NYT and the like using the Goebbels propaganda technique. Each of your points is subject to misinterpretation, Sir.

I don't care about terrorists. You want to apply the rule of law to those people who would not apply it to you. A very Leftist reaction, after all.  

 

 
http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2007/12/29/2007-12-29_freed_to_kill_again.html
 
In fact, I just hate it when the uninformed cite the Geneva Convention to back up their claims of supposed abuse.  These people clearly have never read the Geneva convention wrt POWs.  It is actually quite clear; the GC applies to POW's, and to be considered one, you have to be clearly identified as a being part of the uniformed military.  Obviously, none of the GITMO detainees meet this criterion, and therefore the GC does not apply. Why there has been a continuing failure to point this out in the media is obvious, in part made possible by the Susan Sarandon ilk.
 
Moreover, the Geneva Convention only applies to uniformed members of foreign militaries -- anyone found outside of a uniform can be summarily shot. Further, it only applies between states that have BOTH signed the GC. First, al Qaida is not a state and could never under any circumstances sign the GC. Second, we didn't recognize the Taliban as the legitimate government of Afghanistan so therefore did not recognize their rights under the GC, the Taliban never signed or recognized GC rights and in fact believe that they have every right to kill all the non-Moslems they want. Third, no Afghan gov't has ever in history signed the GC -- unless the Karzai gov't did in the past couple of years.
 
So, to the guys caught in Afghanistan -- either Taliban or al Qaida -- have no GC protections at all. And they have no protections from the criminal courts because they have not been charged with crimes and, until they are, are not treated as criminals.
 
Of course, if you read the NYT...
 
Dear Fellow Conservatives, do you understand that Bush hatred started well before the War in Irak? Do you understand that the manipulative Left has got an agenda whatever it takes, e.g. undermine the US President's credibility and America's together with it as a mean revenge for Mr Gore's failure in the 2000 elections (you remember the "Bush stole the election" bullshit)? The Patriot Act was also a good thing as there have not been any terror attacks on US soil since 9/11.  

more conquests in a mad year

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-01-01 19:24.

My dear conquerers, of course we all know since Immanuel Kant that individuals can determine their ethics for themselves and declare others invalid. That OBVIOUSLY justifies world domination, patriot acts, Guantánamo and surely the inumerous 'correction centers' spread over the country. The lack of moral and ethics conducts right to manifested ignorance of international conventions, and turns society fragile to misuse. These shallow behaviors allow a distortion of values which end up in juvenile delinquency, as we can see in Germany, France and Holland this very week, and we experienced in several school shootings. Instead of defending the indefensible, one may meditate while young people are simply beating the elder ones. How is it possible that there are no values or ethics anymore and anything goes.
ps: not only the Western world goes mad, the Middle East, too: Creationism, the islamic way, by Harun Yahya. Have a laugh!

the nyt

Submitted by kappert on Tue, 2008-01-01 15:32.

[Literal quote, pure copy/paste, without proper sourcing, without links, and without comments from the poster, has been deleted by the webmaster.  No, putting "the nyt" in the subject of the comment while doing a pure copy/paste is not considered proper behaviour for this comment section.  The absence of proper sourcing is misleading: we are falsely led to believe that the commenter is the author of the comment text.]

@FERRETTI - Why We're in the Gulf

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 15:26.

Here is a link to a story published today in The WSJ:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110011063

The world would be a much more dangerous place without America as a policeman indeed.

The article's conclusion is as follows:

"The next American president, regardless of party and regardless of his or her views about the wisdom of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq, will necessarily make the security of the Persian Gulf states one of America's very highest international priorities".

The fact is that there actually were more than one [rightful] reasons to invade (and free) Irak. 

Moreover, I prefer America's military presence in the Gulf to the deals of some irresponsible European leaders taking advantage of the situation, e.g. with an Oil for Food Programme, which has been long forgotten for some [not so] strange reasons.

Which Box?

Submitted by Bosch Ferretti on Tue, 2008-01-01 17:49.

Gentlemen: whether your position is correct or not, please do not call it thinking outside the box. I have been reading some version of your argument for five years now: it is the mainstream Republican position. It may very well be the correct one, but it is not original and is most assuredly within the box. If the Wall Street Journal is not mainstream, what is?

Being a policeman is different than being an invader. The Bush Doctrine is about pre-emption: it rejects the notion that we should respond, which is what cops do, and favors attacking first. This is a departure from the traditional conservative foreign policy that sought peace through strength. Bush's dictum may as well be war through weakness. We start a fight with a kid one-hundreth our weight and can't finish it quickly and cleanly? How does that show strength; how does that help defeat the encroachment of Islam within the West? Reagan pulled the Marines from Lebanon and won the Cold War without engaging is "wars of choice," wars history teaches us we never fight well. And the issue of habeas corpus is not some ungrounded liberal attack but raises serious questions that a constitutional jurist needs to answer. The men who first reported it to the attorneys at Sherman & Sterling were career JAG officers worried about consequences our men on the ground would suffer and the implications for our Republic.

I sense you guys are reacting more to the folly of the Left than to the actual problem of how to deal with Islam. Perhaps you've become enamored of chest-pounding over results; perhaps you're wiser than thou, I don't know. But I've had enough of this. I still enjoy this site and I know there is common cause here.

Re: Which Box

Submitted by atheling on Tue, 2008-01-01 18:57.

Ladies and Gentlemen: (yes some of us are ladies, Feretti - seems like it never occurred to you - stuck in a box, perhaps?)

You still have not answered my questions in my previous response to yours. Your calling Bush's doctrine "war through weakness" is absurd. Using Reagan's response to the Beirut bombing (which was one of weakness and to Reagan's detriment) as a method to win the Cold War makes absolutely no sense. As a matter of fact, a lot of your statements make no sense.

I don't know how to debate someone who doesn't respond to questions and who makes absurd assertions with no substantiation. Your blustering about chest pounding is merely a veil for your inability to answer my questions.

You display an astonishing ignorance of the nature of the enemy and of war itself. A study of Sun Tzu's Art of War would help you enormously. Islam is not the Soviet Union. You want to bring us back to the Clinton years, which is responsible for 9/11. Now that's insanity. Stop pretending that you know what you're talking about when it's quite apparent that you don't. It's rather embarassing.

BTW, thinking "outside the box" requires that one MASTER what is IN the box first!

@Atheling

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 15:02.

Thank you very much for your latest comment. This is exactly what I call the "ability to think out of the box". Paul Belien also has it: his book "A Throne in Brussels" testifies to this ability. 

Do not listen to the left-leaning MSM (mainstream media). They will format your brain and restrict your thoughts. You can consider me a neo-con from head to toe, although I have always been anti-communist and have never ever had anything to do with trostkyism, nor any other marxism-inspired ideology.

   

PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH INEPT?

Submitted by Norman Conquest 304 on Tue, 2008-01-01 02:08.

As regards reasons for invading Iraaak, the Bush Administration was getting intelligence reporting from all over the world. Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarrak, Jordan’s King Hussein, Saudi high princes, United Arab Emirate princes, German intelligence, French intelligence, Italian intelligence, British intelligence, independent intelligence groups like Jane’s Defence and the International Institute of Strategic Studies…all of these and many more were informing the Bush administration that Saddam’s regime: had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, had close ties to Al Qaeda leadership, and many reports claimed that his regime was pursuing a nuclear bomb.

Post-war investigations by the Iraq Survey Group were unable to confirm that Iraq was producing and stockpiling chemical weapons, but there are innumerable reports that stockpiles of WMD were removed from Iraq in the nine months prior to the war. These reports come from members of Saddam’s regime as well as the USAF’s geospatial command which tracked convoys of trucks moving from WMD storage facilities to Syria as well as radar tracking of cargo planes leaving Iraq to Syria, Russia, and Belarus. The US Navy also closely monitored two Russian cargo ships that were escorted into Basra, Iraq through four US carrier battlegroups by a pair of Russian Navy warships. Captured documents recovered by the Iraq Survey Group after the war support the claims that stockpiles of WMD and other assets were moved. “A recovered 2002 document outlines the Iraqi evacuation plan to protect key military industries and equipment from Coalition air strikes or threats. The former Regime developed these concepts in response to lessons learned after Desert Storm and Desert Fox. The report outlines the importance of utilizing a properly concealed Iraqi railroad system along with trucks and pre-equipped trailers to move important laboratories, equipment, and machinery.”-ISG rpt, vol.1, pg. 65. All of these reports and many more leave the issue open-not closed.

Do I need to continue? I've got other stuff if necessary.

It's not President Bush's fault if the New York Times, CNN and other MSM biased to the Left do not want to hear anything. I find it really pathetic that individuals who consider themselves Conservatives cannot think out of the box anymore. I mean, each time these people get a bad fuck, do they also blame GW Bush for that?

Censorship?

Submitted by Atlanticist911 on Mon, 2007-12-31 23:44.

@NC 304

 

I have no problem with you criticizing the British,when we deserve it.(e.g. soccer hooliganism,addiction to the nanny state,voluntary surrender of our national sovereignty to Europe etc),and I certainly have no problem with you defending Mr Bush when he is right.What I do find bizarre is your apparent blanket approval of one and disapproval of the other.FYI: I strongly endorsed his decision to go to war with Iraq,but I do not approve of what I consider to be his lack of fiscal prudence (see marcfrans' comment) and for this,and other reasons (e.g. illegal immigration), I criticize him accordingly.Now,the very idea that this legitimate criticism should cause people like you to lump people like me with "narrow-minded leftists" is,quite frankly,risible.

 

Happy New Year !   

Comic-Drama

Submitted by marcfrans on Mon, 2007-12-31 21:33.

@ Ferretti

It would seem that you do not like "neocons".  That is fair enough.  A serious critique of neocons is possible, but you are certainly NOT making it.

To illustrate: your comparison of Taiwan with Puerto Rico is, to say the least, 'nutty'.  Neocons are not as naive about geopolitics, as you clearly are.  For your information, for many decades now, Puerto Rico has been free to choose whatever type of government it wants. Independence, commonwealth status, current status of 'self-government'....you name it.  Each of these types of status has its pros and cons.  For example, you cannot expect full independence and still receive American welfare checks for the island, etc....But the point is that the people of Puerto Rico are totally FREE to choose whatever they want, and from time to time they have referenda on the island to determine their preference.  By contrast, the communist regime in China has passed a 'law' which explicitly tells the Taiwanese that they will be taken over, by force, if need be.  And you compare this kind of Chinese intimidation with US generosity to Puerto Rico?  Also, for your information, Taiwan was never a part of the People's Republic of China, and was indeed a Japanese 'colony' before Japan's defeat in WW2. 

Also, when you make a statement like "Does anybody think Taiwan will not be reabsorbed into China?", not only do you reveal historical ignorance but also moral bankruptcy.  After all, what are you saying?  That the totalitarian politbureau in Beijing claims something, and therefore it should be given that?  On what grounds?  Don't the 25 million free people of Taiwan have a "human right" to self-determination and live in freedom and democracy?  What criterion are you using to justify the existence of any particular state? (I suspect you are using a 'racist' criterion?).  What are you going to say next? That big Mexico can take over little Guatemala, because the people look 'quite' similar?  How about the Germans walking again into Austria because....you know..?  And if you cannot fathom that China is going to be a major military threat in the not-too-distant future, then you surely know nothing about history and live in a fantasy- world.  Just like it says in your 'bio': "a homeless American living a Jamesian comic-drama in NYC".

As to Giuliani?  Well, it would appear that you are too young to know or understand what NYC was like (crimewise, economy-wise, and corruption-wise) before Giuliani cleaned things up, quite effectively.  The last thing NYC needs is to go back to Dinkins-style government.  But, perhaps you have a point concerning his 'true' immigration stance.  Just like McCain, Giuliani now says that he has learned his lesson.  Well, perhaps he has, or perhaps he hasn't.  In a democray, politics is about the 'least bad option'.