Friday, December 14, 2007

That NIE Again ...

Tigerhawk notes a Stratfor report that claims "the European Union will impose its own sanctions against Iran if the U.N. Security Council fails to act or passes a weak resolution, the Jerusalem Post reported. The diplomats, speaking at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, said the recent U.S. intelligence assessment on Iran would hardly change European policy toward the country."

I guess the Europeans were content to play the "good cop" as long as Washington played the "bad cop". Now that the current NIE has made that role harder to play, that essential role must be fulfilled by someone else. Which just goes to show that a lot of the criticism directed at Washington simply goes with the turf of being the leading power in the world. Probably nothing so scares the Left, in their heart of hearts, than the prospect that "US imperialism" should actually vanish and leave them to deal with the cruel world in whatever way they can.

Nothing follows.

43 Comments:

Blogger Ari Tai said...

Now, if only the EC would field something better than show bands and sharpshooting teams.

I sense a poker-player matching wits with the chessmasters. Wish I could travel forward in time ten or so years and take a look, esp. given the Brit who spilled the beans w/ his WWIII comment that GWB used (a practiced slip of the tongue I suspect) a few weeks later.

12/14/2007 06:01:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

W: Probably nothing so scares the Left, in their heart of hearts, than the prospect that "US imperialism" should actually vanish and leave them to deal with the cruel world in whatever way they can.

Which means America will become the Blackwater of the World. Need forty helicopters in Darfur to drop emergency shipments of condoms? Pick up the red phone, give US a call.

12/14/2007 06:26:00 PM  
Blogger Wretchard said...

Which means America will become the Blackwater of the World.

That's how it was for many years anyhow. The Soviets were never kept out Western Europe by their fear of the French Army.

Whether it will always be true is another question. I think much of the world has seen the real limits to US willingness to police the planet in the last twenty years. I think there will be an increasing willingness to pick up the small crises. For example, the EU has just sent a "huge" force of 1,800 policemen, judges and administrators to Kosovo to keep a lid on the situation. Maybe they can do the same for places like Darfur, etc. But for the big-ticket crisis only the US will do for the foreseeable future.

12/14/2007 06:41:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

W: But for the big-ticket crisis only the US will do for the foreseeable future.

It remains to be seen if America is willing to do the gruntwork of maintaining global peace while simultaneously being verbally abused along the lines of Roger Moore's butler in "A View To A Kill"

WORLD: "Don't stand there panting, America. Start unpacking."

USA: "Yes, sir. Thank you, sir."

WORLD: "There is a reception at six."

USA: "Yes, sir."

WORLD: "So I need a white jacket and a black tie."

USA: "Yes, sir."

WORLD: "And if possible, a clean shirt."

USA: "Yes, sir."

WORLD: "Oh, my Lord, America! Look at the state of my clothes. How on earth do you pack my bags?"

USA: "Sorry, sir."

WORLD "What the devil's wrong with these shoes? Were they wiped over with an oily rag?

USA "Terribly sorry, sir."

WORLD: "You blasted well should be. I don't know how long you expect to remain in my employ."

12/14/2007 07:07:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

The likely crisis is a lot closer to Europe. It is rich, old and defenseless. Poor nations ring it's southern perimeter. Much of Iberia, Southern France, and Sicily/Italy could be easily annexed, raided, conquered by nothing more than swarms of men with speedboats, GPS, and AK-47's.

Absent US Naval power, that is probably what will happen.

12/14/2007 07:12:00 PM  
Blogger Carl said...

Since the Europeans are actually in range of Iran's latest crop of ballistic missiles, playing some kind of cop seems quite reasonable to me. Certainly better than sticking one's head in the sand and waiting for the rest to be incinerated.

12/14/2007 07:14:00 PM  
Blogger The Bruce said...

I sincerely doubt that Europe will take on any enemy strong enough to harm it. They are now a permanent ankle-biter claiming superior moral authority based on nothing but their amoral sophistication.

12/14/2007 07:20:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Whiskey_199: Much of Iberia, Southern France, and Sicily/Italy could be easily annexed, raided, conquered by nothing more than swarms of men with speedboats, GPS, and AK-47's.

Sicily you say? They would run into this little thing called the Mafia. In Iberia they would run afoul of the ETA. And the topless beaches on the French Riviera would make the Muslim mind explode.

12/14/2007 07:37:00 PM  
Blogger Zenster said...

whiskey_199: The likely crisis is a lot closer to Europe. It is rich, old and defenseless. Poor nations ring it's southern perimeter. Much of Iberia, Southern France, and Sicily/Italy could be easily annexed, raided, conquered by nothing more than swarms of men with speedboats, GPS, and AK-47's.

All I can say is that if America is once again forced to rescue Europe from itself, we had damn well better demand their permanent abandonment of socialism.

It's time we got some real quid pro quo out of these triangulating SOBs. Denmark, Poland and Britain all get a pass to some extent but the rest of these efette dilettantes need to stick their nuanced dialogue and soft power where the sun doesn't shine.

Even in the unlikely event that Europe manages to dodge Islam's bullet, they're still going to fall on their own socialistic EU sword.

12/14/2007 07:40:00 PM  
Blogger Carl said...

the bruce said:
//I sincerely doubt that Europe will take on any enemy strong enough to harm it.//
Underestimating the willingness of Europeans to fight is something that Americans did throughout the last century. Time we moved away from that. Europeans have consistently demonstrated a viciousness in wartime that we have only approached during our own civil war, let's not make that mistake again.

12/14/2007 07:40:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Bruce: I sincerely doubt that Europe will take on any enemy strong enough to harm it.

That has been the strategy of America too, from Grenada and Haiti and Somalia through Iraq and Afghanistan. America would never actually confront countries that can reach out and touch us back, like Russia or China.

12/14/2007 08:10:00 PM  
Blogger Marcus Aurelius said...

Why does the word "musmos" come to mind (actually, it did not leap I consulted two dictionaries first)?

I am not certain the likes of the mafia, the ETA etc are much of a threat to a society completely unconcerned about standard Western pieties.

In the Middle Easter city I lived in they thought nothing of shutting down a whole section of city, shooting who they had to, to shut it down, carting everyone to "camp" and deporting anyone without proper paperwork. I am sure a number of Pinoys went home as well as about a reputed 10,000 or so Pakistanis.

As far as topless beaches go the Islamic answer is simple, whip the snot out of anyone who goes topless.

Europe has a lot more to worry about. Our minority is Christian and much more closer a live and let live attitude than Europe's minority.

12/14/2007 08:19:00 PM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Marcus A: I am not certain the likes of the mafia, the ETA etc are much of a threat to a society completely unconcerned about standard Western pieties.

Yes, but they've always been hell on invaders, since the days of Caesar. Just because the French are spineless atheists now doesn't mean good rural Catholics like Sicilians or the Basque are going to let Muzzies come into their Cathedrals with AK's and tell them to take the Blessed Virgin Mary down from her alcove. The parish priest would probably clear them out himself with his shotgun.

12/14/2007 08:29:00 PM  
Blogger Tamquam Leo Rugiens said...

The parish priest would probably clear them out himself with his shotgun.
Shades of Don Camillo.

12/14/2007 09:33:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Teresita --

There are a number of flaws in your analysis.

First, the Sicilians, Italians in general, and also the Basques, Spaniards, and French are too few in number to fight. Their young men are very few, and in say 50-75 years Italians, Spaniards, and very likely the French will cease to exist.

This weakness in manpower is provocative.

Secondly, the Mafia AND Camorra (far more deadly, far more ensconced) have been pushed out of rackets up and down Italy by the Albanians, Turks, and other Muslim gangs. They are weak, old, and largely broken. They cannot even defend their own territory in criminality.

Thirdly, the ETA/Sicilians/Sardinians etc are only effective against Western, hamstrung enemies. As others have noted, the locals would be enslaved or slaughtered. Slavery still exists in the Sudan today, and sub-rosa in Saudi, Morocco, and parts of Algeria as well as the disputed Western Sahara.

Fourth, historically the Sicilians when weak have had their behinds handed to them by outside invaders. First the Arab Muslims conquered them (famously caricatured by Dennis Hopper in True Romance complete with the usual Tarantino racial epithets to denote coolness, no I am not a fan) and then the Vikings did so, triggering a long three-cornered war with the mainland Italians, Vikings, and Arabs. Sicilians who are picky about their ancestry usually claim to be from the eastern side and descended from Greeks.

Oddly the Vikings-Arabs-Italians struggle over Sicily mirrored the Greek-Carthaginian-Roman struggle about 1200 years earlier.

Generally the strongest, most resource-rich, unified, and brutal force has won these wars for territory.

As for European ability to fight, largely there is none. The "emasculation" of the Swedish Lion insignia forced by female soldiers (itself telling) on the patches worn by Swedish soldiers indicates a broader problem. There are not enough young men to fight. Those who do exist won't fight, but run away.

They have nothing to fight for. Family? Women in Europe prefer "love em and leave em" guys -- half of all births in Britain are illegitimate and similar figures apply to the rest of Europe. Men will certainly fight for reproductive success. They generally won't fight if there is no hope of that, absent the lash. Then, they fight poorly.

Europeans of old who fought had families or the expectation (should they survive) of one, and fought largely for that opportunity (the invader would take all the women) or to preserve that family and it's economic basis.

That has gone for generations. Largely due to the Welfare state, better positions for women (good but not cost free), feminism, and US protection plus the assumed permanence of the Cold War and the USSR. Why fight or have military power when the superpower leashes mean it's useless (Suez Crisis) and any real fight is nuclear destruction.

Iran of course can dictate (and will) Europe's surrender of sovereignty to "Islamic Republics" in France, the UK, Italy, Spain, and Germany. Europeans are now discovering that unhappy fate -- they are at the mercy of the "youths" demanding Islamic independence and a powerful, nuclear ICBM patron to back them up.

But the possibility of some ad-hoc, unorganized, unplanned raiding party simply taking and holding (if even for a while) a Spanish or Italian or French town should not be discounted. History has a surprising way of being unexpected. And Europe is very weak, very rich, surrounded by young and poor and hungry men.

12/14/2007 09:53:00 PM  
Blogger Beverly said...

First, to respond to Teresita, who said That has been the strategy of America too, from Grenada and Haiti and Somalia through Iraq and Afghanistan. America would never actually confront countries that can reach out and touch us back, like Russia or China.

Are you implying we're cowards? In our own Civil War alone, hundreds of thousands of men died in battles of horrific bloodiness and casualty rates.

We fought both Mexico in the early years of the Republic, and the French and Indians to the north. They're the only large nations or territories that adjoin us.

Have you overlooked the fact that we're protected by two rather large oceans, and therefore protected from most large, bloodthirsty foes?

We tipped the scales against the Germans in the first world war, and defeated the Empire of Japan and Germany in the second (the latter with, of course, the British and Russians, but they would have been hard-pressed without us, and Great Britain would certainly have gone under).

Not enough American blood for you?

And second: to all those who think the Arab/Muslim world will swamp Europe, hell, the Europeans could blow them out of the water if they'd just snap out of their pomo trance. The Arabs have always been lousy, disorganized fighters. Look at how the Israelis whipped the snot out of them repeatedly, even when vastly outnumbered and outgunned. But they weren't outmanned, by Jingo.

12/14/2007 11:41:00 PM  
Blogger Beverly said...

Here's a link for those who are interested in battle casualty rates for Confederate and Union troops in the War Between the States. Read it and weep.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/casualties.htm

Some regiments suffered over Eighty Per Cent losses.

12/14/2007 11:42:00 PM  
Blogger putnam said...

My experience with European (Swiss) police is that they would rather not have to deal with the really violent slavs and arabs.

Unless really forced, the police as they currently stand would much more likely appease these violent thugs, and step up harrassment of the unarmed, emasculated western men and their loud, shrill but harmless women.

12/15/2007 01:38:00 AM  
Blogger Zenster said...

beverly: Not enough American blood for you?

For teresita? Not by half.

putnam: ... loud, shrill but harmless women.

**cough**

12/15/2007 02:49:00 AM  
Blogger Teresita said...

Whiskey_199: Iran of course can dictate (and will) Europe's surrender of sovereignty to "Islamic Republics" in France, the UK, Italy, Spain, and Germany. Europeans are now discovering that unhappy fate -- they are at the mercy of the "youths" demanding Islamic independence and a powerful, nuclear ICBM patron to back them up.

Are you saying that Iran will attack France and England with nuclear missiles if they crack down on the "youths" rioting in the streets? That's a pretty low bar for Iran to risk their very existence for, especially considering that Iran refrained from using chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, and Saddam invading Iran was a far greater provocation than Euroweenies dispersing Muslim youths.

12/15/2007 04:24:00 AM  
Blogger Alex said...

And what do you think of Obadiah Shoher's arguments against the peace process ( samsonblinded.org/blog/we-need-a-respite-from-peace.htm )?

12/15/2007 05:10:00 AM  
Blogger The Bruce said...

Carl writes: "Europeans have consistently demonstrated a viciousness in wartime that we have only approached during our own civil war..."

Since 1945, when has this happened?

12/15/2007 08:54:00 AM  
Blogger slimslowslider said...

I tend to agree with Carl, "Underestimating the willingness of Europeans to fight is something that Americans did throughout the last century. Time we moved away from that. Europeans have consistently demonstrated a viciousness in wartime that we have only approached during our own civil war, let's not make that mistake again."

The europeans are Wolves in Sheeps clothing and what is being looked at as being weak and effeminate is the cloak of thier Calculatingness.
If you go to Janes Defense Weekly and do some research you will find out that the Europeans are armed to the teeth with The State of the Art Military equipment. Force multiplication at it's finest. Their backing of the Palestinians does not reflect thier weak or effeminate nature or even thier socialist agenda but rather something else.

12/15/2007 08:56:00 AM  
Blogger The Bruce said...

The Bruce: I sincerely doubt that Europe will take on any enemy strong enough to harm it.

Teresita: That has been the strategy of America too, from Grenada and Haiti and Somalia through Iraq and Afghanistan. America would never actually confront countries that can reach out and touch us back, like Russia or China.

The Bruce: So you think the current world war against Islam is lopsided in the West's favor?

12/15/2007 08:59:00 AM  
Blogger RWE said...

"The Soviets were never kept out Western Europe by their fear of the French Army."

Or the French anything. Dirty Little Secret (literally): The French Force D'Frap land-based ballistic missile force for many years lacked the range to hit the USSR. They could really whup up on Germany, the Czechs, and the Poles, but could not drop a nuke on the real problem. They had a Force D'Crap.

If they want to strike back at Iran - as they have threatened recently - there is a good chance that they can't.

12/15/2007 09:09:00 AM  
Blogger The Bruce said...

Slimslowslider: "Their backing of the Palestinians does not reflect their weak or effeminate nature or even their socialist agenda but rather something else."

Care to name what that is?

12/15/2007 09:12:00 AM  
Blogger Marzouq the Redneck Muslim said...

Teresita: Sicily you say? They would run into this little thing called the Mafia. In Iberia they would run afoul of the ETA. And the topless beaches on the French Riviera would make the Muslim mind explode.

LMAO! That is a good one!

Salaam!

12/15/2007 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Marzouq the Redneck Muslim said...

Teresita: Sicily you say? They would run into this little thing called the Mafia. In Iberia they would run afoul of the ETA. And the topless beaches on the French Riviera would make the Muslim mind explode.

LMAO! That is a good one!

Salaam!

12/15/2007 09:23:00 AM  
Blogger Wadeusaf said...

Slimslowslider: the Europeans are armed to the teeth with The State of the Art Military equipment. Force multiplication at it's finest. Their backing of the Palestinians does not reflect thier weak or effeminate nature or even thier socialist agenda but rather something else.

Efficiency in killing is easily offset by hamhandedness in political or social arenas. Hearts and minds is the most important force multiplier, and in the end it is the only one that counts. Fortunately or not, I believe we may soon see how well the EC can apply the lessons currently being learned in the ME, in Africa and So. Asia. I do not think that wholesale nuclear incineration is in the offing, unless they fail.

12/15/2007 09:26:00 AM  
Blogger Marzouq the Redneck Muslim said...

Whiskey,

Nice sober assessment about EU.

Good example in Britain. Now there is a sword ban!

Praise Allah, I live in dixie USA!

Salaam!

12/15/2007 09:29:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

Just remember that through two world wars, the Yurps have killed off millions and millions of their best young men.

That means that genetically they've been breeding with the lame, the halt, the blind, the stupid and the cowardly to produce their current generation of appeasers.

I think we should really give up on the idea of Viking, Roman or Conquistador blood finally making its presence known in the form of the current residents of Yurp rising up and running amok among their persecutors.

They simply don't have it in them genetically any more to be warriors, and they're not even very good lawyers if you look at all the disabling laws they've bound themselves by.

12/15/2007 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger Marzouq the Redneck Muslim said...

Nahncee,

Good comment. Being part Frisian Viking and part Moor (oh God, how conflicted I am) of Yurpean extraction, I say again how happy I am to live in the Nation of Mongrels (the healthiest breed)USA. I have to wonder if the Euros are thinking Sun Tsu (when strong, look weak) as ari tai alluded to.

Killin is tirin. The European history is so much longer than America's. The Euros seem tired. With the so-called impending demographic conquest of Europe by the "Muslim Horde", it will be an interesting awakening.

Personally I believe the Socialist experement is beginning to fail in Europe. So many end up here in USA. I hear of the rise in emigration over there.

Times are interesting to be sure. The times they are a changin.



wadeusaf:
Efficiency in killing is easily offset by hamhandedness in political or social arenas. Hearts and minds is the most important force multiplier, and in the end it is the only one that counts. Fortunately or not, I believe we may soon see how well the EC can apply the lessons currently being learned in the ME, in Africa and So. Asia. I do not think that wholesale nuclear incineration is in the offing, unless they fail.

Wade,

I am with you on that! BoydUSAF et. al. would salute you!

Salaam eleikum, Merry Christmas, Happy Hannukah All Y'all!

12/15/2007 01:34:00 PM  
Blogger whiskey_199 said...

Teresita -- I can only go by what Iranian Leadership themselves say. They have hinted around in public statements that they see themselves as the protectors of Muslims in Europe (an ironic role-reversal of Europe's role of protector of Christians in the Levant). Ahmadinejad himself styles himself as the protector of Muslims world-wide and had toured Muslim nations extensively to make that point.

As for Iran's "restraint" in the Iran-Iraq War I will point out that they both used the Basij, about half a million 9 year old boys with plastic keys to "heaven" as human minesweepers/assault waves in the War, and also conducted the "War of the Cities" between Baghdad and Tehran. Baghdad having the Air assault edge devastated Tehran with bombs, Tehran having more long-range missiles used them effectively to damage Baghdad (which being more spread out absorbed the damage better).

But Iran has certainly proved itself ruthless.

Moreover IMHO you too casually dismiss the use of truck bombs by Iran in "risky" confrontations to get what they want. Iran risked massive US retaliation for the truck bombs that destroyed the US Embassy and Marine Barracks in 1983, and Khobar Towers in 1996. In both cases Iran successfully intimidated the US into withdrawing or reducing influence in regions Iran wanted.

Iran could well use a "nuclear truck bomb" in Paris, or Lyon, or Marseilles, in response to a crackdown on an "Independent Islamic Republic." Their core ideology and vision of Islam REQUIRES THEM TO COME TO THE AID OF ANY INDEPENDENT ISLAMIC REPUBLIC IN EUROPE. No less than Khomeni set those rules and they have been re-affirmed at every point by his successors.

What does Iran risk? Nothing since France realistically cannot hit back with it's forces, and in any event has even less will to do so than the US in 1979, 1983, or 1996. There is no risk for Iran.

Especially if Hezbollah or some other deniable proxy is used. Recall the standards of "proof" demanded by Western Liberals in military responses? This "proof" guarantees the use of deniable proxies until that strategy is shown concretely to be far too risky (in other words a regime must be effectively destroyed employing it).

What does Iran GAIN by supporting an Independent Islamic Republic in France? Money and power (transferred by the dependent Republic to Iran) but most importantly global leadership of the World's Muslims, in the role to establishing a World-Wide Caliphate and the start of reconstituting the Persian Empire (in Islamic Form).

Tehran is competing with Osama for global Muslim leadership. Currently Osama gets most of the favorable press because it is he not Tehran that inflicts defeats or casualties among the West, particularly America. If Tehran can help take part of France to Islamic Rule, that victory would cement Tehran's gain in global leadership. Allow them as victors to move to cement their holdings in Lebanon and elsewhere. Intimidate the Gulf.

Tehran's actions have been extremely aggressive, and I fear more aggression yet to come. Europe lacks men, willingness to spend money, forget some social welfare spending, and basic political will to protect itself from dangerous and poor neighbors who want their wealth, land, and people (as slaves).

This is basic human nature and it will not end well. Europe is just as likely to surrender piecemeal without a fight because like the Romans overwhelmed by the Goths and then Huns they have no real ability to fight anymore.

12/15/2007 01:48:00 PM  
Blogger Zenster said...

whiskey_199: What does Iran risk? Nothing since France realistically cannot hit back with it's forces, and in any event has even less will to do so than the US in 1979, 1983, or 1996. There is no risk for Iran.

Especially if Hezbollah or some other deniable proxy is used. Recall the standards of "proof" demanded by Western Liberals in military responses? This "proof" guarantees the use of deniable proxies until that strategy is shown concretely to be far too risky (in other words a regime must be effectively destroyed employing it).


Excellent overall post, w_199. Iran's use of proxies is one of several important reasons that it should be crushed in the very near future. The MME (Muslim Middle East) needs to be put on notice that indirectly conducting war with plausibly deniable proxies is a surefire ticket to destruction. It is a major reason that I advocate massively disproportionate retaliation against those who direct asymmetrical warfare against the West. The MME must be taught how unprofitable such methods are. As of now, no such demonstration has been made.

Toppling Afghanistan and Iraq were mere warning shots fired across Islam's bow. It is clearly going to take the wholesale destruction of entire cities before Islam begins to clean up its act. While our delicate prosecution of this conflict may seem humane on its surface, it unnecessarily prolongs what needs to be a severely foreshortened process. Any delays only increase the butcher's bill. Islam knows this damn well and stalls for time explicitly so that it can inflict maximum harm regardless of the cost in Muslim lives. In their dogged quest for ascendancy, Muslims do not comprehend how their leadership treats them as being totally dispensible. Such flagrant disregard for human life is but one of many aspects that makes Islam so dangerous.

12/15/2007 04:23:00 PM  
Blogger always right said...

Re: The so-called european "viciousness in wartime"
We had a long and hard discussion on just such argument on Dr. Daniel Pipes’ site. IMO, today’s european stock is NOT the same as those days gone by. Only a small part will try to be as vicious (or more so) as the enemy. Without outside help (i.e. US), europe is a GONER.

My question for the commenters is the following.

Suppose the more and more frequent breakout of the riots from their “youths” in france, germany, netherlands, etc. become a full scale civil war. On what ground will the US get involved? Treaties or treaties, after all, it is their “internal affair” (the chinese’ favorite). Can we side with one faction, against the other? Isn’t our involvement a legitimate complaint of “American Imperialism”, using proxy as in Korean war, Vietnam? Will the US side with the current government(s) just to abandon them? I will remind you plenty of examples (ROC – ie Taiwan, South Vietnam, Iranian Shar, ….you can add on more recent examples).

12/15/2007 04:27:00 PM  
Blogger Zenster said...

always right: Can we side with one faction, against the other?

You bet we can. For "civil war" to break out in European countries, weapons are going to be required. Due to the fact that some of the countries in question—France and Great Britain to be precise—possess nuclear arms, it is in the interests of America's national security to ensure that radical Muslims do not obtain control over them. We already face exactly such a situation in Pakistan and there are contingency plans in place for confiscating or securing their nuclear weapons. I see little difference between these two examples.

As I mentioned, the arms needed to fight a civil war would have to come from somewhere. Iran would be a primary suspect in the establishment of such ratlines. Again, yet another sterling example of why Iran needs to be taken off line.

As whiskey_199 has already noted, Iran is trying to position itself as the protector of Muslims around the globe. Providing weapons to renegade European Muslims would represent but a small facet of that overall strategy.

Right about now is the time to make an example out of Iran so that the world's Muslim population gains a clear understanding of just how dangerous it is to try and spread radical Islam. Crushing Iran and its sponsorship of proxies is the exact sort of stick-in-the-spokes that is long overdue for Islam.

12/15/2007 06:36:00 PM  
Blogger Ignacio said...

I wouldn't underestimate Sarkozy.

12/16/2007 02:52:00 AM  
Blogger always right said...

Zenster,

Thanks for the reply. I understand your comment, and that's the sentiment I have, too. However, do we have "legal" grounds to do so? We can try to cut out routes of weapon import, present evidence of outside country's meddling to UN, what else can we do?

For example, the military forces in germany base can not fight their own citizens even at the request of their government. NATO treaty does not deal with civil wars inside member country, I think.

12/16/2007 04:52:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

..........If you go to Janes Defense Weekly and do some research you will find out that the Europeans are armed to the teeth with The State of the Art Military equipment. Force multiplication at it's finest.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If Britain's current Labor government has its way, Britain's Royal Navy will ... tradition reaching back to Sir Francis Drake - reducing the Royal Navy...


http://www.nypost.com/seven/01142007/postopinion/opedcolumnists/the_strange_death_of_the_royal_navy_opedcolumnists_arthur_herman.htm?page=0


"I am not ready to let NATO off the hook in Afghanistan at this point," Gates told the House Armed Services Committee. Ticking off a list of vital requirements -- about 3,500 more military trainers, 20 helicopters and three infantry battalions -- Gates voiced "frustration" at "our allies not being able to step up to the plate."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/11/AR2007121102428.html

''But some countries took two months to send troops to Kosovo,'' he added, referring to some smaller NATO allies.

European defense ministries were shocked by their own slow and cumbersome reaction and by technological gaps with the United States that the war over Kosovo revealed.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C06E7DF173BF932A05753C1A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

12/16/2007 08:15:00 AM  
Blogger NahnCee said...

However, do we have "legal" grounds to do so? We can try to cut out routes of weapon import, present evidence of outside country's meddling to UN, what else can we do?

Why am I thinking that you are a firm believer in "international law" and the United Nations?

If you just allow yourself to think outside of the envelope, strategically, on what would be the best and smartest thing for the United States of America to do for itself, it's amazing the sorts of different ideas you can come up with.

If, however, you think, "what would the French think" and decide not to do anything, then you're probably a Canadian and living in the wrong country.

12/16/2007 11:19:00 AM  
Blogger Zenster said...

always right: However, do we have "legal" grounds to do so?

Not being an expert on international law, I can only reply that America has the "legal right" to do what it does best and that is acting unilaterally to best protect its own security interests.

This is why you find me raising such immensely unpopular issues as "reverse immigration" or forced repatriation of Muslims to their respective countries of origin.

So long as Islam permits itself the absolute most unfair advantages in its subscription terrorism and taqiyya plus a total absence of reciprocity, Muslims must be treated with the utmost suspicion.

What does it mean when Khudayr Taher, an Iraqi Shi'ite living in America, publishes an article titled: "Europe and America Should Deport All Muslims - Including Myself "? Some excerpts:

"The legitimate question is this: Since the security services cannot sort out the good immigrant from the bad terrorist… why don't these countries deport all Muslims, of all races, from Europe and America, and [thus] find rest from the danger of terrorism, and protect their peoples?

"I, as an Arab Muslim immigrant, sincerely call on the countries of Europe and America to deport all Muslims from their territories - including myself, despite my love and my sincere attachment to the U.S…"


Mind you, this from a Muslim who loves America. What are we expect from his less patriotic and more violence prone co-religionists who are far greater in number?

Through a combination of inaction and outright betrayal by its multiculturalist elite, Europe will most likely be faced with one of two disdainful alternatives: Mass deportations or reopening Nazi-style concentration camps.

We can try to cut out routes of weapon import

Herein lies the core problem with consideration of legalities during a wartime situation. No matter how much other nations complain about—but secretly applaud—America's traditional role as the Global Cop™, we can no longer use police tactics in fighting Islam.

There is no way possible for us to interdict all the various ratlines by which weapons can be smuggled. Far more conclusive is to—militarily or economically—cripple those regimes who participate in distributing weapons to radical Islamists. Ergo, we do not "cut out routes of weapon import" but crush the exporters themselves.

present evidence of outside country's meddling to UN

Please refer to my prior mention of unilateralism. The UN has triangulated against American interests since the get-go. They are a terrorist support group whose use to us is of such marginal value that consulting with them over anything is perfunctory at best and, most often, a total waste of time.

what else can we do?

Keep a sufficient number of bases and troops positioned in Europe to maintain the capacity for intervention. Make it clear to Britain and France that any loss of control over their respective nuclear arsenals is grounds for military intervention and begin reading Islam the riot act on a global basis.

As of now we are quite far from this and that needs to change very badly.

12/16/2007 12:01:00 PM  
Blogger always right said...

Nahcee,

No, I absolutely abhors international court and UN organizations.

So both you and Zenster (and myself included) think, we are getting bad reps anyway, so we might as well do the "unpoplular but right thing", as we have been doing.

Up to a point, when another hostile Chinese-Russian-??? alliances catches up to the second superpower status.

And when our own population grows tired of the "world police" role, and couldn't care less about what happens outside of the 50 States.

12/17/2007 07:32:00 AM  
Blogger Zenster said...

always right: when our own population grows tired of the "world police" role, and couldn't care less about what happens outside of the 50 States.

I think that sort of isolationist attitude took a major body blow on 9-11. While in no way imaginable was it America's own fault, the 9-11 atrocity resulted, in part, from political navel-gazing when there should have been far more focus upon America's openly declared enemies.

While the democratic party still remains off-message in this respect, it also appears that they may well take a drubbing for it in 2008. Fewer Americans can be lulled into believing that external events are of no consequence. The illegal alien amnesty bill thrust this to the fore and only served to highlight issues even farther from our shores.

12/17/2007 10:05:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home


Powered by Blogger