Home » A liberal’s take on the Iran “deal”

Comments

A liberal’s take on the Iran “deal” — 37 Comments

  1. So I put George Marshall’s famous question to all liberals on this issue:What if I am wrong?

  2. Given the impact of the weapon the only rational response to a nuclear threat is preemptive strike …

    If somebody threaten to kill you, it is rational to always take it seriously.

    Rational!

  3. It is over. Over here, over there, it’s over.

    When first we overruled God, and made man the measure of all things, it was believed reason had triumphed, and all men being equal, all men would be reasonable, absent the pernicious influence of religion. But it had not played out that way. Damnable theories. Religiosity would not play nice and found in reason a way of rationalizing blood lusts. Another theory was needed. Eureka!

    If man was not the measure of all things, his contentment was — and so homo economicus. On this great notion hangs all of modernity’s treacherous inducements — carrot and stick, blandishment and censure. It’s a middle class life for us, and if it can be made so for them — Muslims — then everything will be copasetic. Then, they too will have to dance to the tune as we do. Thought crimes, hate statements, will be eradicated, under penalty of losing a livelihood, i.e., a job, position, business, pizzeria, etc.

    If the State Dept., indeed, the entire government, indeed the entire West, believes economic inducements, jobs, investment, will salve Islamic barbarism or sate Islamic aspirations; if same believe blandishments of “religion of peace” and censure of opposing opinions will stay Islam in its course then I end as I began – it is over. Over here, over there, it’s over.

  4. I am almost embarrassed to point out that Chamberlain, et al, thought that Hitler was a rational person and that his goals were limited.

    Your Liberal friend may misread history. The Soviet Union did not reform because of economic and social contacts with the west. They reformed because of internal decay and unrelenting pressure. Great shouts of joy over the democratization of Russia, and the break up of the Soviet Bloc. It lasted no more than 25 years. Now those within reach of Russia cower, and the West trembles.

  5. Oldflyer:

    I am more in agreement with what you say than with what my friend said. But I wanted to present his point of view as fairly as I could.

    I believe that he would answer you by saying that Hitler and the Iranian leaders are not the same. He thinks the Iranian leaders are far more rational and have more limited goals than Hitler did; I don’t think he’s ignorant of Hitler’s history, though. He just sees Iran as different.

    I think he’s wrong. But none of us knows for sure. However, I think the risks of finding out by making a deal like this are very high. The sad thing is that the risks are high no matter what we do, it’s just a question of which risks are higher.

    As for the Soviets, it was a combination of factors, and the opening of the USSR to the West (which had been happening since the mid-50s) actually WAS part of the changes that happened there. Analysts in this country differ greatly (mostly depending on whether they’re on the right or left) on what were the most important reasons the Soviets fell. Again, I agree more with you than with my friend. But he is not ignorant of that history, either, although I doubt he’s up on the details.

  6. The USSR fell because the elites of that despotism fell out — and fell upon each other.

    That such was inevitable after Desert Storm was obvious to me — and why I predicted that the USSR would have a revolution in mid-August of 1991 at that time. I hit it to the very day.

    They fell out during the internal blame game:

    The Red Army was furious that the GRU and KGB and the defense production complex had let it down… while the Party was running the show.

    The Communist party was furious that the Red Army, the GRU and the KGB had let it down.

    The GRU blamed the defense complex and the Red Army for dropping the ball.

    The KGB was at the heart of the Reactionary movement — but was trumped by the Red Army’s strategic protection divisions astride Moscow — which defected to Yeltsin rather famously.

    &&&&&&&&&

    The other, larger, trends were actually totally irrelevant.

    Nations have slid all the way to penury without any revolution as long as the elites are fat, sassy and happy.

    (cf China classic, Rome classic, Spain classic, etc.)

    There was NO MASS UPRISING in the streets.

    Are Western memories that short?

  7. “You say there are no well-meaning relatively well-informed liberals? Of course there are…”

    If your friend is really a “liberal” no problem, let’s talk. Liberal means a person who is committed to human freedom, the rule of law, and political freedom. In my opinion, most of the people who post here are classic liberals. I refuse to call lefties “liberal.”

    If your friend is really a liberal two words, Salman Rushdie, should be all it takes to demonstrate why it is impossible for us to normalize relations with Iran until they change. The Mullahs just recently renewed their fatwa against Rushdie with a multi-million dollar reward for his assassination. It is impossible to have normal relations with a rogue nation which puts out hits on citizens living in your country because of thought crimes.

  8. Dennis:

    He is a liberal in that sense; he considers those things important. In essence, I am fairly sure that he thinks this deal will empower the moderates in Iran and disempower the conservatives there, and ultimately lead to things like the end of the Rushdie fatwa.

    That doesn’t mean he’s correct, of course.

  9. Your friend, like others on the moderate left, may have a somewhat intelligent knowledge of history, but he seems to lack a depth of awareness of the dark side of human nature. Liberals of a moderate disposition desperately want to believe it is possible to negotiate with evil; that this time evil will see the enlightenment.

  10. Oldflier…

    AT THE TIME the Western authorities reasoned that Germany’s territorial claims were not all that invalid at all.

    Imperial Germany had been massively dismembered at Versailles.

    The Czech border lands – indeed that whole nation – had been inside either Imperial Germany or Imperial Austria-Hungary prior to that date.

    Ditto for western Poland and eastern France.

    America and Britain weren’t even that wild about the border changes to begin with. Prior to WWI, Britain had been Imperial Germany’s number one ally going back to the Seven Years War… and before.

    The dominant voices for adjusting those eastern borders were the locals themselves. (The French, Poles, et. al. respectively.)

    Somehow, breaking up empires didn’t have an emotional home in Britain. (Many British firms figured to pick back up right where they’d left off before the war. Due to Churchill’s crazy monetary policies, this event never really took off. {He re-pegged the pound Sterling right back to pre-war norms. !! }

    When Paris TOTALLY refused to invade Nazi Germany (1938) to enforce ITS OWN territorial dictats (Versailles) with its own army — Chamberlain had no where to wiggle.

    The dinky British army would’ve been over-manned by the common police of Germany. Britain was a naval power — never a land power. This is still true.

    London created an empire by entering into power vacuums. In the case of India it was largely by invitation!

    The big sinner at Munich was the French administration. It had the only stick at the conference. For some reason, Chamberlain’s PR stunt (and fiasco) have warped all historical perception.

    The PM who was waving inked pulp was also the fellow who was re-arming Britain at a furious tempo:

    Chain Home radar network — It was still spooling up during 1940! Everything about it was highly classified for years, too.

    The Merlin aero-engine — Spitfires, Mosquitoes, Lancasters (bombers) later the P-51

    Massive new aircraft factories — still a-building.

    King George V battleships — panic builds held their guns down to only 14″. That’s what a rush job they were. Prince of Wales went to sea still under construction to face Bismark. (!)

    So, Chamberlain was playing for time. PERIOD.

    His speech was meant as much for Hitler as it ever was for the general British public. { “Me so harmless…” “no reason to ramp up aircraft production…” }

    Chamberlain and Deladier were also working under the grand assumption that Moscow would never hook up with Berlin and solve all of Hitler’s critical materials deficits… starting with oil and coking coal, nickel, tungsten, and much else. As it turned out, Hitler proved gravely short of the latter two metals as the war fired up. Shortages of nickel and tungsten had as much to do with the defeat of Nazi Germany as oil ever did.

    Tungsten carbide tool bits work at SEVEN times the cutting tempo of high speed steels. (Nickel alloys, every one)

    Transitioning from HSS to tungsten carbide explains most of the production surge of the Soviet Union. This reality was kept classified for decades. (Natch)

    Add these factors all up, shake in a bag, and you have a tattered piece of paper.

    Washington versus Tehran has no linkage to that drama in any way.

    Ayatollah Soetoro is simply determined to let the Twelvers have their catastrophes.

  11. parker Says:
    April 4th, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    Liberals of a moderate disposition desperately want to believe it is possible to negotiate with evil; that this time evil will see the enlightenment…
    Liberal Cognitive Egocentrism

    Only the prompt application of 2×4’s will do.
    Think Carthage.

  12. So we shouldn’t take the “Death to America” rally held by the mullahs during the negotiations seriously, and the Israeli’s should just wink at the statement that the extermination of Israel is non-negotiable, also said during the last stages of the talks. Is this just standard practice when working out a deal?

    Does your friend understand that during the Iran-Iraq war the mullahs rounded up adolescent boys, gave them plastic keys to heaven and marched them through mine fields to clear the way for troops? Is he capable of understanding how evil that is? Does he acknowledge that there is such a thing as evil?

  13. neo said:

    “…I am fairly sure that he thinks this deal will empower the moderates in Iran…”

    He is indulging in wishful thinking. If the people we are making a deal with are “moderates” who need strengthening they should have no problem withdrawing the bounty on Salman Rushdie’s head and agreeing to abide by international laws. If they can’t even do that, how can we make any agreement with them that doesn’t forfeit our own values of freedom?

    Also, the statistics do not favor any moderate groups in Iran. Here is one sobering statistic from Times of Israel:
    “Iranians favor implementing Sharia law in Iran by a huge majority – 83 percent to just 15 opposed – according to a new survey of Iranians published Tuesday by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life.”

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/days-before-vote-huge-majority-of-iranians-favor-sharia-law/

  14. reminds me of the fly paper argument the right used in favor of the Iraq war. Sounded good…. but no evidence anyone in government were thinking it… ever…

    So we have rationalizations more than arguments explaining action/s.

  15. Why is Judith Miller only speaking up on Iraq now? Has she been saving the truth-telling all this time for her book?

    From the beginning and every year, at each eventful step thereafter, it has been crucially necessary to set the record straight on OIF in the all-important Narrative contest for the zeitgeist of the activist game – the only social cultural/political game there is.

    Even today, on the verge of it being too late, it’s critical to set the record straight on the ‘why’ of OIF in the zeitgeist. The formula is as simple as this for the American body politic: If Clinton/Bush was right on Iraq, then Obama is wrong on Iran and in his whole foreign-policy approach. But if Clinton/Bush was wrong on Iraq, then Obama is right on Iran and in his whole foreign-policy approach.

    Thus, the successful assertion (and insertion) of the false narrative of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the zeitgeist has been patient zero for the Left turn of our domestic politics and, directly related, the Left turn of our foreign affairs.

    The successful activist spread of the false narrative of OIF was the key instrument for winning Obama the presidency. Consequentially, it’s been made into the cornerstone underlying premise of US foreign policy.

    Now may be the last chance to set the record straight on the ‘why’ of Operation Iraqi Freedom in the zeitgeist so that the truth might still make a difference at this historical turning point. In order to win the all-important Narrative contest for the zeitgeist, the Right needs to learn the ‘why’ of OIF and become committed, coordinated, and proficient in activism ASAP to spread it.

  16. Eric Says:
    April 4th, 2015 at 9:00 pm
    Why is Judith Miller only speaking up on Iraq now? Has she been saving the truth-telling all this time for her book?…
    Judith Miller is out to make a buck.

    Question is, why aren’t the Bushies setting the record straight.
    Why supine all these years …

  17. Neo; please point out to your liberal friend that sanctions are one of the things that are pushing the Iranian people against the theocratic leaders.

    By suffering economically, the people of Iran are blaming their current leaders.

    When their suffering ends they will stop blaming the leaders – and they might even start to think: “Hey, they made things better, so maybe we should continue to support them”

    Lifting sanctions – which is a BIG part of this “deal” – will allow the Iranian people to get on with their lives and not care so much about their fanatical leaders trying to wipe Israel off the map.

    This deal will lift sanctions, allowing a better economic situation in Iran; yet will NOT guarantee anything – despite the claims to the contrary – that Iran will open up ALL their nuclear facilities to inspection.

    P.S.; but, you knew all this already.

  18. Charles:

    I definitely did discuss that. I’m trying to remember his response—don’t recall it exactly, but I think it was that sanctions did bring the regime to the bargaining table, and in fact that sanctions had been responsible for the election of the present-day more “moderate” government in the first place (Rouhani was elected in 2013). He said that now, with the deal and the probably lifting of sanctions, Rouhani would have something to show the people of Iran for his pains, and they would continue to support him against the hardliners, whereas if the sanctions had kept going he would have lost support.

  19. The goal–and the person freely admitted this was a gamble–is to open Iran to more Western influence and over time to soften the theocratic regime there, much as happened in the Communist world years ago.

    The assertion that Western influence has over time softened the Communist world is another example of liberal denial of reality. The Soviet Union did not soften before its collapse, perestroika was always exaggerated. After the Soviet Union collapsed, various forms of governance, from Russia’s thuggish oligarchy to Czechoslovakia’s democracy filled the power vacuum. The Chinese are as ideologically committed as ever, they are using capitalism as a means to acquire the logistical and military resources needed to displace and then defeat America. Cuba has never changed, nor has N.Korea. Vietnam lacks the ability to project revolutionary force.

    The current government of Iran (not the mullahs, though) campaigned on a platform of doing just that, and if they fail to deliver the people will revolt.

    The current government of Iran campaigned on a platform of doing what?

    The deal is a risky move, but one well worth it, because the government isn’t crazy and won’t nuke Israel or the West.

    The ‘risk’ is that many millions will die. Iran is, by far, the foremost sponsor of jihadist terrorism in the world. Their commitment to their ideology has been repeatedly demonstrated since 1979. Only by ignoring that history can one assert the possibility that over time Western influence will soften Iran’s theocratic regime. Those millions of deaths will be the direct result of liberal’s willful denial. The government is NOT crazy, they are fanatics and their ideology justifies those deaths, which is why they will nuke Israel and America.

    This particular person also knows quite a few US citizens who are of Iranian background and have relatives there, so that’s part of what he is relying on when coming to these conclusions.

    Personal anecdote with people who had to flee Iran is NOT evidence of the mind-set of those who stayed and survived. Empirical evidence, rather than wishful thinking of the Iranian people’s actual mindset is that, “Iranians favor implementing Sharia law in Iran by a huge majority – 83 percent to just 15 opposed”. (thank you Dennis!) That means that 83% of Iranians support jihadist terrorism because that is one of Islam’s approved methods of advancing Islam.

    In speaking with nearly 30 experts and veterans of both the Bush and Obama administrations, I’ve found one core factor at the heart of this outcome: the desire to avoid military engagement with Iran at all costs

    The American people’s refusal to support a military confrontation with Iran is why the Bush administration would not consider military conflict. The Obama administration are simply traitors. And that is why we shall have war and why millions will die.

    After the loss of will in Iraq, I’m not sure any future administration can do so.

    Once a major American city is nuked in a terrorist attack things will begin to change, the American people simply aren’t ‘motivated’ enough to demand action.

    If we’re lucky, they’ll awaken before Iran launches a successful EMP attack, a tactic that they have been practicing and which might well destroy America’s technological infrastructure, instantly reducing America to the 18th century.

    Should that occur, up to 90% of Americans will die in the first year and liberals who desperately wish to “give peace a chance” no matter the ‘risk’ will have the blood of those hundreds of millions of innocent lives on their hands. ‘Knowledgeable’ liberals are risking far more than they are willing to face and that denial is what could make them fully and directly complicit in humanity’s greatest atrocity.

  20. Five years ago I read a book, “”Shadow of the Silk Road,” by Colin Thubron. A quick summary:
    “Shadow of the Silk Road records a journey along the greatest land route on earth. Out of the heart of China into the mountains of Central Asia, across northern Afghanistan and the plains of Iran and into Kurdish Turkey, Colin Thubron covers some seven thousand miles in eight months. Making his way by local bus, truck, car, donkey cart and camel, he travels from the tomb of the Yellow Emperor, the mythic progenitor of the Chinese people, to the ancient port of Antioch–in perhaps the most difficult and ambitious journey he has undertaken in forty years of travel. ”

    Thubron talked with many average Iranians during the part of his journey through Iran. He found that the average Iranian citizen hates their government. But he also found that none of them had a good opinion of the United States. His opinion was that there seemed little chance of the U.S. having any influence on the internal affairs of the country even if the government should fall or moderate.

    Too many well-intentioned people (liberals) tend to believe that everyone shares our values. That is a naé¯ve assumption. We are finding that too many of the Middle Easterners (mostly Muslims) who manage to immigrate to this country don’t necessarily share our values. We are also finding that many illegal immigrants (mostly Latinos) who purportedly come here for a better life, don’t share our values. The values of free markets, rule of law, religious freedom, and free speech are suffering as a result.

    When a country acts with hostility toward us, I think we should take them at their word until, or unless, they show us they have changed. Thus far, I see no change in Iran from 1979 onward. IMO, the best policy toward them is peace through superior firepower. This “deal” does not accomplish that. But then I am a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal throwback. So, what do I know?

  21. Eric
    Why is Judith Miller only speaking up on Iraq now?

    Is Iraq fixed?
    There are a lot you would to talk about what in Iraq, Syria, Libya and the last but not the end Yemen

  22. “if they fail to deliver the people will revolt.”

    They *did* revolt in 2009. And Obama blew them off. Obama *wants* the mullahs to get nukes and would not be sorry if they used them on Israel. He would then blame Netanyahu.

  23. If it were up to me I would continue the status quo with sanctions which seem to be hurting the regime in Iran. However, there are several reasons why the status quo is deteriorating.

    One is that after the three Iraq wars – Iraq/Iran and then the two led by the US – it’s clear that there will not be a fourth centered on Iran. We are too financially weakened, our military has been downsized too far, and there is no political will for such an undertaking.

    Another is that there are highly incentivized financial interests on both sides of the Iranian border who see money to make and want sanctions lifted. In fact there are leaks that are growing and will only increase with time even if the sanctions stay nominally in place.

    And your liberal friend may be right about it being too late for the nuclear containment. The larger trend is for more nations to get nuclear weapons. Within our lifetimes – assuming those are not cut short by a nuclear exchange or two – we will see the Mideast with a nuclear Iran, and if they survive a nuclear Saudi Arabia. When the full implications of China’s massive military spending of the last decade becomes clear – that they have thousands of missile launchable nuclear warheads – then we will see Japan and maybe S Korea go nuclear. Japan in particular I believe could have a missile deliverable nuclear weapon within 6 months.

    So do we launch a first strike and attack Iran? Without a follow up invasion? I don’t think that is going to happen and it wouldn’t end well if it did.

    So where does that leave us? No one knows the future or how any of this will play out. Perhaps your liberal friend’s position has some merit.

    The counter intuitive approach (for a conservative) would be to drop all sanctions and attempts to control their access to nuclear weapons. We could be empowering another aggressive modern Axis power (we’ve already got Russia and China testing what they can get away with and that’s only just started) that will remake the Mideast in ways not clear now. Or, at the other extreme the Iranian regime may be radically changed in ways they (and we) can’t see now by the sudden flood of wealth and increasing standard of living for the Iranian people. Increasing wealth will create new and strengthen old power centers who may not see attacking everyone around them to bring about the end of the world as a great idea.

    At the end of day the American people elected Obama twice and he is in a position to decide. He will retire soon near his great library in Hawaii while the rest of world will live with the consequences. I doubt the Iranians will lob their first missiles at Hawaii.

  24. Paul in Boston:

    I think his take on that would be that the leaders of Iran are different now. This may not be the best analogy, but I think he might say that your point is like bringing up Stalin’s crimes when talking about Gorbachev.

  25. g6loq: “Question is, why aren’t the Bushies setting the record straight.
    Why supine all these years …”

    I chalk it up to the general lack of activist competency and mindset on the Right, to include the GOP and the Bushes in particular.

    The Bush White House did make an effort (link) to set the record straight. Note the section on the Bush White House website labeled “Setting the Record Straight”. However, they did not make a sufficiently competitive activist effort to do so.

    In their defense, the Obama White House does not make more of an effort in and of itself than did the Bush White House, but the Obama White House is plugged into the competitive Narrative capabilities of the Left activist social movement. As such, to place the burden of the Narrative contest on the Bushes or even the GOP in general is unfair. They can and should do their part, but the burden of the Narrative contest must be carried by the larger Right in direct contest with the larger Left.

    That being said, I was very disappointed by Jeb Bush’s remarks at his appearance at the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations in February. With the political world focused on his position on Iraq, Jeb Bush held a singular opportunity to take a firm step towards setting the record straight by emphasizing the compliance basis, Saddam’s burden of proof, and the fact findings that triggered the decision for OIF. Yet Jeb Bush only acknowledged the ‘mistaken’ intelligence, thereby conceding the fundamental premise of the false narrative (ie, casus belli was the intel), while neglecting to set the record straight on Saddam’s record, the compliance basis for enforcement, burden of proof, and determinative fact findings that confirmed Iraq’s material breach, which was casus belli for Operations Desert Fox in 1998 and Iraqi Freedom in 2003.

    Other Bush officials, such as Wolfowitz, Cheney, and Rove, have done better, but the only way the record on OIF can be set straight in the zeitgeist is for the whole Right to muster as activists like the whole Left does to control the prevailing Narrative.

  26. Otiose: “We are too financially weakened,”

    Are we? The federal budget doesn’t seem to be contracting.

    Otiose: “our military has been downsized too far,”

    The military can be upsized.

    Otiose: “and there is no political will for such an undertaking.”

    Political will or lack thereof is a product of activism.

  27. Eric,

    “Otiose: “We are too financially weakened,”

    Are we? The federal budget doesn’t seem to be contracting.”

    Financially weakened refers to a government at all levels that is too big, deficits remain to high, and debt levels have been and are continuing to grow towards levels which will inhibit the fighting of any new wars.

    “Otiose: “our military has been downsized too far,”

    The military can be upsized.”

    Upsizing takes years and will be limited by the growing financial weaknesses.

    “Otiose: “and there is no political will for such an undertaking.”

    Political will or lack thereof is a product of activism.”

    Even on the right I doubt there’s much enthusiasm for another invasion of a Mideastern country, and it would take a nuclear bomb dropped on NY to get the left worked up enough but by then it would be moot for them.

    Whether it’s the best choice or not Obama will likely get his way on this and we will see the sanctions dropped and the Iranians will have a bomb within a matter of a handful of years.

    On the bright side note that Pakistan and India have had the bomb for decades now and surprisingly have resisted using it on each other.

  28. “The goal–and the person freely admitted this was a gamble–is to open Iran to more Western influence and over time to soften the theocratic regime there, much as happened in the Communist world years ago.”

    I call bullshit right there.

    First, that’s NOT what happened to the communist world, as anyone even moderately knowledgeable with world events is aware. But I digress.

    In 2009, a full two years before the so called ‘Arab Spring’ there were widespread demonstrations against the theocratic Iranian regime in response to the rigged election, which could have easily expanded into widespread rebellion and the possible toppling of a regime many in Iran were more than a little tired of. Recall the Green Movement. Many urged Obama to do something, anything. Even if it was to only make a statement in support, or sympathy with their cause. This went on for weeks.

    So where was Obama? He did nothing. Nothing. He allowed the regime to recover and crush the rebellion. He has shown what side he was, and is on.

    How fast reality slips down the memory hole for liberals.
    They believe what affirms their belief and hate, discredit, ignore, or forget what doesn’t.

    The fallacy of said liberal’s position is the assumption that Iran, with more exposure to the west will absorb some of its culture and thus somehow magically soften its positions. (If they only got to know us, they’d like us and we’d all get along)

    Why is this a fallacy? Because the ordinary citizenry already has exposure to American culture. It happens to be very popular. They are already disgusted with the present regime. As for the Mullahs, they aren’t going to change one iota when they know that to do so would be political and quite possibly literal suicide. Nor are they going to willingly give up power. What do these liberals smoke?

  29. Tim P…

    And to take it logically further:

    To embrace American norms those societies must reject the values of their parents and grandparents…

    To admit that their culture is — at some fundamental level — really screwed up.

    Homo sapiens, sapiens, is such a critter that such logical jumps are emotionally impossible.

    It’s actually impossible to get third world citizens to stop drinking foul water out of mud puddles. “We’ve always done so. My father did so. It doesn’t hurt anybody…”

    After half a century the US AID and all the rest of the do-gooders have discovered that the SINGLE most impossible ‘sale’ to make is clean water. During that entire period every third world society rejected every clean water project ever proposed.

    Pure water is expensive. Every third world nation regarded such outlays as a total waste of their boon. (Gift from the Western world.)

    AFTER the projects are completed, the locals finally come around to discover that their illness rates have collapsed, infant mortality has become unusual.

    The success of early projects does not impress the next nation. It’s still “no sale.”

    And we’re only talking about drinking clean water from a fountain!

    The larger reality is that humanity can’t stand to be corrected… especially by outsiders.

    When new information is too far away from prior norms — it’s rejected wholesale.

    This is just as true for us as it is for them.

    When I elaborate about how the third world largely can’t stand receiving Western ‘help’ — I get stiff resistance — especially with the touchy-feely do-gooder crowd.

    This is particularly apt with Liberal Jews.

    Tikkun olam — healing the world — is a value-truism for Jews.

    The problem is that the vast bulk of humanity can’t stand to be healed if it means rejecting their father’s norms.

    The MORE Jews try and help their ‘lessers’ the more they are hated.

    THIS is largely why Black politicians are — virtually to a man — anti-Semitic — usually extremely so.

    Many (socialistic) Federal housing projects are actually designed for Jewish norms. (Making the term ghetto doubly ironic.) European (Ashkenazi) Jewry has been massively urbanized over the recent centuries. Consequently they are totally fine living in New York City; a city that has taken on its current character largely since the arrival of European Jews on a massive scale a century, and more, ago.

    (Brighton Beach, anyone?)

    In complete contrast, Black American culture is actively anti-urban. No Africans lived in conurbations until the last generations. Ditto for book centric culture — and all the rest.

    So what we witness are Federal (Jewish) low income (elderly, Section 8) projects in the greater New York area that are crime free, pristine even.

    When the exact same structure (more or less a clone) is inhabited by Black Americans in the mid-West it quickly devolves into a charnel house for drug addicts, and the ‘economic engine’ that sustains them.

    This is true even as the Section 8 project’s (Black) tenants are elderly. The gangs simply move right on in.

    Back in Africa adolescent boys — virtually to a man — hook up with gangs. It’s their cultural norm. It’s also the land of the tattoo – for pretty much the same reason.

    In the US, such gang oriented tats are reason enough to begin a police profile on ‘a future trouble maker.’

    What no do-gooder can bear to admit is that Blacks don’t lust for urban living. No amount of Federal ‘interventionism’ is going to change that. For all we know, it’s in their DNA.

    &&&&&&

    All of the above is a long way of saying that the road to Hell is paved with the best of intentions — whenever the paving crew is of an alien culture.

    This is universally true for all Federal assistance for Black Americans.

    If you listen to Farrakhan/ Wright: most Blacks don’t want to mix with White culture. They want true separation — rural ghettos, if you will. If the finances were there, no small number would leave the US all together.

    While Whites scoff at such a statement: look at just how many Jews flee to Israel — and how many Whites flee to anywhere but America.

    Wozniak is relocating to Australia — for cultural and political reasons.

    So the reality is that wealthy Americans are leaving all the time. The ones who want to leave the most — are too broke to finance the trip back home — to Africa.

    Finances ARE the only hang-up. Federal largesse has them trapped in cold northern cities — that they so dislike that they’re bouncing off the walls every winter.

    The logic of this is as alien to do-gooders as clean water is to those in the third world. They won’t even consider it.

  30. blert said,

    “It’s actually impossible to get third world citizens to stop drinking foul water out of mud puddles. “We’ve always done so. My father did so. It doesn’t hurt anybody…”

    It’s funny you brought up that particular example. Where I work, there used to be a fellow who had done a tour in Afghanistan. He’s since moved to Illinois.

    I remember him telling me a story of these women in a village where they spent time, who would wash clothes in the river at the same spot regularly. A spot where there was fuel and other pollution in the water. (Not US military trucks, for any liberals reading this.) He said trucks would routinely discharge about 50 yards upstream from them. You could see the sheen in the water he told me. Yet here were these women washing their clothes at the same spot again and again.

    He said they had an interpreter with them once and he asked the guy to point out to the women that if they went upstream about 100 to 200 yards, they could wash their clothes in clean water.

    Their response was that this was where they had always washed their clothes. They saw no reason to move. They never moved.

  31. Otiose: “Even on the right I doubt there’s much enthusiasm for another invasion of a Mideastern country”

    I would exchange “enthusiasm”, which implies more shallow whim, for ‘will’, which implies more fundamental leadership.

    Reviving the competitive warrior will of the nation is the necessary 1st, core step to correcting everything else. A key Narrative element for reviving our warrior will is setting the record straight on the ‘why’ of OIF in the zeitgeist.

  32. You have to give credit to the Left: stopping iran’s atomic race is equated with marching on Tehran — or nuking that nation.

    FACTS

    Iran has a glass jaw, economically, since it HAS to import about half its calories AND

    Its critical money maker has to leave port and float across the world ocean.

    Indeed, most of Iran’s strategic assets — economics wise — are right at the Gulf’s edge.

    Iran is totally unable to get by without oceanic trade. She’s has an ISLAND ECONOMY. Trade with Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan, Afghanistan and Azerbaijan are a joke.

    BTW, it is STILL the case that much of Iran’s critical oil and gas equipment is uniquely produced in the USA. It’s been running on, and on, and on, for more than thirty-years.

    Tehran is desperate to retire said industrial equipment with modern replacements. Within the oil and gas industry, most of the critical gear is sole-sourced from the USA.

    Japan and Germany never jumped into the turbo-compressor business for natural gas. The client base is all American dominated… to include the critical engineering firms. (Fluor, Bechtel, et. al.)

    When turbo-compressors decline in performance — or even stop running all together, the net deliverable gas through a given pipeline COLLAPSES.

    &&&&&&

    Kharg Island — yes it’s right on the Gulf — is a CRITICAL export assets that can be taken to zero with the very first shot if the balloon goes up. Yes, even the Israelis could do it.

    The only other export terminal of great significance is right at the Iraqi border: the Shatt al Arab — Abadan Oil Complex.

    And as the Romanians could tell you, bombed oil complexes are self burning.

    In the meantime, no-one wants to load oil while the tanks are alight.

    So, it’s obvious from the get go that Iran can be economically destroyed — on the cheap — via a few military strikes — missile strikes.

    If Iran’s commercial ports were struck — just how would the mullahs feed their nation? (Iran lost its food self-sufficiency when its population exploded in the 1970s. Half the nation would have to die to bring calories back into balance.)

    For such a large nation — most of its land is barren, salted and worthless. Iran only has a pitiful few industrial sites. Culture, waterfall, and tradition have keep the Iranians living in the hills all of these centuries. It’s a high-cost place to manufacture — and always will be.

    &&&&&

    The Saudis have put both Putin and Tehran on their back foot.

    So ayatollah Soetoro is promptly moving to let both off the hook… while under cutting American independence from Arab oil imports.

    He’s our first anti-American president. By now that should be plain.

  33. blert, you have nailed the primary tool for dealing with Iran and most other Muslim nations, especially the oil exporters. Up to now the West has been frightened of losing oil production in the ME, which would impact badly on world oil prices. That equation is changing. Tough economic sanctions and veiled threats against their oil infrastructure ought to be enough to force Iran to change its aims and become a more reasonable member of the family of nations.

    It would not necessarily be easy. The sanctions that were in place prior to the present round of negotiations were being fought tooth and nail by interests who can profit from trade with Iran. Those same interests are pushing for the new “deal” to stick. To carry out such an economic/military program requires will and a vision of what must be done to put extremist Islam back in the bottle without resort to massive war. Will and vision that Obama and his minions don’t have.

  34. rewriting history

    thanks to that overriding dogma, it is now impossible to hold a meaningful debate in Russia regarding the results of the first year since annexing Crimea.
    You either believe that Russia’s army and its military intervention in Crimea saved Russia from a U.S. and NATO invasion on the peninsula or you don’t.
    At this turning point in history, you are either “one of us” and can enjoy all the benefits that the best state in the world has to offer, or else you are “one of them,” and there’s no knowing what new problems to expect from you tomorrow. There is no third option.
    This explains the obsession with dividing Russian society between “friends” of the state and its “enemies.”
    Even the decision to classify the murder of Boris Nemtsov as a “hate crime” is part of that effort to divide Russian society. It seems these people sincerely believe in the threat of a “revenge of the liberals,” in a “Russian Maidan” and that “the liberals could turn violent.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>