tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-35598612024-02-28T06:45:38.867-08:00Ranting ScreedsHome of the Daily Diatribe.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comBlogger1569125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-901104582003-03-04T05:27:00.000-08:002003-03-04T05:27:43.763-08:00<font size=+2><b>We're Movin'</b></font size=+2><font size=+1>: This weblog is now <a href="http://www.porphyrogenitus.net">here</a>.</font size=+1>Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900857092003-03-03T18:28:00.000-08:002003-03-03T18:28:43.653-08:00<font size=+1><b>Gun Control Stuff</b></font size=+1>: Here's a <a href="http://www.eubanana.blogspot.com/2003_01_12_eubanana_archive.html#87310748">post on the subject</a> that I should have linked to some time ago, written by someone who's taken a fresh look at the issue and refined his views some.
<br />
<br />I helped. 8-)Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900584912003-03-03T09:20:00.000-08:002003-03-03T09:21:49.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>"Anti-War" Protestors Aim At Prevention</b></font size=+1>, not of Saddam, but of <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A30813-2003Mar2.html">those that oppose him</a>. That article should be paired with <a href="http://www.instapundit.com/archives/007891.php#007891">this</a>, naturally.
<br />
<br /><dd>It can also be paired (or, more appropriately, contrasted) with <a href="http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20030302/ap_wo_en_ge/eu_gen_france_pro_us_protest_1">this</a> as well, but for different, more positive reasons.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900583562003-03-03T09:17:00.000-08:002003-03-03T12:13:58.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Of Course They Don't Have Any of These Things</b></font size=+1>, but they're <a href="http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;$sessionid$LC3M0JFDWOL1PQFIQMFSFFOAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/news/2003/02/28/wirq228.xml">going to use them</a> on the Kurds.<BLOCKQUOTE><i>If war comes to Iraq, the Kurds of Kifri will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials have threatened that the moment the first American bomb lands, they will reply with a chemical assault on the town.
<br />
<br />But in the entire place, there is not a single gas mask to be had, and no detection posts, decontamination centres or safe houses.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>This is one reason why we're willing to put up with a lot in order to have a "northern front" that will form a barrier between Saddam's forces and the Kurds.
<br />
<br /><dd>This is also why I'm reluctant to join those who are joyous over the Turkish refusal because it means we won't have to cut deals with them that might be against Kurdish interests. Frankly, if the price of getting in there in a way that can prevent or at least minimize Iraqi efforts at gassing them to death as soon as the first shot is fired is cutting a deal with Turkey that reduces Kurdish autonomy after the war, I'll accept the deal. I'd rather have the Kurds alive and part of an Iraqi federation than dead but autonomous.
<br />
<br /><dd>Yes, people are going to die during war. But if we can get our guys in place, fewer will die. Thats why it's been worth it to try and get permission from Turkey even at a fairly steep price and even with all the chain-yanking delays. Though, as I said below, I'm not that patient nor am I keen on re-voting. But I don't think Turkey's refusal is a cause for celebration.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900531542003-03-03T07:31:00.000-08:002003-03-03T07:31:16.780-08:00<font size=+1><b>The Turkey Vote</b></font size=+1> is <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511261954&p=1012571727088">more annoying</a> than anything else. They're talking about re-voting on Tuesday, and they'd only schedule another vote if it's gonna pass. Of course, they (the Turkish government) thought the last vote would give approval. But some of the MPs clearly were voting to play to the crowd last time and will vote "yes" this time.
<br />
<br /><dd>I have to say, though, that I'm not to keen on a re-vote (though I guess it is part of the game in some of these Parliamentary systems). But then I'd have swung the ships south through the Suez Canal about a week ago and said "fine, play with yourselves all you want, deal is off". But then I'm not that patient after all.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900528972003-03-03T07:25:00.000-08:002003-03-03T07:45:44.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Signs of the Apocalypse</b></font size=+1>: No, not the <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511280766&p=1012571727088">unexpected, if slight</a> drop in consumer spending. An <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511255870&p=1012571727088">entry from a landlocked country</a> won what was formerly the America's Cup. Meanwhile, Madonna is hired to <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/2814435.stm">write books for children</a>.
<br />
<br /><dd>If that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.
<br />
<br /><font size=-1>What's next? Michael Jackson inking a deal to write guides to child care and parenting?</font size=-1>Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-900480792003-03-03T05:27:00.000-08:002003-03-03T05:27:27.530-08:00<font size=+1><b>I Was Wrong</b></font size=+1> I admit it. I said I didn't think the "human shield travelling carnival" would get to Iraq before the war started. I said they'd go slow enough and time things so they'd get "stuck" on the other side of the border (and have to protest the war from someplace like Jordan).
<br />
<br /><dd>Well, I was wrong. But in my defense I don't think they thought it would take so long for the war to start, either. They got to Iraq and, well, realized <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/03/02/wshiel202.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/03/02/ixnewstop.html">this human shield stuff might be, um, dangerous</a>, or something (uh-huh-huh-huh). Many of them, when they realized their lives might actually be on the line, decided to go home. Others were molified by the offer of video games (this championing world peace stuff is serious business).
<br />
<br /><dd>I wonder if any of the games they're playing have violence and stuff in it. Those teach the wrong values, you know. They should be playing "peace games", not war games.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899221012003-02-28T13:27:00.000-08:002003-02-28T13:27:29.763-08:00<font size=+1><b>I Should Have Linked to This</b></font size=+1> before now, but <a href="http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php3?table=old§ion=current&issue=2003-02-22&id=2804">here it</a> is:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>In the second week of January, Cincinnati’s Playhouse in the Park cancelled its tour of a specially commissioned new play by Glyn O’Malley called Paradise. The subject of the work was the suicide bombing in March last year by an 18-year-old Palestinian girl, Ayat al-Akhras. You may remember our old friend, the then Saudi ambassador in London, Ghazi Algosaibi, wrote a poem in praise of Miss al-Akhras. O’Malley’s approach was a little subtler. His starting point was a Newsweek cover story contrasting young Ayat with one of the Jews she killed, another teenage girl, a 17-year-old Israeli, Rachel Levy. To some of us, this is already obscene — the idea that murdered and murderer are both ‘victims’. They’re linked only because Ayat couldn’t care less whom she slaughtered as long as they were Jews.
<br />
<br />But there wouldn’t be much of a play in that. So O’Malley did the decent liberal thing and bent over backwards to be ‘balanced’. In his play, ‘Fatima’ gets all the best lines, raging at the Israelis because they should know better: ‘How can you do this? You! You who know camps and humiliation and hate and death.’ ‘Sarah’, by comparison, is just a California airhead who’s come to Israel for the guys and can’t really get a handle on the Holy Land: ‘It’s, like, old.’
<br />
<br />But O’Malley didn’t stop there: he moved the scene of the bombing from within Israel proper to one of those ‘illegal’ West Bank settlements. He even managed to remove any kind of religious component: to dear old Ghazi, Ayat was acting as a good Muslim; in O’Malley’s play, ‘Fatima’ insists, ‘This is not about Allah!’ This is not some crude Muslim-Jew thing, but instead arises from complex socio-economic issues unconnected to one’s faith.
<br />
<br />And what was the upshot? At a read-through before invited members of the Jewish and Muslim communities, the latter denounced the work as ‘Zionist propaganda’. A few days later, the Jewish director was removed from the production. A few days after that, the play was cancelled entirely.
<br />
<br />What normally happens with ‘controversial’ art? I’m thinking of such cultural landmarks of recent years as Andres Serrano’s ‘Piss Christ’ — a crucifix sunk in the artist’s urine — or Terrence McNally’s Broadway play Corpus Christi, in which a gay Jesus rhapsodises about the joys of anal sex with Judas. When, say, Catholic groups complain about these abominations, the arts world says you squares need to get with the beat: a healthy society has to have ‘artists’ with the ‘courage’ to ‘explore’ ‘transgressive’ ‘ideas’, etc. Yet with this play, faced with Muslim objections, the big, courageous, transgressive arts guys fold like a Bedouin tent. And, unlike your Piss Christs, where every liberal commentator wants to chip in his two bits on artistic freedom, pretty much everyone’s given a wide berth to this one, except for Christopher Caldwell, whom the Weekly Standard sent to Cincinnati to interview the various figures involved. What was interesting from Caldwell’s account was that the Muslim community figures didn’t really care in the end whether the play was pro- or anti-Islam: for them, it was beyond discussion. When you soak a crucifix in urine, you may get a few cranky Catholics handing out leaflets on the sidewalk. When you do a play about suicide bombers, who knows what the offended might do? The arts world seems happy to confine its trangressive courage to flipping the finger at Christians.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>You're not going to hear any of the usual suspects who generally denounce "censorship of the arts" (when it comes to such things as saying, say, "well, do what you want, but not on our dime") getting worked up at this.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899121192003-02-28T09:54:00.000-08:002003-02-28T09:54:43.746-08:00<font size=+1><b>French Unilateralism</b></font size=+1> Colin May on <a href="http://www.innocentsabroad.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_innocentsabroad_archive.html#90380415">one standard for France</a>, a different standard for everyone else.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899083762003-02-28T08:41:00.000-08:002003-02-28T08:41:16.140-08:00<font size=+1><b>Now We Know Where</b></font size=+1> all that <a href="http://forbes.com/forbes/2003/0317/134.html">EU Aid to the Palestinian Authority</a> went.
<br />
<br />Arafat has $300 million.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899082202003-02-28T08:38:00.000-08:002003-02-28T08:38:47.356-08:00<font size=+1><b>U.S. GDP Growth</b></font size=+1> in the fourth quarter of 2002 was <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511230151&p=1012571727088">1.4%</a>. Hardly anything to celebrate, but far from a "recession", and almost three times the growth of Germany in the same period.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899080352003-02-28T08:35:00.000-08:002003-02-28T08:35:33.793-08:00<font size=+1><b>The Real Fischer</b></font size=+1> Here's a <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-pacepa021403.asp">interesting article</a> about Germany's Foreign Minister.
<br />
<br /><dd>When you read it, remember that compared to Schroeder, Fischer is positively pro-American. So what does that say about Schroeder?Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-899048102003-02-28T07:30:00.000-08:002003-02-28T08:32:59.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Great Juxtapositioning of Quotes</b></font size=+1> over at <a href="http://www.xanga.com/item.asp?user=dissidentfrogman&tab=weblogs&uid=12327513">dissident Frogman</a>.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898998872003-02-28T05:42:00.000-08:002003-02-28T05:42:33.560-08:00<font size=+1><b>Well, the Snow is at "Dog Level"</b></font size=+1> out there. By "dog level" I mean it is as deep as my dog is tall (she's medium, not huge). But we have a ton of stuff to ship at work (a usual end-of-the-month-panic-rush on the part of the sales beings, who get $$ based on how much goes out the door in a given month). I'm going to have to try and get there.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898994682003-02-28T05:32:00.000-08:002003-02-28T05:35:02.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Preliminary Report</b></font size=+1> from Blix <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511199938&p=1012571727088">circulating through the offices of the BBC</a>, apparently, describes Iraqi cooperation for what it is (limited at best).
<br />
<br /><dd>The rest of the FT article concentrates on the glorious decision of Saddam to agree to perhaps someday destroy the al-Samoud missiles. Dominique de Villepin, speaking for the French, is willing to buy whatever Saddam is selling. No longer content to merely speak for all of Europe, the French are now claiming to speak for the entire world. But of course it is the U.S. that is presumptuous. Meanwhile, <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511228548&p=1012571727088">Blair and Aznar</a> are more cynical about the Iraqi move, refusing to accept this as a sign that inspections are working.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898701462003-02-27T16:34:00.000-08:002003-02-27T16:34:34.373-08:00<font size=+1><b>America's Future Ally</b></font size=+1>: not the Frankenreich, but <a href="http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030227-050901-6264r">India</a>.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898700892003-02-27T16:33:00.000-08:002003-02-27T18:13:20.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Night</b></font size=+1>: Truer words have never been spoken than <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_WIESEL?SITE=WIMAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Elie Wiesel</a> speaking today outside the White House:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>"If Europe were to apply as much pressure on Saddam Hussein as (it) does on the United States and Britain, I think we could prevent war,"</i></BLOCKQUOTE>It's too bad neither they, nor the "anti-war" protestors took that route.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898478902003-02-27T09:25:00.000-08:002003-02-27T09:25:11.826-08:00<font size=+1><b>Washington Post Goes to War</b></font size=+1> on <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8531-2003Feb26.html">inane readers</a>.
<br />
<br />Salvo #1:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>For our part, we might begin with that phrase "rush to war." In fact there is nothing sudden or precipitous about our view that Saddam Hussein poses a grave danger. In 1990 and 1991 we supported many months of diplomacy and pressure to persuade the Iraqi dictator to withdraw his troops from Kuwait, the neighboring country he had invaded. When he failed to do so, we supported the use of force to restore Kuwait's independence.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Salvo #2:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>In 1997 and 1998, we strongly backed President Clinton when he vowed that Iraq must finally honor its commitments to the United Nations to give up its nuclear, biological and chemical weapons -- and we strongly criticized him when he retreated from those vows. Mr. Clinton understood the stakes. Iraq, he said, was a "rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug traffickers or organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed."
<br />
<br />When we cite Mr. Clinton's perceptive but ultimately empty comments, it is in part to chide him and other Democrats who take a different view now that a Republican is in charge.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Salvo #3:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>The right question, though, is not "Is war risky?" but "Is inaction less so?"</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Salvo #4:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>War in fact has rarely been the last resort for the United States. In very recent times, the nation could have allowed Saddam Hussein to swallow Kuwait. It could have allowed Slobodan Milosevic to expel 1 million refugees from Kosovo. In each case, the nation and its allies fought wars of choice. Even the 2001 campaign against Afghanistan was not a "last resort," though it is now remembered as an inevitable war of self-defense. Many Americans argued that the Taliban had not attacked the United States and should not be attacked; that what was needed was a police action against Osama bin Laden. We believed they were wrong and Mr. Bush was right, though he will be vindicated in history only if the United States and its allies stay focused on Afghanistan and its reconstruction.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Salvo #5:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>The Security Council agreed unanimously in early November that Iraq was a danger; that inspectors could do no more than verify a voluntary disarmament; and that a failure to disarm would be considered a "material breach." Now all agree that Saddam Hussein has not cooperated, and yet some countries balk at the consequences -- as they have, time and again, since 1991. We have seen no evidence that an additional three months would be helpful. Nor does it strike us as serious to argue that the war should be fought if Mr. Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder agree, but not if they do not.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>And here's this:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>In 1998 Mr. Clinton explained to the nation why U.S. national security was, in fact, in danger. "What if he fails to comply and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route, which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction? . . . Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Clinton is now saying quite the opposite of what he said then, but that's partisan sour grapes on his part.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898470552003-02-27T09:09:00.000-08:002003-02-27T09:26:54.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>I Should Have Noticed</b></font size=+1> <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/opinion/26FRIE.html">this Friedman piece</a> yesterday, but I didn't. <BLOCKQUOTE><i>There is only one group of Arabs for whom Europeans have consistently spoken out in favor of their liberation — and that is those Arabs living under Israeli occupation, the Palestinians. Those Arabs who have been living under the tyranny of Saddam Hussein or other Arab dictators are of no concern to President Jacques Chirac of France and his fellow travelers.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>The same can be said of our friends, the <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20030227-67149892.htm">anti-"war" protestors</a> that fill (or half-fill) the streets on some weekends.<BLOCKQUOTE><i>France is not interested in promoting égalité, fraternité and liberté in the Middle East. It is primarily interested today in managing American power. It is primarily interested in positioning France to become the world's next great "Uncola," the leader of the alternative coalition to American power.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Now, I know I'm trying to de-emphasize the France-related posts. But here I can say "see, I told you so". Terry Hoagland <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8497-2003Feb26.html">says the same thing</a>:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>The French temptation now is to become the spokesman for a global constituency alarmed by America's military might and ambitions. This stems from frustration in Paris over Chirac's inability to influence the Bush administration on a wide array of issues and to dominate Europe. The temptation, put simply, is to lead the weak rather than be ignored by the strong.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Friedman goes on:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>You still have not seen any serious democratization effort being directed at Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Kuwait. For America, government of the people, by the people and for the people is only for our enemies, not our friends.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>See <a href="http://rantingscreeds.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_rantingscreeds_archive.html#89846473">below</a>. See also <a href="http://www.washtimes.com/national/20030227-735762.htm">here</a>.<BLOCKQUOTE><i>You can see it in the lack of Arab support for Saddam. There is a much deeper awareness that leaders like Saddam are what have retarded Arab development. </i></BLOCKQUOTE>That should give us reason for optimism, rather than pessimism.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898466832003-02-27T09:02:00.000-08:002003-02-27T09:02:29.623-08:00<font size=+1><b>Reader Appreciation Link</b></font size=+1>: follow <a href="http://www.cse.unsw.edu.au/~geoffo/humour/flattery.html
<br />">me</a>.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898464732003-02-27T08:58:00.000-08:002003-02-27T09:29:44.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Ok, But Why Are the Gulf States More Sanguine?</b></font size=+1>: Steven Den Beste has a good post <a href="http://www.denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/Notwhyweredoingit.shtml">examining the strategic goals</a> we have in this conflict.
<br />
<br /><dd>While it's true that the Bush Administration hasn't trumpeted these goals, they haven't exactly kept them secret. Bush's speech of last night was the most explicit outlining of this vision (which goes hand in glove with his repeated statements that this will not be a short thing, but will extend over future administrations as well. As the <a href="http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/181_197994,00120002.htm">HIndustan Times</a> article he links to puts it, it's a task roughly comparable to knocking the Soviet bloc).
<br />
<br /><dd>But though the <a href="http://donaldsensing.com/2003_02_01_archive.html#90380958">speech of last night</a> was the most explicit formulation of this strategic vision so far, it's far from the first mention. The Saudis have been. . .troubled. . .all along for this very reason. But that begs the question: why are the Gulf Emirates less reticent to help? They are monarchies and presumably will have to open up to democratic reforms as well.
<br />
<br /><dd>It's, in my opinion, a matter of a different evaluation of the danger they face combined with a different ruling mentality on their part. Firstly, there's a reason why these states are in Arabia but are independent from "Saudi" Arabia. They also see the danger from Iraq as being more of a threat to them than perhaps the Saudis do (though the Saudis do not dismiss the threat Saddam poises).
<br />
<br /><dd>The Gulf States also are not, by and large, really of the same "denomination" (for lack of a better word) of Islam as their neighbors in Saudi Arabia. The Saudis may have used Wahhabist dogma to attain and keep power, but the Emirates are closer, really, to the type of leaders the Saudis displaced than they are to the Saudis. They are thus, in many ways, the walnut in a nutcracker. Even while the House of Saud is no longer able to control the wild horse of Wahhabism that they rode to power on, so too are they menaced by the ambitions of Ba'athism (the unholy alliance between the terror network and Iraqi agents further enhances the menace for them).
<br />
<br /><dd>Also, while some may refuse to see any distinction, the fact is that Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar have more enlightened monarchies than Saudi Arabia does (note: this doesn't mean they are utopias of benevolence, but it is rather indisputable that they are not as repressive and reactionary as the Saudis are). They are less afraid of making a transition to Constitutional Monarchy than the Saudis are. They have already made some reforms, after all. The distinction here isn't that they necessarily love the idea - they are simply less afraid of it (and are perhaps already half-convinced that it's necessary for their survival, where the Saudis are convinced that the iron hand is their only means to survival).
<br />
<br /><dd>That is why they are more open to letting us pursue our goals than the Saudis are, even though the rulers of these states are hardly less aware of what those goals entail than the House of Saud is. The House of Saud is "deeply worried" (to use Steven's phrase) over our aims, but the smaller gulf states have stronger worries. The spread of Wahhabism may be something the Saudis have used but are losing control of, but it's always been a danger to the Emirs, whether or not the Saudis ride it or are unhorsed. They have more to gain from our success than they fear they will lose, while it is reversed for the House of Saud: they have every reason to worry.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898422502003-02-27T07:40:00.000-08:002003-02-27T07:42:58.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Liberating Iraq</b></font size=+1>: An article worth reading on the justness of our cause, by <a href="http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20030227">Andrew Sullivan</a>. This has been one of my points every time I've discussed this with someone who's against war as such:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>no sane person, after all, is opposed to peace as such. The question is: Peace at what risk? Peace on whose terms? Peace for how long?</i></BLOCKQUOTE>Peace is always possible on someone else's terms. If you just let them have their way (with you, with your sister, whatever) then you don't have to fight. Internationally, one can get peace by letting the other guy get his way. Then when he comes back for more, give in on that. Then he learns the positive, peace-loving lesson that if it is a choice between making concessions or going to war, you'll give concessions every time and he can ask for the moon. This is called "positive reinforcement".
<br />
<br /><dd>War is, admittedly, "negative reinforcement". It's harsh and mean. It doesn't involve giving and sharing and cooperation. But sometimes - more often than anyone with a conscience wants - it's necessary.<BLOCKQUOTE><i>That case holds powerfully today. First off, we are not initiating a war. We are not the aggressor. We are still in a long process of defense. It's hard to remember now but this war is not a new one. It's merely the continuation of one begun in 1990 by Saddam whe[n] he invaded Kuwait. Recall that when that war was won twelve years ago, no peace treaty was signed. Instead, a truce was arranged on clear and unequivocal conditions</i></BLOCKQUOTE>I made the same point <a href="http://rantingscreeds.blogspot.com/2003_02_23_rantingscreeds_archive.html#89672993">here</a>. It really is time to drive that point home. We're not starting war, we're not engaging in preemption (this time). The cease-fire terms were broken, immediately, by Saddam. We have been rather patient, really (far from a "rush to war").<BLOCKQUOTE><i>Have we exhausted every single alternative to war? Well, we've spent the last twelve years trying to find peaceful ways to get Saddam to live up to his promises. Waves of inspections; countless resolutions; occasional use of targeted force under the Clinton administration; crippling economic sanctions; and finally a last attempt under U.N. Resolution 1441 to give Saddam a last, last chance to disarm. He was told three months ago by unanimous U.N. agreement that he had to disarm immediately and completely. He still hasn't. I can't think of any recent war that tried so hard for so long to give peace a chance. </i></BLOCKQUOTE>All of which is undeniable, so the other side prefers to ignore it.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898410392003-02-27T07:18:00.000-08:002003-02-27T07:18:37.373-08:00<font size=+1><b>Never Let it Be Said</b></font size=+1>, however, that we're hostile to all Germans. There are quite a few that <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/26/international/europe/26GERM.html">we're rather fond of</a>.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-898409542003-02-27T07:16:00.000-08:002003-02-27T13:27:48.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>Overkill Central</b></font size=+1>: I know I've done too many posts on the French and Chirac lately (all justified, but in cumulation it's been an over-emphasis). Part of it is we're in kind of a holding pattern at the moment (by the by, Turkey is still <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/T/TURKEY_US_IRAQ?SITE=WIMAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">right where we left off last time</a>, poised on the virge of the brink of granting permission. Well, this has long become a case where "maybe" is worse than "no."
<br />
<br /><dd>Economy remains <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511189040&p=1012571727088">mixed</a> (see, even the FT has noticed). As <a href="http://rantingscreeds.blogspot.com/2002_12_29_rantingscreeds_archive.html#86786022">I said</a>, it will remain mixed until they get the show on the road. The fact that they didn't go when they should have only puts things off. Like I also have been saying, that "Year in Preview" was not a "prediction", it was how things should have been done, and those who aren't doing things that way are making it worse for themselves (I've mentioned that one of those making it worse for themselves is France, right?).
<br />
<br /><dd>South African minions of Nelson Mandela (guy who thinks the problem here is Western racism, not Saddam) claim <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/I/IRAQ?SITE=WIMAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">Iraq is disarming as fast as possible</a>. Yep, took S.A. 12+ years to do so, to. I guess that makes Hans Blix <a href="http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/UN_IRAQ?SITE=WIMAD&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT">just another white racist neo-NAZI</a>.
<br />
<br /><dd>Eeeeeevil Whit-ey is going to build a <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511163692&p=1012571727088">large erect phallus</a> in NYC. The <a href="http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=274155">womyn of Harvard</a> will be vexed over this imposition of the patriarchy, I'm sure.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3559861.post-897840742003-02-26T09:48:00.000-08:002003-02-26T09:59:58.000-08:00<font size=+1><b>I Can't Stop Laughing</b></font size=+1> <a href="http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1045511135481&p=1012571727092">Hahahahahaha</a>!
<br />
<br /><dd>Yes, the Grand Master of the CAP Preservation Society is the champion of third-world farmers seeking the elimination of farm subsidies. He doesn't really mean it, though:<BLOCKQUOTE><i>the French president dashed hopes at the weekend that France was softening its opposition to rapid CAP reform, accusing Franz Fischler, agriculture commissioner, of "obstinacy" in pressing for phased reductions in production- related EU subsidies.</i></BLOCKQUOTE>I suppose this means his position is as the French position always is: others should do what we say, while we exempt ourselves.
<br />
<br /><dd>No wonder American Liberals so love the French. They have a similar attitude about things.Porphyrogenitushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01608183887700163336noreply@blogger.com