We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Carnage (just for a change) There appear to be no good days in the Middle East, just varying degrees of bad day. How does today rate on the scale, I wonder?
In Baghdad, a bomber in a truck blows up the UN Headquarters: death toll 16 and rising.
In Jerusalem, a bomber blows up another bus: death toll 20 and rising.
It is conceivable (though by no means inevitable) that the attacks were co-ordinated in some way.
I often wonder about the future of that region and, every time I do, the vista just grows darker and darker. Some might say that that prognosis is simply a product of my pessimistic tendencies.
Is it?
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Anyone else worried that the Islamists are going to try for a hat-trick in one day?
Don’t forget that ‘militants’ perpetrated these evil acts. I wonder what they would have to do in order to be called terrorists.
It frightens me that the Islamists are courting an extreme response from parts of the West. That response is now more likely.
Philip – What, and risk being called intolerant (or, worse, Zionist)? Come on, the West has had enough abuse for trying to remove the “militant” Islamists from Afghanistan and Iraq already . . . you think our leaders will risk more?
The last part of the trifecta, if it exists, lies in the resurgence of the Taliban in its terrorization of local police and international aid workers in Southeast and South-central portions of Afghanistan.
Liz,
My reference is to the practice in the media of referring to the perpetators of such despicable acts as ‘militants’ rather than ‘terrorists’, muting the responsibility that should be attributed to such groups and individuals.
David,
Do not despair. Most of the region is fine, including Kuwait, Muscat, Al-Khafji, and Abu Dhabi. Dubai is so great that last month I sold practically everything I owned in Manchester, and emigrated there.
Looking out of my office window, doing no work whatsoever, I feel a million miles from Arabs who want to kill me. They are too preoccupied with trying to relieve me of my tax-free earnings by flogging me anything which isn’t nailed down.
Cheer up!
Tim
David Carr,
Unfortunately it is not (“a product of pessimistic tendencies”).
Unless people want to live side by side (stop terrorism & stop apartheid) there won’t be no peace in Palestine, just blood & tears.
The “road map” (a road to where & where’s the map?) is just an umpteenth desperate attempt to sell something that’s just not on offer at all: the willingness to stop fighting & start building.
The US presence in Iraq won’t be of no great help & will perhaps damage peace prospects, if any.
“The US presence in Iraq won’t be of no great help & will perhaps damage peace prospects, if any.”
But what of the UN presence? Will it help or hurt?
The US presence in Iraq is already paying dividends. Look around the region – yesterday was a bad day, sure, but the trend is our friend. The US is standing down in Saudi Arabia – surely even Kodiak can get behind that. The Baathists are literally bankrupt in Syria, without Saddam to prop up the party. The Syrians have pulled a few troops out of Lebanon. Afghanistan’s economy grew by 30% last year. Another one of Saddam’s henchmen got picked up yesterday. Hell, even the Euro-model “road map” in Palestine got a little further along than it ever has before, until the Pals fucked it up again.
Oh yeah, and the biggest single killer in the region’s history is hiding in a basement somewhere in Iraq. The strategic linchpin of the region is no longer run by a homicidal lunatic. I count that as progress.
R C Dean,
Before rating UN presence in terms of performance, it is important to point out that the Organisation of the United Nations is universally considered the sole source of legitimacy (except in the US & in vassal States). It is not very difficult to understand why. Everywhere collaboration –albeit incomplete or ineffective- is viewed as a better thing than unilateralism disguised in “coalition of the willing” (“of the bullied”, “of the bribed”, “of the brainwashed” would be more accurate). Why is it so? Probably because US credentials in altruism are close to nothingness. The US does unfortunately not have the monopoly of self-centeredness: each & every mighty State would just do as bad as the US. Just being obliged to reach compromise through collective arbitration is a safer process than leaving it all up to a very tiny oil or corporate oligarchy who are unquestionably better at manipulating domestic elections than rebuilding a new State…
No the US presence in Iraq is paying no dividend except more hatred, more poverty, more disillusionment, more power outages, more water disruptions, more dead people, more humiliation & more fanatics for Saddam or Ben Laden or fascists of the sort. The US officers are OK but their troops are getting more & more reluctant to do the “job”. Vietnamisation has already begun.
Yes the Yankees did –at last- understand that supporting a despicable régime as the one currently cancerising Saudi Arabia can have extremely serious consequences at home. This was a lesson the US got for free on 11 September 2001. The US mustn’t be blamed too hard for that: after all, they’d been supporting Franco of Spain for 40 years without being warned that aiding criminals is a malfeasance with a price.
R C Dean: I won’t be that nasty to you & remind our kind readership that your comparison regarding Afghanistan’s growth is economical thoughtlessness or intellectual imposture, for, even so, Afghanistan power is not 50% of it was 30 years ago. Bombings & killings didn’t stop. Karzaï, Washington’s toy, has lost every bit of credibility. Drug agriculture is thriving while people are starving.
You mentioned Syria’s latest hypocritical move towards respectability as a US victory. Don’t forget Syria is a mortal snake. Stop dreaming.
I wish you were right. But even Bush’s discrete begging for European & UN help shows you aren’t.
There is a standard scenario known to behavioral psychologists. It is a pattern of behavior common to adult and young humans alike, to dogs and to a wide variety of other species who learn and adapt as they go through life.
The scenario goes like this: for a while, the individual gets a certain response to his behavior. Then, for some reason, that response is denied him.
He tries harder and harder to evoke the response. In fact, the more it is denied him the harder he tries.
Finally, after a paroxysm of effort, he collapses and implicitly acknowledges that the world has changed and his old behavior isn’t getting the old results any more.
The US has stopped playing passive, guilt-ridden victim. The Islamacists try harder, bomb more soft targets, issue more hate-filled rants at a louder volume. For a while.
What works … with dogs, with children, with adults who do not take responsibility for their own behavior and its consequences … is to stand firm and refuse to play along with the old games.
Things WILL get worse for a while, until our resolve is clearly demonstrated. Then the sane, ordinary people in those places, the people who simply want to live quiet, stable lives, will emerge and begin to rebuild their societies. But it will take a while and it will be ugly near the end of the process.
rkb,
I hope you’re right, though I doubt it.
You undersestimate the power of hate & stupidity.
I too hope “rkb” is right in that it will all be alright in the long run. But that argumant is a bit Machiavellian for my taste.
It suggests that “anything goes” as long as it “turns out right”. I disagree with that approach for two reasons. One is that I would not like an “anything goes” method applied to me or mine. The other is that it is difficult to define what “turning out right” is. “Right” to one Iraqi may not be the same as “right” to another. Let alone what either would think of the American Administrations idea of “right”.
As for “rkb’s” behavioral psychologists argument it is a fair comment that often agrees with common observation. But it could “reversed” and equally be applied to the efforts of the American Administration to violently stamp out Terrorism/Islamic Fundamantalism. I am not sure who has the upper hand in this case, but I hope it is the voice of reason.
In my observation of the proceedings of war, past and present, I have deduced that only one thing can accurately be said about such conflicts. And that is that they are easy to start.
Kodiak, just wondering if you realise that your use of double negatives:
“there won’t be no peace in Palestine,”
and
“The US presence in Iraq won’t be of no great help”
means you are saying that:
-There will be peace in Palestine
and
-The US presence in Iraq will be of great help.
Its good to see such positive and optimistic thinking- but sadly I think you meant to say the opposite! 🙂
Joe,
Thanx for your help: I’m indeed too lazy to read twice to correct or lacking elementary bits of English grammar, or both.
Fortunately you got what I meant.
I’m so grateful to you that I, as reward, invite you & all true libertarians to tell us why you’re so supportive of the so unlibertarian US unilateralism consisting of depriving Iraqi citizens of their inalienable “self-ownership”.
In other words why do you deem their being killed, humiliated, exploited & enslaved a libertarianism-compliant feat although they overwhelmingly reject your presence in their country?
I (wrongly?) thought that, according to libertarianism, individuals were free to to pursue not only happiness, but also calamity, provided the pursuit in question was a decision on their own (as various things like smoking, voting for Bush, being Iraqi & accepting Saddam régime, can be). Does the US want to help Iraq pursuit its own happiness in spite of what Iraq are now really wanting: US back home?
Kodiak – I wouldn’t have pointed out the grammatical error but for the fact it completely changed the stance of your comment.
I think my support of the US in Iraq – with regard to libertarianism is fairly easy to understand… To have liberty within a society requires some rules otherwise it descends quickly into anarchy or tyranny. The US as the largest and strongest “state” supporter of relative individual liberty (and as the only real authority in town) is the best man for the job of setting up and maintaining a system of libertarian(ish) society for Iraq. One in which Iraqi individuals can make the most of their individual liberties without tyrannising or infringing their compatriots liberties.
As for saying that Iraq wants “US back home” – the bulk of the Iraqis themselves appear to say quite the opposite: That for stability’s sake alone if no other reason they wish for greater US involvement.
How “unlibertarian” Iraq remains and for how long is being more and more handed over to the Iraqis themselves to decide. As long as this continues in general it has my support – although I reckon there will be worse setbacks than we have seen to come once the Iraqis themselves really start to take control and make more of their own decisions for then they will also make more of their own mistakes.
For the US to leave now would be a gross dereliction of duty – for good or ill they have taken the people of Iraq under their governance… To up sticks and leave them once again to the tender mercies of those who are waiting in the wings and longing so eagerly impose tyranny upon them again would be a dreadful thing to do.
I am no lover of US policy – I am not against speaking out when they act wrongly; but to oppose their attempt to bring a better way of life to Iraq is wrong… for there is no other current viable alternative. US involvement (though both good and bad) is the Iraqis best bet.
Joe,
Don’t worry for the grammar.
The first paragraph is just an assertion of your personal views. Everything you mentioned can be contradicted.
The 2nd one is a big lie.
4th: what “duty” are you speaking about? Shall I remind you the US has violated UN law & behaved like a rogue State?
5th:
“I am no lover of US policy” >>> aren’t you, really?
“(…) but to oppose their (THE USA’s) attempt to bring a better way of life to Iraq is wrong” >>> stop watching Western Spaghetti movies.
“(…) there is no other current viable alternative” >>> there was one indeed: UN inpsections.
“US involvement (though both good and bad) is the Iraqis best bet” >>> I dare you to go to Bagdad & explain that to the guy in the street.
Kodiak- all statements can be contradicted -all proofs rejected- all facts ignored.
We have brains to use as we will for good, bad or indifference. How you use your brain is your choice.
I gave you no lies – only statement of fact based on the broad sweep of media reports available from both sides: If you conceive of those facts as lies then to make your argument worth listening to you must produce proof of the facts supporting your counterargument.
Just to say “it is a lie” -when the underlying facts plainly show otherwise – means you are either in denial and lying to yourself or in possession of facts unknown to the majority of the world.
I already explained the “duty” of the US – in that it has forceably taken over governance of Iraq and therefore has a duty to look after those under its governance. It didn’t violate UN law -despite France and Russia attempting to force that issue- whereas Iraq did violate UN law.
At this point in time it was sadly necessary for the US to behave (as you say) like a Rogue state – because the rest of the world had their heads up their collective arse looking out for their own selfish interests… and were prepared to let S.Hussein&co literally get away with murder. Luckily for Iraq – the selfish interests of the US included replacing Iraq’s tyrant run regime with some form of democracy.
No – as I stated before -I am no lover of US foreign policy – it is blunt – self interested – exactly like every other state on the planet… its saving grace is that it is reasonably democratic and at the moment is trying to be “virtuous”. As foreign policy goes you can’t beat that with a big stick 🙂
Spaghetti movies are good fun – and strangely moralistic in a shoot em up sort of way.. yeah not bad at all – not much to do with Iraq apart from the sand though 🙂
The UN inspections had become farce and a political tool to keep Ms Hussein in power. They had outlived their usefulness and only served to keep the Iraqis enslaved to tyranny. ( but of course that is only my opinion 😉
I would love to go to Iraq and Iran – but dont worry, until I do you can be sure that if I bump into any Iraqis in the street here I’ll be sure an ask their opinions.
“In other words why do you deem their being killed, humiliated, exploited & enslaved a libertarianism-compliant feat although they overwhelmingly reject your presence in their country?”
Kodiak, are you asserting that the Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam? Please, do let us know about the enslavement of Iraqis – so far I haven’t heard anything about that particular activity, but if there are Iraqi slaves to be had I want in on the bidding. I checked e-bay, and nothing was up there.
On what basis do you claim that the Iraqis overwhelmingly reject the US presence in Iraq?
“the United Nations is universally considered the sole source of legitimacy (except in the US & in vassal States).”
I must have misplaced my articles of vassalhood – which states would those be? And exactly how does the UN serve as the sole source of legitimacy, populated as it is entirely by unelected officials, the vast majority of whom are appointed by dictators ranging from the comical to the brual, and operating as it does entirely free of democratic accountability? I believe that, for example, Jacques Chirac would be very surprised to learn that the legitimacy of his rule derives from the UN rather than from the voters of France.
Friends of liberty, Kodiak has vouchsafed us yet another glimpse into the mindset of the tranzi enemy.
“You mentioned Syria’s latest hypocritical move towards respectability as a US victory. Don’t forget Syria is a mortal snake. Stop dreaming.”
We seem to agree that it is a move in the right direction, however small and I agree that Syria is a dangerous regime. The US strategy involves placing an armored division on its border, and that strategy seems to be bringing results. The French/UN strategy seems to be to invite the Syrians to lots of cocktail parties. Which strategy is more consistent with treating Syria as a “mortal snake”?
R C Dean & Joe,
I agree that enforcing minimal rules is advisable to avoid anarchy or tyranny. The question is who should enforce them? My view is that it’s up to the Iraqi people to do that, if they want to – not to a foreign clique inspired by cheap-selling ideological motives (a convenient façade to dress up blatant cynicism anyway) or driven by implacable economical interests (unsurprisingly timely with domestic poor economical results which could in the end be detrimental to a second appointment for Bush). Even if the US would be stronger, even if it ever turned out to be a true friend of Humanity, it would not be entitled to ransack an already devastated country. It would all the less be entitled to do so as: 1/ it wasn’t allowed to do so; 2/ it has already done much harm to Iraq as it was generously & unreservedly financing Saddam’s criminal activity. Still good Samaritans will have it that such a question is equivalent to “asserting that the Iraqis are worse off now than they were under Saddam”. Notwithstanding this bit of hypocrisy, I’m glad to see that the Iraqis were “killed”, “humiliated” & “exploited” has not been questioned so far. Their being “enslaved” only has been disputed. To that very objection the whole passage here can serve as a retort: enslavement is precisely the removal of self-ownership performed by any alien, unwanted force.
As for libertarianism, you still didn’t show why Bush’s war could be compliant with Iraqi self-ownership. Did the Iraqis vote for Bush? Except blood contribution, are Iraqis paying taxes to the USA? Would the USA be kind enough to let us, impenitent communists & inveterate islamofascists, know who asked this particular country to decide –alone!- “which Iraqi individuals can make the most of their individual liberties without tyrannising or infringing their compatriots’ liberties”?
Don’t think for others. Iraqis are only wanting one thing: your immediate departure. You brought death & calamity, incompetence & inefficiency, lie & cynicism, arrogance & fear, injustice & humiliation. Even your plan to finance postwar operations with Iraqi oil isn’t working: they won’t allow you to run Iraqi oil as you do in Texan fields. You spoke about avoid anarchy; but anarchy is already rampant in Iraq: you can’t even protect yourselves… What’s the added value for Iraqis who happen not to be killed by the US army yet? Die in the sun with a “US democracy”-label attached in the back? You’re losing the peace because you aren’t able to provide Iraq with basic non-oil infrastructures, not to mention consideration.
Yes Gauleiter Bremer has “taken the people of Iraq under (his) governance”. Please tell me who was “waiting in the wings” as George The Second decided to launch the big circus in Iraq last winter? Why did your “statemen” all lie at the face of the World although they were expected to play it responsible? Why did you try to crush or jeer at any diverging valid opinion? Why do you deride UN as “populated (…) by unelected officials” & “operating (…) entirely free of democratic accountability”? Were George The Nominated, Powell, Rumsfeld, Rice, Bremer, Tenet & co elected by anyone? Are George The Appointed & Phony Bliar really accounting for their costly lies to their peoples and to the World they remorselessly endangered?
As for Syria fearing “an armoured division on its border”, I repeat, it will all be gone with the desert wind once the US evacuates Iraq as it is now planning to do at its fastest convenience. Showing muscles prior to running away like hell isn’t precisely more efficient than “invit(ing) the Syrians to lots of cocktail parties”.
Kodiak, you are letting your personal bias get in the way of your rational thinking… take this thought of yours: “Don’t think for others. Iraqis are only wanting one thing: your immediate departure…”
That sentence starts by DEMANDING that WE dont think for others – then YOU instantly turn around and hypocritically do the Iraqis thinking for them by trying to tell us what they think!
What I read from this statement, and from the way you twist “facts” to suit your argument is that you are so determined that your argument MUST be right that you are ignoring the reported facts and forcing yourself and by extension trying to FORCE us to believe that what you say is correct for the sole reason that you say it is correct. In other words you are trying to speak by DIVINE RIGHT.
Sorry Kodiak – but when you start arguing using Divine Right it is useless for us to argue with you because it’s extremely doubtful that you will be listening to anyone but yourself.
I have read your last comment and I can see no insight in it … just demands and hatred. What use is that to you or me? I have seen you come up with some useful comments and arguments – this is not one of them.
Joe,
Why indulging in sterile casuistry?
Who’s exercising “DIVINE RIGHT”, really? Isn’t it the USA with its outrageous failure to at least comply with UN law & simply prove its good intentions & above all refrain from lying?
So even you can see something disturbing when confrontated with someone “FORCING” you to believe something you don’t want to. Imagine what it can be with millions of people “ACTUALLY FORCED” to dive into happiness made in the USA, that is the sole & unique bailee of things pertaining to “DIVINE RIGHT”, like good & evil…
The Israelis aren’t retreating like they did last time and I have no doubt the Americans will get Iraq straighened out, they did it in Germany after WW2 which was in much worse state. I do hope Bush gets around to saying the PA has no intention of sticking to the roadmap soon to take some of the pressure off the Israelis to ‘make the roadmap work’ or whatever. Things are very slowly getting better.
Kodiac, would you have supported the conquest of Iraq if it had been done with UN approval? Your repeated references to “UN law” do seem to imply that you would…
Ken Hagler,
“(…) the conquest of Iraq (…)”
How interesting a lapsus linguae…
I thought it was true liberation that the friendly, peaceful US army was bringing to the grateful, childish people of the State of Iraq…
“I thought it was true liberation that the friendly, peaceful US army was bringing to the grateful, childish people of the State of Iraq…”
So the Crusaders would have us believe.
Are you ducking the question, then?
Ken,
I’m not: the UN weren’t planning any sort of unnecessary military campaing given that their weaponry inspections were being run & yielding results.
That wasn’t my question. My question was, “Kodiac, would you have supported the conquest of Iraq if it had been done with UN approval?” Or to phrase it a little differently, if the UN had been planning a military campaign, would you have supported it?
Ken,
That was my answer.
The UN weren’t planning any invasion of the State of Iraq for they wanted to get rid of any potential WMD-related threat through diplomatic constraint.
Even if you come with a question like “Do you think Emmanuel Kant would get along with Pamela Anderson ?” you’d get the same answer.
From the vigor with which Kodiak dodges the question, I think it’s safe to say that:
a. Kodiak would have supported the conquest of Iraq if the UN was doing it instead of the US.
b. Kodiak is aware of how hypocritical that is, and therefore is careful to avoid saying so.