Hm. It seems odd to claim that president Bush himself “wants” something at all, and “disarming” Iraq really seems like quite a strange excuse for bombing this already ruined country to shreds. The few “weapons of mass destruction” Iraq actually posseses (or perhaps rather has possesed) was built with the aid of the US administration, and it is a fact that no one gave a toss about Saddam’s gassings of Kurds and so forth before the Kuwait invasion (in fact not that illegitimate, given the historic relations between the “nation” of Kuwait and Baghdad, though obviously absurd from the standpoint of modern realpolitik). One should also remember that virtually no objects related to “weapons of mass destruction” has been found in Iraq so far by the UN inspectors.

To find the root causes for this upsurge of warlust and propaganda smoke screens I believe one should look for more traditional explanations: oil and protection of the “legitimate interests” of Israel, which really are the only objective reasons for the US to declare war on Iraq. The complete acceptance of the “war against terror” humbug of most media (including my own native Sweden’s, which many US citizens feel is “anti Israeli” and “pinko”, even though I consider these allegations to be stupid beyond belief) is really frightening, and to see the extreme discrepance between the reporting one day and the next is nothing short of disgusting. My favorite so far must have been when one of the larger Swedish news papers first exclaimed “the taliban plans to flood the West with heroin” with the huge supplies grown in the country, and then (after the taliban was out of power), stated that the flow of Heroin into Europe was once again back at it’s normal level, since the talibans’ ban of growing it was no longer in effect.

Also I think some of the pseudo conservatives of the United States should pause to think what their power games can lead to; I assume that few have forgotten which american intelligence agency trained Usama bin Laden and large parts of the Afghani Al Quaida, that time to combat the peril of Communism (a far more reasonable goal than the universialist crusade one seem to be on the verge of embarking on today). Acutal long term thought is perhaps too much to hope for, though.

“It seems odd to claim that president Bush himself “wants” something at all, and “disarming” Iraq really seems like quite a strange excuse for bombing this already ruined country to shreds.”

This statement is absurd, though typical of the rhetoric emanating from Europe. Why bomb a country unless their is a reason? Does Martin think we just want the practice? Of course we have reasons. The danger that Saddam will eventually place weapons of mass destruction in terrorists hands is very real. After Sept.11, Americans have realised that they no longer have the luxury of sitting on our behinds and waiting for thousands of our citizens to be killed. We’ll leave butt sitting to the Europeans, who have made an art form out of it.

“The few “weapons of mass destruction” Iraq actually posseses (or perhaps rather has possesed) was built with the aid of the US administration,”

So what? Even if thise statement is true, and the real truth is Saddam has had a large amount of help from Europe, it is all the more reason to clean up the mess.

“The complete acceptance of the “war against terror” humbug “

Get real. I watched three thousand of my felow Americans, not to mention many from other countries, murdered by Islamic terrorists in less than an hour. To claim that our response to this is “humbug” is ignorant crap. Your country was NOT attacked, and so it’s laughably easy for you to trot out uninformed statements like this.

“I assume that few have forgotten which american intelligence agency trained Usama bin Laden and large parts of the Afghani Al Quaida,”

Crap. The CIA armed a few tribesman with missiles to help fight the Soviet Union. Al-Qaeda did not exist then. All of the training of Al-Qaeda terrorists took place after the U.S had finished in Afghanistan.

“Acutal long term thought is perhaps too much to hope for, though.”

On the contrary, it is America and Britain that are doing the only long term thinking here, while much of continental Europe is locked into short term thinking based on simple cowardice. And this gets to the heart of the matter. Much of Europe has become a cesspool of cowardism, socialism, anti-semitism, and anti-Americanism. Even Europes so called “conservatives” look like whining gutless socialists. It is America that remains the last bastion of Christianity and real Conservatism. It is America that keeps the martial spirit of Europe alive. It is America that is dealing now with Europes ancient enemy, while the Europeans, having flooded themselves with vast numbers of the enemies poeple, snivel in fear and carp at America from the sidelines. Decades of social democracy have turned much of Europe, both left and right, into lazy malcontents, unwilling to pay for their own military defense, unable to deal with problems in their own back yard, such as Yuogoslavia, criticizing America at every opportunity, but crying for America’s help when they cant deal with a tin pot socialist tyrant like Miloscovich. Pathetic.

I find it amazing that so-called conservatives actually are the most vocal elements in the coming Iraqi war. How quickly and mercifully we forget that Saddam Hussein was once our staunch ally, a secular regime that promoted literacy, religions tolerance — Tariq Aziz is an open and professing Christian — and helped the US protect its interests in the Middle East by thwarting the spread of fundamentalist Islam.

But when it comes to neo-cons, I guess no good deed goes unpunished. While neo-cons never cease decrying Iraq’s WMD they conveniently ignore that the US, under the Reagan administration, actively assisted Iraq’s development of biological and chemical weapons — and raised no objection that Iraq killed over 10,000 Iranians with such weapons. In fact, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of states that sponsor terrorisism in 1982 just to make such weapons transfers legal.

But now Saddam is the most evil man in the world. (Wait, what happened to Osama and his Al Qaida network?) Given that the FBI has just released a new terrorist warning that Al Qaida (not Iraq) is possibly ready to initiate another attack against the US or US interests, GW and his merry band of neo-con cohorts still paint Saddam as the greatest threat to the US. Why? Iraq never threatened the US; Iraq never has been linked to Al Qaida; Iraq has never sold its alleged WMD to terrorist; Iraq does not promote a violent form of Islam like our Saudi friends do.

It is pathetic to watch neo-cons like Sean Hannity who think that a good conservative is simply someone who acts as a shill for George Bush and CO. say things like “We will never let Saddam gas his people again.” Or “He has killed over a million muslims.” Hello Sean! — Saddam was our ally when he did those things, fighting our proxy war for us, with weapons we gave him. The fact that neo-cons have to harken back to these events as proof that Saddam is a reckless madman endangering the world just shows how flimsy their case really is. Yes, Saddam killed Kurds, but so have our Turk allies. Yes, Saddam killed Iranian Muslims, and we supported it. So what else you got?

Lastly, I must say that George Bush has been so derelect in protecting the border from foreign infiltration, that I simply can not believe he gives a single wit about America’s interests. Remember this is a president, a patriotic man no doubt, who rolls out the red carpet for Vincente Fox, but tells an American statesman like Tom Tancredo that he is no longer welcome at the White House. Wow, some American Bush is — Fox refuses to acknowledge that we even have a border problem or an illegal immigrant problem and is bosom-buddies with our president, and an American Congressman standing up for America is a persona non grata. Wake up conservatives, whatever Bush is for, it is surely not America.

While I agree with Mr. Weller’s comments about immigration, he has not a single pertinent argument to make against the coming war with Iraq and against the reasons why a majority of Americans support that war. Not a single pertinent argument. For example, with regard to a war we will be waging to rid Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction, of what possible relevance is it that the U.S. tilted toward Iraq in its war with Iran back in the ’80s? Of what possible relevance is Mr. Weller’s dislike of neoconservatives?

The sad fact is that the anti-war right, like the anti-war left, has demonstrated that it has no relevant arguments to offer, only anger and animus combined with mind-blowing stupidity. On the left, Nelson Mandela says that Bush’s real motive for waging war against Iraq is to show racist disdain against the black Secretary General of the U.N. On the right, Mr. Weller describes Iraq as a benign, tolerant regime that the U.S. out of some perversity (embodied in the fountainhead of all perversity, the neocons) has made into an enemy.

The fact that the war critics have kept making such incredibly poor arguments only strengthens one’s sense that Bush is on the right track .

There is never a need to make an argument for refraining from violence, it is the deliberate use of violence that needs a reason. While I hope I am not wandering too far out into left-wing lala land in saying that any use of America’s military is justified only when we are attacked or there is very real credible reason to suspect an attack. Evidently, the looming war with Iraq does not satisfy such criteria. So despite the claims in your above post there are ample reasons not avoid a confrontation with Iraq

1) Iraq has never threatened the United States with violence or terrorism. It knows very well that if it did it would quickly be wiped off the map.

2) Attacking Iraq without provocation — they still haven’t done anything to us, remember? — will further incense the Arab world against Americans. Imagine the use Al Qaida could put video footage of American bombs incinerating innocnet Iraqi children. Do we really want to provide Al Qaida with a free recruiting video that will help swell their ranks and incite more fury against Americans?
— This above argument is further exacerbated by the fact the George Bush and his fellow neo-cons think that the best border strategy is to keep our borders more porous than the hull of the Titanic.

3) Currently, there is no obvious exit strategy. Does Bush plan to simply remove Saddam and his Ba’ath party, or does we have the ambitious goal of remaking the Middle East in the image of Bill Kristol and Podhoretz? Is is prudent to instigate a war without a viable exit strategy?

4) The costs will be enormous. Since a principle of conservative statecraft is limited government, is it frugal to undertake an expensive war that has no clear exit strategy and will cost the taxpayers billions? After all, despite the continued presense of UN (and US) troops in Serbia, the Serbs and ALbanian Kosovars are still not toasting to the wonders of diversity. Do you think the ethnically and religiously torn Iraq will be toasting to the wonders of democracy after getting bombed into the stone age? Perhaps wishes are horses and pigs have wings as well.

So I think the case against going to war against Iraq is self-evident and obvious, and hardly needs much articulation. It is unwise, impudent, costly and unnecessary — last I checked Saddam was our ally after all.

But you are right, we both agree about immigration :)

Well, Shawn…

I’ve heard all this a hundred times before, and it is nothing but… Well, silly. The fact that extremely unstable states such as Pakistan (not to mention Israel) already posseses weapons of REAL mass destruction (nukes) without getting even a slap on the fingers SHOULD make fanatic “patriots” such as yourself at least CONSIDER if CNN is giving away the unadultered Truth. Fortunately you don’t have to, since it is done for you already. “Saddam is the very much evilest person, yes”, and the only thing to consider is if we should react in a cool, “conservative” John Wayne way, or in a minsy gay European commie-pinko way.

“All of the training of Al-Qaeda terrorists took place after the U.S had finished in Afghanistan.”

This is simply wrong, even the US government has admitted it in public.

“Even if thise statement is true, and the real truth is Saddam has had a large amount of help from Europe, it is all the more reason to clean up the mess.”

WHAT MESS, Shawn? You sound like a Bush-speech. “Cleaning up”; there isn’t much to clean up. Saddam will not attack the free world and destroy it, he will probably not invade any country at all. This is OBVIOUS to anyone and all. His army couldn’t kill one platoon of US trained soldiers, let alone the highly skilled Israeli soldiers. I have never said the US is attacking Saddam for NO reason, but it is not being done to “save” his people, and not to stop his weapons of mass destruction either. I can’t see what is so controversial with this?

Not one single statement in your article shows anything but ignorance, and of course the good olé Eurobashing, even the latter being done with ignorance. For instance, the entire concept of multiculturalism is an american export, far more than some “social democratic” scheme. Sweden recently got itselfes “Hate crime” legislation, though no-one knows how that bill passed. Recognize the term? Not in the Social Democratic party program, I tell you. MUCH of the crap in Europe is American crap, which is being implemented on a slightly larger scale and quicker, simply because the moron ratio is slightly lower in Europe (“moron” here refering not to stupid opinions, which as you pointed out flourishes very much in Europe, but a person unable to understand new/different concepts, and thus reacting hostile to them, something I think you have confused with conservatism).

Not that I am saying that you are entirely incorrect in all your statements, much of Europe is rather pathetic currently, but the fact that your “nation” has initiated the starving and murdering of hundred of thousands of Iraqi children for reasons of and oil interest and Israeli “security” does not mean that you are “keeping the martial spirit of Europe alive”. The United States are not conservative, how could it be? It is a nation FOUNDED on the subversive principles of 1789, and as such it is deeply and in it’s essence ANTI-traditional, which one can see in it’s choice of enemies as well as friends. Of course the US military is a different story; here I might agree that a certain “martial spirit” is present, but since it is misused to serve the most narrow economic interests it is a corrupt form of it. Once again, war mongering, shooting abortion doctors and general arrogance does not make you a conservative.

Milosevic was obviously better for Yugoslavia than the multicultural misery the US “helped” us create down there, but hey, he’s a “bad man”. Isn’t it great that you just have to watch television (your post reminds me very much of some confused ramblings by Dennis Leary on the Jay Leno show some weeks ago) to learn the ways of the world? Rethorically your post was impressive, though, but other than that it contains nothing but fanaticism, so I think I will withdraw from this discussion.

While Mr. Weller’s newer statements about Iraq are rational, which was not the case in his earlier comment, they are still besides the point. Once Iraq has deliverable WMD’s it will be in a position to blackmail the world or to pass weapons on to terrorist groups. Either Mr. Weller is not aware of this likelihood or he just doesn’t care. All his other considerations and worries are non-responsive to the compelling concern that drives Bush and those who support him on this issue.

It comes down to a very simple issue: either a person sees that the prospect of nuclear weapons in Hussein’s hands is intolerable, or he doesn’t. If he doesn’t see that it’s intolerable, then no amount of argument will persuade him otherwise. If he does see that it’s intolerable, then he will also understand that all the other issues, about exit strategies, the Arab street, lack of coalition support and so on, are of secondary importance.

Martin writes,

“[T]he entire concept of multiculturalism [in Europe] is an American export far more than [it is] some ‘Social Democratic’ scheme.”

I agree that that must be true, but I always ask myself why in the world the Europeans choose the worst, most destructive aspects of U.S. wrongheadedness to import for themselves. After all, can’t they see what it’s doing to us — how it’s literally killing us? Can’t they read and hear how many level-headed people in the States are saying that, thanks to it, they don’t expect the U.S. to be still around in fifty years’ time?

The Europeans’ imitating that is like two people afraid to eat something, fearing it might be poison; one decides to try it and suddenly dies horribly as a result; then the other, instead of avoiding it after seeing what happened to the first, says to himself, “Hey, that must be good — I’ll eat some too.” It makes no sense.

Martin addresses this mystery thus:

“MUCH of the crap in Europe is American crap which, [instead of being rejected outright by the Europeans as being the complete idiocy that it is], is [actually] being implemented [by them, and not only implemented, but implemented] on a slightly larger scale and quicker, simply because the moron ratio is slightly lower in Europe (‘moron’ here refering not to stupid opinions, which as [Shawn] pointed out flourish very much in Europe, but a person unable to understand new/different concepts, and thus reacting hostilely to them, something I think you have confused with conservatism).”

Martin is saying that because Europe compared to the U.S. has fewer people who are narrow-minded bigots (in the general sense of that term — ie, people “unable to understand new/different concepts, [who] thus react hostilely to them”), it not only chooses to implement the U.S.’s idiocies instead of derisively rejecting them as it ought, but actually implements them even faster and on a larger scale than do we who invented them.

So, a country that has fewer bigots is more apt to adopt multiculturalism and vote Hate-crimes statutes? But that suggests that such policies aren’t wrong, but right. Is Martin sure he wants fewer policies that only bigots oppose and more policies that bigots favor? Is he saying that a country can save itself from idiotic policies only by having more bigots?

“Sweden recently got itself ‘Hate crime’ legislation, though no one knows how that bill passed.”

I know how it passed: too many frickin’ morons in your country, just like in ours — ESPECIALLY among the intelligentsia. Which is it, Martin? Do you want a Sweden full of bigots, or one full of the “broad-minded,” like your (and, sadly, our) intelligentsia?

I forgot to note at the end of my post just now, what was to be my final summing-up point — that Martin’s comment which I quoted shows that he considers U.S. conservatives to be nothing but bigoted “morons” (as he defines the term “moron”). Looks like he’s not being very consistent, to say the least.

Since Martin began posting at VFR recently I had not bothered reading his posts carefully as they were far too wordy, filled with anti-Americanism, contemptuous of everyone who is not himself (his main argument, repeated several times in every comment, is that people, particularly American conservatives, are too dim to understand the truth). Phrases that popped out of Martin’s comments such as his referring to the director of the Yad Vashem memorial—an almost sacred place in Israel that memorializes the Holocaust—as “the boss of Yad Vashem,” suggested hostility to Jews and Israel. There are verbal clues that give certain kinds of people away, even from a superficial glance at their writings.

This is not the first time I have wondered why my fellow VFR participants bother engaging in polite and respectful dialog with characters like this, but that’s their business.

However, after reading some of Martin’s comments more carefully today and getting a sense of how nasty he really is, I clicked on his address and came to his website. It’s called Green Army Fraction, http://www.greenarmyfraction.cjb.net/, and it appears to offer a combination of neo-Nazism and radical ecology.

At the top of the main page there is heavy Gothic-style lettering and a picture of a soldier holding a rifle whose profile suggests that of a young Hitler. It’s impossible to know, but I do not feel the resemblance is accidental. Below that is a map of Europe with no national boundaries and with more heavy Gothic lettering across it. The site sells music that includes such titles as “Wolves of Wotan” and “From Norrland with hate.” At another page it has such links as “overthrow.com,” “feral house books,” “death pact international,” and “earth first primitivism.” In its library link it includes such titles as “Tactics and practical matters,” “The Complete Book of Explosives,” “Mini-manual of the urban guerilla,” and “Poisoning and universial antidote,” “Eat, fuck, kill intruders,” and “Tel Aviv go Boom.”

I certainly understand the concern of having a renegade dictator blackmailing and threatening the world with nuclear weapons. This is not the issue in dispute.

First I should say that my comments about the US arming Iraq in the 1980’s, even with bio-chemical weapons is a legitmate point to raise. After all, when the neo-cons cite evidence of Saddam’s lawlessness and inhumanity they invariably repeat the refrain “he gassed his own people.” This simply is not a meaningful criticism of Saddam since the United States deliberately armed him with such weapons, and did not make a fuss about him using chemical weapons when he was using them against Iranians. If, as you say, our “tilt” toward Iraq in the 80’s is irrelevant, then why are Saddam’s activities in the 80’s relevant?

I realize that you disregard our history with Saddam; to you it is a simple calculation: Saddam can not be trusted with nuclear weapons — so let’s get him. If this is the argument — the whole corpus of it — then it makes no point to bring up Saddam’s past. It shouldn’t matter if he gassed the Kurds or passed out lolipops to them — we just don’t want nuclear weapons to fall into his hands.

The problem with the pro-war argument is that it tries to pass of highly contestable conjectures — Saddam will blackmail the world if he acquires nuclear weapons — as absolute certainties. Needles to say, this is a highly dicey road to go down, since it offers other nations the opportunity to concoct whatever sort of conjectures they want to justify aggresive policies.

But just as one can make a conjecture about what Saddam will do if he acquires a nuclear weapon, so can we make conjectures about what will happen if we invade Iraq. A US invasion of Iraq will incense Arabs against the United States leading to more terrorism; other nations perceiving the inherent belligerence of the US will start (covertly) working on developing nuclear technology to ward off any possible US attack, or another neocon wet dream about bringing democracy to dictatorial regimes. We can already see this happening in North Korea — a truly hostile regime, not a former ally like Iraq.

So when we look closely at the neocon argument for war in Iraq it simply amounts to a wild conjecture without much consideration for alternative scenarios. After all, what makes the pro-war conjecture more legitmate than the anti war conjecture? As it stands, I see no reason to go to war.

War with Iraq specifically is trivially simple to justify. Iraq is in violation of the cease-fire treaty that stopped the last war. If we let Iraq spit on that cease-fire agreement then none of our future cease-fire agreements will have any teeth. As a result, we won’t be able to engage in any future war unless the outcome is complete eradication of the enemy nation. Cease-fire agreements won’t be possible. Clinton’s decade of failure to enforce doesn’t change the equation one iota; and 9-11, terrorism, and nuclear weapons are just icing on the justificatory cake. How substantive that icing is depends on who is talking, but dimissing it all as conjecture doesn’t help the antiwar right’s credibility.

The problem with the antiwar right is that it doesn’t know where to pitch its battles. It would be better to have this war — which will be fought anyway — fought for the right set of reasons than the wrong. As it is, the antiwar right is going to lose two battles at once: the war will happen, and the neocons will write the story about why.

Matt makes a key point that has not been made often enough, even by the leading advocates of war; indeed, the point has almost been forgotten. We stopped the war against Iraq in 1991 on the basis of Iraq’s agreement to dismantle its WMDs. Absent that agreement, our forces would have continued moving forward toward Baghdad and Hussein very likely would have fallen. Iraq’s continuing refusal to comply with the cease fire agreement means that the ‘91 war has never ended. If U.S. forces now attack and conquer Iraq, they are only completing the unfinished business that the U.S. has every right and obligation to complete.

Matt’s point is well taken that absent U.S. action against Iraq no future cease fire agreements in future wars will be seen as having any viability, which will only increase the total amount of violence in the world, because each war will have to be total war.

Lawrence Auster:

A very interesting way to reply to my previous argument. In case you haven’t notived, Green Army Fraction is a MUSICAL project, whose link library and concepts are in part aesthetic, and partly offering alternative views (as you may notice the link library is NOT some sort of “neo-nazi” or whatever collection of links, there is a large amount of more or less radical left-wing/ecology and so on and so forth, links). The picture of the soldier is not “a young Hitler” (where on earth did you get that idea?), some of the fonts (apparently of paramount importance to my political views) were actually banned in NS Germany as being “Judenlettern”, derived from the Hebrew alphabeth…

However there is no point in me continuing, it is quite obvious that you wish to take a moralist stance to avoid further discussion. Very interesting that you chose to change your view on me from “the degenerated Euro-pinko” to the “brown/black incarnation of the Evil Rightwing of ancient Europe” so quickly. Anyway, you’ve made perfectly clear that you prefere attempts on character assasination to discussion, so after I’ve cleared up these things I’ll leave you be.

Unadorned:

I suppose I was a bit unclear on that matter, but the contradiction you pointed out is not there (well, at least it is not supposed to be there). I am not suggesting that “narrow-minded bigots” automatically represent the “wrong” views, at least often the situation is quite the contrary. I was simply pointing out that much of the American (and the European, for that matter) opposition to (for instance) multi-culturalism, pro-gay political movements and so on stems from general backwardness and stupidity. This, however, does not mean that opposition to multi-culturalism or anti-heterosexuality in itself is backward and stupid. People of little or no intellect can still defend positive values, and intelligent people (even more often) can promote destructive and negative ones.

If my post gave the impression that I consider ALL of the United States’ conservatives as morons (which I can understand that it did; short internet posts tend to be a little lacking i nuance, especially when I myself post them), I apologize. However it is my opinion that most people, and (unfortunately) mainly those on the right tend to be grossly uneducated. Comments about the “nihilsm” of Buddhism posted earlier on this forum was just one example of a simple unability to understand different patterns of thought, which I think any intelligent person should be able to do (even if not accepting them as part of oneself or one’s society). This ignorance can very easily be used by leftist opposition, which, quite frankly, often are superior in many respects (once again, this does not mean that their conclusions or sollutions are superior in any way; I obviously wouldn’t be in here if I thought so) to defeat well-meaning, but stupid, people.

So, to answer your question, I want a Sweden full of INTELLIGENT conservatives that can construct a society based on positive, internalized values. Not that this is going to happen any time soon, but accepting the faults of each and every present movement that represents one’s own goals is necessary to ever move forward.

Edwin Weller writes:

“I certainly understand the concern of having a renegade dictator blackmailing and threatening the world with nuclear weapons. This is not the issue in dispute.”

So he agrees it’s a real problem—but not enough of a problem to do anything about? In fact, at the end of his comment (see below) he says that the belief that Saddam with WMDs represents a serious threat is nothing but a “wild conjecture” promoted by “neocons.” So Mr. Weller is all over the place on this.

“This simply is not a meaningful criticism of Saddam since the United States deliberately armed him with such weapons, and did not make a fuss about him using chemical weapons when he was using them against Iranians.”

I’ve never seen a news story about Hussein using chemical weapons against Iranians. In any case, the question of America’s past “tilt” toward Hussein was irrelevant even in 1990-91, and is even more so today. To show how irrelevant, let’s say America had been allied with some country and that country then turned on the U.S. or a U.S. ally and invaded it. Is America supposed to say: “We can’t oppose what this country is doing because we once tilted toward it?” The argument is absurd, but typical of the opportunistic, non-rational arguments that the anti-war types indulge in. They will simply pick up anything at hand that they think will make the U.S. position look bad, because, at bottom, their own position is based on animus, not on reason.

“The problem with the pro-war argument is that it tries to pass of highly contestable conjectures—Saddam will blackmail the world if he acquires nuclear weapons—as absolute certainties.”

Wrong. The pro-war side does not treat these things as absolute certainties, but as probabilities. And that’s enough, or, rather, it should be enough for any rational person. Everyone who supports this war understands that some bad things will happen as a result of this war. What we are doing is accepting the certainty of some bad things happening now in order to avoid the probability of infinitely worse things happening in the future.

“But just as one can make a conjecture about what Saddam will do if he acquires a nuclear weapon, so can we make conjectures about what will happen if we invade Iraq. A US invasion of Iraq will incense Arabs against the United States leading to more terrorism; other nations perceiving the inherent belligerence of the US will start (covertly) working on developing nuclear technology to ward off any possible US attack …”

It’s even more likely that the opposite of those things will happen, i.e., that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will impress the Arabs and make them start tilting more toward the U.S., and that other Arab countries, seeing what has happened to a rogue dictatorship such as Iraq that develop WMDs, will wisely refrain from developing such weapons themselves. And that (in case Mr. Weller hasn’t noticed) is of course one of the purposes of the proposed attack on Iraq.

“So when we look closely at the neocon argument for war in Iraq it simply amounts to a wild conjecture … “

Anyone who persists in referring to the planned war on Iraq as a “neocon” war is engaging in cheap ad hominem and ignoring the fact that the majority of Americans, who never even heard the word neocon, support it. Further, to say that it is mere “wild conjecture” that a nuclear-armed Hussein would represent a dire threat, suggests that the speaker is in denial of reality. Such a person does not deserve to be taken seriously in this discussion, especially given the fact that he had earlier said: “I certainly understand the concern of having a renegade dictator blackmailing and threatening the world with nuclear weapons. This is not the issue in dispute.”

For the sake of clarity, I want to reply to Martin’s comment.

“as you may notice the link library is NOT some sort of ‘neo-nazi’ or whatever collection of links, there is a large amount of more or less radical left-wing/ecology and so on and so forth, links).”

In fact, I said that the site “APPEARS to offer a COMBINATION of neo-Nazism and radical ecology.”

“The picture of the soldier is not ‘a young Hitler’ (where on earth did you get that idea?) …”

People will have to look at this and form their own opinions. I hesitated mentioning it, and questioned my own perceptions, but I couldn’t get away from seeing that resemblance, and felt it was worth pointing out. Seen in profile, the soldier has a Hitler-type mustache cut very narrow on the sides, and his hair (actually the lettering superimposed over the side of his head which makes it look like his hair) also recalls that of Hitler.

“Anyway, you’ve made perfectly clear that you prefer attempts on character assasination to discussion …”

My only personal comment about Martin was to say he was “nasty.” Everything else I said was a description of his comments at VFR and the contents of his website. Given his repeated, contemptuous comments about Americans and conservatives as “morons,” it doesn’t show much fiber on his part to complain about being called something himself.

Lawrence Auster

“My only personal comment about Martin was to say he was “nasty.” Everything else I said was a description of his comments at VFR and the contents of his website.”

A very selective sort of “description”, one claiming to unmask me as a right-wing extremist. As for ecology, of course I believe the biosphere is more important than many other things (such as oil company profits), and I don’t see whats strange in that (unless one believes oil funded “research” denying global warming). What I was pointing out was that the link library contained a variety of links that does not form my “weltanschauung”, but simply discussed different topics, many of which are also touched upon on this site. As for my comments about american conservatives, I believe I have clarified that above, even though it may not satisfy you.

Anyway, instead of continuing this “discussion”, I should add that your articles about for instance racial separation or gender roles would certainly render you a nazi status among most Swedish “intellectual” groups, since they would see suggestions in those in the same way that you claimed that my comments about the Yad Vashem “suggested” certain opinions (especially your sudden urge to respect what people think is “holy” is really ironic, given your previous posts about Arabs and Islam - what is your opinion on the Dome of Rock and the Israeli attitude to it, for instance?).

Hostility towards “jews” as an ethnic/religious group and hostility towards Israel is very much different things; the State of Israel is in itself a flagrant heresy from a Traditionalist Jewish perspective, even though it naturally can’t simply be removed. After having dozens of friends and acqaintences traveling to Israel to block demolition squads (anyone wanting to go on these usually politically neutral “missions” has to be entirely blonde and western, for the simple reason that they will be shot if there is reason to suspect that they are palestinians) and describing the scenes from Jenin and various refugee camps/attacked residental areas (with feces smeared on furniture and the words “this is our country” carved into walls in the smashed up homes of palestinians in a systematic fashion) I really can’t feel that positivt about this “nation”. Also it is a quantitative, modern state and as such anti-traditional. This does NOT mean that I wish for it to be wiped of the surface of the earth, however, and the concept of GAF-tracks is descriptive/artistic, not necessarily representative of political opinions of mine.

Martin, the descriptions you give of Israeli retaliation against Palestinian targets represent a country (a tiny one, at that) trying to defend itself against “being wiped off the face of the earth,” which you say you oppose. If you don’t want them to be “wiped off the face of the earth,” and yet you don’t want them to defend themselves, who will keep the Palestinians from wiping them off the face of the earth? Are you and like-minded Swedes going to form a volunteer army to go down there and defend them against those who do want PRECISELY to wipe them off the face of the earth (and to wipe Sweden off the face of the earth next)? I don’t think I’m going to convince you of this; what I just wrote was for anyone reading your letter who may think you have a point.

I want to ask you, Martin, since you seem to be plugged into the European Green movement — What is the opinion of European Greens on the Dutch guy who assassinated Pim Fortuyn? Here in this country, the Greens tend to be a pretty pacific bunch. Are they armed to the teeth there? Was this guy acting alone, do you think? Or was he the stooge of some larger organization? I lived in Europe for a decade (in Belgium, during the 70s to early 80s) and I know that it’s much less common to be able to legally wield a rifle there than here — use of firearms there is much more restricted. How was this assassin able to pull off stalking Fortuyn in broad daylight as he did, shooting him as he came out of a conference? Are the Greens there organized for armed “resistance”?

Also, Martin, as a militant Green yourself, can you explain exactly WHY, in the eyes of the European Greens, Fortuyn was targeted — supposedly by the Greens — for death? (… if indeed it WAS the Greens, not some other outfit posing as the Greens, using some stupid 23-year-old or whatever it was Green-affiliated brainwashed kid as their stooge …)

Each time Martin speaks he reveals more of himself, confirming my earlier, inchoate impression of him. Speaking of Jews as “jews” in scare quotes and of Israel as a “nation” in scare quotes is particularly indicative of where he’s coming from.

Unadorned:

Your statement about a “tiny” nation “defending itself” is simply confused nonsense. Israel has a large arsenal of nuclear weapons (even though they have not signed the Nonproliferation treaty, setting them apart from such states as China and Pakistan), the by far strongest army in the area as well as a functioning political system. The Palestinians were defeated before the conflict even had started, they have no army, they have no central political leadership (unless one is retarded enough to believe that Arafat is masterminding it all behind some veil of secrecy) and has NO chance of ever wiping the state of Israel anywhere, or even hurting it in any serious sense. This is truly obvious to anyone who has the slightest knowledge of the situation in the middle east.

So racial insults, destruction of innocent civilian homes and random murders is a way for Israel to protect itself? Hm, I might just yet change my mind about the wiping part, but since I don’t share your opinion about Israel “defending” itself I wont have to. It is quite obvious that Israel is copying the American concept of a “war of self defence” (which in the American case even can be said to be partially true in the case of Afghanistan, while entirely false in the case of Iraq), knowing that most Americans will buy it.

I am most certainly not plugged into the European “Green” movement, since it tends to be anarchistic, and generally leftist. The fact that Fortyn was an extreme neo-liberal (including when it came to sexuality and drugs), which actually should go quite well together with the junkies that generally inhabit what I assume you mean by the European Green movement, makes this murder hard to grasp. The fact that he was against immigration SHOULD have been out-weighed in the mind of the radical PC left by the fact that he was a homosexual, and only against Islam because it was “intolerant”. On the other hand, as I understood this matter, the murderer was more of a general nutcase. Then again, some radical Vegans, while supporting immigration and “solidarity”, at times combines this with catholicism and a tiny strain of fascism (the metal/hardcore band Earth Crisis had a bit of influence on the young leftists of my area of Sweden for a while, for example, producing strange “homophobic”/”right wing christian” strains of PC leftism.. It was very peculiar), in which case a gay neo-liberal that hates immigration of course is pretty much the perfect target. Quite uninteresting matter though, except perhaps for speculation.

Lawrence Auster:

What now? The fact that I put “jews” in quotes is simply to point out that Jews are NOT an homogenous entity, and thus to indicate a distance from antisemitism, which view “the jews” or even “the Jew” as some form of biological/spiritual force of evil (like you seem to do with Islam, Arabs and most likely blacks as well). That I put “nation” withing scare quotes was really just a type-o (which should be quite obvious; it is rather hard to find a way to say that Israel is NOT a nation, even if I was the hysterical antisemite you would like to think. What else would it be? A sallad bar?).

The state of Israel is NOT synonomous with Judaism and the so-called Jewish People, but with certain elements within this heterogenous community (or perhaps even more with people outside it) - and certainly not the conservative/traditionalist ones. I find it rather odd to find people in a supposedly conservative and anti-modern forum that are entirely dedicated to thoroughly modern, 1789/1848 borgeoisie concepts of “nationalism”, “democracy” and “progress”. The fact that theses concepts are “spiced up” with a little well hidden racism, some 50s-american TV-style romantic family ideals and a great sensitivity for what oneself considers the needs and wants of the Jewish people doesn’t quite make one a conservative, Lawrence.

And yes, it is perfectly clear that you by now have really caught my ideological essence as a stalinist nazi anti-semite anarchist green niggalovin’ eurotrash no-good stinkin’ liberal commie fascist, so there is no need to repeat it anymore. Personally I would view myself as a traditionalist conservative in the word’s actual sense and in accordance with the principles laid forth by people such as René Guénon, Julius Evola, Frihjoff Schoun, Edmond Burke and so on, but of course your mystico-linguistic method of determining my secret agenda is far more effective when it comes to understanding where I stand ideologically than simply asking me.

It is simply amazing how each time Martin indignantly and disdainfully denies some negative observation I have made about him, he richly confirms that observation. First he denies that his putting “nation” in scare quotes when speaking about the Israeli nation meant anything at all; it was just a typo, he tells us. But then he proceeds to inform us that to defend the existence of Israel is to be

“dedicated to thoroughly modern, 1789/1848 borgeoisie concepts of ‘nationalism’, ‘democracy’ and ‘progress’. The fact that theses concepts are ‘spiced up’ with a little well hidden racism, some 50s-american TV-style romantic family ideals and a great sensitivity for what oneself considers the needs and wants of the Jewish people doesn’t quite make one a conservative, Lawrence.”

In other words, from Martin’s point of view, the state of Israel is, indeed, illegitimate, based on illegitimate, modern, anti-conservative principles plus (Martin derogatorily continues) an unwarranted “sensitivity for what oneself considers the needs and wants of the Jewish people.” Thus Martin characterizes those who support the physical existence of a people surrounded by other people who want to exterminate them. To defend the right of existence of that people, he tells us, is anti-conservative. A true conservative, such as himself, would be on the side of the Arab suicide murderers, or at the very least deny Israel’s right and ability to defend itself from them, which amounts to the same thing.

I have done speaking with Martin.

Lawrence:

I am saying that Israel is NOT defending itself, but pursuing an offensive against the Arabs, to the extent of trying to exterminate the Palestinians as a people. This has been the case since the proclamation of the Israeli State, this proclamation being done with full awareness of the war that would follow (i.e. done without waiting for the completion of the negotiations which had to be concluded to unify the two Brittish promises first to arabs, and later to zionists, of a state in the exact same area).

This is also proven by the fact that zionist extremists constantly claim that “there are no palestine and no palestinian people”, something that should rather be interprented as a prediction than an actual belief, as it is obviously absurd. The jibberish about “suicide killers” is pointless; the total amount of deaths due to suicide bombings in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is extremely small. Most Israeli deaths is caused in regular armed conflict; not to mention the fact that the absolute majority of “murdered” people, both civilian and military, are palestinians.

I think you must have realized that these things were what I was aiming at upon reading my previous post, but ignored it in order to depart from any further discussion. So be it. I would like to know what YOU are suggesting I ment with the quotes around the word “nation”, since I am personally unaware of any meaning this could have, but then again your fantasies on this matter is probably not worth noting.

I must however adress the second point for other readers, as a real misunderstanding might be possible here. The fact that the state of Israel for practical reasons must be allowed to exist, but in my opinion not be allowed to commit ethnic cleansing, terror (and YES, the Israeli responsibility is far greater than the “palestinian authority”, as the latter has been deprived of any authority at all), and general humiliation/degradation of the occupied palestinians, is not really connected to what I said about traditionalism. That the American and Israeli constitutions is largely anti-traditional is a separate matter, and one that I would think is obvious. Tradition is based on hierarchy and a living relation to the transcendent, not economism and quantitative utilitarian delusions. And, as I said, a little militarism, covert racism and borgeoisie ideas cannot change this fact.

And ONCE AGAIN: non of this means that all Israelis or Americans should be killed and blown to bits, and Lawrence’s fanatic attempts to force this “opinion” on me is really beginning to sicken me. If one hasn’t anything constructive to say, one shouldn’t speak.

Martin says:
“I am saying that Israel is NOT defending itself, but pursuing an offensive against the Arabs, to the extent of trying to exterminate the Palestinians as a people.”

The he justifies with this:
“This is also (sic) proven by the fact that zionist extremists constantly claim that ‘there are no palestine and no palestinian people’, something that should rather be interprented as a prediction than an actual belief, as it is obviously absurd.”

Lets attempt to follow the syllogisms for a moment, just to see if Mr. Auster is really off his rocker and grossly misinterpreting Martin. Israel, according to Martin, is not defending itself but rather is engaged in genocide. This is proven (not further proven, because this is the first and only putative proof supplied) because some zionist extremists exist who say that there is no Palestine and no Palestinian people.

So, Israel is committing genocide and this is proved by the fact that some extremists say that there is no Palestine.

Nonsequitir, anyone?

Furthermore, Martin says that “the jibberish about ‘suicide killers’ is pointless”.

Indeed. Send suicide killers into New York, Boston, Dallas, Omaha, and San Francisco relentlessly for several years, murdering innocent women and children so often that it no longer makes the front page, and see how “pointless” it is. If the Jihadis succeed in bringing to America what they have brought to Israel I don’t doubt for a moment that everything within a 500 mile radius of Mecca will be turned to radioactive glass. What is more, the blame will lie squarely with the Jihadis. It will not be genocide, but the fit culmination of a culture of aggressive suicide. If you summon Asmoday and he lays waste to your entire world you have no one to blame but yourself.

I will go back on my previously stated intent to end this exchange, and make one more comment, since Martin’s remark that Israel seeks to “exterminate the Palestinians as a people” must be answered. In 2000 Israel offered to give 98 percent of the West Bank (which would have been a contiguous area not intercepted by Israeli-controlled roads) to the Palestinians; to allow them a state; and even to build an elevated highway connecting Gaza to the West Bank (!) so that the Arabs could travel unimpeded between the two areas. The Palestinians’ response to these astonishing concessions was to walk away from the table and launch the worst terrorist war in Israel’s history. Furthermore, the Palestinians AS A PEOPLE support these suicide murderers. Just recently the person who blew up a wedding party at a hotel in northern Israel in March 2002 killing 29 people had his name officially memorialized by the Palestinians. Martin ignores all this. He sees the Israelis cracking down on the Palestinians and says the Israelis are seeking to “exterminate” them, as though the Palestinians had not brought all this on themselves.

As I have said many times, when a liberal or lefty says the kinds of things that Martin says, that can be explained in terms of a blind ideological opposition to whoever is designated as the “Western white oppressor.” But a rightist like Martin who says the kinds of things he says about Israel has no such excuse. Deny it as he will, he is a Jew hater, pure and simple.

Martin previously made the distinction between the Jewish religion/culture and the State of Israel.

Mr. Auster does himself and his arguements great harm by failing to recognize the aforesaid distinction, and by instead resorting to ad hominems, of which his last “Jew hater, pure and simple.” is beyond the pale of rational and intellectually honest discourse.

I just wanted to mention, for those who haven’t seen this, that Gen. Norman Schwartzkopf has reversed himself on the impending war: he now supports it. (The link to this article was posted today on the www.RichardPoe.com Readers’ Forum by a regular poster there who uses the pen name “Rightminded.”)

Matt:

THANK YOU for actually adressing the topic in question instead of just tossing insults.

“So, Israel is committing genocide and this is proved by the fact that some extremists say that there is no Palestine.”

No, not “a few”. The Israelis elected Ariel Sharon, one of the most fearsome butcherers of the entire middle east, responsible for thousands of deaths in Sabria and Shatila, as well as other refugee camps and villages. The extremists are not few, and they have a very strong influence in the Israeli society (as well as in the zionist community itself). My ability to express myself in english is, as you by using “sic” after a variety of grammatic errors pointed out, slightly limited. Of course, the “proof” I offered in this case wasn’t really “proof”, just an example. The fact that Ariel Sharon has adressed the Knesset with a call to “restore Israels biblical borders”, that numerous Israeli politicians has openly stated that Israel (understood as any territory occupied by Israel) is supposed to be “for Jews only”, not to mention the fact that Sharon entered the Dome of Rock with armed soldiers at a critical stage of the peace process, thus provoking the new Intifada might perhaps be more suitable forms of proof? Or that the extreme violence and humiliation of arabs, be they christian or muslim, are FAR beyond any legitimate effort to stop “terrorism” (more on that term later).

“It will not be genocide, but the fit culmination of a culture of aggressive suicide.”

I believe good ole Adolf would have justified the holocaust in a similar fashion. You are actually speaking about nuclear attacks on the arab world, and I’M supposed to be the evil radical here… As for suicide bombing vs Israeli “fighting against terrorism”… In which way it would be nobler to shoot children armed with rocks than to die in an attack against an occupant I will never understand, but I guess the american mind has easier to comprehend murder of more or less defenceless people than self sacrifice in war. I should point out that the suicide bombings of course are not “meaningless” in the sense that they do not cause harm and suffering (although they can be distinguished in two catories; one of legitimate self defense on occupied and settled territories, and one of ACTUAL terrorism, against cilivian targets within Israel), but they ARE a minor part of the conflict, which is overblown in the news report to make the continuous slaughter of palestinians less interesting. And, of course, to make it look not like a military conflict, but like some sort of Israeli policing effort against criminals.

“Just recently the person who blew up a wedding party at a hotel in northern Israel in March 2002 killing 29 people had his name officially memorialized by the Palestinians.”

There are several memorials of Israelis having fired into mosques during service, killing dozens, shattered around Israel. I don’t make a point of this; it’s a mutual conflict infected with hatred. The Israelis has the power to end the circle, the palestinians doesn’t.

“as though the Palestinians had not brought all this on themselves”

They didn’t. The Brittish double promises to arabs and jews during World War I in order to get support in the battle against the Ottoman Empire, combined with Zionism and the proclamation of the state of Israel did. Do you read history books or just “The Daily Zionist”?

Lawrence:

“when a liberal or lefty says the kinds of things that Martin says, that can be explained in terms of a blind ideological opposition to whoever is designated as the “Western white oppressor.”“

Not necessarily. It can also be a consequense of serious political analysis, something leftists often are very much capable of. In fact I have had constructive discussion expressing my views even with Maoists, as well as people of a variety of political views completely foreign to my own, whereas talking to you is completely pointless. Probably the reason is that the only way you can discredit my statements is to “prove” me to be a “jew hater”, which is kind of sad as I haven’t really presented a very brilliant argument here (as Matt pointed out; how about assulting my grammar and Non Sequitors instead, then I would at least gain something out of this endless tedium). On the other hand I suppose it wouldn’t matter if I had done better, as you’re not interested.

Whereas I’ve numerous times stated, as Salzer pointed out, that I am NOT an antisemite, you and your fellow war mongerer Matt obviously hates Islam, and Arabs in a general racial sense as well, since a large portion of the palestinian community being butchered by Israel are christians. Given your own blatant racism and cultural ignorance, I cannot comprehend what made you exclude jews from your hate list (in Sweden gross intolerance of muslims and jews usually go together).

Now I am through with you; at least I hope so.

Martin,

you write:
“you, ‘(Lawrence Auster)’, and your fellow war mongerer Matt obviously hates Islam, and Arabs in a general racial sense as well”

You are equally in error, as Mr. Auster was, to state it is ‘obvious’ that they hate Arabs. Neither Matt nor Mr. Auster have ever made such a claim nor written in a manner to even suggest it.

Although I partly agree with you, and personally think that Ariel Shron and others of such ilk do hate palestinians, and should be tried for crimes against humanity, it is grossly unfair to characterize either Matt or Mr. Auster with any greater error than an unreasoned support of Israel over the natural rights of the palestinians.

The State of Israel, many palestinians, and many Iraeli citizens have violated the natural rights of others and thereby forfieted their just claims to soveriegnty and self rule.

A correction,

In error, I placed Matt’s name in the next to last sentence with Mr. Auster. Please strike the last pairing. It should have included only Mr. Auster.

I should edit my posts before posting them. Sorry.

“You are actually speaking about nuclear attacks on the arab world, and I’M supposed to be the evil radical here…”

Everyone who hangs around VFR already knows that I’m an evil radical. I also sometimes get called anti-American. But the specific observation that the Jihadis are bringing hellfire upon themselves isn’t a moral judgement about what would be righteous in a perfect world; rather, it is an observation that they have a choice of whether or not to attack Americans on American soil, and if they suffer annihilation because of the choice they make it will indeed be a direct consequence of their own choice. The situation with the intifada in Israel is a microcosm of that same moral dilemma. If they want it to stop, they can stop it right now.

“…your fellow war mongerer Matt obviously hates Islam…”

I suppose I “hate” Islam only in the sense of thinking that it is severely in error and the world would be a better place without it. On the other hand Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on that status in my mind. I’m a Catholic, so for me the world is imperfect as long as there is a soul left outside the Church. In some of my philanthropic activities I have (for example) helped to provide some of the necessities for an Islamic widow and her children, including looking after them personally. So to me the distinction between hating Islam and hating actual Moslems is not subtle (the latter being inexcusable), and the business about doing the right thing and standing up for the right thing is close to home.

I don’t intend to make light of the consequences if the Jihadis do bring hellfire down upon themselves and (necessarily) everyone around them. But they are making choices right now that will help decide whether or not that happens; and in fact they are the ONLY party who has the complete discretion to insure that it does NOT happen.

” […] an unreasoned support of Israel over the natural rights of the Palestinians.”

The natural rights of the Palestinians? Mr. Salzer, you’ve heard the old legal saying that, among individuals, “Your rights end where mine begin”? Israel’s rights begin somewhere, correct? (They MUST, otherwise they’d be the only country in the history of the world with no rights at all!) One would think their rights AT THE VERY LEAST begin with the country’s very survival, no? I mean, what can be a more fundamental right than that? If their rights begin nowhere else, they MUST begin there. Well then, can one say the rights of the Palestinians leave off where Israel’s very right to survival begins? Think about that a minute.

Enough said about that? (The rights of the Palestinians aren’t infinite, you know.)

“The State of Israel, many Palestinians, and many Israeli citizens have violated the natural rights of others […]”

I doubt very much that Israel has nothing better to do than “violate the natural rights of others.” Let the Palestinians leave Israel alone for once, and Israel will stop “violating their natural rights” so fast your head will spin.

Dear Unadorned,

Unadorned writes:
“Enough said about that? (The rights of the Palestinians aren’t infinite, you know.)”

Of course they’re not, they are exactly the same as all other men.

But more to the pointe,

Since I don’t know where you stand, it is somewhat difficult to answer your post more explicitly. It would be helpful to me, and a good place to start, to know your position on the nature of sovereignty and the right to revolution?.

What is your position in light of John Locke’s “The Second Treatise of Government”? http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke0.htm

Can we accept Locke as a starting point of agreement?

Mr. Salzer, go ahead and respond to me, and as you are doing so I will brush up on my Locke.

Salzer:
Well, I suppose I misinterprented Matt’s post about dumping nukes on the middle east as some kind of triumphant American war cry. With his clarification that he doesn’t hate moslems, and only wish to convert the entire world to catholicism I suppose I’ve been somewhat rectified. As for mr Auster, I actually think that he has made statements suggesting contempt and even hatred for Islam and Arabs, even though I suppose it hasn’t been so explicit that it was entirely correct of me to point it out. However, his constant attempts to paint me in deep, pan-european brown probably brought this (possibly) unnecessary judgement upon him.

Matt:
It is not entirely true that the Arabs “have the ball” (popular expression from the Swedish government in the Iraq question). It is also very much a matter of in which way America and Europe chose to deal with the problem, and (even more) how they chose to deal with the natural resources and political situation in the middle east. That European and, later, US intervention in the middle east is directly responsible for much of the unstable situation down there is rather obvious, and to simply believe the official propaganda about “fanatics” springing up from nowhere is really not very intelligent. As for your religious faith and attitude I can only say that I do respect it, in the same sense as I respect Islam. Universalist, aggressive doctrines are of course always a problem, but I still prefere any religious/spiritual doctrine to the far more dangerous atheist/”humanist” dogmas claiming to fight in the name of “freedom” and “humanity”.

I still await someone to explain in what way brutal humiliation (the killings of palestinians are quite often part of an armed conflict, and as such not “illegal” in any sense, but the constant insults, large-scale repression and general terror from Israeli military against Palestinians are not) would help to preserve the weak little poor State of Israel, with but a heap of the world’s best military equipment, the world’s most powerful country behind them and a few nuclear warheads to defend themselves. Also, why did Sharon provoke another intifada after months of peace, if Israel only wants to be “left alone”?

Locke? What is it with you people and enlightenment philosophers :)

Also, I should add that while I have clearly stated that I am not some kind of psychotic “jew hater”, Matt has clarified he does not hate Moslems, we all still await Mr Auster saying something corresponding. And I think we are waiting in vain.

Martin writes,

” […] and to simply believe the official propaganda about ‘fanatics’ springing up from nowhere is not very intelligent.”

They didn’t spring up from nowhere. They sprang up because they hate the fact that Israel exists. Now, what do you propose to do about that, short of Israel going out of existence?

” […] the weak little poor State of Israel, with but a heap of the world’s best military equipment, […] and a few nuclear warheads to defend themselves.”

Again, I think the Israeli government and people can think of a zillion things they’d rather be doing and spending their money on than arming themselves to the teeth. Do you ever ask yourself WHY they have armed themselves? Could it be that someone keeps threatening them and attacking them? Is anyone constantly threatening and attacking Sweden? If anyone were, I can guarantee you’d be singing a different tune, Martin. Why don’t you open your eyes?

Unadorned: do you ever ask yourself WHY they hate the fact that Israel exists? Maybe because the Palestinians were driven off their land by murderous Zionists, as Count Folke Bernadotte (who was later assassinated) testified. They have been run over by tanks, shot in the head and brutally tortured by the Israelis ever since.

“They sprang up because they hate the fact that Israel exists.”

An extremely simplified explanation; in fact an incorrect one. The refusal of Israel to allow the Palestinian refugees to return, thus dooming hundreds of thousands of palestinians to live in camps in Jordan was the direct reason for organized Palestinian resistance, and the ensuing conflict has spurred mutual hatred. The reasons for the Palestinians fleeing in the first place were two: partly because the arab states which attacked Israel when the state was proclaimed (which was an obvious outcome, since the negotiations in the UN between jews, europeans and arabs were not through, and the proclamation was illegal in every respect) encouraged them to run, and partly because of a gruesome massacre on a village, performed by Zionist terrorists (I assume everyone knows that the first acts of modern terrorism in the middle east were in fact commited by Zionists wishing to establish Israel).

Another reason for the hatred, stressed time and again from my side, is the extremely brutal treatment of ALL Palestinians by Israel, regardless of their affiliation with “terrorist” groups. Before the present intifada an aquintance of my traveled to the West Bank, and upon passing the border and being mistaken for a palestinian the border guard called her a “dirty whore” for absolutely no reason. Of course it all became very embarassing when her nationality was established. Similar events has occured/been witnessed by each and every one I know that has travelled in the occupied terriories (not to mention reports from these areas that actually cares about the palestinian situation, limited as they are) way before the present uprising, as well as before the previous one. Of course Islamic fundamentalism in general has far more complicated causes than these, and Israel is just a minor part in that, but many palestinians (as previously stated) are christian or even marxist, so the questions is not really connected.

“Now, what do you propose to do about that, short of Israel going out of existence?”

Well, if given the choice if the state of Israel or the Palestinians should go out of existance, I think you know which I would pick (just as I know what you would pick), but a more reasonable sollution is of course the same as to all conflicts in which the combatants are unable to handle it (because not even an Israel-fan like you can claim that Israel is doing a good job preventing “terrorism”): UN troops into the country, arresting of war criminals on BOTH sides (including Sharon) and then a normal peace process. Israeli military butchering and harassing Palestinians regardless of their political affiliation hasn’t exactly proven to be the right medicine so far.

“Do you ever ask yourself WHY they have armed themselves?”

Yes, partly for defence and partly for attack. They have been plenty involved in both. I didn’t really mean to attack the fact that Israel has lots of guns (even though it is of course absurd that an unstable state were political extremists far worse than Ariel Sharon has massive influence over the government, that refuses to sign fundamental nuclear weapons treaties, are allowed to harbor nukes), but just to show that it is not in any way a vulnerable country, and hasn’t been for very long.

“Is anyone constantly threatening and attacking Sweden?”

No, because Sweden wasn’t invented to smoothen the ill counsciousness of Europeans feeling guilty of other’s misdeeds, Sweden doesn’t terrorize it’s minorities and Sweden doesn’t attack it’s neighbours and tries to expand it’s borders in order to recreate some semi-historic Biblical state. But we did have a native “Same” that blew up some power lines a while ago. He got a couple of years in prison, and the blowing up ceased. Of course this parallell is absurd, as well as your was, but it’s still amusing to bring it up.

Ok, what is going on here? The following is posted above:

“Unadorned: do you ever ask yourself WHY they hate the fact that Israel exists? Maybe because the Palestinians were driven off their land by murderous Zionists, as Count Folke Bernadotte (who was later assassinated) testified. They have been run over by tanks, shot in the head and brutally tortured by the Israelis ever since.”

While I do agree with this to some extent, I did not write it. If people want to post in support of me I would appreciate if people used their own name while doing so, not mine.

Martin: if the Palestinians are so reasonable why didn’t they take the 2000 deal?

Dear Unadorned,

This might be too brief (given time constraints on my part), with too much ground to cover, but I’ll give it a shot to see if we can find some common ground from which to proceed.

Do you agree that men have intrinsic natural rights, which can only be forfeited, and not take by aggression; as laid out in Locke’s chpt.4 “Of Slavery”? http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke4.htm

and as also expressed in Article XIII of the US constitution?
Amendments to the Constitution, Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
………………………………………………………………

Do you further agree that sovereignty inviolably rests in the people, and power is delegated to communities of a higher order, such as Locke’s commonwealth, as laid out in Locke’s chpt.8 sects. 95-100 “Of the Beginning of Political Societies”?
http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke8.htm .

With the relation of individuals & families to those communities of a higher order to be understood and expressed by the “Catechism of the Catholic Church #1878-1885 or in Encyclicals
Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) by Pope Leo XIII #50-51
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RERUM.HTM
and
“Quadragesimo Anno” (On the Reconstruction of the Social Order) by Pope Pius XI #49-50 & #79-90. http://www.osjspm.org/cst/qa.htm

…………………………………………………………….

Do you further agree that, if those who have received delegated authority, in turn abrogate their responsibility and “acts contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion”? That is they forfeit their delegated right to rule; as laid out in Locke’s chpt. 19 sects. 225-228 “Of the Dissolution of Government”?
http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke19.htm

Matt:

I have never claimed that the Palestinians are especially “reasonable”. What I have claimed is that the main responsibility in the development in this matter (including, but not limited to, the growing arab anti-semitism) lies with Zionism and colonialism. Of course I agree that there is a great deal of irrationality, especially on the part of Palestinian extremists, but I maintain that this is due to the Israeli policies (and, of course, to various Arab/European/American governments that hasn’t exactly handled the matter correctly).

Anyway, if this is to be solved within the context of regular conflict handling, I once again suggest UN troops to the area, the arresting and trial of Israeli war criminals and terrorists (even though the old Stern/Irgun members are starting to grow thin in the government in Israel now), and of course also of the segments of the Palestinian organizations that can’t accept Israel in any form who react according to this belief with ACTUAL terrorism (as opposed to armed resistance). Of course these trials should not include people simply involved in the conflict in just any way, as it is of a military nature, but limit itself to what can be called “atrocities” (including planning of Palestinian attacks against civilians on non-occupied Israeli territory, as well as massacres of villagers and refugee camp palestinians, such as the ones instigated by Ariel Sharon). I am not often one for UN (or any) intervention in other people’s affairs, but in this case it is obvious that the Palestinians are far too disorganized and embittered, Israel far too militaristic, and the US far too biased for any of these parts to resolve the conflict in a reasonable matter.

This will, of course, never be allowed, even though the Palestinian authority under Arafat have called for this sollution on numerous occations (EXCLUDING my personaly added comments of trials of Israeli war criminals).

The idea that the Palestinians WANTS war and conflict just for the sake of it is as absurd as any theory of Jewish World Domination, even though it is obvious that peace will not be accepted under any conditions.

Martin:
“I have never claimed that the Palestinians are especially ‘reasonable’.”

Right. And if they all end up glowing in the dark it will be precisely the result of that unreasonableness. Under what sort of perversion of just war theory is turning down the 2000 agreement and initiating the intifada justified?

All kinds of political conflicts today have roots in colonialism. Who cares? Really: who cares? Until Turkey gets turned back over to the Christians all the whining about the past is just that: empty whining. Iraq itself is a creation of colonialism.

The business about colonialism and zionism is just an attempt to skate around the fact that it was within the power of the Palestinians to end the whole thing back in 2000. They declined to do so unilaterally, and instead started killing women and children.

Matt:

“it was within the power of the Palestinians to end the whole thing back in 2000”

No, it was in the hands of the palestinians to accept constant repression and humiliation. Ariel Sharon entering the Dome of Rock with armed soldiers (well aware of what the effect should be, given his genocidal history) was the direct cause of the second Intifada, and since this in itself can hardly have triggered people (well aware of what the Israeli responce would be, mind you) to start a revolt it is rather obvious that there are other causes. Given what I know about the Israeli treatment of Palestinians in general, it is quite obvious why this happened. As for this focusing on this treaty, Israel has turned down it’s share of treaties in the past (for instance through the murder of my fellow countryman Folke Bernadotte), and I don’t see you lifting these examples out to show that the “Israelis had the power to end it then”. There has been several treaties, shot to pieces by one part or the other.

As for this “glowing in the dark” I suppose you know what happens when one uses nuclear weapons? Radiation, poisoned waters… If the palestinians glow, so will the Israelis.

It is obvious that you and I are not going to agree about the utility of invading Iraq, but I think I should at least clarify my arguments and point out where yours fall short.

When I said that I understood the concern about a dictator using nuclear weapons to threaten the world, I was not speaking of Hussein directly. At the moment Iraq is not in possession of any nuclear weapons, and while America wastes time and resources in preparation of a war against oil sheiks and camel farmers North Korea now has nuclear weapons that can target cities in the United States. Yet, strangely and oddly enough, Bush and his neocon cohorts still insist that “time is running out for Saddam” and “war is our only option”, but insist diplomacy will resolve the North Korean situation. So neocon logic on the issue is inverted to say the least: Iraq has no nuclear weapons and has permitted weapons inspectors, therefore war is our only option; North Korea evicted weapons inspectors, has nuclear weapons, so diplomacy is the the best option.

“To show how irrelevant, let’s say America had been allied with some country and that country then turned on the U.S. or a U.S. ally and invaded it.”

I must admit that this is an interesting hypothetical, but does not pertain to the Iraqi situation since they did not invade the US or a US ally. This hypothetical example reflects the paleo-conservative view of foreign affairs (sort of), but not the neocon vision which is driven by ideology and intervention. The paleo case for war doesn’t work in the case for Iraq.

“It’s even more likely that the opposite of those things will happen, i.e., that a U.S. invasion of Iraq will impress the Arabs and make them start tilting more toward the U.S.”

Actually this flies in the face of recent happenings: North Korea now able to target the US with long range missles, and Iran is once again pursuing nuclear technology. Actually, according to the State Department, over 18 countries are now pursuing bio-chemical weapons, and unless we plan to invade everyone, the neocon war against Iraq will worsen matters.

“Anyone who persists in referring to the planned war on Iraq as a “neocon” war is engaging in cheap ad hominem…”

Actually, it is a neocon war, as you admit in a recent blog entry. You say you dislike quoting neocons like Michael Noval and David Frum, but that they are the only ones making a good case for war. Well, at least you now concede it is a neocon war.

Martin writes:
“No, it was in the hands of the palestinians to accept constant repression and humiliation.”

Thanks to Martin for confirming what I had thought. The astonishing 2000 treaty (offering 99% of the disputed territory, soveriegn statehood, etc.) was turned down and the murdering started in order to avoid feelings of oppression and humiliation. In dealing with such people there is no recourse to reason, clearly.

Enjoy the last word, I’ve lost interest in this discussion.

“In dealing with such people there is no recourse to reason”
I’m quite sad this discussion had to end for Matt and others so soon. I’ve always found it one of the odd points of this website that I could never agree with the general L.Auster point of view on this issue. I could only try to explain it myself that it was extremely difficult to find a truth on this Israeli-Palistine situation as its so deep and has so many factors. AS well all participants to this argument(everywhere, anytime) have usually being pretty biased towards the issue(including myself and a lot of people I speak to in day-to-day conversation no matter how eloi-like :) they are). I would hope that people would be able to step back some what and look at it more deeply when this issue comes up again, which it CERTAINLY will.

Matt:

No, it was turned down to avoid not FEELINGS of repression and humiliation, but ACTUAL repression and humiliation. I have described this in every post, and the fact that you ignore the bulk of my posts to once again focus on a single, political treaty to try make the issue as simple as an episode of Fresh Prince or whatever is kind of insulting. It is clear to me that there is no point in going on, though, as you stubbornly refuse to say anything about the actual issues, and just play some sort of fantasy game, so let’s drop it then.

I can’t speak for Mr. Auster, but Stephen may find my comments in this other thread relevant and it seems a waste to restate the same things here:

http://www.counterrevolution.net/vfr/archives/001188.html#4042

On Feb. 12th, F. Salzer posed a few questions, asking that my answers take into account John Locke’s ideas on government.

He asked,

1) “Do you agree that men have intrinsic natural rights, which can only be forfeited [voluntarily], and not taken [away] by aggression; as laid out in Locke’s chpt.4 ‘Of Slavery’? http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke4.htm , and as also expressed in Article XIII of the US constitution? Amendments to the Constitution, Article XIII.
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.”;

2) “Do you further agree that sovereignty inviolably rests in the people, and power is delegated to communities of a higher order, such as Locke’s commonwealth, as laid out in Locke’s chpt.8 sects. 95-100 ‘Of the Beginning of Political Societies,’
http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke8.htm , with the relation of individuals & families to those communities of a higher order to be understood and expressed by the ‘Catechism of the Catholic Church #1878-1885’ or in Encyclicals
Rerum Novarum (On Capital and Labor) by Pope Leo XIII #50-51
http://www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/L13RERUM.HTM and
‘Quadragesimo Anno’ (On the Reconstruction of the Social Order) by Pope Pius XI #49-50 & #79-90, http://www.osjspm.org/cst/qa.htm ?”;

3) “Do you further agree that, if those who have received delegated authority, in turn abrogate their responsibility and ‘act contrary to the end for which they were constituted; those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion’? That is they forfeit their delegated right to rule; as laid out in Locke’s chpt. 19 sects. 225-228 ‘Of the Dissolution of Government’? http://www.federalist.com/histdocs/locke19.htm .”

My feeling, after having read the references given from Locke (I haven’t read the Catholic references yet) is that Locke’s ideas may not apply at all to the situation in Palestine, since the analysis he undertook concerned people who voluntarily united together into communities, forming individual political societies. He didn’t seem to deal at all, in those references, with what ought to happen when two distinct societies (each of which may already have been constituted on the basis of the principles he outlined) came into conflict with one another. Therefore, I didn’t see in those references where Locke’s ideas pointed to a resolution of the conflict in Palestine.

That being said, I would imagine everyone who visits VFR, certainly including me, would agree with the principles you ask about:

1) Yes, men have intrinsic natural rights which can only be forfeited voluntarily, and cannot taken away by aggression, and neither slavery nor involuntary servitude ought to exist in the United States (or in any country);

2) Yes, sovereignty inviolably rests in the people, who delegate power to communities of a higher order according to the principles laid out in Locke;

3) Yes, if those who have received delegated authority abrogate their responsibility and act contrary to the end for which they were given authority, they forfeit their delegated right to rule, as laid out in Locke’s analysis.

But all these apply within a given polity, not across national boundaries, as I read Locke.

I keep hearing the question did Saddom have weapons of mass destruction or not. Most D’s are just using the question of weapons of mass destruction as a tool to win an election.

We already know that Saddom used weapons of mass destruction on his own people before the war. So the real question should be who has the weapons of mass destruction, have they been sold or have they been moved before the war started?

I’m frankly sick of hearing that Bush just wanted a war with Saddom for the oil money he could get from the war and, that was the only reason he went to war was to control the east for oil profits. Have we forgot about 9-11 already and the issues before this event?

Please Americans who want real peace let’s stop playing the game of why and just get the job done before this war comes home to all of us in a very painful way.

God Save America

Gregory Dean Lemke