The Written Peace:
Open Forum of January 23, 2006
Welcome is extended to several new and actively commenting visitors to The Dark Wraith Forums. Donviti has his own blog called De la where. It's a nice treat, originating as it does from... come to think of it, I'm not sure; I thought it was the coming from Delaware, but it might be coming from Pennsylvania. I should have checked on that before I started babbling here.
Anyway, one blogger who doesn't comment here but still merits my hearty recommendation is Stealth Badger. His is a strong, meaty blog with a nice, black background.
If I haven't mentioned it already, the blog called Night Bird's Fountain is a delicious read, and one of its contributors, Lizzy, comes over here to provide solid commentary. A number of readers from Night Bird's Fountain now visit The Dark Wraith Forums, and one of them named Lily even went so far as to post a darned decent comment on the thread for the last post. I am hopeful that more of those visitors will be moved to comment over here, given that a pretty sharp crowd hangs out over there. (I might also point out that, if you do visit Night Bird's Fountain, you'll notice a rather familiar name in the masthead on the sidebar.) As far as other blogs and bloggers are concerned, I welcome the Chief from Chief Sez, who just offered what I think is his first comment here, and it was a good one at that.
And as always, if you haven't checked The Dark Wraith BlogRing lately, there have been some additions over the past couple of weeks, and they're all good: a nice, nice Philadelphia blog called Phillybits; a refreshingly troubled blog called Evil Li-brul Overlord; and a blog called fizhog 101, which is authored by someone everyone else seems to know from another blog, but whom I can't identify for the life of me.
Finally, if you haven't been over to the Big Brass Blog lately, I am in the midst of doing some enhancements over there: the visual part is pretty much complete, and now I'm under the hood working on some less obvious components.
Now, if you haven't noticed it yet in the Advertisements section of the sidebar, here, the third bumpersticker in my series of four is available until the first part of February. And in other superfluous promotions, I thought the Internet radio station was ready to go, but I discovered that a load of more than maybe 20 listeners would blow the bandwidth right past Toledo and straight on to Hades. I'm working on an alternative means of broadcasting. Based upon what could reasonably be projected as a peak load of listeners well past the range my current configuration could handle, I'll have to reach into the professional-level service providers. Starting the radio station is a major objective, so it will get done. It's just going to be a little more complicated than I thought.
Then again, that kind of unpleasant surprise happens quite often.
On the somewhat more pleasant side, the Koufax Awards nominees are now being posted for voting. As of tonight, The Dark Wraith Forums has been listed (along with approximately a zillion other blogs) for the blog Most Deserving of Wider Recognition. Should nominations of this blog in other categories be forthcoming, I shall dispense with my preference to silence on such matters of recognition and make an announcement.
Now for some meat on which to chew. The securities markets are still running sideways. The run-up that had occurred before the end of last week gave solace to Mr. Bush's supporters and apologists, but the small leap was quickly brought back to Earth on Thursday and Friday as the major market indices again ensured that it is not yet time for the objective capital markets to broadly cheer this Administration's economic performance. This is, of course, part of a long-term disaster: recent articles here have pointed out that the federal budget deficits are not being reined in, personal savings are being eaten up to supplement current income for many Americans, and the Treasury debt markets are drifting closer and closer to displaying the dreaded inverted yield curve of which your host here at The Dark Wraith Forums has been warning for months.
This is not a good situation; and the looming problems will make their partisan origins to some extent secondary. The Bush Administration, together with its allies in Congress, will certainly deserve all the condemnation sure to spill forth in the few years ahead, but other than for the growing prospect that the condemnation will lead to the rascals being thrown out of Congress, the problems we are not yet as a nation facing will need solutions, and the solutions are not going to be easy nor painless to implement.
As an example, the "controversy" over Social Security has now died down, but the neo-conservatives won a major victory: the adjustments that should have been made several years ago—adjustments that have been made before in a timely, responsible, and bipartisan manner—have not been executed this time around; and every year, every month, in fact every day the adjustments aren't made, the corrections required to maintain the long-term solvency of the trust fund will have to be more dramatic and more painful. This makes the corrections ever more vulnerable to that insidious breed of extremists who are so adamant that a government program is wrong that they will wreck it just to prove their spiteful point.
In other news, the world is coming perilously close to the brink of a war, and this time it is not a war of opportunity as much as it is a war of failed opportunity. Iran is not the first country to have had designs on becoming a nuclear state. The desire of small states to become powers on the nuclear stage is as old as the Atomic Age, and it had until the present Administration been managed in such a way as to keep the so-called Nuclear Club rather exclusive. To the extent that states like India, Pakistan, and Israel managed to enter this group, they did so at worst with the complicity of certain nations and at best with the malfeasant inattention of the West. Now comes Iran, complete with a wholly operational fuel production program, the Shahab-3 delivery vehicles to hit Israel and other sovereign states of the region, and the relatively near-term capability to produce a Mark IV-class upgrade—a Shahab-4, as it were, although it may be called a Shahab-3B—to strike into Eurasia. And whereas the West is adamantly opposed to Iran becoming a nuclear power, Israel is militantly preparing to prevent it from happening.
Unlike false wars—built as they are upon lies underpinned by lies—this one looming in front of us, this one barely mentioned right now by the American media and the Bush Administration, is very likely the real thing. For all of the neo-con dreams of "tranformation" of the Middle East, and for all of their machinations to set the stage for a confrontation of this calibre, they have suddenly become rather the quiet people, standing paralyzed by the crippling debilitation of our war-making engine and the throttling exhaustion of our nation's treasure.
The 21st Century is thus well underway.
The Dark Wraith invites and awaits your comments.
Published 1/23/2006 09:35:00 PM
<< 65 Comments Total
and a blog called fizhog 101, which is authored by someone everyone else seems to know from another blog, but whom I can't identify for the life of me.
Well, sure. I remember his other blog:)
How come mullahs are provoking the west for war
They might get it from Isreal .. the country which should not exist
mynewsbot.com
Congratulations, my dear, on your nomination. Pretty cool stuff, isn't it? Such a neat way to get to know other blogs and the people who write them. I have been having the time of my life exploring all the nominees. And it’s always nice to get a pat on the back from your peers!
Confounded it, trailer trash. Out with it: who's running fizhog?
The Dark Wraith has enough mystery in his life.
Good evening, Anonymous.
The mullahs are most decidedly not the motive force in this confrontation. In fact, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini is signaling that this is getting out of hand.
The gambit is being played by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is playing a hard-ball game to his base, very much like George W. Bush has played a hard-ball game to his. The difference is that, whereas Bush strutted and postured against a toothless, tinpot dictator that he knew very well didn't have the power to put up any resistance to an invasion, Iran's President is taking on most decidedly lethal prospective foes, the kind that can strike pre-emptively and with ungodly power.
Why is Ahmadinejad doing something patently nuts like this? That one's easy. He honestly believes that openly confronting the West and Israel creates a wedge between the European group of three and Iran's new alliance partner in the East, China, which wants every drop of Iran's oil and is willing to tolerate a nuclear Persian ambition to get it.
The leadership in Beijing knows very well that, if war breaks out and Iran is pummeled into sawdust, the West will carve up the spoils. China has no interest whatsoever in having that happen, so preventing a war from opening up is most definitely an exciting prospect for the old Communist geezers on the Mainland.
Furthermore, China is playing a diplomatic/economic gambit with Israel, one that would profit the Jewish State enormously over the long run. Israel works in its own interests, as do all sovereign states, and China might be hoping that, if the pot were sweet enough, Israel would forestall an attack on Tehran's nuclear facilities.
In my judgment, if this is what China is designing, it's gravely wrong. Israel will put its immediate security above all else, and that means neither China nor any other country can stop it from bombing Iran back to the Pleistocene Era if the Iranians get any closer to having a nuclear arsenal.
This is a collision on its way; and despite what looks like the slow-motion nature of it, the collision is coming with blinding speed in diplomatic terms.
As bad as that is, the West is fragmented on a stance. French President Jacques Chirac has obliquely signaled a policy of first-strike with nukes. He probably has done that because of the possibility that an Iranian, Mark IV-class Shahab might be able to reach parts of France (or, at the very least, French interests). In other words, Chirac is stating that, if Iran wants to play on the intercontinental ballistic missiles stage, it's in a league where ICBMs can rain down in droves.
And on this point, whereas a later-generation Shahab-3 (or, less disingenuously, a Shahab-4) can hurl a one-horse nuclear device and do a whole lot of damage, a single, Western-style hellhound from the multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) beastiary can put the lights out across a whole lot of cities all at the same time.
Germany is appalled by France's posture. So, of course, is Iran.
And what's the United States doing? Right now, we appear to be standing on the sidelines with our collective porkmeat in our hand. Our incredibly effective Secretary of State—when she's not busy globetrotting to avoid being seen in Washington as the Republican fundraising scandal spatters stink all over her buddies—is proclaiming "transformational diplomacy" objectives and policy actions, which are being seen as nothing short of provocational by everyone from Castro to Ahmadinejad.
On the other hand, from what I hear our good defense folks aren't just standing around. As I understand it, there is no plan for pre-emptive aggression against Tehran, but the Pentagon is well into contingency for support of the ones who actually do the bombing.
This is no small matter. From satellite recon to determine where the mobile Shahabs are parked to electronic disruption measures, the U.S. will very much be in the background should an attack on Iran come.
And, at least in my judgment, come it will. That's the price the Iranians are going to pay for giving in to their cyclical desire to have fools run the show. Again, the only difference between the Iranians and us is that the Iranian fool is kicking a real monster, whereas our fool merely stuffed a toy full of propaganda and convinced a lot of people that he had a genuine tiger by the tail.
As dire as the consequences of our misadventure have been, imagine how bad it could get in the currently looming crisis. In fact, the word "bad" doesn't really even begin to describe it.
The Dark Wraith is stocking up on food and good books to read.
*wavewaves*
Thank you for the mention, sir. ^.^
I'm more of a lurker here, since every time I want to comment on an ongoing discussion, my ferret-like attention span draws me off into another avenue as I'm researching my reply, and I wind up gathering background material to call/e-mail someone and annoy them by asking questions which they would have given the answers to long ago if they'd wanted them known.
*mutters about having forgotten to make just such a phone call today*
A few thoughts regarding Iran. The example of the former Soviet Union is an instructive one for the world, and I suspect they've taken the lesson to heart, whether or not it may be a correct one: the age-old tradition of your enemy moving in and taking over when your government is in turmoil doesn't happen if you've got a hair-trigger nuclear arsenal. Russia's current head of state is a solid member of the "men of power" that trace their origins back to well before the misnamed Bolshevik Revolution, so I suspect more continuity is perceived than disruption.
They also saw that while saber-rattling when you're going to get the bomb is sometimes unproductive (see Iraq in 1981), a nation which has the bomb can say pretty much whatever it wants. Unless you're North Korea, in which case you say whatever you damn well please, and thumb your nose at the "tripwire" sitting across the border waiting for you to attack.
Enter the Shrub, and the world sees that, far more than any other point in human history, the consequences of a nation's actions vis a vis the U.S. are completely decoupled from whatever might be going on, so the weight of the U.S.' threats has dropped remarkably. What worries me, is that not only has the starting date of the war already been decided, if we wind up participating (which is almost a foregone conclusion) there is nothing left for us to participate with except for strategic assets unless we withdraw from Iraq.
In my most wildly tinfoil-hat wearing imaginings (*has a firedoglake fanboi moment* did you know that tinfoil hats actually increase receptivity?) I suspect that there is an exit strategy in place from Iraq - into Iran. Consider the following: the ending of construction aid, the relative quiet with which the U.S. is accepting what seems to be a foreign policy disaster, and the hurried way the Iraqi Constitution was wrapped up to begin with combined with the lack of any real effort to push for the continued tinkering with the document that Khalilzad fought so hard for.
What do these point to except for a disengagement with Iraq? In my not-so-humble opinion, all point to a withdrawal, and the relative quiet except for the occasional recycled soundbites aimed at Iran that previously referred to Afghanistan and Iraq is only because all the shouting is being done for us - as you said, DW, we don't have to manufacture a causus belli related to the alleged existence of WMD this time.
Phew. That's the other reason I don't comment here... Every time I try, I wind up writing a blog post. :D
And to give props where props are due, it is the good words of TFLS here (praise be to her) regarding my ongoing research into the hate card received by Josh Sparling that brought me here. ^.^
One last thing:
If the Original Engineers had intended computer screens to be light and displayed text to be dark, CRTs would have been truly green screens with the font left dark.
*nods decisively*
Good evening, Stealth Badger.
I swear, this is the closest thing on the Internet to what might be described as a group-blog-within-a-blog: the comments are a blog in and of themselves.
That was good commentary you just gave. I have heard the rumblings that our imminent drawdown in Iraq and our announcement that we were cutting off the gravy train of money for both Iraq and Afghanistan was essentially in preparation for a force ready to project into the Iranian sands should it become necessary.
I do not believe we have any intention, if at all possible, of using a troop-led assault on that country. There is still something of a self-delusion in the civilian leadership that air power can define, dominate, and ultimately lead the way to victory in conflict. That the Pentagon seems to feed this misperception among the neo-con chickenhawks is only cosmetic: they say what they need to say to make Mr. Bush and his sunshine soldier brigade happy; but the uniformed leadership of the armed forces is in no way delusional: from the big brass down to the grunt boots, those cats know that Iran is an American graveyard waiting for its fill-up, and the pine board industry will be on overtime when the infantry and artillery have to step in to deal with what the flyboys and their "smart" stuff can't hit.
My sources are still pointing to a support role for the U.S., though. The claims about contingency plans are all over the map, but the central theme is that Tehran's nuclear production facilities would get hammered by the Israelis in a crushing series of raids; then everyone would stand back to see what the Iranians would do once they found all their body parts.
The key after that would not be further assault as much as it would be suppression: ensuring that any Shahabs that survived the pre-main stike weakening of hardware were put out of business, turning the Silkworms into scrap metal, ensuring that the Iranians didn't have any opportunities to threaten waterways, and finally doing a mop-up of the nuclear facilities and some command-and-control centers.
Sounds easy, yes?
Of course, we all know that, first, it isn't easy; and second, it's going to be a mess.
The Iranians are going to be all kinds of fussy. Fortunately, when push comes to shove, they're not going to find any allies: not one sane country on Earth wants to transform a regional spat—big, nasty, and semi-nuclear as it might have to be to bust open the underground, hardened Iranian facilities—into a nuclear war. The good news is that, unless the attack happens after early Spring, it can't be nuclear war since Iran will have no nukes. It might be a nuclear attack, but it won't be a nuclear war.
And I am mindful here that I have gotten into trouble in the past for addressing these matters in this more-or-less objective way; but what's on the agenda for the coming months won't be altered by an over-emotional approach to discussing it. I can assure you and everyone here that I know full well that any coming war is going to be, at the human level, a catastrophe of rare proportions. Iranians—lots and lots and lots of them—would die, and they don't deserve to. Not this way. Our media has for a generation villified the citizens of that nation, implicitly representing them as a bunch of wild-eyed religious crazies dancing in the streets, shouting, "Death to America, Death to Imperialism, Death to Disco!" I never cease to be appalled at how few people know the deep ties so-called "Western Civilization" has to Persia and to the modern-day Iranians in all their ethnic diversity: the commonalities of values have roots in everything from common mother tongue to early religious expressions in deities and lore. (Gawd, if our own Religious Right ignoramuses ever heard the story of Asherah in all of her forms throughout Asia Minor and the early Hebrews, I suspect they'd say it was all some kind of inventive lie by the Devil, himself.)
I need to quit. I'm starting to ramble, here.
The Dark Wraith says that as if it's something new.
"...did you know that tinfoil hats actually increase receptivity?..." -- StealthBadger
Even if you keep the shiny side out?
Another of the common religious heritages is the insight of dualism, which to the best of my knowledge is first found in Zoroastrianism. Zoroaster was Persian.
To the best of my knowledge, Zoroastrianism is the oldest of the world's religions to posit that our world is defined by a spiritual struggle between good and evil. The great religions of the Eastern World don't view things that way, but all of the major religions of the Western World are intimately tied together by this Persian concept.
- oddjob
(You can now key Strass's Also Sprach Zarathustra....)
(RATS! That was STRAUSS, not Strass!)
Of course the domestic downside to all of this is what Rove will do with it for the mid-term elections.....
- oddjob
And therein lies the game, OddJob.
Rove, Cheney, and their minions are going to have this fall into place right when they need it, and the Democrats cannot find traction to define the issue as the failure of diplomacy, covert operations, and years of experience that would otherwise have kept this beast at bay. The ham-handedness of the amateurs in Washington is standing like a deer waiting to be shot (or perhaps a turd waiting to be flushed), and the Democrats can't figure out how to make their boom-boom stick go BANGY.
It just drives me to distraction, and I'm about to cut loose with one of my Inflammatory Opinion rants aimed right at the Democrats.
I fear we're going to walk right into the election season with Cheney howling, "MUSHROOM CLOUDS!" and the American Electorate is going to dive under the checkboxes for the Republican candidates without even so much as thinking about asking, "Where?!"
Gr.
The Dark Wraith is trying to resist the urge to rant in earnest.
"...what Rove will do with it for the mid-term elections..." - oddjob
I thought he was doing 20 to life for treason.
That was really strange; the blog just loaded w/ the post in black text on white background, no ads, no quote, no archive links, no nothing, except the comments were displayed. A quick refresh and it's back to normal. The blog that is, not me. NSA must be messin' with the toolkit again.
Ye gods, Goat!
What you're describing happens then the cascading style sheet fails to load.
Lord.
The Dark Wraith feels that weird pain radiating down his left arm.
Okay, this is getting weird. This blog goes down, then it comes back up. I can't even access the back panels, and then I can. When I can, critical files are missing; then, all of a sudden, they reappear.
And I'm away from my own machine, so I can't run diagnostics.
The Dark Wraith is about to have a stroke... but not until he's finished his hissy-fit.
My Dear Dark Wraith,
While there is much to comment on, I agree that the crew at Nightbird's Fountain are deliciously informed, and it is indeed by that venue that I most likely came to the wraith-lair. Most of them constitute my regular reads, especially Eli. Although we all tend to cross paths, I recognize many in here like FLS, much loved and admired.
You say:
".. articles here have pointed out that the federal budget deficits are not being reined in, personal savings are being eaten up to supplement current income for many Americans, and the Treasury debt markets are drifting closer and closer to displaying the dreaded inverted yield curve of which your host here at The Dark Wraith Forums has been warning for months."
Do you not think that credit spending and equity utilization created from the housing bubble are now the primary supplements to income for middle to lower income demographics? I think the idea of using 'savings' is optimistic. Savings are also tough to gage in the era of the 401K and 403B. Etc. Higher income brackets tend not to use traditional savings, right? And the rest I believe spent their meager savings two years ago.
But dammit, Bush gave many of them four hundred bucks to keep their mouths shut....
Please also add the trade imbalance and dollar devaluation into the above dismal outlook. The grimmer the better.
Good morning Mr. Wraith, and welcome to the spook seance.
Recently when I've noted or discussed weirdness with the blog I've blamed it on NSA's Blog Toolkit. Almost every time there has been a follow-up crash. I'll try a little exercise here in reverse psychology with big brother and see if he is trying to communicate with you. Now that I've mentioned NSA again we'll see what happens this time around.
Let the seance begin, or in the words of our sole organ grinder monkey, bring 'em on.
BTW, what does a stroke do to a wraith?
Dark Wraith,
We (I) are/am Delaware residents. I want to extend my deepest gratitude to you for posting my little blog among those that are way more deserving then ours. I work in Pa and do most of my blogging on my "down" time.
In the short time I have read time your posts I have learned more then I did in any college class and As a result I am hedding for zee hills with the hopes of starting my own community devoid of contact to the outside world.
thank you again,
And any feedback or comments are welcomed and invited. I hope that I can do half the job you have and be as insightful as so many of your readers are...
do you all feel the smoke up your arses?
Good Afternoon Dark Wraith,
Has any one begun to think about what would happen in a world where Iran is radioactive?? All that Oil!
My Limbaugh-Loving brother keeps saying "We can drill through glass" but who pray tell is going to go into that war zone and drill when he knows his cajones may be fried when he's done? And will the oil become radioactive if it's pumped through a radioactive countryside? Probably not, but will the EU believe that, when they won't even eat GM food?(heh heh) China won't care, and would eagerly snarf up all that oil, but that's not going to help the US, the EU, or Israel, who seem to be set to do the heavy lifting in this new proposed war.
Just how powerful ARE these "rapture" people anyway?
The ability to drill through glass isn't the problem, the problem is the radiation it and the surrounding countryside may contain.
- oddjob
"...what Rove will do with it for the mid-term elections..." - oddjob
I thought he was doing 20 to life for treason.
IF ONLY!!!
- oddjob
So Donviti, what part of the chateau country were you thinking of when you said you were planning to head for the hills? As we both know, those hills are already largely occupied by the estates of the DuPonts and their friends.
:-)
- oddjob
An apt (& brutal) Non-Sequitur for the good of the order.
- oddjob
That Non Sequiter goes exceptionally well with the one from yesterday.
LOL! I hadn't thought about it that way! :-)
- oddjob
Out with it: who's running fizhog?
The drunken self-loathing euphemism formerly known as recidivist, very occasional contributor to and frequent commenter at Sisters place .. no real mystery, because I haven't been lurking much in these parts, on account of them being a recent discovery.
This post has been removed by the author.
Confounded it, trailer trash. Out with it: who's running fizhog?
The Dark Wraith has enough mystery in his life.
Mon Jan 23, 11:20:30 PM EST
Oh, yeah, sorry about that, but Mark had a blog known as RecidivistJournals. He alternated, at the time, with Mark or Recidivist as his username. Please see the comment right above mine:)
Your last sentence is astute, in that we no longer have the military ability to occupy Iran (and I blogged on that today over on my blog).
However, we do have another alternative. Not to go to war. Recall that at one time, America stood paralyzed by terror that such a character as Stalin had nuclear weapons. And we remained locked in a balance of terror with our most dangerous potential opponent for at least two generations. But ultimately, that passed without a shot being fired. And history teaches us that we can survive a nuclear armed opponent.
Now, Iran and Ahmadinejad, for all of their fierce rhetoric, are neither insane, nor in any position to launch a nuclear war. They know that their two main potential opponents, Israel and the United States both posess the capability to do crippling damage to, or even destroy Iran. And in the Iranian government (dominated as it is, by a conservative circle of mullahs, who effectively hold veto power over the President and parliament), no one person could, even if they were insane enough to be willing to destroy their country to prove a point, launch a nuclear war all by themselves. And, arguably the most powerful man in Iran, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, while certainly conservative and implacably hostile towards the United States, is also a pragmatist who shows no hint of the kind on insanity that this kind of war would require.
Now, I did adress the general issue of nuclear proliferation, and in particular in regard to Iran, in the post On nuclear proliferation and Iran and suggested a rational alternative. The alternative is based on the perfectly logical idea that we can't realistically expect that technology that we developed over sixty years ago to never be attained by rogue states. So, we have to accept that some will be nuclear armed.
However, the approach is this: We issue a new 'line in the sand,' and one which is likely to, despite its unilateralism, be accepted by the international community. We announce in advance (or maybe even put together a UN resolution saying the same if we can muster it) that the line is not building nukes, but using them. We make it clear that anyone who uses a nuke in a war will automatically be at war with the United States. The beauty of this is that it makes no bow to current or future alliances. You use it, you are the enemy.
Good message to send.
Good evening, Eli Blake.
In important ways, you think as I do. I could foresee a balance of power structure emerging in the Middle East. Although our empirical base for understanding the dynamics of such an equilibrium is painfully narrow, of course, I am of the opinion that there is necessarily a level of mutually destructive firepower that acts as a deterrent to either side using its arsenal.
Such an equilibrium exists, however, only if the bright line in the sand really does concomitantly exist, either implicitly or explicitly. This was the awful truth with both Japan and Germany: they moved far from their respective home bases before even the slightest real international outrage came to bear; and even when it did, there was a dual depletion of insufficient countervailing threat of force and an insufficient uniformity of resolve. It was only after both Japan and Germany had spread their hegemonic violence far and wide that the attention of a militarily near-equivalent coalition became serious enough to project unified force at them.
There are two major perils I recognize in the operationalization of this accommodative nuclear doctrine, one very close at hand and one far fetched.
To the immediate, I do not envisage Israel either waiting for such an internationally accepted doctrine to form, and I don't see the Jewish State accepting it even if it does. In fact, a very movement toward a robust resolve by the UN Security Council could incite Israel to act in advance of it. This is by no means to condemn Israel: it has far too much to lose if the doctrine fails to form and solidify, and it has far too much to lose even if the doctrine does form. The issue of whether or not it is an honest assessment aside, Israel does not place much stock in the United Nations, a body that equated Zionism to racism. And again, this perception on the part of Israelis of many political stripes (although not all) is independent of its factual basis: were I to be asked to place my trust in a suspect and wholly untried doctrine, I would be more willing to go it alone with what allies I could garner in a free-for-all. This is especially true in an era when the Jewish State can count on powerful support from a United States political base that, at best, is fully supportive of Israel and, at worst, is fully in its pocket.
The other, much more far fetched difficulty comes in counter-espionage and falsification of attack. To discuss this, it is important to note that determining the origin of the fuel in a bomb that has been detonated is not impossible (at least, theoretically): once a nuclear device has been used, the signature of the residue from the fuel can be traced back to the reactor from which it came. Now, I should be careful, here. Technically, it can be done; practically, though, it might not be that easy to determine with any immediacy, and the possibility of dispute might arise. That means time is involved between strike and counter-strike. What is extraordinarily dangerous is the possibility of fuel being stolen from one nuclear state, then used in a bomb by another (nuclear or non-nuclear state) against a third-party target. Were the doctrine we are discussing to be in place, the instigator state would have just set another state up for internationally sanctioned nuclear holocaust.
I already noted that this scenario is highly improbable. I must annex that caution with the passing point that Israel is not the only state that has demonstrated a willingness to cause chaos that seemed to lead to third parties. I would cite as a simple example the French demolition some years back of a Greenpeace ship, an attack that even the New Zealand law enforcement apparatus was convinced was carried out by none other that a fellow who was on the fool ship when it was blown up by underwater charges set by French agents.
Set-ups are a staple in the world of disinformation. My assessment of the Bush Administration is that its ideological obsessions have rendered the inexperience and resulting amateurism of its early activities a permanent component of its efforts to manage the globe and our place in it. The very way the Bush Administration continues to lie and obstruct indicates to me that the White House has not learned the importance of reservation in prevarication: lies should be used only when the stakes are real and summit-high. Truth is far better when distorted properly, but this Administration doesn't understand the difference between progressively less believable lying and carefully crafted truth-telling.
This indicates to me that the neo-conservatives in general and the Bush Administration in particular are incapable of managing the delicate and perilous work that would be needed to keep the bright line in the sand from becoming a hazy area of interpretation in the mud.
Mr. Blake, I am grateful you've come over here to comment, and I trust you will occasion The Dark Wraith Forums again as your time permits.
The Dark Wraith is going to be up all night responding at this rate to comments.
Lord, this is an interesting discussion - I never quite know what tangent will be explored next. Cool.
You got another Koufax nomination - well deserved, my dear. Congratulations! As a matter of fact, several of the forum's posters have been graced with nods - I think that's just great! So huzzah for all of us!!!
In regard to the situation with Israel, my response would be this:
Israel has the conventional weapons to cause mayhem as needed. Their nuclear weapons are deterrents (which they do, in fact feel they need to maintain), but I don't see any situation where Israel would attack another nation with nuclear weapons, unless they were attacked first. True, they may attack Iranian nuclear sites, as they did at Osira, but they can destroy them with conventional weapons (and in any case, the use of nuclear weapons in Iran, which could carry potentially deadly fallout all the way to India-- a nation which despite decades of hostility, the Israelis have recently been courting in a sort of behind the scenes, 'common cause' anti-Islamicist alliance, and maybe even as far as China, would be too expensive diplomatically for even what is considered an international pariah like Israel to pay; it is likely that the pressure would become so intense that even the U.S. would have to enforce some sort of sanction on Israel.)
As to your concern about a 'set up,' I somewhat addressed that as well in my blog post that I linked to (although it was more in the framework of arguing why they wouldn't give a nuke to terrorists). You are right, that the origin of a weapon can be determined. And, in order for a 'no use' policy to work, we would have to make sure that we took the time to fully investigate. Given how outraged people might be at the time, that is a valid concern. On the other hand, the costs to a country discovered involved in a set-up would be disastrous. So, we will need to make it clear (and I'm not entirely sure how) that we will investigate fully any attack by an unknown hand (including apparently known but denied) before beginning a war. The good news is that this is not so far fetched since it takes several months to deploy a large enough army to invade such a country, and that would give us time to conduct a thorough investigation (and they are pretty good at that-- they used a few small shards of plastic buried in the soil in Scotland to tie the Lockerbie bombing to Libyan intelligence.)
We, as a nation, have entrusted the art of diplomacy to those least inclined to use it.
Not to mention repugnantly artless diplomats.
Riveting commentary on Iran and Ahmadinejad, but I am going to dare to disagree with some of the more fundamental points and analysis … and suggest that they are slightly flawed by the presumption that the rest of the ‘west’ shares American views of Iran, Israel, Russia, China and even what the ‘west’ is.
Posturing by political leaders in Europe is just that – especially when it comes to the French – it is deeply unpopular and will never be followed through with actions. Even a measure as simple as technological sanctions against Iran would never be enforced.
Ahmadinejad is sherwd player and this is about driving a wedge between the EU3 and Bush .. a wedge that there is already popular support for in Europe (even in Britain) where there is little real fear of the east and a very real desire to outflank the United States (viewed by very few as an ally) for closer ties and relations with Russia and China.
Ahmadinejad may be playing a dangerous game; but it is a game that is already winning the hearts and minds that Bush has failed to win (those of his ‘allies’ in the ‘west’) and has a very real potential to bring about some really quite significant changes in world power and politics.
First there are a few things to undertand:
1) Outside of the United States, there is little fear of the east. Even the Cold War and the then Soviet Union are seen in a very different light. In Western Europe, the Cold War isn’t remembered as terrifying time spent on the cusp of a Stalinist inspired nuclear halocaust. I was brought up in a country on the frontline of the Cold War – with both American and Soviet occupying nuclear forces - and even there, with that sort of tension, we didn’t see or experience the Cold War in the darkness that ) it is protrayed in American politics (we regard that view as the preposterous and propagandist).
2) If we go back to 9/11, you would have found that whilst most Europeans were totally (and rightly) disgusted by the WTC outrage, there was also an underlying feeling of “well, America was sort of begging for it all along”. Far from diminishing, that underlying feeling has intensified in the wake of both Afghanistan and Iraq .. to an extent where ANYTHING that is done by the US (justified or not) is largely viewed as repugnant, selfish and betraying imperialistic intensions.
3) Any notion of a single united ‘west’ is largely a figment of the imagination of American politics; because it quite simply does not exist. The majority of people in western nations (if not their governments) are opposed to American ambitions and policies (especially with relation to Israel)
4) In order to understand the European mentality, you have to understand that outside of Europe’s political right, Iran isn’t seen as an evil ogre .. it is seen as a victim that has been subjected to decades of bullying, unjustified and hypocritical prejudice and immoral sanctions (the exact same feelings that made the war against Iraq so deeply unpopular) .. made even more hypocritical by the fact that Iran’s first nuclear research reactor was built by the United States and Israel, when Iran (under the Shah) was seen as a strategic ally of Israel .. and they even threw in some highly-enriched uranium for the Shah to play with. Contrary to Bush’s propaganda, the existence of this reactor has NEVER been concealed and has NEVER been a secret.
5) Outside of the United States, there is no widespread belief that Ahmadinejad is insane. On the contrary, he is seen as a very shrewd player.
6) Even in Britain, the 7/7 and 21/7 bombings didn’t sway popular opinion is favour of the Bush agenda – it intensified hostility to it and increased tolerance.
7) Iran and the Palestinians already have the moral support of the vast majority of people in Europe - and Israel is seen as the dangerous nuclear rogue state supported by the hypocritical US - but there is currently a threadbare political truce that allows the governments of the EU3 to follow unpopular policies for so long as the region does not erupt (Even Jewish opinion is largely anti-Zionist .. and, whilst not opposed to the existence of a Jewish homeland, very much opposed to the policies of what they perceive as an expansionist and apartheid Israeli regime).
Ahmadinejad is out to break the political truce .. and given that the massive European anti-war movement has already geared up to making the third anniverasy of the invasion of Iraq a huge “DON’T ATTACK IRAQ” demonstration - that could potentially see tens of millions of Europeans taking to the streets - this plan is arguably already starting to work. Turnout on the day will tell.
ANY kind of military action on the part of Israel (not just nuclear) will almost certainly be seen in Europe as being aggressive, not defensive, because Iran quite simply does not have nuclear capability (and according to European and US intelligence – no-one takes the Israeli claims of three years seriously – it can’t possibly have that capability for at least ten years). It will almost certainly (with time, if not immediately) result in overwhelming public pressure forcing European demands for Israel to surrender all nuclear weapons, withdraw to the 1948 borders .. and additionally a demand that Israel surrenders partial sovereignty to a controlling body that will guarantee the borders of a smaller secular, non-discriminatory (but notionally Jewish) homeland .. as well as those of a larger Palestinian homeland.
On that matter there is quite simply no way that Europe - not even Britain – will obey the wishes of the United States .. and realistically the United Sates quite simple does not have the means to impose its will - either economically of militarily – nor even the means to resist those demands; because in order to use military force (against Iran, or in defence of Israel), the US is totally reliant on European bases (or the use of British bases in Cyprus, the Middle East and Indian Ocean) – bases without which the United States wasn’t even able to launch an effective air strike against Libya, let alone support any sort of military action further to the East.
The overwhelming support (even from the European Greens) is there for allowing Iran to develop its civilian nuclear industry toits full potential with our full and active cooperation (which Iran has thus far not been allowed to do, and which the US is seeking to prevent it from doing) and precicely because Iran isn’t seen as the evil ogre, you wont have to go anywhere near the Middle East to hear “Death to America, Death to Imperialists” .. you will hear millions of white Europeans screaming it on the streets of their capitals on the 18th and 19th of March.
Bush (and to a degree Clinton too) has made the United States so universally unpoular that the ‘west’ quite simply is no more and new alliances are likely to form in the wake of an Israeli strike on Iran; political Zionism has seen to it that Israel has only one ally in the world … and economically, Europe by-and-large already regards itself at being at war with the United States.
The only thing that is assured here is that neither Bush, nor his puppetmasters, are going to be allowed to write the script for this one, and whatever peaceful solution there is to this situation (if there is one) it will I think be an unexpected one and one that will require massive consessions to the Iranians. Either:
1) The Mullahs will oust Ahmadinejad .. in return for massive concessions by the US and guarantees of US non-interference (and possibly the US forcing concessions on Israel).
or
2) It will come almost totally at Israel’s expense and will probably involve Israel surrendering its nuclear weapons and the (what world oppinion already regards as illegally) occupied territories (including Jerusalem). Israel knows that this is a very real option and that is why Isarel is itself posturing so hard, not because it expects an Iranian attack.
Whatever happens, I suggest that it is Ahmadinejad forcing Israel to walk the tightrope of insanity here .. it IS going to change the map of Israel and the Palestine, and Ahmadinejad will end up being viewed as a hero by the largest section of the population of the Middle Eastern and wider Muslim world .. and quite possibly Europe too.
The European position as you describe it appears to willfully ignore Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith when approached in good faith by hostile parties willing to negotiate. This is something they have demonstrated on numerous occasions.
While I agree that on vastly more numerous occasions they have demonstrated an unacceptable willingness to usurp territory only they claimed a right to and that Israeli society has a problem with regards to its Arab citizens, it nonetheless remains true that those Arab citizens, even with said problems, have more rights than any of their Arab neighbors do.
The European position simply ignores decades of bad faith on the part of Palestinian parties of considerable significance, as such I find the European position as you describe it more than a little irresponsible, and hardly morally superior.
- oddjob (who supports the right of Israel to exist in a fashion that is secure and at peace with its neighbors, and also supports the right of Palestinians to the same, and in Palestine, not in Jordan or elsewhere; and who also recognizes how difficult such an outcome will be)
The European position as you describe it appears to willfully ignore Israel's willingness to negotiate in good faith when approached in good faith by hostile parties willing to negotiate. This is something they have demonstrated on numerous occasions.
Sorry, oddjob, but that is just the pure dreamstate rhetoric of those who claim that no proposals are ever made by the Arabs and the Palestinians, when there are any number of quite straightforward proposals that they simply do not like and therefore pretend were never made.
Israel has never shown a willingness to negotiate without preconditions that secure the vast majority of the illegally occupied territories as a part of Israel .. even now Israel openly declares that its laughably named 'security wall' is its new non-negotiable minimum border.
The European position simply ignores decades of bad faith on the part of Palestinian parties of considerable significance, as such I find the European position as you describe it more than a little irresponsible, and hardly morally superior.
The American and Israeli positions ignore even more decades of bad faith, preposterous propaganda, ethnic cleaning, Zionist terrorism, a total disregard for international law and UN resolutions, a blatantly racist state and a whole lot more to boot.
Actually I would say that it is the European position that is for more morally superior than anything ever proposed, or put up for negotiaotion, by either the US or Israel, in that it respects the rights of both sides and doesn't demand the total capitulation of the weaker and indisputably wronged .. which is why European Zionism is all but dead and burried, with virtually every prominent Jew in Eurpoe signing up to the anti-Zionist declaration and hailing people like Hannah Aswhari as the great voice of reason in the region.
Nor, as you would no doubt like us to believe, does the European position in any way threaten the security of Israel.
When the Europeans frankly acknowledge and come to grips with supporting a man who said, "Peace" to the Western press while saying "Destruction" and "Annihilation" to the Arab speaking press, come back and lets talk.
Given that, and given that the Israelis also speak Arabic, I am hardly surprised at their insistence on requiring security. And as to the matter of the borders they insist on, well, they insisted on the Sinai once upon a time, too, and then negotiated it away.
But the Europeans refuse to recognize inconvenient details like that....
Somehow I don't see many of the European countries being keen on accepting with open arms a people openly dedicated to their destruction, either.
I know the Israelis are hardly perfect, but I think the negotiating they have done with neighboring Arab states is given short shrift by people who may well have already concluded that nothing good can happen if it's Israeli.
And I notice you didn't bother to acknowledge that admittedly second class in some significant ways Arab Israelis are still freer and have more rights than they do any of their brother Arabs in any other country of the area....
- oddjob
Oddjob
When the Europeans frankly acknowledge and come to grips with supporting a man who said, "Peace" to the Western press while saying "Destruction" and "Annihilation" to the Arab speaking press, come back and lets talk.
Or lets talk when you stop trolling dubious and highly selective propaganda. If you are going to provide quotes, then I think you would be well advised to provide sources.
they insisted on the Sinai once upon a time, too, and then negotiated it away.
History tells us that they refused to negotiate; but were told to give it away or face the consequences.
But the Europeans refuse to recognize inconvenient details like that....
So looking at it from both sides of the coin is refusing to recognise is it? Sorry, oddjob, but you really are just making wholly unsupportable statements here. Failing to give a particular aspect of something the priority that you would desire it to have, does not equal a failure to recognise.
What you seem to suffer from is the Republican disease of refusing to recognise (or only recognising when it suits you) the UN and INTERNATIONAL LAW.. the same authorities that created Israel on licence and therefore also have the power to disassemble Israel (not that I am suggesting that it should be). The same authority that has the right to demand that Israel withdraw to its internationally recognised and agreed borders as well as surrender all its illegal nuclear capabilities. The same authority that already says that the Israeli occupation is illegal, that the current annexation, settlement of and denial of access to the occupied territories (for the International Red Cross, Red Crescent and any number of other humanitarian organisations) .. is illegal. All of these are things that you seem to be more than happy to overlook.
As for your closing comment:
And I notice you didn't bother to acknowledge that admittedly second class in some significant ways Arab Israelis are still freer and have more rights than they do any of their brother Arabs in any other country of the area....
Pray tell me why I would admit to such a banal untruth?
The CIA’s own vehicle of propaganda, Freedom House, rates Israel’s immediate neighbour, Lebanon (even under Syrian occupation), as being freer than Israel. How much more “of that area” do you want?
Perhaps if you would like to define ‘region’ we can then nail down a more precise number of nations that even the CIA classes as being “more free” than Israel.
Even if correct, your statement is flawed, in that Arabs aren’t second-class citizens in Israel. They are at best third-class - with Palestinians even lower - because you also seem very willing to overlook the fact that Israeli society and law also discriminates widely against those Jews who are of Middle Eastern origin and whose families never left the region and lived at peace with the Palestinians and Arabs for generations. They are the second-class citizens, but even they have far more rights than Muslims do.
Thirdly, ‘freedom’ is a subjective term and depends on what culture you are from .. and the degree to which you are allowed to follow the traditions that you value from that culture. The people of Iran would generally consider themselves to be far more free than say the people of the United States .. they even have more female politicians and a much higher proportion of female professionals than the US does. Many gays in Iran defend the culture and say that the freedom of association that Islamic culture allows between two men actually makes it easier to have a gay relationship than it would be for two Iranians to have a western style courtship / relationship. You and I wouldn’t agree that they are freer, but in their eyes – looking through their cultural perspective - they are, and that is what counts at the end of the day. It is failure to recognise this sort of crucial detail that has lead to the vast majority of the resentment of Islamic radicalism, and the sooner people like you stop bandying ‘western freedom’ about as the solution to every problem and something that culture is subservient to, the sooner we can be on our way to solving many of these problems.
To be fair though, I notice that you don’t deny that your comments are just pure dreamstate rhetoric, so atleast you are due some credit for that ;)
This is an admittedly hasty search, but this isn't the first time I've encountered such comments, and not always from obvious partisans such as George Will. You'll find the reference in the tenth paragraph down.
- oddjob
When you teach your children that the geography of the Middle East does not include any Israel, your intentions are pretty clear, no?
(And I don't vote Republican or Democrat in any consistent order.)
I read over your blog, and i found it inquisitive, you may find My Blog interesting. So please Click Here To Read My Blog
http://pennystockinvestment.blogspot.com
Mark:
I suspect that the map of the mideast (Palestine and Israel) will be changed, but I don't think that Iran has much to do with it. The people in both places are ahead of their governments, and eventually it will lead to a map pretty much following the pre-1967 boundaries (Jerusalem will be the biggest sticking point, but there are some proposals). Israel won't give up their nuclear weapons, because they are aware that they had four major wars against neighboring countries before they developed them in the mid 1970's, and since then have only fought low level conflicts in Lebanon, the West Bank and Gaza. So the nukes pretty much have done what Israel intended them to do, deter aggression.
On most of your points, I can't disagree with you, except to say that the rest of the world views qualitatively the difference between Afghanistan and Iraq. They may not have liked us, but given that Afghanistan was the country that harbored bin Laden, they supported the US there, and still are-- (in fact, right now the number of international forces in Afghanistan is very close in number to the number of Americans).
No new comments <---didn't that used to be in UPPER CASE LETTERS?
Good evening, Dark Wraith.
I like your quote:
Quoth the Dark Wraith
Many years from now, someone will surely say of our time, "Imagine what it must have been like when women had to choose for themselves what was best for their own bodies."
It reminds me of several science fiction stories where rights have been taken away from ALL the people, and given to only the deserving few.... the leaders... of course.
Good evening, all.
Terrific commentary, as ever, and as a Briton who has lived in the United States for several years, now, I find it particularly interesting to see the views of Americans and Europeans face off against one another in such an intelligent forum.
As far as the problems with Israel and the Occupied Territories are concerned I am more inclined to agree with the view that, at this point, the most intelligent policy for Western leaders to pursue would be to encourage Israel to return the lands which they have annexed to their original owners, forcefully, if needs be. The question of whether or not this would be justified, either morally or legally, is to me irrelevant, since on this issue, as with any other point of foreign policy, the question is not about deciding what is the best solution for them, but is instead about deciding what the most beneficial course of action is for us.
In this case, that has to be the removal of what is the greatest source of anti American sentiment in the Arab world: The United States' unwavering, often irrational and increaingly unilateral support for the state of Israel. It seems to me that nothing else we could do would promote stability in the region more, or strike a heavier blow to the recruitment programs of creatures such as Bin Laden.
As the Dark Wraith has noted in several of his posts and commentaries here, there is a good deal of Zionist influence present not only in the Pentagon, but on the various policy making entities currently in power. It should be disturbing to most Americans that so much of their foreign policy is being shaped by minds that are putting the interests of another state before their own.
I'm not sure what I think about the chances of Israel actually dropping the Bomb, but the Dark Wraith does make a strong case for at least some sort of military action taking place later this year. I wonder, though, if this is something that Washington will not attempt to derail at all costs. Although it may seem that the Republicans would benefit from the start of another, even more violent and protracted conflict, I'm pretty sure that oil at $250 a barrel would have an even greater effect in the opposite direction. The question still remains, though: is Washignton capable of derailing such an eventuality?
The question still remains, though: is Washignton capable of derailing such an eventuality?
If Israel's leaders were convinced that it was a matter of survival I very much doubt it, and yes it does disturb me to have naked zionists running the show. I haven't voted for these criminals and I don't want them in office.
In my perfect world, Palestinians and Israelis coexist, each within borders of a country they have agreed to, each of which is not splintered into pieces, but rather has contiguous borders that "make sense". Obviously in such a world the Palestinians don't tolerate radicals agitating for the destruction of Israel and Israelis don't tolerate Zionists, for they feed off each other and only prolong the agony and increase the odds of the worst outcome rather than the best.
- oddjob
("naked zionists")
Poor choice of words! Please rest assured I wasn't envsioning nudists!
- oddjob
Let me jump in here, OddJob, before some wag conflates this with "naked aggression."
The Dark Wraith could not bare the thought of such pun-ditry.
Hello, all!
A question for the Dark Wraith:
Is this the data you're getting the yield curve data from?
Also, is there a way to artificially manipulate the curve, the way that gasoline prices were temporarily shoved down in the wake of the mass outrage over Katrina and its effects?
Just askin' after looking at yesterdays numbers, which look passing strange.
Yes, and yes, Stealth Badger.
Those numbers really looked strange. I was doing calculations on them and found that the short end of the curve was hiking up quite a bit, while the entire curve was elevating; but that long end is holding way high. I think I know what's happening, but I'm going to hold my tongue for just a while while I watch it finish this coming week.
The Dark Wraith drives the winding road.
Today's Boston Globe editorial cartoon is by Globe cartoonist Dan Wasserman, and while the Dark Wraith in particular should enjoy this, others on this blog will appreciate it as well....
:-)
- oddjob
Spine transplants for Democratic politicians are not yet possible, and testicle transplants are at best pretty iffy; for the time being...
I would argue that both are possible, and that even spontaneous regeneration can actually happen in some instances. Most of the time though, the remnant DNA from the DINO causes organ rejection. This leaves us with invertebrate eunuchs with good intentions for surviving the next election without conflict.
I have thoroughly enjoyed the debate on this topic, and as a new reader of this blog and one who has not posted before I hesitate to criticize any poster here. All seem informed and intelligent.
However, Mr Shakes said the following on the question of Israel's Occupied Territories:
they should be made to return them...forcefully, if needs be. The question of whether or not this would be justified, either morally or legally, is to me irrelevant, since on this issue, as with any other point of foreign policy, the question is not about deciding what is the best solution for them, but is instead about deciding what the most beneficial course of action is for us
Does no one else think this is just plain wrong? If this sentiment is one by which we should make foreign policy decisions, excluding any considerations of the welfare of other states, then all is lost.
I apologise if I have misunderstood the intention of this statement.
On a lighter note; thank you for a fascinating, thoughtful and provoking blog Mr Wraith.
Your articles have illuminated another path along which my own studies can meander.
While I don't know that at the present time I would advocate a policy of forcible return, it is nonetheless true that we have behaved in not dissimilar fashion with regards to the other countries of interest to us at other times in our history, most particularly those in Latin America, but also in other parts of the world where there were natural resources of interest to us, or where there were geographic advantages to be gained by so doing.
That does not make it right, but it is nonetheless true that it has happened.
For instance, did you know that before we built the Canal, Panama was simply another of Colombia's provinces? There was an insurrection there that we propped up, and thus was born a new country, pretty much solely so that we could build a canal that would mostly benefit us, and of course up until the end of the last century the Canal Zone was US territory.
That's one example. There are others.
- oddjob
I don't think ANY nation conducts foreign policy by figuring out what would be best for the people involved. That would very frequently be against such a country's own self interests.
What's new here is when a heavily armed nation conducts foreign policy in accords to what is best for another country, disregarding what is best for themselves and their people.
It's what happens when those in power think that they will leave on a spaceship named rapture:
Too bad they didn't wear nike sneakers and drink the koolaid in their bunkbeds.
Makes for interesting reading...
A newly declassified document gives a fascinating glimpse into the US military's plans for "information operations" - from psychological operations, to attacks on hostile computer networks.
Good evening to all of you.
I must apologize for having not been involved here for the past day. I had a rather stunning little problem: I couldn't get to my own confounded blog. I could upload sidebar updates, since those are all separate little HTML files that are pulled into this main blog via AJAX scripts. I could also, of course, get to everyone else's blog, so you'll see comments elsewhere and even a post of mine at Night Bird's Fountain; but I couldn't get in here.
It's pretty sad when one is locked out of one's own house.
Come to think of it, it's downright infuriating. Damnable, even.
A rather curious event occurred on my machine that created a type of DNS error. I posted briefly from computers at one of my schools, but I didn't have much time there between classes these past few days, so I couldn't do as much as I normally would around here in the comments and such.
It took all kinds of gyrations to get this little weirdness resolved, and I'm still mystified by how it happened, but it's over now, and I do apologize for the absence.
And to Mr. Goat, concerning your half-in-jest comment from earlier in this thread about a possibility along the lines of what actually happened: not a word out of you. Not one word. I have the creeps enough as it is about this little incident.
"The page cannot be displayed," my backside.
The Dark Wraith dusts himself off and moves on as if nothing happened.
Good morning, Dark Wraith.
What a nightmarish thing to happen! At least we were able to come by and make sure the place was still here...and have coffee, hot chocolate, and someone even brought donuts. Too bad they're all gone.
Well, here are some Non-sequiturs to take your mind off your tribulations, DW:
Friday's
Saturday's
Hope these provide some chicken soup for the dark soul....
- oddjob
And to Mr. Goat, concerning your half-in-jest comment from earlier in this thread about a possibility along the lines of what actually happened: not a word out of you. Not one word.
Two words?
I've got to clarify that I'm not in any way stating that foreign policy isn't currently dictated by 'our' welfare and not 'theirs', at least most of the time.
What stung me was that a 'man on the street', a seemingly educated and progressive-minded one at that (or would he be here?), was actually apparently advocating that this was without doubt the best way to conduct business and that the welfare of others is 'inconsequential'!
When I said 'then all is lost' I meant that if people like Mr Shakes (and I'm making lots of presumptions about what he believes in and what shapes his world) believe this is a good way to do things then my hope for the future is diminished.
Most great Statesmen are of course guided primarily by the needs and welfare of their own people, even a near saintly figure like Gandhi. But underlying their greatness is a respect for all nations and the welfare of all. When we abandon this notion and the welfare of others becomes 'inconsequential' then I really believe we're walking down fucked-up road.
Good morning, The CorrespondAnt. Welcome to The Dark Wraith Forums. Without a shred of hyperbole in my statement, I trust you will find this the very highest intellectual ground in the Blogosphere. The people who speak here put to shame the Right and its facile, meaningless thought.
Within the ranks of what could be described as the "liberalism" of the past several hundred years, you will find several distinct threads with regard to the relationship between the state and the citizen thereof. In one mode, a democratic construction leads to the full expression of the person within that state. The dilemma comes when deciding (for lack of a better word) whether that person as an individual is relevant: in other words, does the individual exist wholly separate from his state, or is he infused and animated fully within it?
Jean-Jacques Rousseau proposed that, were the individual allowed his or her free reign—including as that would the right of private property, etc.—the state would degenerate into a fanfare of individual greeds, the most powerful of which would rule, and the remainder of which would consume one another in an endless progress of avaricious devices.
Unfortunately, a prescription fulfilling Rousseau's thinking was proposed by Karl Marx, who was unabashed in the relevance of the whole at the expense of the dispensation of each person within it.
Unfortunately, again, the alternative—the one of which Rousseau warned—was the dominance of the individual at the expense of the permanent subordination of the state. Henry David Thoreau, if in rude and callous fashion, expressed unwaivering opposition to any form of government that moved to express power over him. His became one of many touchstones to the mode of modern states that recognize individual power and, more importantly, the individuation that naturally arises from a state so circumscribed. Ghandi, for example, would surely not have endorsed an anarchic state of equilibrium virtually endorsed by Thoreau, yet Ghandi quoted him and described him as inspirational. At its face, that seems impossibly contradictory, since the father of modern India certainly anticipated the power of the state being brought to bear on ancient, brutish institutions of classism. The resolution comes in understanding that a powerful form of the liberalism of modernity comes in its expectation of and effort to achieve a state that is directed solely to the end of ensuring personal liberty and freedom of action within a minimal shell of common and statutory laws that ensure not much more than civil order and domestic tranquility.
That, however, might not be enough. In this configuration, the state really does exist as an entity—subordinate though it may be—separate from the individual governed by it. And therein lies the knot: to function effectively within a larger sphere of states, some of which might have constructive relationships to their own citizens entirely other than ours, the liberal state must act. Regardless of how it conducts its affairs of state, it must act separately from its citizens, even if it is acting upon their will, as expressed democratically, through recent revolution, or otherwise. It still must act, and that's where the disturbing idea of "inconsequentiality" of citizens as individuals, as groups with common interests, and even in some circumstances as aggregates with voting power comes into play.
Those who know me here and in my real life know very well that I am as fierce an individualist as can be found. Part of that individualism is a repudiation of the state as having the right to unduly harm inalienable rights I was conferred by birth within its borders.
I then reconcile the inconsequentiality as such: the state must fully, at all times, and in all matters recognize the rights I am granted by the Bill of Rights and by such interpretations rendered thereupon by the Courts of the land. In exchange for freeing the state of the burden of having to carry out duties requiring that it use its treasure to control, compel, or otherwise demand of me that which would expend its treasure, its time, and its attention, the state may then regard me as inconsequential as an individual. By extension, I anticipate that the state will in all of its affairs external to these sovereign borders work to the end of recognizing the same configuration through whatever devices by which it comes to have power over other peoples of the Earth.
Be the affection through commerce, militarism, or other project, if the state will respect and recognize at every moment that each individual throughout the world who is affected by it merits the trajectory toward and achievement of those same rights, the state will have not only the respect of the individuals of other lands, but also the envy of other states as they in their components, alliances, and aggregate find that they, like we, are inconsequential to the greater goal, which is the state at peace with its own.
The Dark Wraith has spoken.