Saturday, January 22, 2005

Four Fronts, Same War

Read a fantastic blog entry about why we are fighting the war in Iraq and how it relates to WWII, etc.  Great history lesson if nothing else. Bravo to KevinE at A Jewish Perspective.

Diplomat: IAEA Tours Egyptian Laboratory
"CAIRO, Egypt - U.N. nuclear inspectors toured an Egyptian laboratory during a review of the country's fuel programs prompted by irregularities in Egypt's reporting of its nuclear activities, a Western diplomat said Friday."


"The Associated Press first reported that IAEA inspectors found suspicious traces of plutonium particles in Egypt late last year." Read the rest here.

Check out the newest alert from --

Palestinian Insiders
AFP and AP employ reporters who also receive paychecks from the Palestinian Authority.

"One of the cardinal rules of responsible journalism is the independent status of the journalist ? while journalists may belong to political parties, they cannot actively work for a party relevant to the sphere they cover, lest their independence and neutrality be jeopardized." 


Daniel Pipes has another good one about our dear friends from CAIR. Check it out.

Radical Islam's Hypocrisy[: The Ehrgott & Okashah Cases]
New York Sun
The mentality of radical Islam includes several main components, of which one is Muslim supremacism: A belief that believers alone should rule and otherwise enjoy an exalted status over non-Muslims. This outlook dominates the Islamist worldview as much in the streets of Paris as in the caves of Afghanistan.


At 10:16 AM, Blogger American On Line said...

Thanks for the reference to KevinE's interersting post. He and I disagree on some history (esp. our war prep for WWII), but we agree on the main point which is the mortal threat that Israel.

When I discusss my view of the Iraq misadventure, I do so from a number of prospectives, e.g.: (1) past: placing responsiblity as to how and why we got here, (2) present: assessing what and how we are doing today there, (3) politcal, (4) assesing trust and support for the next set of choices, (5) to learn from all of you.

If the only target we ever had was Iraq. It would be one thing. But there were and are other real targets that posed and pose much greater threat. You know the rest.

This country cannot afford to police the entire world and impose democracy on every other country. It is the words of a child that Bush uttered on 1/20/05, which the White House has since receded from.

Isreal, US, UK, and world democracies must defend against attack or any clear and present imminent attack. But we have no military capacity to rid the world of every government that opposes our beliefs and which internally oppress their people.

Who will we do next: China? Saudi Arabia? The numerous tyrants in Africa, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E., Sudan, Rwanda, Cuba, Slave Traders, Pakistan, and the like?

Who pays?

Certainly not with increaed taxes, right?

Do we increase the deficit to $5 trillion?

Do we have a draft when the Guard and Reserves can no longer recruit their needs?

All this talk of making the world in our image is fancy, but the US and UK are failures at Military Imperialism, and the kind of making the world in our image is not going to happen through miltary action.

In thw world of ideas and war, Ronald Reagan's way was best: A strong and forceful country, that will go nose to nose to any other that poses a threat (China), an imminent threat (Iran, N.K.) or attacks us (Taliban sponsored/harbored Al Q) as well as in the marklet place of ideas, where democracy will prevail.

US - 2
USSR - 0
Taliban - 0

At 10:28 AM, Blogger Gindy said...

What is weird to me is that Debka knew that Egypt and Libyia both were working on this way before anyone else exposed it. They are amazing sometimes.

At 1:13 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Debka is amazing. They truly are.

Marty, I see what you're saying about "if Iraq was our only target." I do. And while I know we can't police the world, I do agree with the theory that democracies don't attack other democracies, therefore it's better if every place has democracy. If a place prefers to be controlled and oppress, then democratically elect your tyrant. See, there's always that option.

Do I think we should let other nations oppress their people because it isn't our business? Personally, I'd rather not allow that. If we accept that when we could do something about it (whether it be diplomatic or military), I think it would be morally irresponsible. Sometimes people need to be helped. Take the Jews circa WWII. I think it's hidious that the US only helped after we were attacked. I find that horrible.

The one thing I appreciated about our going after Iraq, was that for once, we got involved before the attrociy occurred. Granted, we didn't exactly do that -- hundreds of thousands, if not in the million range, were already in mass graves. But there'd have been so much more if we didn't go in. When I think in those terms, "who pays" doesn't bother me so much.

I agree -- I don't want purely military action. But Saddam was bamboozling everyone. We couldn't have trusted any pact, any paper he signed. I don't feel there were any other options.

At 9:03 PM, Blogger American On Line said...

Your views make all the sense in the world: Your sentiments IMHO are right on.

Hey, 40+ countries went for it.

However, I do believe that if you knew the truth about the state of Iraqi military affairs prior to entry to Iraq, you would you have opted for another idea.

Now, we can look forward to the next chapter, and share history together.

At 1:07 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Sounds like a plan.

But as to "I do believe that if you knew the truth about the state of Iraqi military affairs prior to entry to Iraq, you would you have opted for another idea" -- what exactly do you mean? How so?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home