Daniel Pipes has a very scary op-ed in the Australian.
Obama’s attempts to “reset” his presidency will likely fail if he focuses on economics, where he is just one of many players. He needs a dramatic gesture to change the public perception of him as a lightweight, bumbling ideologue, preferably in an arena where the stakes are high, where he can take charge, and where he can trump expectations.
Such an opportunity does exist: Obama can give orders for the US military to destroy the Iranian nuclear weapon capacity.
There may well be good arguments for ‘doing something’ about Iranian nuclear capability – this is not ever a good argument. To be sure Obama needs to do something to save his presidency, but unlike Pipes I do think he should concentrate on the US economy. There are some very hard policy problems facing the US.
First their budget deficit needs to be reigned in and that primarily involves spending cuts. Second the US needs to have serious bankruptcy reform – at the moment they face the problem of having ‘too big to fail’ banks (and some corporations) because the bankruptcy procedures don’t work fast enough to clear away the debris of failed business models. This sort of thing is not nearly as spectacular as bombing foreigners but will add more value to the global economy in the long-run. If there is an argument for intervention in Iran let’s hear it.
err no the major reason for the budget deficit is the weak economy not excessive spending. Any basic reading of either the OMB or CBO figures show this.
No Bankruptcy proved a spectacular failure flowing Lehman brothers. this meant we went from a credit crunch to a fullblown GFC!
Better regulation alah Canada or Asutralia is a far better remedy
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 9:15 am
I think you’re taking too uncharitable a reading of Pipes. He’s certainly saying “Obama should do this to boost his popularity,” but that’s because he thinks bombing Iran’s nukes would be
a) a good thing (it stops a middle-east holocaust); and
b) politically impossible, or at least very difficult.
.
Thus in doing so Obama would demonstrate a political breakthrough with far-reaching consequences. I think that’s the point.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 9:19 am
also, none of Obama’s solutions on the economy are good, so there’s no point in hoping he’ll “concentrate on the economy.” That’s what we don’t want.
If someone gently guides him over to the toys at the other side of the playroom, he’ll stop breaking things and may even go home with a painting or something.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 9:21 am
DD you are being absurd.
Firstly it is too late to stop Iran now unless they have boasted like Hitler in 1936 BEFORE they had the capability.
Secondly does anyone here seriously believe Iran would attack Israel with Nukes when The Israeli counter-attack would wipe Iran off the earth.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 9:21 am
Pipes should be thrown into the same padded cell as Monckton – what he is saying is that Obama needs a good war to be a good President.
rog
3 Feb 10 at 9:23 am
This is too speculative to be taken seriously. There is no way such an endeavour is affordable, given the current circumstances.
“err no the major reason for the budget deficit is the weak economy not excessive spending”
Maybe they should cut spending given the weak economy?
“No Bankruptcy proved a spectacular failure flowing Lehman brothers. this meant we went from a credit crunch to a fullblown GFC!”
Pure unadulterated pop economics crap.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 10:12 am
No Bankruptcy proved a spectacular failure flowing Lehman brothers. this meant we went from a credit crunch to a fullblown GFC!
Bankruptcy is failure, you inter-generational inbreed.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 10:19 am
Pipes is a lunatic. Bombing Iran would be the cause of a ‘middle-east holocaust’, not the prevention of it.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 10:53 am
middle east holocaust?
Naaa.. I’m not advocating it, however an Iran/US match up would be like Tyson at his best against a featherweight. Iran would get the shit kicked out it.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 10:57 am
The US would badly lose a ground war, which is why they’d merely attack via bombs from some distance away. Given that Iran is quite densely populated in parts, you’d have to expect mass casualties from such a practice. What Pipes is advocating is no better than any of the atrocities of the past century. He should be dismissed for the bigoted crank that he is.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:05 am
Homer has been amazingly tight-lipped about Barry’s record-breaking deficit. Barry is now the worst fiscal bum in US history.
Obama’s presidency is flatlining so badly that it’s not impossible that we’ll see a Wag the Dog war with Iran moved up the list of do-able propositions. He has already mobilised Patriot missile batteries and ships to the region – though, so far, this is being interpreted as an attempt to discourage Israel feeling obliged to act. Provided the regime’s nuclear superstructure is smashed and the regime bollocked, it won’t necessarily be such a bad thing.
If it came to a ground war, the US would win comprehensively in a matter of weeks.
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 11:21 am
I do agree, though, that Pipes’ pretense to be offering politically restorative counsel to an embattled president – with the subject being a (presumably) substantive war – is hyper-cynical and too cute by half.
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 11:31 am
THR:
I’m not that interested in he nuts and bolts of the story however there is a decent case to be made that a nuclear armed Iran places a whole new set of bets on the Mid East table and for the west.
It’s not really a good idea to have Uncle A and the nutballs in Qum nuclear armed especially if they think Armageddon hastens the return of the prophet.
Have you seen their naval defense which they show off occasionally? Speedboats with an RPG attached to it. I kid you not.
They have one refinery and their power installations are basically 3 major power plants. They wouldn’t last a week.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:39 am
Here’s a thought. Perhaps they could add a water skier at the back of the speedboat and have two RPGs instead of one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNL6DyH_IfA
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:44 am
listen Mark if you actualy read something about the topic you maybe able to contribute.
Brender and Pisani show the relationship between Lehman bros bankruptcy and the GFC starting.
you are aping Forrest’s idiocy
If you knew anything about Japan you would find if you do not stimulate the economy gets worse but never mind sometime you might wake up and find out what is happening in the real world.
Gee CL you still cannot tell anyone what Obam polices did that!!!
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 11:47 am
Moderator.
Homer is spamming every thread with useless inappropriate and irrelevant garbage.
This is entirely up to you of course, in the interests of the site could you ask him to refrain, or better still give homer his own thread and not allow him to post comments in regular pieces.
If you don’t wish to ban him for insulting everyone’s intelligence having a Homer thread could be one way of alleviating his incessant spamming.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:52 am
“Brender and Pisani show the relationship between Lehman bros bankruptcy and the GFC starting”
Given your misrepresentations of Tooze and Posen and I can safely conclude that they do not.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 12:01 pm
Marky you have never shown any misrepresentations at all .no-one has.
you simply cannot read or do any decent research on any topic.
you merely look up Wikipedia.
found out what the ACTUASL labour participation rates of the US and Germany is yet?
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 12:03 pm
I have, on several occasions, Homer. Obama is now the worst fiscal deadbeat in American history and that’s a fact.
You can tell how embarrassed Homer is about this by the increasing number of exclamation marks (now three) that he’s using to act amused.
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 12:05 pm
They have one refinery and their power installations are basically 3 major power plants. They wouldn’t last a week.
The US military is wonderfully adept at attacking small and impoverished targets, like Granada, or Saddam’s Iraq after years of sanctions and no-fly zones. Even then, it’s struggled to contain any enemy that’s even remotely capable of fighting back (see Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan). Iran is significantly wealthier and more powerful than any of those countries. They would be slaughtered in a ground war.
It’s not really a good idea to have Uncle A and the nutballs in Qum nuclear armed especially if they think Armageddon hastens the return of the prophet.
There’s no evidence of Ian being nuclear armed, and ‘Uncle A’ is lucky not to be lynched by his own people on any given day. A US invasion would instantly restore his support.
As a side point, I don’t really understand how people who engage in 17 shades of hand-wring with respect to Cambodia, Stalin, Hamas, etc, can coolly contemplate the deaths of millions of Iranian civilians at US hands, and claim any sort of moral high-ground.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 12:07 pm
Homer:
You frequently told us that Jews found living in nazi Germany to be a cake walk prior to 1938, as though the year is important.
You have no credibility here or most other places, so telling people they don’t understand or haven’t read enough in that smug, little-England style of yours is really grating especially coming from a delusionist nincompoop like you.
Go away.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 12:08 pm
CL you have NEVER told us ONE single Obama policy that has led to the Deficit tripling.
You never will.
You just keep on repeating your Goebbellian propaganda hoping someone believes such rubbish
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 12:10 pm
Forrest you are an idiot and a compulsive liar. only a few days ago you were assuring all and sundry US Government CDS’s have shot up when they had done nothing.
I have never said that about Jews in Germany.
go away and lie somewhere else you dishonest twerp
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 12:12 pm
THR:
who exactly is cooly contemplating the death of millions of Iranians?
I’m not. We’re discussing who would win in such a conflagration and I think it would be over in week.
Iran should stop pretending and lying about its nuclear ambitions.
I have full confidence the brave Iranian people will eventually get rid of the loons running the place. the sooner the better.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 12:13 pm
Sorry Homer, but you have “thoughtfully” and patiently explained to all the unwashed that the Nazis didn’t mistreat Jews prior to 1938 or some other arbitrary date you chose out of thin air.
I never said US CDO’s have “shot up”, Homer. I highlighted the point that someone else brought up which was the irony that Coca Cola was seen as a better risk that Washington.
I also corrected your silly comments that bond prices and yields were somehow a better indicator of how markets felt about default rather than CDO’s which is a jawdroppingly stupid remark.
Go away.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 12:19 pm
I don’t really understand how people who engage in 17 shades of hand-wring with respect to Cambodia, Stalin, Hamas
.
“handwringing” about genocide. Yes, we must stop doing that and worry about important things.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 12:43 pm
Forrest you are a transparent liar. you said CDS were a much better indicator and their rise proved investors were getting nervous of defaults.
Now did the UD CDS rise or did Coke’s fall?
Oh I did say that Jews were not put into concentration camps purely for being Jews until 1938. I actually quoted Gellately.
Oh and just for Marky who also doesn’t read. let us take say chapter 2 of Posen and maybe say page 37.
Figure 2.1 shows the structural deficit has moved less than appears in in the official budget figures.exceeding 3 % in only 1996. Not coincidentally , that was the one year that followed a large fiscal stimulus that was actually implemented.
the Structural deficit budget deficit actualy declined in both 1996 and 1997 and was projected to fall again the following year.
or let us go to p41
since Japanese fiscal policy has been barely countercyclical on net in the 1990s.
Gosh Marky caught out AGAIN.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 12:43 pm
oops, sorry forgot to put scare quote around “genocide”.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 12:43 pm
Forrest you are a transparent liar. you said CDS were a much better indicator and their rise proved investors were getting nervous of defaults.
.
um… off-topic?
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 12:44 pm
I think Pipes’ suggestion that the US should attack Iran is disastrous. Look at the mess that is Iraq. I don’t think the US is capable of fixing these countries up by invading or bombing them. Please note I’m not arguing Iran is a paragon of virtue – far from it – but the question is whether military intervention would achieve anything positive. I don’t know what Obama needs to do instead, but it’s been a very disappointing presidency so far.
Legal Eagle
3 Feb 10 at 12:53 pm
oh Forrest they are for Government defaults as I showed. you clearly do not understand your own arguments otherwise you wouldn’t put any money in the US period.
Hmm let us look at Greece. bond yields tally with CDSs.
CDS market shows NO indication the US will default whatsoever. funny about that.
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 1:11 pm
Surely after the disaster of Iraq and the mess in Afghanistan people like Pipes and the other real neo-cons should not be listened to.
Does he have any clout any more anyway?
It’s interesting to note that Iran is talking about doing a deal on enrichment.
From the BBC today:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8494772.stm
Pedro X
3 Feb 10 at 1:13 pm
Homer the “economist” is actually saying that Obama isn’t responsible for ANY spending in America’s $1.6 trillion deficit. He is, in fact, the worst fiscal miscreant in US history and this is now undeniable. He has tripled the deficit and will come close to quadrupling the deficit over the next two years.
I don’t think the US is capable of fixing these countries up by invading or bombing them.
No, worked out badly with the Japs, didn’t it?
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 1:14 pm
Iraq isn’t a “mess” or a “disaster.” The war was won and Iraq is now an infant democracy in a region that needs more democracy. The Comical Ali prognistications about an Iranian ground war are, of course, silly. The US would crush Iran’s military in very short order.
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 1:18 pm
Speaking of foreign policy disasters, let’s not forget that Hugo Chavez is the man hailed warmly and amusedly as a cuddly exemplar of enlightened radicalism by the Australian left.
Dark Age: check out what the Venezuelan lunatic’s stormtroopers are using against student protesters. Victims of the crackdown pictured here. (Don’t click if you’re a boob about blood).
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 1:20 pm
Iran is significantly wealthier and more powerful than any of those countries. They would be slaughtered in a ground war.
You’re kidding yourself, THR. In a conventional ground war, the US would render the Iranian Army impotent in a matter of weeks. If you want a foretaste of what would occur to the Iranian Army look at what the Allies served to the Germans in the Falaise Pocket in 1944.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falaise_pocket
dover_beach
3 Feb 10 at 1:35 pm
BBB
Lehman Bros’ collapse was not a cause, but a symptom.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 2:24 pm
“Brender and Pisani show the relationship between Lehman bros bankruptcy and the GFC starting.”
Yep, so the falling productivity rates or the previous drop off in GDP in March 07 or the inability to rollover CDOs had nothing to do with it? Is that what they said?
“If you knew anything about Japan you would find if you do not stimulate the economy gets worse but never mind sometime you might wake up and find out what is happening in the real world.”
They stimulated the economy and it got worse and worse. That is the real world. 230% debt to GDP ratio, decades of zero growth.
“you simply cannot read or do any decent research on any topic.
you merely look up Wikipedia.
found out what the ACTUASL labour participation rates of the US and Germany is yet?”
You illiterate clown. You reject anything that isn’t in a book – refereed journal articles, children’s textbooks, wikipedia, primary historical evidence – nothing compares to an obscure book reference for you.
I was right about Germany and the US, and wrong about Australia. I admitted such. Unlike you, everyone else is capable of admitting when they are wrong and will move on. You are supremely arrogant – your abilities are poor and you cannot admit when you make doozies (Latham’s rout, Skan Kee Ho, Nazi Keynes) but keep on punishing yourself with such embarrassment. The idea that you have the hide to use the phrase “Gobbellian” about other people when you repeat a lie ad nauseum and insist that it is true is truly sickening.
“Oh I did say that Jews were not put into concentration camps purely for being Jews until 1938. I actually quoted Gellately.”
Actually you said NOTHING OF NOTE HAPPENED. That is another cherry picked lie. Jews who refused subservience were put into concentration camps as political prisoners or otherwise executed – the underlying reason being their Jewishness (“nothing of note!).
“Figure 2.1 shows the structural deficit has moved less than appears in in the official budget figures.exceeding 3 % in only 1996. Not coincidentally , that was the one year that followed a large fiscal stimulus that was actually implemented.
the Structural deficit budget deficit actualy declined in both 1996 and 1997 and was projected to fall again the following year.”
So how come no one (other than the Nazis, which is a cherry picked lie anyway, the recovery preceded Hitler’s election, quality of life indicators fell from every year from 1933 and they were bankrupt despite massive fraud by 1938) can apply Keynesian policy properly – here is a hint you muppet – that is part of it’s weakness – it is too difficult to implement.
“or let us go to p41
since Japanese fiscal policy has been barely countercyclical on net in the 1990s.”
That’s because they went down this path (Keynes) and the result was zero growth. Keynesian policy got them into such a mess. Now they have another problem, which Keynes could not solve. How exactly do you be countercyclical for a stagnant economy?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 2:25 pm
Dave, let’s be clear – if you’re advocating a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iran, you are advocatiing the mass murder of civilians. You’re possibly even advocating ‘genocide’, scare quotes or no.
You’re kidding yourself, THR. In a conventional ground war, the US would render the Iranian Army impotent in a matter of weeks.
All due respect, dover, this (and similar comments by others) is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It wouldn’t be an invasion like that against mighty Granada. It’s questionable whether the US would even have the resources to subdue a population of 70 million for more than 5 minutes.
I recall early in 2003, respected online commentator Tim Blair mockingly suggested that the Iraq war would last only a few weeks. He was wrong. So were the coterie of neo-con thugs like Pipes. Something about lessons, history, and ‘doomed to repeat’ seems apt here.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 3:53 pm
THR
While I also find the idea of the US being able to subdue even Granny from The Beverley Hillbillies, your own geopolitical ‘insights’ are more than quite suspect. After all, you do not believe Communists were ever interested in the trade union movement.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 4:01 pm
After all, you do not believe Communists were ever interested in the trade union movement
What I said was that trade unionism is clearly not synonymous with communism, and the two were at odds with each other at times.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 4:04 pm
THR – Defeating the Iranian Armed Forces and tackling the probable resistance afterwards is different to controlling 70 million resistance fighters. A rule of thumb is that the US would need an occupation force of 1:50 or about 1.4 million. It is unfeasible.
They would need a very large force and it is unfeasible. To deny the US could do it notwithstanding the current wars and financial constraints is silly. The US did not get their butt kicked in Vietnam, Iraq or Afghanistan.
“Iran is significantly wealthier and more powerful than any of those countries. They would be slaughtered in a ground war.” Iran is divided and has instability for several years now.
No. Have you looked at their armed forces – battalion upon battalion of cannon fodder. They cannot make nuclear arms at present.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 4:11 pm
go home Marky.
you cannot show how Posen is wrong. you cherry pick remarks I said nothing of note happened to Jews and compared it to 1938 you know people being deliberately gaoled, killed etc. wow fancy you missing that.
Oh yeah I have not only stated Gellately but other authors you have have stated who/
yeah no-one like always.
the US labour participation rate is higher than Germany by 10 percentage points.
great Research
Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop
3 Feb 10 at 4:22 pm
I’m not denying that lots if Iranians would be killed. Of course they would. But there’s no conceivable way that the US would ‘win’ anything, unless it’s a trophy for mass murder.
Iraq is a pretty reasonable point of comparison here, since it’s next door, and was invaded only a few years ago. Whilst Saddam’s forces were ousted in about 6 weeks, the various resistance groups took years (and millions in slush money) to pacify, to the extent that they’ve been quelled at all. Like Iraq, conquering Iran would be a street-by-street affair, with fighting is densely populated urban environments, and huge civilian casualties.
Iran is significantly wealthier than Iraq. It hasn’t been subject to the same crippling economic conditions. It’s population is more than double in size. Shorting of nuking the major cities or instituting a massive draft, the US could not hold it for more than 5 minutes.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 4:22 pm
if you’re advocating a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iran, you are advocatiing the mass murder of civilians.
.
1. I’m not advocating it.
2. On the other hand, if it’s necessary to stop a middle-east nuclear catastrophe, then I can see why it would be considered.
3. I’m getting really fucking tired of sarcastic dismissals (not you specifically THR) whenever that (middle-east nuclear catastrophe) is raised as a real possibility in the near future. Much eye-rolling as if this is some bizarre conspiracy theory to justify a war.
4. if you’re advocating a ‘pre-emptive’ strike against Iran, you are advocatiing the mass murder of civilians.
war and genocide are different things, although you’re trying to blur the boundary. In fact, don’t want to see anybody die. I have no idea what the cost in human life would be for a pre-emptive strike. On the other hand you seem to have all the facts at your fingertips.
5. I recall early in 2003, respected online commentator Tim Blair mockingly suggested that the Iraq war would last only a few weeks. He was wrong.
No, he was correct. It was the insurgency – promoted by Arab and Persian states such as Iran, and cheered on by the Western left – that caused all the bloodshed. You can argue about that all you like but it’s a completely different thing to the ground war, which was over quickly.
And, maybe you fantasise about the US getting its butt whipped by the Mullahs, but the reality is that it wouldn’t happen.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 4:23 pm
1, Fair enough.
2. Again, fair enough, but the case for a ‘just’, pre-emptive war needs to be a little more rigorous than the last time, no?
3. The middle east doesn’t necessarily need nukes to be in a state of catastrophe. The Palestinian territories are pretty catastrophic now.
As far as Iran is concerned, there’s little evidence that they are seeking a world war. Aggression in the middle east derives principally from Israel.
4. If the semantics of genocide bother you, then put the g-word aside. In a country like Iran, any invasion would cost vast civilian casualties. There’s be nothing ‘surgical’ about bombing and occupying downtown Tehran. Mass death would be entirely forseeable, and therefore deliberate.
5. Blair was wrong (and badly wrong, at that). The facts on the ground suggested that, contrary to the rightist media, the insurgency was largely homegrown.
There’s no fantasy about the US ‘getting its butt whipped’. It’d be a tragedy for thousands of young US lives, and it’d involve pissing away trillions of dollars that the US doesn’t have, and which could be much better spent in any case.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 4:32 pm
“you cannot show how Posen is wrong. you cherry pick remarks I said nothing of note happened to Jews and compared it to 1938 you know people being deliberately gaoled, killed etc. wow fancy you missing that.”
I don’t need to, someone else instead that you wildly mischaracterised Posen.
Of course we cherry pick your stupidity because you insist that you have some kind of intellectual high ground.
“the US labour participation rate is higher than Germany by 10 percentage points”
Your point being?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 4:49 pm
As far as Iran is concerned, there’s little evidence that they are seeking a world war. Aggression in the middle east derives principally from Israel.
.
In the interests of avoiding an endless debate and being sucked into a Thread Of Doom (TM), I’m going to pretend you didn’t say that.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 4:50 pm
“Iran is significantly wealthier than Iraq. It hasn’t been subject to the same crippling economic conditions”
They have actually been swimming upstream in shit creek for a few years.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 4:53 pm
I’ll also pass on the thread of doom, but if we look at the past 10 years, for instance, there’s been more aggression from the IDF than any other local army in the region. It’s an empirical fact. I raise it because we shouldn’t take Iran’s alleged ‘exterminationism’ as a self-evident fact. The Iranian regime has, in fact, attacked its own people, but not its neighbours, including Israel. There’s even a reasonable argument that Iran is behaving entirely rationally if it were to seek nukes, given the repeated threats by Israel, and given the latter’s bloody track record in the region.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 4:54 pm
They have actually been swimming upstream in shit creek for a few years.
It’s not terribly wealthy, but its GDP per capita is superior than that of many nations, including some in Europe. It’s vastly richer than Iraq, and hasn’t had years of sanctions of the sort that occurred under Saddam.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 4:57 pm
THR,
Can you tell us how Israel, and in fact Fatah, the Palestinians and Lebanon should deal with Iran & Syria, and their proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah?
My position is that there would be peace without the external interference if Israel stopped building settlements. Fatah and Israel have dialogue, the wall worked and the Lebanese hate the Syrian domination.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 4:57 pm
“It’s not terribly wealthy, but its GDP per capita is superior than that of many nations, including some in Europe”
Let me guess: Albania?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 4:58 pm
I raise it because we shouldn’t take Iran’s alleged ‘exterminationism’ as a self-evident fact
However if I were Jewish I would remind myself of that old saying , fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
I would reckon that after the nazi promise to do them in the best thing to do next time someone says they want to obliterate you ( and at the same time trying to build a nuke) is to take them at their word and believe them.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 5:06 pm
Most of the Balkans was lower than Iran.
Can you tell us how Israel, and in fact Fatah, the Palestinians and Lebanon should deal with Iran & Syria, and their proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah?
This is a separate issue to the one we’ve been discussing. Since it’s been discussed here at length previously, with much shrieking and accusations of Nazism against me, I’m a little reluctant to go into it again. Suffice to say, I’d like to suggest the possibility, at least, that Israel is at least partly to blame for some of the problems in the mid-east, and that we shouldn’t take as self-evident any claims that Iran is ‘exterminationist’ or what-not.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 5:07 pm
However if I were Jewish I would remind myself of that old saying , fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me
Being Jewish is not a license to kill whomever you like.
Besides which, Saudi Arabia is probably the most anti-semitic regime in the region. Israel attempted to bribe Iranian Jews into moving to Israel, but they refused.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 5:15 pm
All due respect, dover, this (and similar comments by others) is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever heard. It wouldn’t be an invasion like that against mighty Granada. It’s questionable whether the US would even have the resources to subdue a population of 70 million for more than 5 minutes.
THR, you’re all over the place on this. You said that the US Army would be “slaughtered in a ground war” which to me indicated that you were suggesting that the Iranian Army would defeat the US Army in conventional ground operations. This remains pap nonsense which you seem now unwilling to defend. So you’ve moved on to imagining whether the US military has the resources to “subdue” a population the size of Iran’s which is a different question.
dover_beach
3 Feb 10 at 5:17 pm
The US would take huge casualties. I’m really not sure what a ‘victory’ would look like for either side under the circumstances. The idea that a US invasion would be a cakewalk is absurd. We have the example of Iraq to remind us of that. Iran would be more difficult (by several orders of magnitude), not less.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 5:22 pm
THR:
Do you support the Iranian mullah’s attempt to acquire nukes or do you believe their attempts are only for peaceful purposes?
JC
3 Feb 10 at 5:34 pm
“Suffice to say, I’d like to suggest the possibility, at least, that Israel is at least partly to blame for some of the problems in the mid-east, and that we shouldn’t take as self-evident any claims that Iran is ‘exterminationist’ or what-not.”
I take that to mean you actually don’t care about peace, the Israelis or Palestinians, just good old Israel bashing, because it is a US ally. How about just answering the question?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 5:41 pm
Do you support the Iranian mullah’s attempt to acquire nukes or do you believe their attempts are only for peaceful purposes?
I don’t support anybody’s attempts to get nukes. I’d prefer they never existed. You’re the one forever banging on about the need for nuclear power. From what I’ve heard, the major Iranian cities have heavily-polluted air, and they certainly need a clean energy source.
How about just answering the question?
Fine. Take down the wall, have a democratic one-state solution without bigotry and bantustans.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 5:58 pm
THR
I posted this on the Windschuttle/Manne thread, but it belongs more here.
Are you actually admitting to being a Communist?
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:00 pm
Sinclair, could you check your email?
Michael Fisk
3 Feb 10 at 6:01 pm
“Fine. Take down the wall, have a democratic one-state solution without bigotry and bantustans.”
Yes, but what are you going to do with Syria and Iran and their proxies of Hamas and Hezbollah?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 6:04 pm
The idea that a US invasion would be a cakewalk is absurd. We have the example of Iraq to remind us of that. Iran would be more difficult (by several orders of magnitude), not less.
The invasion of Iraq was a cake-walk (the conventional ground war was over in four weeks); its the occupation that wasn’t. I dare say, they’ve learned the lessons now and I’d want to avoid contact with those divisions that have learned them.
dover_beach
3 Feb 10 at 6:08 pm
A one-state solution should remove Hamas from the equation. Certainly, any terrorist groups seeking vengeance could be removed with validity in a democratic and unified state (assuming these latter conditions hold).
I don’t agree with your premise that Syria/Hezbollah is a major barrier to peace in the mid east. I think removing the odious Mubarak from Egypt is a greater priority.
Are you actually admitting to being a Communist?
I don’t have a problem with the label, though of course, I don’t advocate Maoism, or Sovietism. The term itself has a long history, and since the Cold War is long since finished, we needn’t get too hysterical about it.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 6:09 pm
THR
I just cannot believe you think that is OK!! Imagine if somebody said, “I am a fascist and since the Cold War is long since finished, we needn’t get too hysterical about it”. People would go ballistic. Never mind that fascism was child’s play compared to what you STILL advocate. You must be a very naive, ignorant, and mixed up kid.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:15 pm
What has Mubarak done so wrong to suggest that he is the reason why there is an Arab-Israeli conflict?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 6:27 pm
SRL
I have always put the Arab-Israeli conflict down to the game of sovereign nation musical chairs unleashed by the end of WWII. Egypt, Syria, and Jordan squabble amongst each other for the last chair, conspiring to hobble the Palestinians Arabs as they did so.
By rights, Syria, Egypt, and Jordan should have accepted responsibility and taken care of the Palestinians decades ago. The way the Arabs have just let the Palestinians rot is disgusting.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:33 pm
Are you actually admitting to being a Communist?
.
Peter, THR is indeed catallaxy’s resident communist. Fer real, man.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 6:38 pm
What has Mubarak done so wrong to suggest that he is the reason why there is an Arab-Israeli conflict?
He’s obviously not the cause of it, but he’s an aggravating factor, and a vile thug to boot.
The way the Arabs have just let the Palestinians rot is disgusting.
Pan-Arab nationalism, like every other nationalism, is a complete failure.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 6:40 pm
THR
Wow, that’s quite a collection of bumper stickers you’ve got there.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:42 pm
THR is actually a decent, good hearted guy. He means well but totally misguided with this commie stuff.
I see it as my personal failing not to get him out of this affliction and turn him into a fully fledged libertarian. But being always the optimist I see change in the wind for him this year.
Personally I’d rather lose Rog to Doctor’s wifery and gain THR as he’s a smarter. It’s a big job, but I think we’ll get there.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 6:44 pm
You clown, I was momentarily agreeing with you.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 6:44 pm
“What has Mubarak done so wrong to suggest that he is the reason why there is an Arab-Israeli conflict?
He’s obviously not the cause of it, but he’s an aggravating factor, and a vile thug to boot.”
THR – convince me that Mubarak is the roadblock to peace. Superficially, I think he’s good.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 6:45 pm
Mubarak is an oppressor of his own people. He murders trade unionists. There’s not a positive thing that can be said of him. The middle east would be better of without him.
JC – my main quarrel with libertarians is the economic stuff. And the individualism. In principle, I agree totally with getting the government off everybody’s backs.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 6:47 pm
I think the real great pity of the Israeli conflict is the missed opportunity to get the Palestinians out of poverty and into a western lifestyle the Israelis enjoy.
That’s the real tragedy. It almost happened when the borders were virtually open for those Palestinians that had jobs on the Israeli side crossing each day.
It’s a real fucking pity because the combination of Israeli know-how and a large pool of large next door the possibility is/was great.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 6:49 pm
oops a large pool of labor…
JC
3 Feb 10 at 6:50 pm
THR is actually a decent, good hearted guy. He means well but totally misguided with this commie stuff.
.
My take exactly.
He’ll take down the “Communism” shingle off his door one day, but quietly, on a long weekend, when nobody is noticing.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 6:51 pm
THR is probably a good guy, but to be on the safe side I still think Bird should raise his kid until we are sure.
Infidel Tiger
3 Feb 10 at 6:58 pm
JC
I can’t help but think that technology and what it shows Palestinian youth of the outside world can only make them hate their religious overlords – and dreams of a new caliphate – even more than they are brainwashed to hate the Jews/Israelis. Me thinks a carrot approach to these disaffected youths is probably the most hopeful way forward. Nike, Facebook, and Beyonce, not jihad.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:59 pm
dd/jc
I don’t doubt it. I just think that not enough people rouse on these guys on the Commie vs. Fascist thing.
THR
Sorry for riding you so hard. I’m not really at all ‘disgusted’.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 7:00 pm
“Mubarak is an oppressor of his own people. He murders trade unionists. There’s not a positive thing that can be said of him. The middle east would be better of without him.”
Yes he’s a rotten git who should be given the short drop from the nearest lamppost (like virtually all of the leadership there, bar Jordan, Turkey, Israel and Iraq, but how is he stopping Arab-Israeli peace?
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 7:02 pm
“I see it as my personal failing not to get him out of this affliction and turn him into a fully fledged libertarian”
Maybe, but you arent a libertarian, just an uncouth bovver boy wanking on about the concept of libertarianism
rog
3 Feb 10 at 7:09 pm
Actually, maybe political libertarianism is an ideology. My only misgiving is they do not seem like the revolutionary type, and what they want is basically an extension – though perhaps extreme – of what we already have.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 7:11 pm
Maybe, but you arent a libertarian, just an uncouth bovver boy wanking on about the concept of libertarianism
You are too kind Rog. The principle interest of libertarians is denigrating anyone who disagrees with them. Sincs reckons I live in a Leftist Fantasy World, SRL says I can be a pain in the arse, and Dover Beach reckons I can’t read history properly. Look at this forum dude, the most abusive forum I have ever encountered. Nothing comes close.
John H.
3 Feb 10 at 7:12 pm
Nothing comes close.
Bird’s Blog of Shame must certainly come close. He should install a c-bomb meter.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 7:15 pm
Look at this forum dude, the most abusive forum I have ever encountered.
.
Surely you jest.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 7:17 pm
Just out of the interest, whose blog exactly is catallaxyfiles? And does much censoring or deleting of posts go on?
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 7:17 pm
Just out of the interest, whose blog exactly is catallaxyfiles? And does much censoring or deleting of posts go on?
I think it belongs to Jason Soon, but he may have passed it on to Sinclair.
I believe that three people have been banned:
http://sickofpolitics.wordpress.com/2010/01/29/open-forum/#comment-602
THR
3 Feb 10 at 7:22 pm
Daniel Pipes wants Obama to nuke Iran? Mmm wow how surprising. I’m shocked. I’m flabbergasted. I’m totally amazed.
.
Next.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 7:25 pm
Its a bit like Kurosawas Seven Samurai – you get this bunch of misfits who hate each other and are without principle and funnel that hate into saving some poor sod from evil.
The story ends with the baddies dead and the goodies reflecting on why the poor sod still hates them so much (answer – both sides are just as bad and both prey off villagers)
The farmer knows that whatever happens he will have to pay some lout to protect him.
At the end of the day – its just a movie
rog
3 Feb 10 at 7:27 pm
rog
Or perhaps blogging Deliverance style with everybody “squealing like a pig!
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 7:30 pm
Rog:
Of course I’m uncouth.
But I draw the line at a sex change morphing into Aunty Jack like you.
You keep questioning my libertarianism, which incidentally you’ve also done to SRL. That’s pretty laughable as you don’t get more libertarian than he is. I don’t really give a shit what you think, Rog as I’ve little respect for you.
It’s interesting how question me though as it seems more like a put down in that I’m being somehow dishonest about what I believe. Let me assuage your fears: I do believe that far less state intervention in our lives would produce much higher living standards for all.
I would defer to Milt Friedman when he was asked how much “government” he would support. He suggested that about 10% would be about right. On that score I would defer to him.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 7:31 pm
Adrien says:
Daniel Pipes wants Obama to nuke Iran? Mmm wow how surprising. I’m shocked. I’m flabbergasted. I’m totally amazed.
Adrien, I don’t have much to go on other than pure hunch but I think people are making a big mistake if they think Obama is some sort of peacenik and could end up surprising people.
He hasn’t exactly shirked from war. He’s drawn down troops in Iraq as he should seeing hostilities there are almost materially reduced and the Iraqi military is gradually taking over.
I thought the surge in Afghanistan was quite interesting, which is not what i would have expected. I also think his frequent attacks in Pakistan ought to be turning a few more heads as that wouldn’t be what people were expecting. It’s not a one off thing either.
My take is that the risk of the US attacking Iran’s nuke installations would be about equal to the propensity of Bush’s potential to do so. In fact it wouldn’t shock me if he does hit them as the recent build up in the gulf may just be for real. It’s worth watching.
Plans of adding to the nuke stockpile was also enlightening.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 7:41 pm
“I can’t help but think that technology and what it shows Palestinian youth of the outside world can only make them hate their religious overlords – and dreams of a new caliphate – even more than they are brainwashed to hate the Jews/Israelis. Me thinks a carrot approach to these disaffected youths is probably the most hopeful way forward. Nike, Facebook, and Beyonce, not jihad.”
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 6:59 pm
Peter – I would think Israeli oppression has a fair bit to do with the Palestinian attitude to the Israeli’s.
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 7:44 pm
“Its a bit like Kurosawas Seven Samurai – you get this bunch of misfits who hate each other and are without principle and funnel that hate into saving some poor sod from evil.”
Yes rog, use a very strong and pointed simile with the a diminutive prefix. Let’s put it through the jargon cleaner:
“It’s not really like anything, but I would like to hang shit on some people I have a beef with”
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 7:44 pm
JohnH:
Come on, some of the stuff is pretty funny. look if homer fell under a figurative bus 70% of well deserved abuse would stop right there. He just brings the worst out of people.
He told us today that he was giving evidence before parliament. Doesn’t that anger you, especially when the well being of the country is at stake. I Don’t blame him for accepting such an invitation as much as I blame the idiot that invited him.
Aren’t you the least bit angered by such a thing? Can you imagine what he’d say?
JC
3 Feb 10 at 7:47 pm
Peter – sfdc does have a point. Most people want jobs etc, and aren’t sold on Jihad until a family member gets blown up by the IDF. The restriction on work etc pisses them off more and is more relevant than listening to a 3 hr lecture from some nutty ideologue, who no doubt influences the “at risk” Palestinian youth.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 7:47 pm
That should of course be attitude to Israel
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 7:48 pm
I don’t have much to go on other than pure hunch but I think people are making a big mistake if they think Obama is some sort of peacenik and could end up surprising people.
.
He already has. I don’t see much by way of difference from Bush’s policy. How could there be? If the Yanks split Afghanistan it’s a blow to their prestige which will cost them. They never should’ve gone.
.
Pipes is just a loudmouth trying to get attention. he’s built his rep on the whole Islamofascist schtick and now that Bush/Cheney are history Saturday night is the loneliest night for him. Boo hoo.
.
I imagine that the US would probably drop any information about Iranian nuke capacity Israel’s way and said capacity would be reduced to a smoking hole about five minutes later.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 7:54 pm
SDFC:
It’s always easy to blame the Jews, right?
This is the problem with lefties. I don’t see all of them being anti-Semitic for the most part, as it’s just an expression of their opposition to a western country when there are a few poor people to feel sorry for.
The fact that the Jews have been oppressed by all their neighbors since 1948 just goes by way side.
Kids getting blown up in pizza parlors by suicide bombers?
Hey, we should be more understanding of the plight of the Palestinian.
Perhaps if it was our kids getting blown up in a pizza parlor after school in the inner city areas of our cities you’d probably be a little more sympathetic to the Israelis.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 7:56 pm
“I imagine that the US would probably drop any information about Iranian nuke capacity Israel’s way and said capacity would be reduced to a smoking hole about five minutes later.”
I don’t think that they are competent. Israel may be, re: Osarik, and thank Allah they did that.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 8:00 pm
Israel has its own intelligence service which, at least onceuponatime, was excellent. They will never allow Iran to acquire nuke capacity if they can help it. The Iranian government is far too batshit.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 8:02 pm
“They will never allow Iran to acquire nuke capacity if they can help it. The Iranian government is far too batshit.”
Ri-i-i-ight. Because the Iranian regime having nukes isn’t a problem at all, is it?
You muppet.
Abu Chowdah
3 Feb 10 at 8:06 pm
Who’s blaming Jews JC, I spoke of Israel the state which practices a form of apartheid on Palestinians. The Palestinians have been there since well before 1948.
I don’t differentiate between religions when objecting to oppression, my stance would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
What would your attitude be if that were the case?
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 8:12 pm
SFDC,
You have a point but you’ve framed the apartheid so awfully it derides the fact that the Israelis may suffer backlash from their policy which is indiscriminate, but they do it out of legitimate self defence concerns. No one can wind back the clock on what the UN did planting the Israelis there nor can anyone undo the poor treatment other Arabs gave their brother Palestinians.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 8:18 pm
Because the Iranian regime having nukes isn’t a problem at all, is it?
.
Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby? How exactly does the statement that the Iranian government is far too batshit translate into don’t worry be happy.
.
Learn to read.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 8:19 pm
SRL/sdfc
Yes, you are both right. The way I phrased that was pretty insensitive. Of course the Palestinian youth hate the Israelis who are frustrating their lives.
I suppose what I was trying to do was demarcate the two issues, the two powers oppressing Palestinian youth. I wonder if there comes a time when the kids will say
no, sod your suicide bombs, and your ravings about jihad, just sign a bloody deal, so we can all get out there and LIVE, like normal young people.
Now, we know there is a huge well of precisely this sentiment inside Israel, among normal Israeli citizens, if not the vile Settlers, and their political supporters. But every time a bomb goes off, in fear, they dig their heels in, which is their luxury of being more powerful.
There has been, and still is, so much “dialogue” across the civil societies of Israel and Palestinians that I am convinced a time be close when the Palestinian ‘youth bomb’ finally converts away from jihad to Hollywood, and extremely eagerly sits down with the Israelis to end this thing.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 8:21 pm
SRL – The Israeli policies are only in part due to security concerns. Much of it is a pure land grab.
The Israeli state discriminates against Palestinians purely because of religion. The evictions from east Jerusalem are merely the latest high profile example. You may not like the description apartheid but I think it is pretty accurate.
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 8:28 pm
Sorry, I wasn’t talking about settlers, expropriation etc but on that note I would definitely agree.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 8:32 pm
so we can all get out there and LIVE, like normal young people.
.
They can’t. It’s not possible. There’s embargoes and either kinds of hostility to Palestinian trade which boosts support for the Jihadists who, being subsidized by the Iranians, are often the only source of jobs and welfare. This happens all over the region. In Egypt it isn’t the government but the Muslim Brotherhood that provides health care and education.
.
The United States has been supporting this creaky old feudal fiefdoms hence the hostility both to the West and to modernity. It’s a muddle.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 8:35 pm
No worries SRL, it is one of those horrible issues where neither side can claim the moral high ground.
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 8:37 pm
Who’s blaming Jews JC, I spoke of Israel the state which practices a form of apartheid on Palestinians.
SDFC, stop playing word games, “Jews” is interchangeable with Israelis and we all know who and what we’re talking about when discussing Israel. What apartheid are you referring to exactly, the right of the Jews to want to live in peace among themselves (20% of the population is Arab the way).
The Palestinians have been there since well before 1948.
Yea and the aboriginals were here before we were. The American Indians were there before the Dutch, French, British and the Spanish. I don’t exactly see you or any other well-ensconced white dude suggesting we pack out bags and leave Australia returning the place to the Aboriginals. An apology will do. Lol So in effect you’re placing a higher standard on Jews than what you expect of yourself. Funny that.
I don’t differentiate between religions when objecting to oppression, my stance would be the same if the shoe were on the other foot.
I don’t really care what you do to differentiate or not as we all know whom we’re discussing.
What would your attitude be if that were the case?
What?
JC
3 Feb 10 at 8:37 pm
Adrien
That was the point of my post. I argue the youth have had enough, and want to sign a deal, so THEN they can live.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 8:37 pm
Adrien
You’re partly right, in that Israel does what it thinks it has to. One of the big misconceptions about this conflict is that people think Israel is the junior partner. It is not. The US has very rarely called the shots of Israeli foreign policy, and many times when it indicated it might try, Israel has quickly disavowed the US of that.
That is why the solution can never be imposed. All these westerners who pray for a UNSC intervention, or the appointment of a [non-American] ‘honest’ broker are completely missing the point. And that is, it is only the Palestinians and the Israelis who can – and will – end this.
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 8:42 pm
I argue the youth have had enough, and want to sign a deal
.
Which deal? There’s a considerable force within Israel that simply wants them to go away. If I was Palestinian I’d a moved about thirty years ago.
.
The US has very rarely called the shots of Israeli foreign policy
.
I can’t recall as anyone’s ever dictated any kind of policy to the Israelis. I thought the whole point of the place was that no-one will ever push ‘em around again.
Adrien
3 Feb 10 at 8:45 pm
Adrien
Here and here
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 8:49 pm
JC the word Jews is not interchangeable with the state of Israel. For instance a Jewish Australian is not an Israeli Australian.
Who said anything about the Israeli’s picking up and leaving? You’re arguing with yourself on that one.
My question, would your attitude change if the shoe were on the other foot seemed pretty straight forward to me. Maybe I over-estimated you.
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 8:58 pm
sfdc,
You’re correct in assuming the Palestinians would just like a normal life. I don’t think you’ve taken the goals and actions of the meddling Syrian and Iranian Governments seriously enough though. In that context, what JC said makes a lot of sense.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 9:10 pm
JC the word Jews is not interchangeable with the state of Israel.
Oh that’s right, like no one has ever used the terms the Jewish state. It’s the first time you’ve heard that term, right?
For instance a Jewish Australian is not an Israeli Australian.
If you’re going to play these word games then have this part of the debate with yourself as I’m not interested but feel free to participate in the rest.
Who said anything about the Israeli’s picking up and leaving? You’re arguing with yourself on that one.
Stop being so difficult. You made reference that the Jews have ONLY been there since 1948. This is you, no?
The Palestinians have been there since well before 1948.
My question, would your attitude change if the shoe were on the other foot seemed pretty straight forward to me.
I wouldn’t have any shoe on any old foot. I’d get the fuck out of there and try to make my way here or the US asap even if I went illegally.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 9:26 pm
Word games?
A lot of jews are against Israel
A lot of Israelis are not jewish
You can be atheist or Buddhist and still be a jew.
rog
3 Feb 10 at 9:33 pm
sdfc
But the shoe isn’t on the other foot, is it? This is one very important psychological hurdle the Palestinians must make. They are not a nation state, nor a member of the UN, nor militarily, economically, or diplomatically powerful.
The Palestinians have to acknowledge that regardless of who was awful to them, who double-crossed them, or how many of their own leaders were woeful, and they themselves, not always their best of friend, Israel will always drive a hard bargain, and there is a point where the Palestinians will have to swallow their pride and just ‘suck it up’.
Something I say to my kids, when they get into a “he said, she said” snit is would you rather be right or happy?
Peter Patton
3 Feb 10 at 9:36 pm
Did your mother drop you on your head when you were a baby? How exactly does the statement that the Iranian government is far too batshit translate into don’t worry be happy.
.
Learn to read.
Right you are. Too much cab sav this evening. Apologies.
Abu Chowdah
3 Feb 10 at 9:37 pm
Rog:
Stay out of the argument as you just homer up the waters.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 9:50 pm
Little known fact:
“…the ALP (and the Greens) are 100% anti Jewish, to their enduring discredit. This is why they will continue to be failures.”
- Rog, October 22, 2004.
C.L.
3 Feb 10 at 10:06 pm
Yes, but does Rog of 2004 mean Buddhist or Hindu Jews, Catholic Jews, or Jews against Israel….. perhaps even atheist Jews.
I think the 2004 version of Rog was playing word games, CL.
We just don’t know which ones he was talking about.
Let’s ask him.
Hey Rog, which Jews were you referring to at the time?
JC
3 Feb 10 at 10:12 pm
Rog you have been a bit cranky lately darl…..
tal
3 Feb 10 at 10:22 pm
Before you ask the question, you first have to define what being jewish means.
rog
3 Feb 10 at 10:35 pm
Rog:
You’d have to ask yourself that question as we don’t know now what you meant by “jews” in 2004 in terms of what you’re saying know. You seem very, very confused.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 10:39 pm
What you dont know is not my concern
rog
3 Feb 10 at 10:40 pm
Rog you used to be someone who would argue in good faith ,now it seems you just want to be a growley bear.What gives?
tal
3 Feb 10 at 10:43 pm
Hey Rog.
Don’t you just hate it when Cl does that?
dude it’s okay to change your mind about things as lots of people do.
But don’t you think you ought to man up, grow a sack and explain to people why you have become a leftie type.
I was pro war several years ago and argued incessantly with John Humphreys about it. However over time I saw where I was wrong and admitted it.
I have frequently mentioned how John was right that a huge part of the war of terror was a big government program and I was wrong. Nothing wrong with changing your mind.
However to come out with another view then go attacking people you once not only agreed with but exceeded in your zeal, shows you to be a total moron if not someone who is mentally unbalanced.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 10:46 pm
Peter
My question to JC wasn’t about what the Palestinians should do but rather whether his attitude to the situation would change if it was the Palestinians oppressing the Israeli’s. It was a simple question which he has chosen not to answer, which suggests to me the only thing that matters to him is that the right people are being oppressed and the right people are the oppressors. In other words he bases his analysis on race or religion rather than right or wrong.
Considering the Israeli’s have been occupying the West Bank for over 40 years, since well before the Iranian revolution I think Iran’s involvement or non-involvement has made very little difference to whether the Palestinians some semblance of respect from the state of Israel. The ongoing eviction of Palestinians from their homes in favour of Israelis makes this abundantly clear.
Just what are they supposed to suck up? That they will never have a viable state?
JC
I made the reference to the Palestinians being there since long before 1948 in response to your statement that Israel, the regional superpower, had been oppressed by its neighbours since 1948.
Your solution that the Palestinians should pick up en masse and move to the US is bizarre.
sdfc
3 Feb 10 at 10:47 pm
JC how’s your mob?
tal
3 Feb 10 at 10:48 pm
“Whether his attitude to the situation would change if it was the Palestinians oppressing the Israeli’s.”
Some of them are.
Semi Regular Libertarian
3 Feb 10 at 10:52 pm
sfdc, point of fact:
1. There were also Jews in Palestine prior to 1948.
2. Palestinians do oppress Israelis. Palestinians have launched rockets at Israeli homes or blown up buses and weddings and so on. It’s not a hypothetical.
.
The ongoing eviction of Palestinians from their homes in favour of Israelis makes this abundantly clear.
.that one’s a beat up to which there is more spin than substance.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:10 pm
You still havent answered the question JC and all this ducking and weaving confirms, to me, that you dont have the foggiest
rog
3 Feb 10 at 11:17 pm
what’s this devastating question rog? Sounds like you’ve laid a trap that JC is trying to avoid!
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:19 pm
Crossing fingers…fine, tal. Looking forward to getting away finally later next month if things are fine on the home front.
that’s why I’ve been playing my Caribbean music of late.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PlB3zS-_00&feature=player_embedded#
We have friends who own a nice house in St. Barts and then off to Miami and the Big Apple.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:19 pm
Dave, the reason there were Jews in Palestine before 1948 was that the early Zionists had a program specifically encouraging immigration. This commenced in the late 19th Century, I believe. The presence of Jewish in the area is not as ‘organic’ as some might believe.
There’s no doubt that Palestinians have lashed out with violence against Israelis over the years, but I don’t see any argument suggesting that they’ve subjected Israeli’s to political ‘oppression’. They’re not the occupying force here.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:22 pm
THR,
First, you’re correct about that early migration, but their reasons are immaterial. It was a grass-roots movement and organic. There can be no objection to it unless you think that early Palestine should have implemented a no-jews policy.
Second, “lashing out” makes them sound like children, not responsible for their actions. “Those bad, bad Jews made ‘em do it!” But Palestinians have not only murdered many Israelis, they have waged an ongoing campaign of terror against the entire population of Israel. This is indisputable.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:27 pm
The presence of Jewish in the area is not as ‘organic’ as some might believe.
The Jews have existed continuously in that area for (at least) over 2000 years. Don’t tell me Teh Left now believe this is some sort of Jewish conspiracy?!
There was an effort to establish greater numbers in the area prior to the establishment of the Israeli state, but that’s not when they arrived.
Michael Sutcliffe
3 Feb 10 at 11:31 pm
They’re not the occupying force here.
.
Most of the West Bank, as I understand it, is controlled by the Palestinian authority. Gaza has no Israeli occupation at all. besides, Israel has to keep getting involved because Palestinians keep trying to kill Israelis.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:32 pm
I agree that there’s nothing wrong with immigration per se, though I’ve read some stuff (that I don’t recall tonight) about some settlers being less than benign in their intentions and behaviour.
My choice of words (‘lashing out’) may have been unfortunate here. On the other hand, the claim of an ‘ongoing campaign of terror against the entire population of Israel’ is highly disputable. Logically, it has to be, otherwise the entire dispute would boil down to an overblown policing problem. And like so many claims made against the Palestinians, the terms ‘Palestinian’ and ‘Israeli’ can easily be inverted to obtain something closer to empirical reality.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:32 pm
Rog:
Which question? The word games crap? That’s supposed to be hard, you dill.
Jewishness is can have both religious and ethic connotations. So what?
Using the word Jew to reference what is known as both The Jewish State and Israel shouldn’t really be a point of debate and suggesting otherwise IS just fucking around with word games (as I said earlier).
The main purpose/existence of Israel/ The Jewish State in a historical context is to offer sanctuary to Jews….. no matter how religious they are.
As for Jews/Israel.
Here’s a small part of UN resolution 181 recognizing the existence of the “Jewish State” where both you and SDFC think no Jews are living.. Just Israelis.
The movable assets of the Administration of Palestine shall be allocated to the Arab and Jewish States…..
Of course according SDFC and Rog Jewish state doesn’t mean it’s holding any Jews as citizens. LOl.
Sometimes I find it hard to believe there are people as stupid as you, Rog. It’s really perplexing.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:36 pm
The Jews have existed continuously in that area for (at least) over 2000 years
Yes, I’ve read the Bible.
Most of the West Bank, as I understand it, is controlled by the Palestinian authority. Gaza has no Israeli occupation at all.
In what sense do Palestinians ‘control’ the above territories? There are road blocks, sanctions, bans on airport, construction and infrastructure building, seemingly random incursions and bombings, ‘targeted assassinations’ and ‘extrajudicial executions’, demolitions of homes, and, in the West Bank, expansion of settlements. I don’t think any group of people on earth would consider this sort of arrangement to be autonomy.
besides, Israel has to keep getting involved because Palestinians keep trying to kill Israelis.
According to the Israeli state. It remains to be demonstrated how building settlements and filling them with the most racist and retrograde elements of Israel constitutes a policing mission.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:38 pm
THR, what do you call launching rockets at Israeli residential areas, if not an “ongoing campaign of terror?” The only reason that there are not more terroist attacks within Israel is that Israel takes a much tougher approach these days to security. That approach is what earns them approprium.
Also, when Israel invaded to stop the rocket launchings, there was international outrage. Why? What were they supposed to do? Invent missile deflector shields?
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:39 pm
I’ve got to get some sleep. bye all.
daddy dave
3 Feb 10 at 11:40 pm
THR, what’s the basis for: ‘The presence of Jewish in the area is not as ‘organic’ as some might believe.’?
Michael Sutcliffe
3 Feb 10 at 11:44 pm
Firstly, any ‘campaign’ by the Palestinians has hardly been ‘ongoing’. Flare ups have tended to occur in response to specific IDF/Israeli policies – there is evidence to support this claim. Rocket firings, for instance, tend to increase during a time of intensified oppression/killings by the IDF, and don’t merely occur as some random campaign of ‘terror’. Secondly, to the extent that there have been campaigns, the intifadas have demonstrated that many participants in said campaigns have not been ‘terrorists’, but ordinary citizens, acting on specific and legitimate grievances. Thirdly, you should take the claims of IDF spokesmen on these matters with as much salt as you would the claims of Hamas. If anything, the IDF has far more cunning than the amateurs at Hamas.
Also, when Israel invaded to stop the rocket launchings, there was international outrage.
Because a supposed campaign of self-defence by Israel (who are the occupiers!) resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, the use of bombs and white phosphorous, the destruction of houses, many documented cases of civilians being harrassed and brutalised, etc.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:48 pm
THR, what’s the basis for: ‘The presence of Jewish in the area is not as ‘organic’ as some might believe.’?
I’m suggesting this idea of the Bible as a real estate deed is pretty flimsy. There was a concerted and deliberate effort by the Zionist movement to get European Jews to move to the Middle East. Again, there’s nothing wrong with this per se, but it should arguably be viewed in the light of other European attempts at colonisation in the Middle East.
THR
3 Feb 10 at 11:52 pm
I made the reference to the Palestinians being there since long before 1948 in response to your statement that Israel, the regional superpower, had been oppressed by its neighbours since 1948.
You didn’t really; you made the point to suggest that the Jews were simply interlopers and the lands still belong to the Arabs. However that argument was thrown in the toilet when I pointed out your double standards such as living in a land previously occupied by aboriginals. Yet you throw that appallingly hypocritical argument against the Jews setting a higher bar for them than you do for yourself.
The oppression point was a separate issue and considering the fact that the Jews have been the ones attacked in each war the Arabs have started while the Palestinians have been rocketing them and sending in suicide bombers at will. Yet you have the fucking temerity to suggest the Jews are oppressing them. Your hypocrisy on this issue is boundless.
Your solution that the Palestinians should pick up en masse and move to the US is bizarre.
I thought you were asking me at a personal level.
You’re actually asking a very silly question. It would mean that you would have to exchange all the Jews for Arabs and the Arabs for Jews. In other words the surrounding countries would have to be Jewish too while small number of Jews in Israel/Jewish state would have to be Arabs. The history of wars and frequent unprovoked attacks would also have to be reversed. In that case I would be supporting those Arabs being attacked by the Jews.
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:55 pm
Because a supposed campaign of self-defence by Israel (who are the occupiers!) resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths,
THR. Say you lived in the Western burbs of Melbourne and there was continued attacks with suicide bombing and rockets into your burbs by a large number of aboriginals that lived in the Eastern burbs of the same city.
Are you actually suggesting that you would be against the western burbs army entering the Eastern burbs and stopping those fuckers from killing people on your side of the city?
You would call your troops occupiers and be highly critical of them?
JC
3 Feb 10 at 11:59 pm
THR
Jerusalem, Jericho, Hebron, all just dropped out of the sky?
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 12:00 am
I think a better analogy would be an armed intruder entering somebody’s home. The occupant attempts to fight back, and the intruder calls his mates to clobber the owner in ‘self-defence’.
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:01 am
I’m suggesting this idea of the Bible as a real estate deed is pretty flimsy.
I’m not an archeologist but my understanding is archeological evidence proves the Jewish presence in the area for some thousands of years. Isn’t Israel/Ancient Palestine their native homeland in the same way Australia is the Aboriginal native homeland?
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:02 am
Isn’t Israel/Ancient Palestine their native homeland in the same way Australia is the Aboriginal native homeland?
Not at all. The Jewish presence was, as I said earlier, predominantly European, and relatively recent for the most part. I’m not denying that the ancient Hebrews were there since 6000 BC or whatever, but I do deny that this counts for anything in terms of land rights. You’d have to create several hundred new states overnight if this was a sound basis for nationhood.
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:04 am
I’m not denying that the ancient Hebrews were there since 6000 BC or whatever, but I do deny that this counts for anything in terms of land rights.
So, if we agree there were Jews there continuously for effectively forever, you’d also agree that the overarching suggestion that they invaded the area and stole the land from the Arab Palestinians is also a fallacy – in other words, they coexisted with these people since effectively forever?
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:08 am
Not really. You could use the same reason to hand the land over to Persians. The extent of the Jewish presence pre-Zionist immigration was pretty marginal, notwithstanding the Biblical links of several millenia earlier.
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:11 am
There’s never been great numbers of Jews anywhere, but what’s ‘pretty marginal’, at least 10% of the population?
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:13 am
Would you also agree that for much of their time in this area they’ve been the oppressed minority?
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:15 am
In 1915, approximately 83,000 Jews lived in Palestine among 590,000 Muslim and Christian Arabs. According to the 1922 census, the Jewish population was 84,000, while the Arabs numbered 643,000.
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/mandate.html
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:17 am
Thr;
You’re nit picking this shit.
Humanity’s story about moving around all over the the fucking place, sticking up a flag and calling it home or part of some place else.
Borders have been shifting backwards and forwards faster than a hooker panties around the world. To imply that the Jewish State (take note SDFC) is somehow unique is frightening silly or mendacious by people the have peddled that line (not you).
The history of humanity is actually all about moving around as we non-aboriginals know only too well living in Oz.
I would actually argue that the Jewish State (take note SDFC) is actually unique in a way as it has a UN Resolution supporting its existence which is more than we can say about anywhere else for the most part.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 12:18 am
Would you also agree that for much of their time in this area they’ve been the oppressed minority?
They’ve been an oppressed minority pretty much everywhere. I can’t imagine the Arabs being any more brutal than the Spanish or the Russians.
Basically, the state of Israel was a bad idea, but as JC suggests, you could say exactly the same of Australia (for instance), with respect to the native inhabitants. You can’t unscramble the omelette and uncreate the state. On the other hand, the tenuous Jewish connection to the Middle East and a history of horrific oppression (largely by Europeans) in no way justifies current IDF behaviour.
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:20 am
The extent of the Jewish presence pre-Zionist immigration was pretty marginal, notwithstanding the Biblical links of several millenia earlier.
Would you say it was slightly more marginal than the presence of whites here before a bunch of ragged British convicts arrived on the first fleet in Botany bay.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 12:21 am
That 10% wasn’t too bad a guess then!
What about the oppressed part?
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:22 am
To imply that the Jewish State (take note SDFC) is somehow unique is frightening silly or mendacious by people the have peddled that line (not you).
That’s the problem – it isn’t unique. It’s the equivalent of ‘Islamic’ states, and ‘White’ states (like South Africa), except with different identity politics at the fore.
THR
4 Feb 10 at 12:22 am
I loosely agree with your last paragraph (with the exception of the IDF stuff), but I think JC’s perspective is more reflective of human reality.
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:24 am
THR
Look I agree it was a bad idea and perhaps they should have been given prime land in Germany fully fortified agains potential attacks, but it there now.
To be honest the Arabs there had nothing to do with the butchery of the Nazis and the ill treatment by other Euros.
It was a shitty thing to do.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 12:24 am
Actually ‘tenuous’ isn’t fair, it’s an extremely well established connection.
Michael Sutcliffe
4 Feb 10 at 12:25 am
JC
Nobody gave the Jews anything. The Jews bought the land, and built a state with international agreement. When they were prodded, they lashed back and successfully defended themselves, after which the UN commended them and admitted Israel to the family of nations. That is the definition of rightful title. End of.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 12:33 am
Peter,
Wasn’t the land the British mandate which was essentially given away?
JC
4 Feb 10 at 12:38 am
jc
Just a quickie before my hot toddy kicks in!
Under the Treaty of Versaille, the League of Nations gave Palestine to Britain to govern as a “Mandate”, which was not the same as just giving it to britain, holus bolus. While there were all sorts of conditions attached to these ‘Mandates’ (the French got Syria), the gist was that Britain was supposed to provide security and stability until those regions got back on their feet again.
Now, of course, British colonial interests in India, the Arab oil fields, and the Suez canal were Britain’s motivation for accepting the Palestine Mandate. No shit, sherlock, I believe is the phrase!
One of the conditions of the British Mandate was to facilitate the creation of a Jewish state. I can’t remember the precise wording, but it wasn’t give to or anything like that. But the real kicker was that the Brits had to allow the Palestinian Jews to run immigration policy into the region. By the mid 1930s, not only had Britain never allowed the Jews to run immigration policy, they were turning away Jews fleeing Hitler.
The Brits reasons were pretty clear. Britain wanted to keep the local Arabs onside, and opening the gates to hundreds of thousands of Jews was not the best way to achieve that strategic goal. Funny that.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 1:11 am
Pressed send too soon. Anyways, this no immigration thing was the reason for the formation of Irgun and the other one (forget now), which declared the British the enemy, as well as the local Arab forces led by the now-exiled Haj Amin al-Husseini. After WWII, the whole scene was too hard for them to even think about controlling, so the Brits handed the Mandate of Palestine over to the UN.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 1:16 am
If you’re going to play these word games
.
It’s not a word game. There’s a distinction between an Israeli citizen (who may not be Jewish) and a non-Israeli Jew (who may not care about or even approve of Israel). There are African Jews and Chinese Jews who’re probably pretty remote culturally from Israel. And Israelis I’ve met are always very clear on the difference: I’m an Israeli, Judaism is my religion.
.
Jews have ONLY been there since 1948. …The Palestinians have been there since well before 1948.
.
And before that the Romans who kicked out the Jews and before that and so forth. Thing is these people have been coming back to this teency bit of real estate for about 5000 years and they’ve never been known to be particularly tolerant of other peoples’ claims to’t. In fact the State of Israel is positively bleeding heart comparatively speaking.
.
But next time the world settles a homeless and oppressed people let’s pinch land off those what done it. If Israel was located in Bavaria, the Germans couldn’t call it injustice yeah?
Adrien
4 Feb 10 at 3:08 pm
By the mid 1930s, not only had Britain never allowed the Jews to run immigration policy, they were turning away Jews fleeing Hitler.
.
Europe totally sucked. With the exception of heroic Denmark. Amazing. Sweden who received Denmark’s refugees. And Italy who used a different tactic – thousands of years of realpolitik that teaches you how to really slow things down with bureaucracy.
.
The rest of us sucked. We’re better now. Now we dont send them (all) back to their deaths. We put ‘em in jail instead.
Adrien
4 Feb 10 at 3:11 pm
Adrien:
It is word games and it’s a game of a truly mendacious nature too.
By suggesting one shouldn’t apply the word Jews but Israelis for citizens of Israel is a sick joke.
If the UN’s first resolution contained references to the Jewish State as the link shows above then referencing Jews and Israelis interchangeably is a reasonable thing to do.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 3:14 pm
To compares the Australian Aborigines to the Palestinians is ridiculous. There have been a number of occasions when I have had to bite down really hard on my tongue when in the presence of either actual Aborigines who converted to Islam while in prison, or their acquaintances/kin who tell of what a ‘positive’ step is, how ‘grounding’, and important for ‘self-esteem and cultural identity’ blah, blah, blah.
What I am really thinking is “mate, how tragic”.
Mind you, one thing that does hearten me is that these people are a minority of the Aborigines I encounter. Most of them are not at all shy with expletives when giving their assessment of the trend. “)
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 7:23 pm
By suggesting one shouldn’t apply the word Jews but Israelis for citizens of Israel is a sick joke.
.
I’m not suggesting it. I’m telling you what the standard ettiquette it as far every Israeli I’ve met is concerned.
.
If the UN’s first resolution contained references to the Jewish State as the link shows above then referencing Jews and Israelis interchangeably is a reasonable thing to do.
.
I love how the UN is all of a sudden an authority whenever it’s convenient – yes Israel is a Jewish state but not all Israelis are Jews, fact; and not all Jews are Israelis.
Adrien
4 Feb 10 at 8:07 pm
Yes well but without the UN, Israel wouldn’t exist. It was set up as a “Jewish State”.
Is there any need to split hairs? You can be an Arab, Jewish and Israeli or not.
Semi Regular Libertarian
4 Feb 10 at 8:15 pm
In 1948 the UN hadn’t been infected yet. The International leftie virus (ILV) hit well after, so don’t worry. I can assure you that I’ll never refer to the UN’s work in a good light again as it’s quite possibly the only decent thing they’ve ever done.
Yes I know not all Israelis are Jews, Adrien as I recall a similar question as being the last one in a Mensa test.
Referring to the largest portion of the ethnic bloc as Jews isn’t something we shoud be debating over.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 8:17 pm
SRL
Are you saying that if the UN did not exist, Israel would not?
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 8:17 pm
Maybe not. I don’t know if the British could have done it alone. Or wanted to.
Semi Regular Libertarian
4 Feb 10 at 8:28 pm
SRL
Neither the British nor the UN had even of crumb in the creation of Israel. The Jews did it all by themselves. In fact, the British worked overtime from 1922 to 1956 ot white-ant the Jews at every single corner. The Brits lost.
Peter Patton
4 Feb 10 at 8:35 pm
I can assure you that I’ll never refer to the UN’s work in a good light again as it’s quite possibly the only decent thing they’ve ever done
.
They also eradicated smallpox.
daddy dave
4 Feb 10 at 8:40 pm
I recall a similar question as being the last one in a Mensa test.
.
Did ja get in?
Adrien
4 Feb 10 at 8:47 pm
I’m kidding.
JC
4 Feb 10 at 8:52 pm