I've got to stop letting history and the truth get in the way of my critical reasoning.
Well, I've done it now; I've gone and screwed up so badly that it looks they're going to have to tear up my leftist/liberal secret identity card. I just can't seem to get my knee to jerk the right way anymore to be in step with the times. I'd better be careful or people are going to start thinking I'm some sort of closet fascist.…
Article comments
26 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
If my memory serves, you used to be a soldier in the US Armed Forces. So, you understand the concept of "us or them."
That is what a lot of this boils down to - "us or them."
I do my damnedest to make sure that "them" does not include innocent Arabs - but it is still, no matter how I cut the shwarma, "us or them." I don't like that fact - but just because I don't like that fact deosn't change it.
Too many Arabs want us dead - that's what "us or them" is all about. I intend to live. That means that if "them" doesn't want me to, "them" is gonna die. 'Cause I intend to live.
End of story.
27 - gonzo marx
and because of my background Ruvy, i disagree
i have no problem with Defense, as i have said many times
but that wasn't what you spoke of
read what i quoted you saying again, and then try and tell me you are speaking of just the stopping of your Foe, or instead, the same wanton destruction that you Fear will be visited upon you
do i Trust in Damascus to do what is Right, of course not... but so far, they have been smart enough to steer clear, and not provoke the kind of response that gets their city flattened
Tehran is another matter, but far from a majority of it's Citizens are really the kind that their insane president is
do you turn them into radioactive rubble along with him?
as long as those on both sides Hate indiscriminately, there can be no Answer, as there has been no Answer
but there is nothing i can type that will change anything for you, or for them
Excelsior?
28 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Gonzo,
The chain of command runs from Teheran to Anjar, Syria (a joint Syrian Iranian operation) to southern Lebanon. So I'm talking about eliminating the threats to my life, to the lives of my children and wife (and cat).
We do not have the targetting technology or planes to take out the palace in Teheran, so nukes are what are necessary.
29 - gonzo marx
Ruvy sez...
*We do not have the targetting technology or planes to take out the palace in Teheran,*
factually inaccurate, and besides the Point
i'll not argue with you, th eCircumstances you are having to deal with are grave enough without me adding to them by disagreeing with your worldview
nothing but the Best for you and yours
Excelsior?
30 - Al Barger
Jumpin' Jebus on a stick Gonzo, but this is six kinds of bullshit "the same lack of sheer Humanity shown by this Statement is exactly the same as the inHumanity shown by the very Foe spoken of..."
It's not the same at all. Their enemies want to kill all Jews all times and places, Ruvy just wants to stop them from killing him and his family.
A solution would be simple: Muslims quit killing Jews, and Ruvy and his countrymen would be making every kind of nice they could think of. But of course the Religion of Peace is not interested in that, which leaves Israel stuck by their enemies' choice with Plan B- kill them first.
Being willing to kill people who are attacking you does not show a lack of humanity. Doing anything less than whatever is necessary to stop them from killing your family- THAT would be a sign of having lost your humanity.
31 - Al Barger
Christopher, re: comments 17 and 20- I'm not the least bit impressed with your attempt at guilting me with "to think I defended you." Don't. I didn't ask you to.
I don't see where I've been rude with people. Further, I fail to see how I've been abusing comments policy- though you're tempting me.
Your specific complaint in comment 20 about me using Hezbollah and Arab interchangeably has perhaps some merit- but not very much. I try to distinguish as clearly as possible who I'm faulting, but the other side goes to great lengths to make it difficult to make those needful distinctions. I'm not sure of the exact comments you're referencing, but it would be more accurate in that narrow Lebanon situation to say Hezbollah and Iranians, who of course aren't Arabs.
But most of the Muslim/Arab countries are full of hatred for Israel, and participate in various ways in the game of trying to destroy Israel, or coddling those in their midst who do. Further, they're at some pains to maximize the confusion in order to avoid responsibility, ie the Lebanese people most of whom tolerate or even actively support Hezbollah.
Still, I shall try harder to be more careful in distinguishing exactly whom I am criticizing.
32 - Michael J. West
Probably the best thing I've read by you, Richard.
33 - Dave Nalle
The capitalist system and its imperialism are ultimately to the advantage of a relative few. Many people support it for various reasons.
A lovely thought, were it not utterly untrue. A capitalist system is essentially a meritocracy which assures to those who work hard and develop their skills the opportunity to rise through the system to a position comensurate with their abilities. With the exception of a tiny minority they may not have an easy time rising to the very highest levels of income, but affluence is within the reach of every person.
There are those that actively support attacks on the working class. I suppose these might be considered the 'right'. But even here it is not so simple.
Certainly not, when the greatest attack on the working class is its exploitation by the political 'left' who have a vested interest in keeping workers poor, uneducated and dependent in order to maintain their power base.
The attacks themselves, the wars, etc., are the fallout, the necessary logic, of a deepening crisis of the capitalist system itself, and its imperialism. This is what is important.
Traditonally imperialism has not been characteristic of capitalist systems, but of central control type systems including all forms of dictatorship, especially those basedon communism and socialism.
What we see in this blog is generally a reflection through middle class eyes of this crisis.
And, of course, the bourgeousie are the enemy because they are the lackeys of the ruling class who oppress the masses. Are you actually living in 19th century Germany or is it just a bizarre hystical delusion?
Dave Nalle fancies himself above the partisan fray but somewhat on the right. His apparent libertarianism is just a middle class elitism that is ultimately impotent.
So speaks the doctrinaire socialist/communist whose comments read like they're quoted off of the CPUSA website. To you the middle class is the enemy, while for the rest of us who have at least some clue, the strength of the middle class and the system by which people rise in wealth and status in America is the solution to the problems which your philosophy is so concerned with but fails again and again to address in a humane or practical way.
Dave
34 - Dave Nalle
Clavos, you're wasting your time arguing with Les. He subscribes to a political philosophy so thoroughly discredited that its supporters can get away with renaming it and pretending it's not even the same package of failed statist claptrap it always has been.
Dave
35 - Christopher Rose
Al, I wasn't guilting you, that's just another misperception on your part. I read all the comments and you've been particularly spikey lately. The rest of your comment is more shallow stereotyping of Muslims and sounds racist to me. Try putting the word jew or nigger in there and see how it sounds.
36 - Clavos
So I'm finding out Dave. That's why I asked him on another thread what his political philosophy was; the answer I got was the one I expected.
Clavos
37 - Dave Nalle
So he admitted to being a communist? I had reached that conclusion from his rhetoric, despite my initial disbelief.
Ok, enough of that silliness.
Back to Richard's excellent article, which BTW, I think is at least partially the product of Canada's relatively detached position in international politics. Canadians often seem to come up with pragmatic viewpoints which elude the rest of us who are more heavily invested in various agendas and national roles.
Dave
38 - Clavos
Dave,
Yep, he did. His rhetoric in other threads is what led me to ask.
Richard's article is excellent; I feel kind of guilty that I yielded to temptation and hijacked it for a while this afternoon. Sorry again, Richard.
I think you're right about the Canadian perspective; Richard's objectivity is a fresh breath.
39 - Al Barger
Christopher, I'm less than interested in whether you consider my comments "racist." The relevant question: Are they TRUE?
It wouldn't be the same or be right to substitute Jews or black folk- particularly African-Americans into the things I'm saying about the Muslim community, because they don't apply. Black Americans have some issues and whatnot, but they ain't sending their kids to blow up white folk.
A sentient being cannot help but notice patterns of extreme anti-social behavior and enablement of that behavior by good sized chunks of the Muslim and Arab community. Perhaps you think that it is a moral imperative to stick my head in the sand like the citizens of South Park during the cartoon wars and carefully not connect the dots. I do not agree.
You may consider it "racist" that I notice that the schmucks trying to kill US largely have a common cultural background. You may wish to call me a "racist" for noticing this stuff, but that doesn't mean that I'm not accurate. Shooting the messenger won't change the facts.
40 - Christopher Rose
Al, I'm less than interested in your remarks that generalise all Arab thought into one lazy stereotype. Your facts are actually just your opinion, but you're not the first, nor sadly the last, to make that mistake either. For a smart guy your lack of nuance is frankly disappointing.
41 - Bliffle
"A capitalist system is essentially a meritocracy which assures to those who work hard and develop their skills the opportunity to rise through the system to a position comensurate with their abilities."
How naive. While skills and merit may be useful in bludgeoning less worthy opponents into submission, they do not 'assure' anything. In capialism one survives and prospers based on the quality of his aggression. When I was young and idealistic I thought this reprehensible, but now I savor opportunities to browbeat and intimidate the fools and empty suits I see around myself in the business world.
42 - Dave Nalle
Aggression is a skill, Bliffle. And combining it with other skills makes you more successful. Much more so than if you just got by on your other skills alone.
I'd probably not use the term 'aggression', though. I'd call it the 'will to succeed' which includes aggression, ambition, some other people skills and a bit of opportunism.
Dave
43 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Al, Chris,
The facts of the matter is that people who are ignorant of "world affairs" are not necessarily ignorant of the realities around them.
So the average Israeli may not be aware of all the nuances of American policy or even of Israeli politics - but he knows when he is being screwed over.
So we know very well that we are being screwed over here. We have internet connections and can read. Even non-English speakers can read Hebrew, or Russian or Georgian...
A big job of any Arab government is to keep the mark's "eye" on the Israeli "ball", so that he doesn't see the fact that he is being screwed over. But Arabs are not stupid ragheads. they realize that their local governments are screwing them over, whatever their opinions are of us.
Then there is the fact that not all Arabs are the same - a basic point missed quite often by those not in the gunsights...
Respect for your enemy is the first rule to survival.
44 - Clavos
Respect for your enemy is the first rule to survival.
And knowing him (as you do) is the second.
Clavos
45 - Dave Nalle
So the average Israeli may not be aware of all the nuances of American policy or even of Israeli politics - but he knows when he is being screwed over.
Then things must be simpler and clearer over there, because the average American appears not to be able to tell when he's being screwed over or lied to.
Dave
46 - Dean
"the average American appears not to be able to tell when he's being screwed over or lied to"
Maybe not.
How much lower can Bush go in the polls?
47 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
Dave, now that I think about it, it is little eassier here. We do not have a zillion radio stations - just Kol Yisrael (the Voice of Israel), Galei Tzahal (Army Radio) and Gal Galatz (the Galatz network).
We have only three major papers in Hebrew and two in English - the Russian papers are all affiliates of the Hebrew ones. Then there are a number of independent investigators who occasionally garner attention. Then there is Arutz Sheva, the only independent news network in the Middle East.
48 - Ruvy in Jerusalem
From: Gilbert Zamonsky At last! A notable opinion from a notable person
Frederick Forsyth (Daily Express, 11/8): "It must surely be true that the level of lies and hypocrisy that a society can tolerate is in direct proportion to the degeneration of that culture. Personally I am not particularly pro or anti Israel, pro or anti Arab or pro or anti Islam. But I do have a dislike of myth, hypocrisy and lies as opposed to reality,
fairness and truth.
Watching the bombing of Lebanon it is impossible not to feel horror and pity for the innocent civilians killed, wounded or rendered homeless. But certain of our politicians, seeking easy populism and the cheapest round of applause
in modern history, have called the Israeli response "disproportionate."
Among the politicos are Jack Straw and that master of EU negotiations William Hague.
That accusation can only mean: "disproportionate" to the aggression leveled against them. Really? Why did the accusers not mention Serbia? What has
Serbia got to do with it? Let's refresh our memories.
In 1999 five Nato air forces "US, British, French, Italian and German began to plaster Yugoslavia, effectively the tiny and defenceless province of Serbia. We were not at war with the Serbs, we had no reason to hate them, they had not attacked us and no Serbian rockets were falling on us. But we practically bombed them back to the Stone Age. We took out every bridge we could see. We trashed their TV station, army barracks, airfields and motorways. We were not fighting for our lives and no terrorists were
skulking among the civilian population but we hit apartment blocks and factories anyway. There were civilian casualties. We did not do it for 25
days but for 73. We bombed this little country economically back 30 years by converting its in frastructure into rubble. Why?
We were trying to persuade one dictator, Slobodan Milosevic, to pull his troops out of Kosovo, which happened to be (and still is) a Yugoslav province. The dictator finally cracked; shortly afterwards he was toppled but it was his fellow Serbs who did that, no Nato. Before the destruction of Serbia, Kosovo was a nightmare of ethnic hatred. It still is. If we wanted
to liberate the Kosovans why did we not just invade? Why blow Serbian civilians to bits?
Here is my point. In all those 73 days of bombing Serbia I never heard one British moralist use the ord "disproportionate." The entire point of Hezbollah is not to resolve some border dispute with Israel; its aim is to
wipe Israel off the map, as expressed by Hezbollah"s master, the crazed Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran. That aim includes the eradication of every Israeli Jew; i.e. genocide. Serbia never once threatened to wipe the UK off
the map or slaughter our citizens, yet Straw, in office in 1999, and Hague, leading the Conservative Party, never objected to Serbia being bombed.
As an ex-RAF officer I am persuaded the Israelis fighter pilots are hitting civilian-free targets with 95% of their strikes. These are the hits no TV network bothers to cover. It is the 5% that causes the coverage and the horror: wrong target, unseen civilians in the cellar, misfire, unavoidable collateral casualties. Unavoidable? Israel has said I effect, "If you seek to wipe us out we will defend ourselves to the death. You offer us no quarter, so we will offer none to you. But if you choose intentionally, inadvertently, or through the stupidity of your government to protect and shelter the killers among yourselves then with deepest regret, we cannot guarantee your exemption."
Yesterday we Brits learned that certain elements in our society had tried to organise a mass slaughter of citizens flying out of our airports. We will have to take draconian measures against these enemies in our midst. Will
Messrs Hague and Straw complain our methods are disproportionate? Not a chance. Now that, dear readers, is blatant hypocrisy.
49 - Clavos
That's an impressive and convincing piece, Ruvy. Is this Frederick Forsyth the well-known novelist?
50 - -E
Congrats! This article has been selected as one of this week’s Editors’ Picks.