Ranting Screeds

2003-03-04T05:27:00.000-08:00

We're Movin': This weblog is now here.

2003-03-03T18:28:00.000-08:00

Gun Control Stuff: Here's a post on the subject 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.

I helped. 8-)

2003-03-03T09:20:00.000-08:00

"Anti-War" Protestors Aim At Prevention, not of Saddam, but of those that oppose him. That article should be paired with this, naturally.

It can also be paired (or, more appropriately, contrasted) with this as well, but for different, more positive reasons.

2003-03-03T09:17:00.000-08:00

Of Course They Don't Have Any of These Things, but they're going to use them on the Kurds.

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.

But in the entire place, there is not a single gas mask to be had, and no detection posts, decontamination centres or safe houses.

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.

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.

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.

2003-03-03T07:31:00.000-08:00

The Turkey Vote is more annoying 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.

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.

2003-03-03T07:25:00.000-08:00

Signs of the Apocalypse: No, not the unexpected, if slight drop in consumer spending. An entry from a landlocked country won what was formerly the America's Cup. Meanwhile, Madonna is hired to write books for children.

If that's not a sign of the apocalypse, I don't know what is.

What's next? Michael Jackson inking a deal to write guides to child care and parenting?

2003-03-03T05:27:00.000-08:00

I Was Wrong 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).

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 this human shield stuff might be, um, dangerous, 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).

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.

2003-02-28T13:27:00.000-08:00

I Should Have Linked to This before now, but here it is:

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.

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.’

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.

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.

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.

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.

2003-02-28T09:54:00.000-08:00

French Unilateralism Colin May on one standard for France, a different standard for everyone else.

2003-02-28T08:41:00.000-08:00

Now We Know Where all that EU Aid to the Palestinian Authority went.

Arafat has $300 million.

2003-02-28T08:38:00.000-08:00

U.S. GDP Growth in the fourth quarter of 2002 was 1.4%. Hardly anything to celebrate, but far from a "recession", and almost three times the growth of Germany in the same period.

2003-02-28T08:35:00.000-08:00

The Real Fischer Here's a interesting article about Germany's Foreign Minister.

When you read it, remember that compared to Schroeder, Fischer is positively pro-American. So what does that say about Schroeder?

2003-02-28T07:30:00.000-08:00

Great Juxtapositioning of Quotes over at dissident Frogman.

2003-02-28T05:42:00.000-08:00

Well, the Snow is at "Dog Level" 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.

2003-02-28T05:32:00.000-08:00

Preliminary Report from Blix circulating through the offices of the BBC, apparently, describes Iraqi cooperation for what it is (limited at best).

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, Blair and Aznar are more cynical about the Iraqi move, refusing to accept this as a sign that inspections are working.

2003-02-27T16:34:00.000-08:00

America's Future Ally: not the Frankenreich, but India.

2003-02-27T16:33:00.000-08:00

Night: Truer words have never been spoken than Elie Wiesel speaking today outside the White House:

"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,"

It's too bad neither they, nor the "anti-war" protestors took that route.

2003-02-27T09:25:00.000-08:00

Washington Post Goes to War on inane readers.

Salvo #1:

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.

Salvo #2:

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."

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.

Salvo #3:

The right question, though, is not "Is war risky?" but "Is inaction less so?"

Salvo #4:

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.

Salvo #5:

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.

And here's this:

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."

Clinton is now saying quite the opposite of what he said then, but that's partisan sour grapes on his part.

2003-02-27T09:09:00.000-08:00

I Should Have Noticed this Friedman piece yesterday, but I didn't.

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.

The same can be said of our friends, the anti-"war" protestors that fill (or half-fill) the streets on some weekends.

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.

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 says the same thing:

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.

Friedman goes on:

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.

See below. See also here.

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.

That should give us reason for optimism, rather than pessimism.

2003-02-27T09:02:00.000-08:00

Reader Appreciation Link: follow me.

2003-02-27T08:58:00.000-08:00

Ok, But Why Are the Gulf States More Sanguine?: Steven Den Beste has a good post examining the strategic goals we have in this conflict.

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 HIndustan Times article he links to puts it, it's a task roughly comparable to knocking the Soviet bloc).

But though the speech of last night 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.

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).

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).

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).

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.

2003-02-27T07:40:00.000-08:00

Liberating Iraq: An article worth reading on the justness of our cause, by Andrew Sullivan. This has been one of my points every time I've discussed this with someone who's against war as such:

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?

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".

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.

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 made the same point here. 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").

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.

All of which is undeniable, so the other side prefers to ignore it.

2003-02-27T07:18:00.000-08:00

Never Let it Be Said, however, that we're hostile to all Germans. There are quite a few that we're rather fond of.

2003-02-27T07:16:00.000-08:00

Overkill Central: 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 right where we left off last time, poised on the virge of the brink of granting permission. Well, this has long become a case where "maybe" is worse than "no."

Economy remains mixed (see, even the FT has noticed). As I said, 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?).

South African minions of Nelson Mandela (guy who thinks the problem here is Western racism, not Saddam) claim Iraq is disarming as fast as possible. Yep, took S.A. 12+ years to do so, to. I guess that makes Hans Blix just another white racist neo-NAZI.

Eeeeeevil Whit-ey is going to build a large erect phallus in NYC. The womyn of Harvard will be vexed over this imposition of the patriarchy, I'm sure.

2003-02-26T09:48:00.000-08:00

I Can't Stop Laughing Hahahahahaha!

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:

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 suppose this means his position is as the French position always is: others should do what we say, while we exempt ourselves.

No wonder American Liberals so love the French. They have a similar attitude about things.

2003-02-26T09:45:00.000-08:00

The Shapers of Conventional Wisdom (the ones who, you know, have the self-image of being "independent voices" but are really just people reflecting received views back and forth among themselves) are spending their time claiming that it is America that is dividing world opinion, causing a rift in the Atlantic alliance, that the Bush Administration lacks credibility (while apparently France in the voice of Chirac is the embodiment of virtuous honesty and credibility), etc. They are living in cloud cuckoo land it is clear to anyone who is paying attention to actual facts rather than letting themselves get blinded by preconceived notions that it is actually the French who are behaving most apallingly. I'm tempted to post this entire article by André Glucksmann right here, but instead I'll just encourage however many readers happen to pass through my humble blog to follow the link and read it.

2003-02-26T07:31:00.000-08:00

Ivory Coast defies Chirac, France.

I guess that means they're a American sattelite.

2003-02-26T07:24:00.000-08:00

You Think America's Economy Has Woes? It grew much faster than this economy, supposedly the engine of European dynamism.

2003-02-25T11:37:00.000-08:00

*In My Best Vince McMahon Impersonation*

Phil Donahue. . .YOU'RE FIIIIRRREEED!!

2003-02-25T08:44:00.000-08:00

Council For the Advancement of Arab - British Understanding: a letter to Blair worth reading.

That and 114 countries urge Iraq to disarm.

War for Peace, Liberation, and Democracy? It worked in East Timor. And Panama. And Grenada.

Meanwhile, Richard Cohen has had enough of Dennis Kucinich's lies and untruths. He doesn't think much of Howard Dean, either. Any time Cohen tires of the lies of a Democrat, that guy has really gone out of bounds.

2003-02-25T08:13:00.000-08:00

Consumer Confidence down.

Hey, guys, will be until we get this show on the road. I'm trying to maintain patience. . .

2003-02-25T08:07:00.000-08:00

Kofi Annan Says "Time Is Running Out":

Mr Annan has arrived in Athens on the latest stage of a diplomatic push to get a deal before the current deadline of Friday.

"Decision time has arrived," he said. "The parties should adhere to the goal of reaching agreement on 28 February."

What a hard ass! He's sounding as tough as Bush and Blair!

Oh, he means for Cyprus, not Iraq.

Now, I'm among those most desirous of seeing Cyprus reunified. But its. . .nice to see these guys have their priorities in order of urgency.

Most urgent: Cypriot parties must, absolutely, meet with the deadline set by the UN and EU. They might be given a few extra days at the most.

Less urgent: Saddam should be given however much time he wants, multiple (16 and counting, after the first deadline of 12 days; it's been twelve years and counting) deadline extensions with no end in sight. Got that straight?

Update: By the by, here's a list of all the UN Resolutions passed regarding Saddam since his invasion of Kuwait. There are 18, and the current Anglo-American-Spanish proposal will be the 19th if it isn't scuttled by the Franenreich. (Link via death).

2003-02-25T07:57:00.000-08:00

Turkey Remains Poised on the Brink of admitting allied forces.

The same "poised on the brink of granting permission" status they've been in for the last couple weeks.

2003-02-25T07:48:00.000-08:00

Everything's Comming Up Diamonds and Daffodils: Blair uses new proposal as a foil to round on domestic opponents, and calls Russo-Frankish proposal "absurd".

U.S. officials say UN and French relations with U.S. at stake. They're free to vote how they want, and we're free to take that for what it is and react to it as such.

2003-02-25T07:44:00.000-08:00

The World's Moral Guideposts speak out.

Comming next, an interview taking Saddam at face value and failing to confront him with questions about how his regime behaves and what it does to those who disagree.

Naaaahh. That would be absurd. No credible news organization would do such a thing. I did say "no credible news organization" would.

Of course the BBC and CBS stick together in self-congratulation over treating the world's worst dictators with the respect they believe they're owed.

2003-02-25T07:40:00.000-08:00

Check It Out: My friend Solmyr has several interesting and/or amusing tidbits today, and the Skeptician has a photo of American troops massing in France and some comments on Saddam authorizing the use of weapons the Restored Carolingian Empire wants us to pretend he doesn't have.

2003-02-25T07:37:00.000-08:00

See, I Told You So In my post from yesterday I forgot to mention that all last fall I kept saying that if we gave those (like France) what they wanted in the Security Council, it wouldn't change a thing later. That we'd pass a Resolution with all kinds of deadlines and last chance rhetoric, but when Saddam didn't comply (that was a given) and we went back after his failure to comply, they would still be making the same arguments, unchanged, as before and calling for more time, another chance, etc.

2003-02-24T15:23:00.000-08:00

Bazzar of the Bizarre: So, not much to say about this I suppose, except that it follows naturally from Resolution 1441, which called on Iraq to do certain things. This points out that Iraq failed to comply with any of them, and thus is in "Materiel Breach" as everyone, including France and Russia, defined it in Resolution 1441 last fall.

I'll also point out, however reluctantly but sincerely that whatever military action is taken against Iraq is not, legally speaking "preemption". It is continuation of hostilities initiated by Iraq in 1990. They then submitted to cease fire terms which they have not adhered to. This point is largely neglected by both sides of the debate. But it is, as they say, a "true fact". Preemption is something that can be argued in another context. But in point of international law, this isn't an example of preemptive initiation of hostilities. This is, legally speaking, resumption of hostilities initiated by Iraq following Iraq's breach of the cease-fire (not peace treaty) terms that suspended (did not terminate) hostilities.

To proceed with the rest of this post I'll need to point out that Resolution 1441 called for Iraq to comply immediately and fully. Not gradually, grudgingly, reluctantly, and with deception rather than cooperation. France, Russia, and the like all voted for this - it passed unanimously. So then, what to make of this?

To render possible a peaceful solution, inspections should be given the necessary time and resources. However, they cannot continue indefinitely. Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary.

"To render possible a peaceful solution" Resolution 1441 was passed, giving Saddam a(nother) last chance to comply and cooperate fully to resolve the matter peacefully. He did not.
"inspections should be given the necessary time and resources." Inspections had all the time and resources necessary under conditions set by Resolution 1441, which predicated Iraqi cooperation. Iraq instead responded with the usual gamesmanship, deception, and subterfuge - which were defined as a "breach" under the terms of Resolution 1441 (which both France and Russia voted for; I know mentioning that gets repetitious, but apparently it's needed).
"However, they cannot continue indefinitely." Resolution 1441 set deadlines. Iraq did not meet them. As Iraq failed to meet previous deadlines under 16 previous Resolutions. Are we to take it that those proposing this "memorandum" (France, Russia, and Germany) weren't sincere about the deadlines they set last time (Resolution 1441) but we're to believe they mean it this time? More to the point, do they expect Saddam to believe it? (Obviously, in my opinion, they don't expect Saddam to believe they are any more sincere about saying "inspections cannot continue indefinitely" this time than they were in the past. Unless they mean in the 1998 sense: inspectors won't continue indefinitely, but nothing will be done when they're stopped).
"Iraq must disarm. Its full and active cooperation is necessary." Again, Resolution 1441 said the same thing. Iraq had the chance, the supposed "last chance" to provide full and active cooperation and to disarm. That manifestly has not occurred. Even the Russo-Frankenreich Alliance cannot avoid that fact.
Resolution 1441 were not about inspectors. It was about Iraqi compliance. "Giving inspectors more time" was not what Resolution 1441 was about. It was about giving Iraq one last chance to comply fully, demanding active cooperation. That did not happen. Iraq is manifestly in "material breach" as a consequence.
"a realistic means to reunite the Security Council and to exert maximum pressure on Iraq." Maximum pressure is obviously not generated by telling Saddam he has one last chance (Resolution 1441), we're serious this time (Resolution 1441), we really mean it, buster (Resolution 1441), if you don't do it this time, serious consequences will follow (Resolution 1441) and then responding with the "serious consequences" of re-enforced inspectors and obviously insincere Russo-Frankenreich mutterings about more of the same.
"a realistic means to reunite the Security Council" Resolution 1441 was passed unanimously last year, with very clear terms for what would constitute Iraqi compliance and what would follow if they didn't comply. The Security Council was united in passing it, united in including "serious consequences" for non-compliance. Who's dividing the Council? Those still adhering to what was passed unanimously last November? Or those proposing yet another in a series of apparently endless "last chances" (which include among their members one country - Germany - that has said they will take no part in supporting anything along the lines of "serious consequences" regardless, and two others that manifestly will not be participating either).

So, there you have it, folks. These are the sides. Choose yours.

As for mine, I'm with Dan at HFP.

Pointless Aside: The text of the Anglo-American-Spanish Resolution ends as UN Resolutions typically do, with the phrase "decides to remain seized of the matter". The text of the Russo-Frankenreich Memorandum may as well end with "decides to remain aloof from the matter".

Update: Meanwhile I think Steven's gone a little melodramatic on us. It's all over. Put the troops back on the ships and bring 'em home. Why bother waiting to see if Turkey will finally give her nod to landing the 4th Infantry waiting offshore?

I don't think it's as catastrophic as all that. (Note that this is in reply to Steven's initial reaction to the new proposals, not his subsequent post).

The "watered down" Anglo-American-Spanish Resolution is designed to say "this is what you guys voted for last fall, carry through with your commitment" to the rest of the UNSC. It's precisely what Steven has been arguing for, in the sense that this "piss or get off the pot" 18th Resolution will serve to discredit the U.N. to those who are paying attention (if the members of the UNSC don't vote for this Resolution, they're not taking their commitments seriously). This is what Blair needs; if they pass it, he gets what he needs at home. If it's voted down, he also gets what he needs at home - a rather iron-clad argument that everything that could be done, was done, but it was "unreasonably vetoed". "Unreasonable" is a key, because his promise to his party and his voters was that Britain would only go to war in the absence of a "second" (18th) Resolution if it was vetoed unreasonably. This Resolution is founded on indisputable facts; rather than a "self-inflicted defeat", "watering it down" (writing it as it is written, consisting of reference to what Res. 1441 said and what Iraq has failed to do), will demonstrate to any reasonable observer, if it is vetoed, that the SC Council members opposed to it are unserious.

Steven wants a more "in your face" type Resolution. That would be emotionally satisfying for me, too. But it would provide fodder to the opposition ("this is too harsh. This sort of challenge puts the French in a position where they cannot support it without being humiliated, so they won't. This is a self-inflicted diplomatic defeat") and would hurt the person this is intended to help - Blair - because it would be seized upon by his domestic opponents (within his own party) and they would say it was not unreasonable for it to be vetoed.

There are reasons why UN Resolutions are written as they are (including all the "recalls" flourishes, btw). This one gives Blair what he needs. That's what matters here.

2003-02-24T12:45:00.000-08:00

That Which Happens Outside the Camera's Eye: I'm highly doubting that any of my readers will have seen a single news report on this. But it's worth reporting. I came by it by way of my Uncle (who was U.S.A. SF himself, now retired), via e-mail (so the images mentioned at the end are not here):

President Bush Visits Wounded SF Soldiers

17 January 2003

Below is an attempt to capture a truly memorable event that took place at Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington DC. The President came to visit five soldiers that were wounded in Afghanistan. SSG Jerry Cortinas was one of those soldiers and the reason I, MSG Samuel Rodriguez, was present for this event.

As the President entered the room he spoke Spanish to the family. He said hello to everyone and positioned himself on the left side of SSG Cortinas' bed. Mrs. Celina Cortinas was standing next to him. I was standing on the opposite side of the bed with SSG Cortinas' mother, Nancy Cortinas, and his two aunts. He said hello to Celina and then to SSG Cortinas. He then looked at me and reached across SSG Cortinas to shake my hand and ask me where I was from. I told him that I was originally from New York, but I re-entered the military while living in Texas. He replied, "Texas," with a little laugh. I then told the President that Jerry and his family are from Texas. The whole room started to laugh. Mr. Bush told the Cortinas family in Spanish, to say hello to his mother the next time they are in Texas. He hadn't seen her in a while.

The President then turned his attention to SSG Cortinas, the person he had come to see. SSG Cortinas instructed his wife to hand the President a sterling silver 7th SFG coin as a gift for coming to see him and the other wounded soldiers. After thanking him he told Jerry that he had something for him as well. At that point MG Kiley, the Commander of Walter Reed Medical Center, published the order for SSG Cortinas' Bronze Star. The President pinned the award to Jerry's hospital gown. SSG Cortinas thanked The President and extended his amputated left arm to the President to shake. The President grabbed his amputated limb with both hands and shook it. He then did something that took everyone in the room by surprise. He reached down and kissed SSG Cortinas on the forehead. The way a father would kiss his child before putting him to bed. As he rose from the bed you could see the emotion welling up in his eyes. He told SSG Cortinas that he was strong and he was going to be OK. He turned to Celina and thanked her with a hug for her husband's selfless service to our country. SSG Cortinas told the President that he wanted to stand up for him. The President told him that it was OK, he was standing for him both of them. Jerry told the President that, after he was completely healed, he wanted to go back overseas to fight the war. Mr. Bush told him and everyone in the room that we needed more men like SSG Cortinas. The President then came around the bed and thanked Jerry's mother and aunts for Jerry's service to our country. Mrs. Nancy Cortinas requested the President take a picture with the family. Mrs. Laura Bush approached me and shook my hand. I thanked her for coming to see our soldier. She said that it wasn't a problem. As The President turned to leave the room he told the Cortinas family "Dios de Bendiga".

On the way out of the room the President turned to me, shook my hand again, and told me that I was doing a fine job. Outside the room the President took pictures with Mrs. Bush, Dion Cortinas (2yr old child), Mrs. Celina Cortinas. Mrs. Nancy Cortinas, Jerry's mother, grabbed my arm and told the President that she wanted a picture of the two of us. She told The President that I had been like one of her sons since Jerry's accident. As I was standing next to the President he commented that I seemed like the kind of friend that someone like SSG Cortinas needed during a time like this. I told the President "Sir, I know that if it was me laying in that bed, Jerry would be there for me, just like any other soldier would, in 7th SFG". With that the President shook my hand again, looked me in the eye, and told me I was a good man. To say the least, I was extremely flattered by The President's kind words. In my heart I know that it could have been anyone from 7th SFG here, and he would have told him the same thing. That was one of the reasons I came to SF, because we take care of our own. I'm very thankful to still have that feeling after 22 years of military service.

I leave you with some images of the Commander in Chief expressing his thanks and gratitude to a warrior for his selfless service to his country. Remember that Special Forces Medics and his teammates saved this warrior's life. Without their efforts and commitment SSG Cortinas would never have lived to reflect on this memorable day. His medical care has truly been a success story. I can't say enough about all the medical personnel involved in saving SSG Cortinas' life. SSG Cortinas has made tremendous progress since he was injured, but still has a long way to go. Please keep the Cortinas family in your prayers.

MSG Samuel R. Rodriguez
7th SFG(A) Surgeon
NCOIC

2003-02-24T09:31:00.000-08:00

On the Future of Iraq and those rumors of renewed autocracy, Paul Wolfowitz, on the record, says they're bovine fecal matter.

My worry is still more along the lines of the "Karzai Sollution, because it would be two steps forward and is the tempting way to do things but IMO would be deeply unsatisfying with respect to Iraq. It may have been the best available option for Afghanistan. It might end up being that for Iraq, too (but I'm dubious). I for one expect more this time around (though not necessarily all at once, immediately).

2003-02-24T09:11:00.000-08:00

Airing All Points of View, here are some anti-war perspectives over at Peace in Our Time.

2003-02-24T07:52:00.000-08:00

Lets Make a Deal: Russia, unlike the Frankenreich, is taking a pragmatic approach to the Iraq crisis.

2003-02-24T07:45:00.000-08:00

Some Thoughts on the Costs of anti-Americanism, by Moisés Naím, editor of Foreign Policy magazine:

Those who partake and spread light anti-Americanism even while sharing the principles and values that the US stands for undermine its ability to defend such principles abroad. After all, international influence requires power but it also depends on legitimacy. Such legitimacy flows from the acceptance of others that not only consent to but even welcome the use of that influence.

US legitimacy abroad was undermined by George W. Bush's propensity to talk tough and threaten to act alone and impose the will of his administration on others. But such actions were interpreted by much of the world through the lens of deep suspicions about the US that existed well before the Bush presidency. Ultimately, the automatic rejection of US international actions rooted in light anti- Americanism may be as bad for the world as granting the US a blank cheque to exert its power without the constraints imposed by the inter- national community.

For example, the instinctive reactions stoked by light anti-Americanism surely had some role in undermining and perhaps permanently altering the Nato alliance. The relevance and effectiveness of many UN agencies are also eroded by their subtle and sometimes not so subtle anti-Americanism. Moreover, the stridency of this global anti-American chorus also undermines the support of the US public for their country's international engagement.

Once again, the whole thing is worth a read.

2003-02-24T07:34:00.000-08:00

More Signs that that Iraqis look forward not to invasion, but to liberation:

Today in the U.S., as I watch soldiers shipping off, I see protesters chanting against American ambition and greed. Having lived through wars that were all about one man's ambition and greed, I am pained to see how these protesters have missed the mark. On behalf of Iraqis who cannot speak openly with reporters or who have given their lives trying to free Iraq from Hussein's brutal rule, let me say clearly: American, British and other allied soldiers are a sign of hope and liberation.

War is terrible. I never want my American children to experience what I lived through in Iraq. So as my fellow Americans leave for battle today as I remember Iraqi soldiers going off to fight two decades ago, I am again moved to flash the victory sign, but this time to people who are proud to stand up for freedom at home and around the world.

I recently participated in an interfaith event at a synagogue in Boston to discuss building bridges between Muslims and Jews in these tense times. Afterward, a woman approached me with tears in her eyes. "My teenage son is an American soldier who recently shipped out to the Persian Gulf," she said. "I just want to know, is my son going there to do the right thing?"

Even though I had never met this woman before, I immediately recognized her pain. "I am so proud of your son," I told her. "You should be too."

I'm proud of her son, too. Unlike these people.

2003-02-24T07:08:00.000-08:00

Postcards from the Edge: Our Little Girl writes about her experiences.

2003-02-24T07:06:00.000-08:00

This Guy Makes A Lot of Good Points in arguing against Jihadist Islam and in favor of a more moderate Islam. But he makes one mistake in telling Osama to go to hell.

That dude is dead already.

Some excerpts:

I am writing this to make clear there are Muslims in America and in the world who despise and condemn extremists and have nothing to do with you, and those like you, for whom killing constitutes worship.

Islam was sent as mercy to humanity and not as an ideology of terror or hatred. It advocates plurality and moral equality of all faiths (Koran 2:62, 5:69). To use Islam to justify declaring Armageddon against all non-Muslims is inherently un-Islamic - it is a despicable distortion of a faith of peace.

He goes on:

You and those like you are dedicated to killing and bringing misery to people wherever they are. God blessed you with the capacity to lead and also endowed you with enormous resources. You could have used your influence in Afghanistan to develop it, to bring it out of poverty and show the world what Islam can do for those who believe in it. You chose to provoke and bring war to a people who had already been devastated by wars.

Huh? What's that all about? Hasn't this guy heard what Patty Murray had to say about all the wonderful schools, roads, day care facilities, and hospitals (just like Fidel! The man's a hero, I tell you!) that Osama's built?

He hasn't built that stuff? Those things don't exist?

I'm so disillusioned. Well, there's more:

Yes, many innocent people lost their lives in America's war on Afghanistan and many more might lose their lives in Iraq. This is indeed regrettable. But we must never forget that the West is divided and agonising over this decision to go to war in Iraq. While many Americans and Europeans oppose the war, Muslim nations have already agreed to co-operate in this war.

No Muslim leader has tried to play the role of a statesman on this issue. It is a tragedy that there is not a single Jimmy Carter or Nelson Mandela in the entire Muslim world who would stand up and speak for justice.

Before we rush to condemn America we must remember that even today, millions of poor and miserable people all across the world are lining up outside US embassies eager to go to America, not just to live there, but to become Americans. No Muslim country today can claim that people of other nations and faiths see in it the promise of hope, equality, dignity and prosperity.

Well said, all. Check out the entire piece. There's stuff in it for the anti-war croud, too.

2003-02-24T07:04:00.000-08:00

"We Don't Support the War, But We Support the Troops" is a mantra that always struck me more as an attempt to dodge criticism than one that was really sincerely felt by most (not all) of those who mouth that phrase. Especially since I remember the context in which it got invoked during the last Gulf War, and how hollow it was then - as anyone who happened by wearing the uniform can attest.

Still, it's considered outre' to question their sincerity. Or at least it was. But I can say it's a crock now.

2003-02-23T09:15:00.000-08:00

So I Just Saw Bill Richardson interviewed on Fox News "Weekend Live". He's currently Governor of New Mexico. He has legislative experience. He has experience in the Executive Branch. He has diplomatic experience. He comes across as a very reasonable fellow. He's not a rhetorical bomb-thrower or a fringe character. He's always been more of a thoughtful moderate (rather than the other kinds - the wishy, spineless moderate; or the common kind - the finger in the air, do anything to get elected moderate. Or the third kind, the pretend moderate). Forget all those other bozos running for the Democratic Presidential nomination. Forget Glenn Reynold's little Gary Hart boomlets.

The Dems shouldn't run Hillary!! in '08. Forget Hillary!!, too. They should run Richardson.

I'm not necessarily moderate or for moderates. But I'm in favor of less extremely inflamatory political rhetoric and for thoughtfulness, at least for our political candidates. Yah, I can be accused of throwing a rhetorical flame from time to time myself. I'd rather we all stepped back though, overall.

2003-02-23T08:41:00.000-08:00

The Potential Future Course of America, and the World This Colby Cosh piece should be paired with this James Bennett piece. (Both via Instapundit).

I'm going to have my own thoughts on this new era we're entering (as I've had some scattered comments on the old era we're leaving behind - mainly that we are exiting one era and entering another) when I find a way to articulate them properly. That may take some time.

2003-02-23T08:13:00.000-08:00

At the Risk of Beating a Dead Horse (well, I guess I've gone way beyond that at this point and proceeded to flog its bones), here's a Torygraph column on Chirac:

His indignation was provoked by a letter supporting the United States' policy on Iraq, which was signed by 10 eastern European countries. Mr Chirac accused them of behaving in an "unpleasant or infantile" manner, which showed "fickleness".

No one could accuse Mr Chirac of fickleness, however: he has always been true to a policy of naked self-interest. Indeed, it was his government that first supplied Saddam Hussein with nuclear reactors, after even Russia had refused.

See also this post on the subject of Chirac.

2003-02-23T08:08:00.000-08:00

BBC Is Receiving Complaints about it's taking of sides (pro-Saddam interviews and pieces blaiming everything that might be wrong in Iraq on the allies, anti-U.S. and Blair programing, etc).

2003-02-22T20:14:00.000-08:00

Impatience: So I admit it. I'm often impatient. The fact that we've let events carry us along to delay what we're going to have to do is more than troubling (it's sounding more and more like it'll be mid March at the earliest, rather than the beginning of March. People may indeed die - lives will not be saved, but lost - as a result of the delay. Why? We'll be conducting things in less optimal conditions and with a shorter time window between the start of operations and the onset of troublesome weather. This will make for haste - which is not the same as speed).

But one thing I've been trying - trying really hard - to not get worked up about is the Turkish situation. We have a deal, we don't have a deal. We have permission, we don't have permission. Troops sit in ships off the coast of Turkey because they need to renegotiate. This indeed is one of the things delaying matters (and will, I believe, cost lives). Should we be upset at Turkey for yanking our chain?

*sigh*. I really don't know. I'm not sure that even if the ships had docked when they were originally "scheduled" to dock that we'd be moving any sooner. Because the big cause of delay seems, again, to be multilateral wrangling in the hopes of pleasing those who cannot be pleased, in the hopes of convincing those who will not be convinced.

Even there, I shouldn't let myself get worked up too much - we're doing it because Blair needs it. He's been staunch in support of us. It would be churlish to not reciprocate. Britain cannot be at our side unless we at least try to get a "second" (18th) UN Resolution. Blair had to make that promise to key figures in his own party and to his people (note also that British forces are going to be among those who will suffer more casualties than they likely would have if we started operations in early March instead of mid March. But no one said these there were no hard choices, with only imperfect options to chose from). The Turks saw a window of opportunity and took it, but I don't think that these wranglings are the proximate cause of delay.

It's the diplomatic kubuki.

Lots of people, myself included, are still waiting patiently for Turkey to give Hagia Sophia back. So I can wait patiently a couple more days for approval to be granted for the landing of troops. No, also, the loan guarantees and aid do not bother me much - Turkey's had its chain yanked by the EU for a number of years. It is interesting that it is America that has to pay as a result, but that's how things go. Also, no doubt they're in a mood because of the whole NATO thing. Sure, it was France, Germany, and Belgium that caused that delay, but America is on the hook because Turkey can expect butkis from those countries while they can get something from us for their troubles. It's also true they base this on the economic costs of the previous Gulf War and Iraq sanctions on their country, but by all accounts they've inflated those costs. Still, step back for a second. We know Turkey's economy is in a mess. Much of that is the doing of the (previous) Turkish government. But still, war or no war, it is important to us - in America's interest - that Turkey get back on its feet economically. Liberating Iraq will help. This aid package may also help. I can live with it. It's not perfect - but is likely an improvement on the present and upon alternatives, and much of it is loan guarantees rather than just a grant of cash anyhow. Learn to love it, I always say.

Yes, I know I said "I" more times in this post than one can shake a stick at. I'm trying to persuade myself as much as anyone else this time. . .

By the way; since I mentioned it in this post, I do hope that all my readers, intelligent and well-read as they are, know that "Hagia Sophia" means "Holy Wisdom" and is not named after "Saint Sophie".

2003-02-21T09:05:00.000-08:00

Cats and Dogs living together.

I had to say it before Glenn could.

2003-02-21T08:53:00.000-08:00

The Chirac-Hussein Connection
A Stratfor report (paid side only. I got it through "Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy Technical Means"; basically they have this article out there "free" now in an authorized way as a sample. Like it, pay for a subscription to get more info like it if you can afford it). The below is the report in its entirety (not italicized or blockquoted this time because of it's lenght and it would get annoying reading that much italicized script):

Summary

French President Jacques Chirac is a pivotal figure on the international scene, whose views on Iraq are of vital concern. Those views are not driven simply by geopolitics, however. The factors that shape his thinking include a long, complex and sometimes mysterious relationship with Saddam Hussein. The relationship is not secret, but it is no longer as well known as it once was -- nor is it well known outside of France. It is not insignificant in understanding Chirac's view of Iraq.

Analysis

In attempting to understand France’s behavior over the issue of war with Iraq, there is little question but that strategic, economic and geopolitical considerations are dominant drivers. However, in order to understand the details of French behavior, it is also important to understand a not really unknown but oddly neglected aspect of French policy: the personal relationship between French President Jacques Chirac and Saddam Hussein.

The relationship dates back to late 1974, when then-French Premier Chirac traveled to Baghdad and met the No. 2 man in the Iraqi government, Vice President Saddam Hussein. During that visit, Chirac and Hussein conducted negotiations on a range of issues, the most important of these being Iraq’s purchase of nuclear reactors.

In September 1975, Hussein traveled to Paris, where Chirac personally gave him a tour of a French nuclear plant. During that visit, Chirac said, “Iraq is in the process of beginning a coherent nuclear program and France wants to associate herself with that effort in the field of reactors.” France sold two reactors to Iraq, with the agreement signed during Hussein’s visit. The Iraqis purchased a 70-megawatt reactor, along with six charges of 26 points of uranium enriched to 93 percent -- in other words, enough weapons-grade uranium to produce three to four nuclear devices. Baghdad also purchased a one-megawatt research reactor, and France agreed to train 600 Iraqi nuclear technicians and scientists -- the core of Iraq’s nuclear capability today.

Other dimensions of the relationship were decided on during this visit and implemented in the months afterward. France agreed to sell Iraq $1.5 billion worth of weapons -- including the integrated air defense system that was destroyed by the United States in 1991, about 60 Mirage F1 fighter planes, surface-to-air missiles and advanced electronics. The Iraqis, for their part, agreed to sell France $70 million worth of oil.

During this period, Chirac and Hussein formed what Chirac called a close personal relationship. As the New York Times put it in a 1986 report about Chirac’s attempt to return to the premiership, the French official “has said many times that he is a personal friend of Saddam Hussein of Iraq.” In 1987, the Manchester Guardian Weekly quoted Chirac as saying that he was “truly fascinated by Saddam Hussein since 1974.” Whatever personal chemistry there might have been between the two leaders obviously remained in place a decade later, and clearly was not simply linked to the deals of 1974-75. Politicians and businessmen move on; they don’t linger the way Chirac did.

Partly because of the breadth of the relationship Chirac and Hussein had created in a relatively short period of time and the obvious warmth of their personal ties, there was intense speculation about the less visible aspects of the relationship. For example, one unsubstantiated rumor that still can be heard in places like Beirut was that Hussein helped to finance Chirac’s run for mayor of Paris in 1977, after he lost the French premiership. Another, equally unsubstantiated rumor was that Hussein had skimmed funds from the huge amounts of money that were being moved around, and that he did so with Chirac’s full knowledge. There are endless rumors, all unproven and perhaps all scurrilous, about the relationship. Some of these might have been moved by malice, but they also are powered by the unfathomability of the relationship and by Chirac’s willingness to publicly affirm it. It reached the point that Iranians referred to Chirac as “Shah-Iraq” and Israelis spoke of the Osirak reactor as “O-Chirac.”

Indeed, as recently as last week, a Stratfor source in Lebanon reasserted these claims as if they were incontestable. Innuendo has become reality.

Former French President Valery Giscard d’Estaing, who held office at the time of the negotiations with Iraq, said in 1984 that the deal “came out of an agreement that was not negotiated in Paris and therefore did not originate with the president of the republic.” Under the odd French constitution, it is conceivable that the president of the republic wouldn’t know what the premier of France had negotiated -- but on a deal of this scale, this would be unlikely, unless the deal in fact had been negotiated between Chirac and Hussein in the dark and presented as a fait accompli.

There is some evidence for this notion. Earlier, when Giscard d’Estaing found out about the deal -- and particularly about the sale of 93 percent uranium -- he had ordered the French nuclear research facility at Saclay to develop an alternative that would take care of Iraq’s legitimate needs, but without supplying weapons-grade uranium. The product, called “caramel,” was only 3 percent enriched but entirely suitable to non-weapons needs. The French made the offer, which Iraq declined.

By 1986, Chirac clearly had decided to change his image. In preparation for the 1988 presidential elections, Chirac let it be known that he never had anything to do with the sale of the Osirak reactor. In an interview with an Israeli newspaper, he said, “It wasn’t me who negotiated the construction of Osirak with Baghdad. The negotiation was led by my minister of industry in very close collaboration with Giscard d’Estaing.” He went on to say, “I never took part in these negotiations. I never discussed the subject with Saddam Hussein. The fact is that I did not find out about the affair until very late.”

Obviously, Chirac was contradicting what he had said publicly in 1975. More to the point, he also was not making a great deal of sense in claiming that his minister of industry – who at that time was Michel d’Ornano -- had negotiated a deal as large as this one. That is true even if one assumes the absurd, which was that the nuclear deal was a stand-alone and not linked to the arms and oil deals or to a broader strategic relationship. In fact, d’Ornano claimed that he didn’t even make the trip to Iraq with Chirac in 1974, let alone act as the prime negotiator. Everything he did was in conjunction with Chirac.

In 1981, the Israelis destroyed the Iraqi reactor in an air attack. There were rumors – which were denied -- that the French government was offering to rebuild the reactor. In August 1987, French satirical and muckraking magazine, “Le Canard Enchaine” published excerpts of a letter from Chirac to Hussein -- dated June 24, 1987, and hand-delivered by Trade Minister Michel Noir -- which the magazine claimed indicated that he was negotiating to rebuild the Iraqi reactor. The letter says nothing about nuclear reactors, but it does say that Chirac hopes for an agreement “on the negotiation which you know about,” and it speaks of the “cooperation launched more than 12 years ago under our personal joint initiative, in this capital district for the sovereignty, independence and security of your country.” In the letter, Chirac also, once again, referred to Hussein as “my dear friend.”

Chirac and the government confirmed that the letter was genuine. They denied that it referred to rebuilding a nuclear reactor. The letter speaks merely of the agreements relating to “an essential chapter in Franco-Iraqi relations, both in the present circumstances and in the future.” Chirac claimed that any attempt to link the letter to the reconstruction of the nuclear facility was a “ridiculous invention.” Assuming Chirac’s sincerity, this leaves open the question of what the “essential chapter” refers to and why, instead of specifying the subject, Chirac resorted to a circumlocution like “negotiation which you know about.”

Only two possible conclusions can be drawn from this letter: Chirac either was trying, in the midst of the Iran-Iraq war and after his denial of involvement in the first place, to rebuild Iraq’s nuclear capability, or he wasn’t. And if he wasn’t, what was he doing that required such complex language, clearly intended for deniability if revealed? No ordinary state-to-state relationship would require a combination of affection, recollection of long history and promise for the future without mentioning the subject. If we concede to Chirac that it had nothing to do with nuclear reactors, then the mystery actually deepens.

It is unfair to tag Chirac with the rumors that have trailed him in his relations with Hussein. It is fair to say, however, that Chirac has created a circumstance for breeding rumors. The issues raised here were all well known at one time and place. When they are laid end-to-end, a mystery arises. What affair was being discussed in the letter delivered by Michel Noir? If not nuclear reactors, then what was referenced but never mentioned specifically in Chirac’s letter to his “dear friend” Hussein?

Whatever the answer, it is clear that the relationship between Chirac and Hussein is long and complex, and not altogether easy to understand. That relationship does not, by itself, explain all of France's policies toward Iraq or its stance toward a war between the United States and Iraq. But at the same time, it is inconceivable that this relationship has no effect on Chirac's personal decision-making process. There is an intensity to Chirac's Iraq policy that simply may signify the remnants of an old, warm friendship gone bad, or that may have a different origin. In any case, it is a reality that cannot be ignored and that must be taken into account in understanding the French leader’s behavior.

~end~

2003-02-21T07:45:00.000-08:00

Then There's The Strong Belgian Stance: Last night Steven Den Beste published a long post about the underlaying philosophy and intentions of the EU. Some folks may have found it unconvincing. (By the way, this system of government he talks about is a Impersonal Bureaucracy. See also here). Well, today the Prime Minister of Belgium has an article in the Financial Times, expressing his views on Iraq and the urgent need for a European Foreign Policy and military to back it up. Lets start with this:

This is not to say I feel any sympathy for Saddam Hussein. He is a villain, a threat to his own people and a substantial factor behind instability in the Middle East. If we do not stop the Iraqi leader, he will go on trying to acquire weapons of mass destruction.

Oh, strong words, right? What's the pay off?

Nothing. The Colossus of Belgium concedes that Saddam is continuing to try to acquire such weapons in the above paragraph. This is in continued (or, rather "further") material breach of Iraq's post-Gulf War cease fire obligations. Under 1441, which the Frankenreich claimed to champion and which they negotiated the language of last fall, it's Saddam's obligation to comply.

Clearly the Iraqi leader is not complying, and Our Hero sees that. His response is, as with all the other scions of the Restored Carolingian Empire and their apologists, is to engage in sleight of hand, shifting the burden from where the text of Resolution 1441 puts it (on Iraq to comply, fully and immediately, without reservation and gamesmanship):

neither Colin Powell, the US secretary of state, nor Hans Blix, the chief UN weapons inspector, have yet found a smoking gun.

With allies like that on "our" side, it's no wonder Saddam sees no pressing need to comply.

The article then goes on into what might otherwise seem like a digression - it proceeds to discuss the need for a European Foreign Policy and a European Military. Peel away the platitudes about how this would help sustain the alliance and look at the underlaying message: opposition to the U.S.

He doesn't outline this European Foreign Policy so much as a means of cooperation with America (again, despite the platitudes), but so as to be able to get more influence to promote divergent policies. (Aside: again, there's nothing intrinsically inappropriate with that. But neither is it inappropriate to see this for what it is and for Americans to respond appropriately. Nor do I think it's inappropriate for them to determine that they don't feel threatened and thus they don't want to participate in efforts against Iraq. But it is inappropriate, as I've said before, for them to impose their interests upon those who are more threatened; the Restored Carolingian Empire's position seems to be "we don't feel threatened by Saddam. In fact, he's always been a good trading partner for us. Thus those of you who are threatened should do nothing, because our interests trump yours." As I said repeatedly last fall, I have no problem with them not participating. My problem is with their efforts to tell us we can't secure our interests, so that they can secure theirs).

Who's going to determine the European Foreign Policy and essentially control the European military? It's pretty clear what Verhofstadt, Chirac, and Schroeder have in mind:

The common position of Germany, France and Belgium - three of the six founding members of the European Union, three of the west European countries most ravaged by war - is no coincidence, nor is it a one-off event. The three are already joining forces within the Euro Corps. We greatly favour a real European defence policy. We want a European military capacity. . .

Primacy will be given to "The common position of Germany, France and Belgium, three of the six founding members of the European Union. . ." and "nor is it a one-off event".

He goes on to write:

European security and defence policy is not directed against American predominance in the world.

However, everything else he writes, when it comes to setting out the policies that will be promoted by this European Foreign Policy and it's military, are clearly directed at containing America - not helping or in partnership with America.

But in spite of all the ties that bind us to America, we Europeans should continue to shape our own opinions and our own vision of the future.

Indeed, Europe is developing its own priorities and focus. Increasingly, the EU is seen as a model of multilateral co-operation, as a mediator and peace keeper in complex conflicts, as a continent sensitive to social and ecological challenges. It is a continent that realizes that its own wealth remains fragile as long as most people in the world are hungry. That is why Europe needs its own foreign policy. Yet that will only be credible if it is based on a European defence policy. This is the paradox we must face in the years ahead: the more people march in our streets in favour of peace, the more urgent it becomes to develop a true European defence.

"Europe is developing it's own priorities and focus." Those would be by definition different from America. The quandary is then how to get their way? Certainly not with "countries with shattered defences" and policies (such as EU countries signing letters of support for America) determined by individual countries.
"Increasingly, the EU is seen as a model of multilateral co-operation," - The EU is, under the aegis of the Restored Carolingian Empire, by definition "multilateral" (15 - soon 25 - states, all with one policy and philosophy, determined in Brussels), whereas if the U.S. pursues its interests (it's "own priorities and focus") without the nod of the EU, then it is "unilateral". Thus we can see why "unilateralism" is being promoted as the new Crime Against Humanity.
"a mediator and peace keeper in complex conflicts" - Clearly not a "peacekeeper" in the sense that it will use this new European military to go after those who threaten the peace, like Saddam (Guy doesn't feel threatened by him. So that begs the question. If for Verhofstadt, people like Saddam are not the threat - and clearly not Arafat, either; Arafat is the recipient of EU aid, not opprobrium, then who or what is the threat that this joint structure is needed to combat, or at least restrain, contain, and thwart?)
"a continent sensitive to social and ecological challenges." - A euphemistic expression of what will be the guiding philosophy of the Frankenreich's EU - Transnational Progressivism. Clearly, he is implying a distinction between the U.S. (which in this world view, does not care about social and ecological challenges. This is why his next sentence can be "It is a continent that realizes that its own wealth remains fragile as long as most people in the world are hungry.", which is intended to distinguish Europe from that other continent-spanning power, despite the fact that it is the U.S. that provides nearly two thirds of the world's food aid).
"That is why Europe needs its own foreign policy. Yet that will only be credible if it is based on a European defence policy. This is the paradox we must face in the years ahead: the more people march in our streets in favour of peace, the more urgent it becomes to develop a true European defence." Again: where they marching with signs depicting Saddam as a Hitler? Tarik Aziz as a Goebbels? With banners calling on Iraq to disarm and comply with UN Resolutions?

No, of course not. They were in the streets expressing their opposition to American policy. Thus here in the Belgian Prime Minister's article a strange twist on the Vegitus quote that, when expressed by Americans, usually leads to disagreement and demurral from Europeans. Vegitus' "if you want peace, prepare for war" becomes "the more people march in our streets in favour of peace, the more urgent it becomes to develop a true European defence." So they can stand beside American soldiers, shoulder to shoulder, facing off menaces to peace posed by the likes of Saddam and Kim Jong Il? No.

As long as we Europeans feel threatened, the use of war and weapons can more or less be justified. . .But now that the cold war is over, we can express more freely our differences of opinion. And one of those differences of opinion concerns the fundamental question about the use of war as an extension of politics.

But they do not feel threatened by Saddam (America might, but the use of war and weapons is only to be justified when "we Europeans" feel threatened. Not when others are). He refers to Saddam as "a threat to his own people", but does not refer to Saddam as a threat to his Europe.

One thing's come through loud and clear over the last several months. Both in the behavior of the French, German, and Belgian governments and in the expressions of their populace (either on the streets or through polling data): they believe America is a greater threat to world peace than Saddam Hussein is.

the more people march in our streets in favour of peace, the more urgent it becomes to develop a true European defence.

Urgent need for what purpose? That purpose is becoming more and more clear.

Update: A. M. Rosenthal writes that protestors ignore Saddam's fascism. They seem to accuse the U.S. of fascism often enough (and not just a few select oddballs, either; it's a re-occuring theme rather than an exception).

2003-02-21T07:01:00.000-08:00

German Help in Afghanistan is often pointed to by those saying "what breach in the alliance"?

Well, it appears they're making a less-than-veiled threat that this help is contingent upon America letting their client and commercial partner, Saddam, off the hook.

Either that or it's an example of "when the going gets tough, the Europeans bail".

2003-02-20T13:51:00.000-08:00

What The Protestors Never Protest Against: Christopher Hitchens, writing in the Mirror, points out that:

I HAD hoped that it would pour with rain during last Saturday's march for "peace".

Why? Exactly a week earlier in northern Iraq, a brave minister of the autonomous Kurdish government was foully done to death by a bunch of bin Laden clones calling themselves Ansar al-Islam.

Shawkat Mushir was lured under a flag of truce into a dirty ambush, in which he and several innocent bystanders - including an eight-year-old girl - were murdered.

I doubt that, amid all the signs depicting Blair and (especially) Bush as new Hitlers on the world stage, that any of the "peace" protestors carried a sign or banner condemning these killings.

The rest of the article is worth a read, too.

2003-02-20T13:26:00.000-08:00

Echos of Time Past Alistair Cooke's Letter.

2003-02-20T11:35:00.000-08:00

Like Deja Vu All Over Again: The Jonathan Rauch writes in Atlantic Monthy on UN follies, past and present, regarding France and the subject of Iraq:

Consistently, France's approach has been to offer Iraq pre-emptive concessions in hopes of spurring cooperation.

Well, I'm not even sure that "spurring cooperation" is all that important to Chirac. Well, perhaps it is - depending on how one defines "cooperation" (cooperating in signing lucrative oil deals with French companies, importing French weapons, etc. Iraqi cooperation with respect to compliance with obligations embodied in UN Resolutions? No, not important to Chirac).

This comment regarding 1999:

by calling for the U.N. to back down, France encouraged Saddam to hold out.

Is exactly pertinent to the present.

By the end of the last decade, a kind of French-Iraqi codependency had evolved. France's demands for concessions encouraged Iraqi defiance, and Iraqi defiance brought more French demands for concessions.

Lots of people are starting to suspect that's by design rather than by accident. Intentional rather than unintentional. More on that in a future post if I can get ahold of a certain Stratfor article on the Chirac-Hussein connection (on their paid side only).

Jonathan Rauch's Atlantic piece goes on:

Faced with this rather obvious criticism, the French have always replied with the same one-word answer: unity. Unity can contain Saddam Hussein. Without unity, all is lost. Etc., etc. As Villepin said on February 5, "France is convinced that we can succeed on this demanding path [peaceful disarmament of Iraq] if we maintain our unity and our cohesion." Or again, French President Jacques Chirac, in December 1999: "We have to find a solution that in some way forces Saddam to accept a resumption of inspections. And the only possibility of doing this would be a resolution adopted unanimously by the Security Council." Or yet again, the French foreign ministry in a 1999 policy document: "The return of inspectors cannot be imposed by military action. It will be obtained only through the restored unity and authority of the Security Council."

So there you have it. The plan is to threaten Saddam Hussein not with force but with "unity"-specifically, unity behind France's determination not to use force. Neither Saddam nor my 3-year-old niece would feel scared of that threat. Moreover, "unity," on closer inspection, turns out to mean agreement with France. In 1999, when the French were in the minority, they walked away and said it was a shame that the Security Council had failed to achieve unity.

But you have to understand that it's all the fault of America and it's "poodle", Britain, regardless.

Rauch has a good shot at France towards the end, too, calling them a "free rider". Could apply that to Germany, too.

As George Will puts it:

Today the U.N., toyed with by France, is making more likely a war that might not be impending if the U.N. had not been so involved in dealing with Iraq 12 years ago.

Will asks:

Has France considered the consequences of making the United Nations and NATO redundant evidence of the mortality of organizations?

And follows that with these observations:

NATO's primary function is no longer collective security; it is to give collective weight to European nations in their dealings with America. The U.N.'s crucial function is to enmesh America in inhibiting procedures. Hence the diminution of NATO and the U.N. will further emancipate America while miniaturizing two stages on which France struts.

However, this second section answers his question, if in a roundabout way. As Steven Den Beste has pointed out, it is plausible to believe that France views the U.N. and NATO as worthless unless they can use those institutions to bind, constrain, and obstruct the U.S.

If they aren't able to accomplish that now, on an issue of apparently inordinate importance to them (or at least to Chirac, who started his Ivory Coast adventure with none of the UN wrangling that characterizes his expectations of the U.S.), then those institutions have already failed in French eyes. Just as, in American eyes, they will have failed if they do not authorize action to back up these Resolutions soundly concurred to. Thus the inevitable impasse.

Will closes his article with several pithy paragraphs on the fecklessness of the UN. But I've been there, done that, will no doubt do it again, so I'll just conclude this post.

2003-02-20T09:38:00.000-08:00

Yah, What I Said: Angela Merkel writes:

Rarely do we have the experience of witnessing firsthand the end of one epoch and the beginning of another. But this is exactly what people all over the world are now living through.

I talked about this here and here.

Merkel goes on:

It is true that war must never become a normal way of resolving political disputes. But the history of Germany and Europe in the 20th century in particular certainly teaches us this: that while military force cannot be the normal continuation of politics by other means, it must never be ruled out, or even merely questioned -- as has been done by the German federal government -- as the ultimate means of dealing with dictators. Anyone who rejects military action as a last resort weakens the pressure that needs to be maintained on dictators and consequently makes a war not less but more likely.

This is a grave matter: Peace is a supreme good, for the sake of which every effort has to be made. But it is also true that responsible political leadership must on no account trade the genuine peace of the future for the deceptive peace of the present. The determination and unity of the free nations will, in the Iraq conflict, have a decisive effect not only on the outcome of the crisis but on the way in which we shape the future of Europe and its relationship with the United States. They will have a decisive effect, too, on how we guarantee peace, freedom and security, and how we find appropriate answers to the new threats of our time. Will it be alone or together, with determination or in despair, with our partners or against them?

We'll have to see. She goes on to say that she's convinced that a common security alliance between Europe and the U.S. will persist. But while it doesn't take two to fight, it definately takes two to make for an alliance.

A couple of days ago, an article in the Süddeutsche Zeitung, one of Germany's major national newspapers, carried the headline "The End of a Friendship." It included the following passage: "For Germany, a permanent break with America would probably be not much of a liberation but a return to an ugly old-new reality, to the completely disillusioned world of the old Europe with its narrow-mindedness and disloyalty. Gratitude, friendship with America: in future these could still prove to be reasonable feelings."

Given that, Rumsfeld's much-criticized reference to certain countries behavior represented "old Europe" seems less a "gaffe" and more. . .precient.

2003-02-20T09:10:00.000-08:00

Zell Miller to Co-Sponsor tax cut plan.

2003-02-20T08:24:00.000-08:00

American Imperialists Go Home! Uh, ok.

2003-02-20T08:23:00.000-08:00

More on E-Bombs and their likely use in the comming conflict.

2003-02-20T08:07:00.000-08:00

By the By, that North Korean ship that delivered Scuds to Yemen some time ago? It returned to North Korea, by way of Germany, with a cargo hull full of German chemicals for making chemical weapons.

But Germany and France are the good, peace-loving guys. Right.

2003-02-20T08:00:00.000-08:00

The Aniversary of the Brutal Murder of journalist Daniel Pearl, who went to talk to Jihadist Islamists to get their side of the story and was viciously murdered as a "reward" for his openness to hearing their point of view.

2003-02-20T07:43:00.000-08:00

Opposition to War not driven by opposition to America? It is in France:

Offered a choice of three reasons to best explain why they opposed going to war, 76 percent of the anti-war camp said they "dislike they way the United States is behaving in the crisis".

Just nine percent said the were mainly against military action because Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was not a threat to international security and 13 percent chose to explain their view by saying the crisis did not affect France's interests.

So next time someone suggests they agree with the French position but object to it being characterized as anti-American, remember these figures and rebut them.

Also remember how France is behaving in this crisis if they suggest that the French are right to object to how America is handling the Iraq matter. The French (and their UN puppets) are pressing for what amounts to nothing less than "regime change" in a country where the current regime is the result of a legitimate election. They want Ivory Coast President Laurent Gbagbo to reward violent revolution (attempt to overthrow the elected government by force) by giving the rebels control over the armed forces (Ministry of Defense) and police (Ministry of the Interior), and are going about it in a bullying fashion that would be deplored catagorically if the U.S. were the one exerting the pressure.

Perhaps, though, those who think the way the U.S. is behaving is wrong and France's behavior is the model to follow are refering to these kinds of dealings with dictators. Yes, they represent the more moral approach to international relations, don't they?

2003-02-20T07:29:00.000-08:00

Gosh, What a Surprise Apparently Iraq is failing to follow through on promises of increased cooperation with inspectors.

"We have not seen any positive moves on the part of Iraq," one U.N. official in Iraq told The Washington Post, while another said, "They are not fulfilling their promises."

I'm sure he was as surprised by this as you are. Well, actually - I bet they are surprised. These guys are always surprised.

But of course it's all America's Fault, according to the Russians - you know, for wanting the inspectors to actually try and find what Iraq is hiding:

Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov said Thursday that U.N. weapons inspectors were being pressured to provide a pretext for war on Iraq.

Ivanov did not say who was applying the pressure, which he said aimed "to provoke them to discontinue their operations in Iraq ... or to pressure them into coming up with assessments that would justify the use of force."

So you see the goal of some countries is as I said it was: have inspectors in place as a means of blocking action, but for gods sake don't try and find anything! Their concern isn't with getting Iraq to comply; inspectors are just a useful tool to prevent anything substantive. So this doesn't bother the Russians (or the French, or the Germans - you know, the countries that traded most heavily upon bonds with Saddam's regime) much.

2003-02-20T07:19:00.000-08:00

After Falling Unexpectedly last month, jobless claims are back up. Economy remains "mixed".

2003-02-20T07:15:00.000-08:00

Crushing Dissent: Whenever someone gets up at a podium somewhere (either at a protest march or as a paid speaker on a college campus and whatnot) in America and claims that they're dissenting views are being supressed, crushed, laugh at them.

This is a minimum threashold of what constitutes the supressing of dissent. But note that Hugo Chavez is one of the Left's fair-haired boys. So don't expect to see many "progressives" objecting to, much less protesting, this.

2003-02-20T07:09:00.000-08:00

One Thousand and One Posts: I've learned that this post was the thousand and first post of this blog.

2003-02-19T18:39:00.000-08:00

Some Thoughts on a Possible Positive Future for the EU, from Andrew Sullivan.

It depends on two things: the successful prosecution of the War to Liberate Iraq, and upon Blair.

2003-02-19T16:37:00.000-08:00

Comming to a Country Near Youre heart. Criminalization of dissenting opinions. But not the ones you may have been lead to believe. Those doing the criminalizing are those who point fingers at the "crushing of dissent" in America. The outlawing of bad attitudes and crude, ignoble thinking proceeds apace in the EU:

In a few years, you could be subjected to the new European arrest warrant. Under legislation going through Parliament, it might soon be possible to have you extradited to the Continent for "racism" and "xenophobia" [report, 18 Feb].

Impossible, you say. I'm just a bog-standard Eurosceptic who wants to preserve our system of government. That sort of thing is for neo-Nazi Holocaust-deniers who violated the Draconian domestic laws of France and Germany - not the likes of me.

Don't bank on it. The problem is that, even now, the EU does not adequately define "racism" or "xenophobia". Its treatment of Austria after Jörg Haider's electoral successes suggests that it was at least as worried about his attitudes towards Brussels as his views on immigration per se.

Indeed, some EU funded bodies, such as the European Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia, have now identified a new form of bigotry - "monetary xenophobia", or opposition to the euro.

Caution! Reading this Weblog Could Land YOU in a European gaol!

2003-02-19T11:00:00.000-08:00

The EU as an Anti-American Institution: via Steven Den Beste a bunch of revealing news stories. One stand out is this, wherin Romano Prodi (EU Commissione Capo di Tuti Capo) is quoted:

European Commission President Romano Prodi said he was saddened rather than angry with the candidates because their pro-Americanism was a signal they had failed to understand that the EU is more than a mere economic union.

"I would be lying it I said I was happy," he told reporters. "I have been very, very sad, but I am also patient by nature, so I hope they will understand that sharing the future means sharing the future."

To which Steven aptly asks the rhetorical question:

Why would a public expression of friendship for the US indicate failure to understand the EU? Unless anti-Americanism is a cornerstone of EU policy, and a requirement for entry?

But of course it is. Has been for at least a decade.

This asside by Steven is good also:

Maybe there's a reason why the European politicians are so insincere: if they all frankly expressed what they really think of one another, there would be another war in Europe.

Almost certainly true.

2003-02-19T09:34:00.000-08:00

If You Can't Get Enough discussion of international law, morality, and the ICC, then check out this lengthy but good post by the Buggy Professor.

2003-02-19T08:46:00.000-08:00

Meet the Man Behind the Money: Exchanges with a Nigerian banking magnate.

2003-02-19T07:57:00.000-08:00

A New Low: No, not Bender finding out he got to work first.

The BBC has felt the need to teach it's readers how to love the U.S..

My favorite bit:

British prisoner of war Desmond Llewelyn - later famous as Q in the James Bond films - was liberated in 1945 by American troops keen to root out Nazis hiding in his camp. Asked how long he had been held captive, Llewelyn replied: "Five years." "The war's only been on three years," he was told.

Actually, that bit made me love Britain more than I already do. I hadn't known Desmond Llewelyn was a POW.

A lot of the examples (especially in comments) seem trivial or, rather, prosaic. But that's how people live their lives and this country has contributed a lot to the improvement of the lives of most people.

But it's pretty pathetic that people have to be reminded that maybie, just maybie, America isn't so bad after all.

2003-02-19T07:18:00.000-08:00

Join the EU so that others will decide what priorities are best for you, based mainly on what they think is best for them.

2003-02-19T07:17:00.000-08:00

The Mother-in-Law of All Battles has begun:

Iranian-backed Iraqi opposition forces have crossed into northern Iraq from Iran with the aim of securing the frontier in the event of war, according to senior Iranian officials.

The forces, numbering up to 5,000 troops, with some heavy equipment, are nominally under the command of Ayatollah Mohammad Baqir al-Hakim, a prominent Iraqi Shia Muslim opposition leader who has been based in Iran since 1980 and lives in Tehran.

A US State Department official said he was aware of reports that part of Ayatollah Hakim's Badr brigade had crossed into northern Iraq but declined further comment. Analysts close to the administration of President George W. Bush said the US was concerned about the intentions of this new element in an increasingly complicated patchwork of forces in northern Iraq.

Well, I'm sure.

Clearing out Iranian proxies will be complicated, but might also give a casus beli for toppling the Mullahs in Iran as well, in due time.

2003-02-19T07:12:00.000-08:00

New Uses for some items.

Suggestions:

Doorstops
Paperweights
Stone-toss
Ballast
Lawn ornaments
Counterweights for really big cukoo clocks

If you think of any, feel free to let me know and I'll pass your ideas on to the Pentagon.

2003-02-19T06:56:00.000-08:00

A New Conflict between Bush and Saddam.

2003-02-19T06:52:00.000-08:00

Why Are Some Blogs far more popular than some others that might be equally good? Clay Shirky has some economics based analysis that are well worth reading. It's only going to become more exacerbated as time goes on.

Posting this doesn't assert anything about the relative merits or demerits of this site vis a vi it's audience size

2003-02-18T13:36:00.000-08:00

Headlines: I mean, I'm glad they did it and all. And I don't mean to be the pig at the cotillion. But, ok, here's the headline:

EU issues 'last chance' warning to Iraq

How many times have I mentioned this "endless 'last chances'" thing? Here's a Google search results page that lists only some of them.

The EU is sort of the Cardinal Ximenes of "Last Chances".

I mean, I know it's ungenerous of me in the face of a fairly good Joint Statement. But we've had "fairly good Joint Statements giving one last chance" before, too.

2003-02-18T13:21:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on the Moralism of the Anti-War Protestors, and their ink-drenched sages, such as Harold Pinter, from Mark Steyn, commenting on the looking glass they see the world through:

It's not Saddam who's the thug, it's Tony. It's not the Baathist killers from Tikrit who are the bunch of criminals, it's the Republican Party. It's not the million-man murderer of Baghdad who's the new Hitler, it's George W. Bush. It's not the Iraqi one-party state with its government-controlled media that "crushes dissent," it's the White House. It's not the Wahhabis who are the fundamentalists, it's Bush, Blair and the other Christians. It's not Osama bin Laden who's the terrorist, it's American foreign policy. Supporting the continued enslavement of the Iraqi people is "pacifist," but it's "racist" for America to disagree with the UN, even though it's Colin Powell and Condi Rice doing the disagreeing and the fellows they're disagreeing with are a bunch of white guys from Europe.

The new Universal Theory, to which 99% of Saturday's speakers and placards enthusiastically subscribed, is that, whatever the problem, American imperialist cowboy aggression is to blame.

I'm sure some will say it's not an accurate description of them. But for all too many, it's a very accurate description. After all, hardly any of them (I know of none) were out there with banners showing Saddam as a despot or calling on him to comply with his commitments for the sake of peace. No, they were, 99% of them or more, blaiming Bush, Blair, and the like for everything.

It doesn't make much sense to engage these sorts in an intellectual debate on the merits and try to convince them on the basis of arguments pertaining to the real world, either,

as Colin Powell and Jack Straw have surely learned by now, there's no real point doing the patient line-by-line rebuttal: Nobody's interested in French oil contracts or German arms sales or even Saddamite corpse tallies because it doesn't fit into the Universal Theory which insists that everything can be explained by the Evil of America. On the other hand, the indestructible belief that "over 4,000" civilians were killed by U.S. bombs in Afghanistan is impervious to scientific evidence because it accords perfectly with the Universal Theory.

Which again is all to true, and in my opinion points to an intellectual disease among the Left that only they can really work their way through. Until then, they can whine all they want about being "shut out" of the discussion, but there's a reason why they can't be taken seriously as participants in the debate on how to handle important policy questions - whether it's Iraq now or Globalism tommorrow or environmental problems, or, well, nearly everything. They're free to express their point of view however they want, as loudly and as often as they want, but there's a reason why serious people don't take them seriously.

2003-02-18T11:58:00.000-08:00

Some Thoughts on the Franenreich's pretentions to authority and on the whole EU project.

2003-02-18T09:05:00.000-08:00

EU UNITES: I really didn't think it could happen, divisions are fairly deep. But I think Chirac helped push the EU together - they united in opposition to Iraq and in no small part in opposition to petulant French tantrums.

Someone should ask him if he likes "pommes". When he answers, ask him how he likes les pommes.

Update: The UN Follies continue. A 18th Resolution to be proposed by the U.S., perhaps this week.

Don't let anyone get away with calling it a "second Resolution", either. This will mark the 18th.

As Max Boot writes:

The UN provides a useful forum for palaver, but as an effective police force it is a joke, as shown by its failure to stop bloodlettings in Bosnia, Rwanda and elsewhere. It is almost impossible to get a consensus among the UN's member states, even when it comes to a threat as well documented as that posed by Saddam Hussein.

He argues the world needs someone willing and able to act. Guess who that is?

2003-02-18T08:01:00.000-08:00

Free Speech Europe: Not if the EU has anything to say about it:

Legislation now before Parliament will make "xenophobia and racism" one of 32 crimes for which the European arrest warrant can be issued without the existing safeguard of dual criminality. This requires that an extraditable offence must also be a crime in the UK.

Alongside the arrest warrant, EU ministers are negotiating a new directive to establish a common set of offences to criminalise xenophobia and racism.

This is sort of the other side of Tony Blair. There's the Blair we praise in foreign policy. Then there's what Labour is doing to British law (and government, &tc, &tc).

2003-02-18T07:57:00.000-08:00

New Sport Sweeps Across World, gaining rapidly in popularity. Perhaps it will be added to the Olmypics in 2008 or 2012.

2003-02-18T07:54:00.000-08:00

Meet the New Boss: So there's a buzz going around that some in government want to replace Saddam with a more pliable dictator, in the name of "stability". It's, at least so far, entirely generated by an article in the Observer.

The story. . .troubled me. But I didn't comment on it till now because I don't think it's going to work out that way (more on that later). But I do believe the Observer has sources and that there are people who would like to see just what they describe.

I often wonder why some have the idea that the State Department is the home of the "good cop" in America's government (there's a big overlap between the people who have that view and those who get warm and fuzzy feelings at the mention of the phrase "United Nations"). The State Department has a fairly long tradition of preferring nice (well, not even nice), "reliable" dictators that "we can do business with" over representative regimes. I mean, look at it through their eyes: one guy gives the nod to a deal, they think it can be relied on to happen (you know, cut a deal with Kim Jong Il, it doesn't really have to go through a parliament. One guy says yes to the deal, and you know that it will be ratified. Whether it's kept or not is unimportant to the "success" of diplomacy).

To put it this way, the State Department inclines towards a preference for (I'm trying to avoid being overly categorical and harsh) autocratic rulers for the same reason that foreign governments find it troublesome negotiating treaties with the U.S. (they negotiate something with executive branch officials and then have to hope the Senate ratifies the treaty and that Congress as a whole enacts the enabling legislation without amending it too much).

Dictators are, in this sense, more predictable. What folks at the State Department seem never to learn is that they are predictable in the sense that they can be predicted to cheat and screw you over (sure, even a republic does that, but not as reliably as dictatorships do).

Lexington Green and some others are troubled by the Observer article. I have no doubt that there are at least some at the State Department who are proposing just that (under the guise of "we need a strongman to keep Iraq together. Only rule by a strongman can prevent Iraq from fragmenting and creating" - wait for it - "instability in the region").

I don't worry too much about that becoming policy, though. I think it's politically unacceptable, I think neither Blair nor Bush are inclined in that direction.

What I worry about more is the "Karzai Solution" - I mean, ok. That was fine with respect to Afghanistan, and it was at least two steps forward in the direction of representative government. But. . .well, lets just say I was dissatisfied seeing the guy who became leader of the "provisional government" ratified as leader of the government, and there's something about Karzai that - well, this is probably unfair (he might be a very decent fellow and by all appearances certainly is trying, but IMO he has some authoritarian inclinations that are unhealthy), but he reminds me of nothing else but that guy in The Man Who Would Be King who Daniel and Peachy first use as the front man of their. . .enterprise. You know the guy - the one who eventually becomes the ball in a game of polo.

The "Karzai Solution" was fine for Afghanistan - and there's nothing that anyone can (yet) point to and really say it's a disaster yet. It's actually, despite some carping from a few Leftist critics, a fair accomplishment. But it will not suffice for Iraq.

What I would rather see, if there is a "provisional government" established in Iraq after Saddam is removed, an announcement that whoever serves as head guy cannot succeed himself into office when the regular government is (re-)established. I know this means that the head of the "provisional government" is likely to be a non-entity (because anyone with any ambition will avoid the job if he has no shot at becomming President or Prime Minister or whatever in the real government), but that's ok. For the first period Iraq is going to be under de facto rule by the occupation forces, anyhow so it won't matter as much if the head of the ProvoGov is a cypher. Let the other guys campaign for the job of forming the post-provisional government. I also think de-Ba'athization of Iraq is very important (not just removing a few guys at the top, but eliminating the Ba'athist hacks at all levels, as much as can be accomplished). This will be more difficult than it sounds - it's been 30 years, not 15 years (as in Germany) of Ba'athist rule. A balance will have to be struck (it's inevitable) between purging the National Socialists and insuring a functioning bureaucracy remains to keep things working.

But I don't really worry about a transition from one dictator to a more "acceptable" dictator. I fear instead a sort of twilight situation; a guy plausibly selected in a representative way, but who has authoritarian inclinations (and it will be difficult for us to interfere too much and still say that whatever results is the "democratic choice of the Iraqi people". I'm not sure it's fair to blame us too much for what the outcome will be in Afghanistan because there is a balance here and no matter what we're open to criticism - interfere too much, and we'll get slammed on that grounds. Interfere too little then we'll get slammed for letting whatever happen, happen if it goes even slightly wrong).

For this reason I also worry about the exact opposite that some people worry about when talking about the Iraqi opposition groups. Many raise the specter "they aren't united. They aren't in agreement on everything." Well, duh. Do you all want a pluralistic, multi-party system, or one-party rule? I like the fact that their is a variety of opinions among these guys and think that should be encouraged, and worry that it's being discouraged. As long as the working out of those disagreements stay in the realm of peaceful political processes, that is exactly what we would hope to see.

2003-02-17T07:29:00.000-08:00

Long But Excellent Post by Collin May at Innocents Abroad.

2003-02-17T07:07:00.000-08:00

Illigitimi Non Carborundum Est: So the Good People (feel their goodness wash over you in a wave) are out there showing how much more humane, civil, and thoughtful they are than those who don't share their world view, by sending hate mail to those who disagree with them.

Of course you must understand that since these people are defined (or, rather, self-defined) a priori as the "good guys", you have to understand that anything they do is justified to advance the progressive cause.

So it's not surprising that this "weekend of peace" has been filled with the most vile sorts of charges directed at those who don't agree with them - accusing various people of being NAZIs, or "spokesfaschists" (btw, I don't remember Thomas Friedman self-professing to be the "arch priest of the new world order" - but then, putting words in the mouths of opponents and then discrediting their by with things they never said is a trick the good "progressives" mastered long ago).

This invective is the substitute-for-argument style all too common among this branch of the ideological spectrum. It's as much a part of the ritualistic nature of things as the protest culture is (see my post sunday). Calling proponents of using force (war) to remove Saddam and disarm him since he will not comply with UN demands that he disarm "insane" (one of the more polite epithets among the progressive arsenal) is a substitute for grappling with the facts of the matter at hand.

Yes, these are by definition the "good people", as we all agree. But they follow the fallacies of moral aestheticism, moralism, and moral relativism - highly selective moral indignation - condemning "hate" while filling their writings with hatred for those who dissent from their world view (as with the Russia Journal article I linked to, above. But I could have linked to countless articles from countless "progressive" publications from nearly any country, or just quoted from e-mails such as the ones Megan and Glenn mentioned).

Or, to quote from the Times article (linked to above):

The demonstrators were not people who had opposed Saddam’s refusal to disarm under the terms of the UN ceasefire in 1991. They were not people who had marched against Iraq’s treatment of the missing hostages seized in Kuwait, or of the Iranian prisoners of war, or of Iraqi dissidents, or of the Kurds and Marsh Arabs. All of these things had passed them by. When the United States decided to act to enforce the UN resolution on disarmament, or to remove the regime, then, and only then, they decided to protest. Subjectively the march was for peace; objectively it helped Saddam Hussein. He knows that; the march was shown for seven hours on Iraqi television.

These are the caring people willing to consign millions to life under despotism because, mainly, of their blind animus towards the West (and America in particular) leads them to oppose what they usually champion when it is in the realm of the abstract (or in the concrete form of an untoward word to a co-ed on an American college campus or embodied in the form of a "spokesfaschist" like Sean Hannity speaking from a perspective they despise): the liberation of people from despotism and oppression.

On that basis, one has to ask who is insane here, if anyone? One can ask if they have an alternative - and they will give you an answer (various generally unworkable schemes largely designed not to insure Iraqi compliance with the terms of the Gulf War cease fire and the various follow up resolutions that they have agreed to, much less liberty for the people of Iraq; but designed to keep the Ba'ath National Socialist Party in power in Iraq. One has to conclude on "an enemy of my enemy is my friend" grounds. Sure, they'll say they don't like Saddam. But it's clear who they reserve their real opposition, dislike, and, yes, hatred for: you don't see them waving signs showing Saddam as a NAZI, nor do they send mails to people describing the Tikriti mob governing Iraq as Fascists, nor do they pen articles referring to Tarik Aziz as a "spokesfascist.") There's a reason why you don't see them out there with signs calling on Saddam to step down or calling for things this Iraqi hoped they would.

However, to people like Megan, targets of the torrent of venom from the "good progressive people", I say Illigitimi Non Carborundum Est.

2003-02-16T20:58:00.000-08:00

NATO Absent France finds a way out of impasse regarding positioning support for Turkey.

Mere accident that without France present, something was worked out?

2003-02-16T10:51:00.000-08:00

L'enfant Europa: Nelson Ascher writes from Paris (via e-mail):

I've watched yesterday from my window while for 3 hours or so the peace protestors went on toward the Place de La Bastille. It wasn't very impressive really: just a mix of mainly middle-aged middle class people and many Arabs. I'm glad to say that neither the slogans nor the signs they carried were too aggressive: most were about peace, down with the war, no blood for oil and so on. Obviously one of the favorite slogans was Busharon murderer(s). I've seen, however, no swastikas juxtaposed to the star of David or to any American symbol. Neither was the whole thing too noisy.

Nevertheless I'd say that maybe 1/4 or 1/5 of the things shouted or shown were anti-Israeli and anti-Sharon, something that, when dealing with a war in which Israel's role is at most very marginal, gives food for thought. Curiously, I've seen nothing anti-British or anti-Blair and, considering that Britain is America's main partner in the war, that makes this absence as curious as the insistence in talking about Israel.

As I'm used to this kind of thing ever since the 70s in my country, I estimated that the size of the protest was around 150.000 people, and that's what the press has generally been saying. My estimation was also helped by the fact the this protest seemed to be roughly of the same size as the main anti-Israeli one during operation Defensive Shield last year. The difference between both protests, however, is that the first was much more militant, aggressive, angry and well organized. Yesterday's looked either much less organized or maybe even more spontaneous. As I've said above, besides the Arabs, its participants were basically, how should I put it, "decent" people.

Immediately after, it looked as if it had never happened. And here's an intriguing point about this way of making politics. What's the real effect, the real importance of this, besides the pictures on the front page for a day or two and the TV footage? Is it all as meaningful, even for the participants, as the ideologues would have us believe?

I can take seriously one kind of protest: when people go out to the streets not only against their own government's wishes, but also risking jail, death, whatever; the kind that happened in Hungary in 56 or East Germany, Bucharest and Prague in 89 or Belgrade a couple of years ago. But those protests were not one time events. People took to the streets and stayed there insisting on immediate, substantive and radical changes in their very towns and countries. Those, unlike what took place yesterday, were not feel good events backed by the government, the press and the official institutions.

It should also be remembered that even the angrier protest here in Paris against Israel last year failed to get any result. There was no real follow up: the next protests were few, they attracted less and less people and, in the end, they couldn't put real pressure on Israel and its army. If such a protest couldn't stop the army of a small, besieged, not exactly rich and very unpopular country, why should the US care for something that, if it had approximately the same size, was surely less deeply motivated?

My feeling, and I don't think it is exclusively subjective, is that middle-aged people were behaving like, well, rather well-behaved teens. But even this seems to have been happening in a somewhat peculiar way, because, after all, who were they exactly protesting against? In the end, teens, even nice teens, protest against their parents: that's human nature. Thus, our protestors should have been marching against their government, right?

Now, consider the following. My wife has two kids who are grown up now, but when they were teens the high school they attended was a fashionable lefty one. The teachers' game there was to back them against their parents, allowing them do do anything the parents tried to forbid. They then developed a strong loyalty toward those teachers because they seemed so much more sensitive, open-minded, understanding and so on than their own parents were.

My impression of France and of most of Western Europe sometimes is that they are a kind of huge high school, or rather, lycée. That has in a way become the, so to say, paradigmatic institution, instead of, for instance, the workplace, the army or the church. This also helps to explain why Europeans in general expect from their representatives, ministers, presidents that they at least look and behave like intellectuals: they're teachers after all. It surely explains why intellectuals in general and specially academic intellectuals love the European way of ruling and making politics so much.

It's not hard to guess that I reserve for America the parental and bill paying role, but I'd like to stress that I'm not taking this in a psychoanalytic, Freudian way. I actually think that the educational system, as it is, has shaped these societies in a very deep way. I still remember my time in the student movement during the late 70s and what strikes me is how much the kind of action I've just witnessed below my window resembles student politics: it is much closer to it than to what many among us consider real politics. Utopianism, lots of theorizing, a lack of rootedness in pragmatic reality, the love for empty abstractions and impossible principles, romantic revolutionary posturing, voluntarism, the belief that all the evils in the world come from the cynicism and materialism of the grownups, sentimentalism and so on are traditional marks of student movements anywhere, except, of course, in dictatorships and tyrannies. And that's fair enough, because that's a reflex of the powerlessness of early youth.

Making a long story short, yesterday's protest was, partly at least, a public demonstration of the complete infantilization of the Western European street.

I think there's something to that, perhaps. I think there is also a "life as art" aspect to this (see also here), and self-gratification (again referring to Armed Liberal's "War on Bad Philosophy" discourse). That's why there's a carnival and street theatre aspect to so much of this. It is also why, while they might claim otherwise, it's clear that the primary point of all the slogans and rhetoric is not to persuade others, but a form of self-congratulation (and also, by this point, one has to recognize their highly ritualistic nature, repeating the same mantra from protests past; "The Movement" as secular religion). Thus the banners, slogans, and speeches at demonstrations often seem very disconnected from reality to outsiders (this is not necessarily the case with respect to anti-war blogs and articles, but is invariably the case with respect to demonstrations, which have become little but religious pilgrimages and which content and form does not vary regardless of the issue at hand. This could be an anti-globalization demonstration or a Earth Day demonstration just as easily as an anti-war demonstration). That is because, for the spokesman and many of the participants, it's more important to maintain a connection to "The Movement's" legacy from decades past than to make arguments fitted to the present issue-at-hand. That issue must be shoehorned into the dialectic of "The Movement", regardless of whether it fits (thus the emphasis on neo-Marxist materialist explanations such as "it's about oil", for example).

But no doubt there is a lot of adolescence involved in doing it this way rather than really engaging the issue and trying to persuade.

2003-02-16T10:14:00.000-08:00

Blair Overcomes his own worst fault.

Tony Blair, in a speech this weekend (via Andrew Sullivan):

I do not seek unpopularity as a badge of honour. But sometimes it is the price of leadership. And the cost of conviction.

Paul Johnson, writing in an article and quoting Blair ("Tony Award"):

Once, when we were discussing faults, I said that my worst one was impatience and asked him [Blair] to name his. After some hesitation, [Blair] said: "Not doing the right thing for fear it would make me unpopular."I believe that to be true, and it was candid and brave of him to admit it.

He seems to have overcome his own worst fault to rise to the occasion.

Two years ago I never would have thought he had it in him. I was wrong.

2003-02-16T07:46:00.000-08:00

AMI GO HOME!: A week or so ago when several of the units America has stationed in Germany got deployment orders, Rumsfeld commented that this wasn't due to any friction between Germany and the U.S., just part of the deployment to the Gulf.

That's true, as far as it goes. But it's unlikely they'll ever be returning to Germany. "Ami Go Home"?

Fine.

2003-02-14T13:33:00.000-08:00

Unserious Powers Want More Snipe Hunts in Iraq.

They jointly say that the world is better off if they ignore the text of the 17th Resolution they passed demanding Iraq comply "immediately".

Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said, after reminded of the text of the Resolution France negotiated last fall "oh, we didn't mean it. No one should take anything France or the UN says seriously. Really, you all knew that when we voted for it. So it's completely premature and unacceptable for the U.S. to try to hold us to something we voted for so many months ago, when everyone knew we were never sincere about the 16 preceding Resolutions, much less 1441."

German Foreign Minister Joshka Fisher concurred. He repeated that Iraq was not in "materiel breach", eliding over the fact that Resolution 1441 says that it is. He said that France, Germany, Russia, and China were all agreed that the thing to do was to consider passing a 19th Resolution asking Iraq to cooperate. Fisher went on, saying "If Iraq doesn't cooperate this time, we're fully prepared to show the iron resolve of the international community by passing a 20th Resolution. I think the U.S. and Britain should be more than satisfied with this, and shouldn't do anything to break up the international consensus on giving Saddam endless 'Last Chances'."

Questioned about possible involvement with terrorist organizations, Fischer said "yes, I have some experience with that. . .Oh, wait. You meant Saddam. I find it best to stay out of other people's affairs. Unless they're Americans."

2003-02-14T12:41:00.000-08:00

High Power Microwave Weapon likely to be used against Iraqi communications and other electronic-dependent gear. An article about them and a lengthy description of them.

2003-02-14T09:38:00.000-08:00

Industrial Production goes up.

2003-02-14T08:38:00.000-08:00

Transforming One's Job Description For "Peace": Remember, though, it's not their job to find hidden snipes (see also the Christopher Hitchens post, below). It's Iraq's job to disclose (read the resolution).

Helping Saddam by defining your job description in a way that suits him and the Frankenreich just fine calls into question who you're really working for.

(Also this report and see the BBC report as well).

2003-02-14T08:31:00.000-08:00

Christopher Hitchens on the UN and twisting of the meaning of Resolutions and Michael Ledeen on what the Restored Carolingian Empire pretends not to know.

2003-02-14T07:28:00.000-08:00

Nelson Ascher has some questions for "anti-war" poets (about which John Coumarianos also has a few words). Here's what Nelson wrote:

Having lived in a military dictatorship myself and knowing through my parents about their experience with much worse dictatorships (fascist and communist Hungary, nazi Germany), having seen innocent people murdered by religious fanatics in NY, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa, Indonesia etc., having visited synagogues burned down recently in Europe, and after having seen below my own Parisian window people marching with openly anti-Semitic slogans, I think you'll understand me if I'll ask you a small favor. It is the following: please direct me to sites where I can find poets fighting against tyranny, dictatorship, Muslim fundamentalism, facistic Arab nationalism, againts people who praise and/or promote the intentional murder of civilians because, for instance, they are Americans, Australians, Brits, Jews. I'd like to know if there is any site with poets fighting for justice for the Kurds and the punishment of those guilty for their massacre. I'd also like to know if there's any site where poets write and fight against the bizarre and sadistic North Korean dictatorship. Once I had dinner with script writer jean claude carriere and a friend of his, an exiled Iranian writer with whom he translated medieval persian poetry into French. They both explained to me that the only way to imagine the Iranian parliament would be to think of an European one where there'd be places only for bishops and cardinals. Surely, thus, in the US there must also be sites with poets fighting against such a regime. Am I wrong? I'd also like to know if there's any site with poets writing about the crimes of the Belgians, older ones like Congo, more recent ones, like the murder of Patrice Lumumba, and pretty new ones, like their guilt in the genocide in Rwanda. By the way, any chance of finding a web site with poets protesting against Russian crimes in Tchtchnia, Chinese ones in Tibet, French ones all over Africa, the French backing of military dictatorship in Algeria, the Rwandan genocide, and their military intervention in the Ivory Coast? A country with so many excellent poets like the US surely has poets worrying about all these things, doesn't it? Humbly, I myself, in Brazil, had time to write in my newspaper against so many tyrants, from Pinochet to Castro, I had also time to write about all the massacres perpetrated in the Arab world besides Sabra and Chattila. So, I believe, there must be lots of poets writing and protesting against all of this. I cannot imagine that thousands of poets are obsessed only with writing about Bush or trying to save one more tyrant's skin. Coming to think of it, I can remember many great poets who wrote in praise of Stalin, Lenin, Hitler, Franco, Mussolini, Mao, for god's sake, even Enver Hodja. But I find it not only hard to remember any who wrote against any of the above without in the same breath praising some of the others, but I don't remember any great poet who wrote consistently good odes in praise of good old bourgeois democracy. But maybe I'll find the site for which they've been writing. As a trotskyist since my teens I cannot but fight fascism, be it black, red or green.Oh yes, I do know about things that are worse than war: my two grandfathers and my paternal grandmother, I'm sure, would have loved the chance to die fighting in a war instead of being killed in the way they were.

Also, as we see, some thoughts about them, too.

Check this out as well, if you haven't already.