Discussion:
Are some Republican waking up?
(too old to reply)
David_G
2004-02-22 07:17:34 UTC
Permalink
http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html

The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict

By Patrick J. Buchanan

March1 , 2004 issue, The American Conservative

On the dust jacket of his book, Richard Perle appends a Washington Post
depiction of himself as the "intellectual guru of the hard-line
neoconservative movement in foreign policy."

The guru's reputation, however, does not survive a reading. Indeed, on
putting down Perle's new book the thought recurs: the neoconservative moment
may be over. For they are not only losing their hold on power, they are
losing their grip on reality.

An End to Evil: How to Win the War on Terror opens on a note of hysteria. In
the War on Terror, writes Perle, "There is no middle way for Americans: It
is victory or holocaust." "What is new since 9 / 11 is the chilling
realization that the terrorist threat we thought we had contained" now
menaces "our survival as a nation."

But how is our survival as a nation menaced when not one American has died
in a terrorist attack on U.S. soil since9 /11? Are we really in imminent
peril of a holocaust like that visited upon the Jews of Poland?

"[A] radical strain within Islam," says Perle, " ... seeks to overthrow our
civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies,
imposing on the whole world its religion and laws."

Well, yes. Militant Islam has preached that since the 7 th century. But what
are the odds the Boys of Tora Bora are going to "overthrow our civilization"
and coerce us all to start praying to Mecca five times a day?

In his own review of An End to Evil, Joshua Micah Marshall picks up this
same scent of near-hysteria over the Islamic threat:

The book conveys a general sense that America is at war with Islam itself
anywhere and everywhere: the contemporary Muslim world .... is depicted as
one great cauldron of hate, murder, obscurantism, and deceit. If our Muslim
adversaries are not to destroy Western civilization, we must gird for more
battles.

To suggest Frum and Perle are over the top is not to imply we not take
seriously the threat of terror attacks on airliners, in malls, from dirty
bombs, or, God forbid, a crude atomic device smuggled in by Ryder truck or
container ship. Yet even this will never "overthrow our civilization."

In the worst of terror attacks, we lost 3, 000 people. Horrific. But at
Antietam Creek, we lost 7,000in a day's battle in a nation that was
one-ninth as populous. Three thousand men and boys perished every week for
200 weeks of that Civil War. We Americans did not curl up and die. We did
not come all this way because we are made of sugar candy.

Germany and Japan suffered 3,000 dead every day in the last two years of
World War II, with every city flattened and two blackened by atom bombs.
Both came back in a decade. Is al-Qaeda capable of this sort of devastation
when they are recruiting such scrub stock as Jose Padilla and the shoe
bomber?

In the war we are in, our enemies are weak. That is why they resort to the
weapon of the weak-terror. And, as in the Cold War, time is on America's
side. Perseverance and patience are called for, not this panic.

In 25 years, militant Islam has seized three countries: Iran, Sudan, and
Afghanistan. We toppled the Taliban almost without losing a man. Sudan is a
failed state. In Iran, a generation has grown up that knows nothing of Savak
or the Great Satan but enough about the mullahs to have rejected them in
back-to-back landslides. The Iranian Revolution has reached Thermidor.
Wherever Islamism takes power, it fails. Like Marxism, it does not work.

Yet, assume it makes a comeback. So what? Taken together, all 22 Arab
nations do not have the GDP of Spain. Without oil, their exports are the
size of Finland's. Not one Arab nation can stand up to Israel, let alone the
United S tates. The Islamic threat is not strategic, but demographic. If
death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of
death-birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is
dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his
estate.

Said young Lincoln in his Lyceum address, "If destruction be our lot, we
must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen, we must
live through all time, or die by suicide."

In his first inaugural address, FDR admonished, "[T]he only thing we have to
fear is fear itself-nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which
paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance."

Fear is what Perle and his co-author David Frum are peddling to stampede
America into serial wars. Just such fear-mongering got us into Iraq, though,
we have since discovered, Iraq had no hand in9 /11, no ties to al-Qaeda, no
weapons of mass destruction, no nuclear program, and no plans to attack us.
Iraq was never "the clear and present danger" the authors insist she was.

Calling their book a "manual for victory," they declaim:

For us, terrorism remains the great evil of our time, and the war against
this evil, our generation's great cause. We do not believe that Americans
are fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it. We believe they are
fighting to win-to end this evil before it kills again and on a genocidal
scale. There is no middle way for Americans: It is victory or holocaust.

But no nation can "end evil." Evil has existed since Cain rose up against
his brother Abel and slew him. A propensity to evil can be found in every
human heart. And if God accepts the existence of evil, how do Frum and Perle
propose to "end" it? Nor can any nation "win the war on terror." Terrorism
is simply a term for the murder of non-combatants for political ends.

Revolutionary terror has been around for as long as this Republic. It was
used by Robespierre's Committee on Public Safety and by People's Will in
Romanov Russia. Terror has been the chosen weapon of anarchists, the IRA,
Irgun, the Stern Gang, Algeria's FLN, the Mau Mau, MPLA, the PLO, Black
September, the Basque ETA, Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad, Hamas, the Al Aksa
Martyrs Brigade, SWAPO, ZANU, ZAPU, the Tupamaros, Shining Path, FARC, the
ANC, the V.C., the Huks, Chechen rebels, Tamil Tigers, and the FALN that
attempted to assassinate Harry Truman and shot up the House floor in1954 ,
to name only a few.

Accused terrorists have won the Nobel Peace Prize: Begin, Arafat, Mandela.
Three lie in mausoleums in the capitals of nations they created: Lenin, Mao,
Ho. Others are the fathers of their countries like Ben Bella and Jomo
Kenyatta. A terrorist of the Black Hand ignited World War I by assassinating
the Archduke Ferdinand. Yet Gavrilo Princep has a bridge named for him in
Sarajevo.

The murder of innocents for political ends is evil, but to think we can
"end" it is absurd. Cruel and amoral men, avaricious for power and
"immortality," will always resort to it. For, all too often, it succeeds.

But what must America do to attain victory in her war on terror?

Say the authors: "We must hunt down the individual terrorists before they
kill our people or others .... We must deter all regimes that use terror as
a weapon of state against anyone, American or not" [emphasis added].

Astonishing. The authors say America is responsible for defending everyone,
everywhere from terror and deterring any and all regimes that might use
terror -against anyone, anywhere on earth.

But there are 192 nations. Scores of regimes from Liberia to Congo to Cuba,
from Zimbabwe to Syria to Uzbekistan, and from Iran to Sudan to the Afghan
warlords of the Northern Alliance who fought on our side-have used torture
and terror to punish enemies. Are we to fight them all?

Well, actually, no. Excepting North Korea, the authors' list of nations that
need to be attacked reads as though it were drawn up in the Israeli Defense
Ministry. By the second paragraph, Perle and Frum have given us a short list
of priority targets: "The war on terror is not over, it has barely begun. Al
Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hamas still plot murder."

Now al-Qaeda was responsible for9 /11. But when did Hamas attack us? And if
Israel can co-exist and negotiate with Hezbollah, why is it America's duty
to destroy Hezbollah? Iran and North Korea, the authors warn, "present
intolerable threats to American security. We must move boldly against them
both and against all other sponsors of terrorism as well: Syria, Libya and
Saudi Arabia. And we don't have much time."

"Why have we put up with [Syria] as long as we have?" the authors demand.
They call for a cut-off of Syria's oil and an ultimatum to Assad: Get Syrian
troops out of Lebanon, hand over all terrorist suspects, end support for
Hezbollah, stop agitating against Israel, and adopt a "Western
orientation"-or you, too, get the Saddam treatment. But what has Syria done
to us? And if Assad balks do we bomb Damascus? Invade? Where do we get the
troops? What if the Syrians, too, resort to guerrilla war? Bush's father
made Hafez al-Assad an ally in the Gulf War. Ehud Barak offered Assad99 .
5percent of the Golan Heights. Why, then, must Bashir Assad's regime be
destroyed-by us?

"We don't have much time," say Frum and Perle. But what is Assad doing that
warrants immediate attack? Is he, too, buying yellowcake from Niger? Colonel
Khaddafi is now paying billions in reparations for Pan Am103 , giving up his
weapons of mass destruction, and inviting U.S. inspectors in to verify his
disarmament.

Why is it imperative we overthrow him?

While the Saudis have been diffident allies in the War on Terror, they are
not America's enemies. They pumped oil to keep prices down in the first Gulf
War. They looked the other way as U.S. fighter-bombers flew out of Prince
Sultan Air Base in Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yet the Saudis are directed to
provide us "with the utmost cooperation in the war on terror," or we will
invade, detach their oil-rich eastern province, and occupy it. But why? If
the monarchy falls and bin Laden's acolytes replace it, how would that make
us more secure in our own country?

What did Iran do to justify war against her? According to Perle and Frum,

Iran defied the Monroe Doctrine and sponsored murder in our own hemisphere,
killing eighty-six people and wounding some three hundred at the Jewish
community center in Buenos Aires-and our government did worse than nothing:
It opened negotiations with the murderers.

But that atrocity occurred a dozen years ago, long before the reform
government of President Mohammad Khatami was elected. And if Iran was behind
an attack on a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, why did Argentina
and Israel not avenge these deaths? Why is retribution our responsibility?
It was not Americans who were the victims, and the attack occurred5 ,
000miles from the United States.

The Frum-Perle invocation of the Monroe Doctrine is both cynical and
comical. If they were genuinely concerned about violations of the Monroe
Doctrine, why did they not include Cuba on their target list, a "state
sponsor of terror" 90 miles from our shores that has hosted Soviet missiles
and, according to Undersecretary of State John Bolton, is developing
chemical and biological weapons? Why did Saudi Arabia make the cut but not
Cuba? Might it have something to do with proximity and propinquity?

For Iran, there can be no reprieve. "The regime must go," say our authors,
because Ayatollah Khamenei has

. no more right to control ... Iran than any other criminal has to seize
control of the persons and property of others. It's not always in our power
to do something about such criminals, nor is it always in our interest, but
when it is in our power and interest, we should toss dictators aside with no
more compunction than a police sharpshooter feels when he downs a
hostage-taker.

But where in the Constitution is the president empowered to "toss dictators
aside"? And if it took150 , 000U.S. soldiers to toss Saddam aside, how many
troops do Frum and Perle think it will take to occupy the capital of a
nation three times as large and populous and toss the ayatollah aside? How
many dead and wounded would our war hawks consider an acceptable price for
being rid of the mullahs?

As South Korea favors appeasement, they write, we must take the lead, demand
that North Korea surrender all nuclear materials and shut down all missile
sites. If Kim Jong Il balks, we should move U.S. troops back to safety
beyond artillery and rocket range of the DMZ and launch preemptive strikes
on known North Korean nuclear sites and impose a naval and air blockade. As
for the South Koreans, they should probably brace themselves. "We have no
doubt how such a war would end," say the authors.

They also had no doubt how the Iraqi war would end.

Is the Perle-Frum vision for the suffering people of North Korea a future of
freedom and democracy? Not exactly:

It may be that the only way out of the decade-long crisis on the Korean
peninsula is the toppling of Kim Jong Il and his replacement by a North
Korean communist who is more subservient to China. If so, we should accept
that outcome.

Swell. America is to fight a second Korean War that could entail a nuclear
strike on our troops, but, when we have won, we should accept a communist
North Korea that is a vassal of Beijing. How many dead and wounded are our
AEI warlords willing to accept to make Pyongyang a puppet of Beijing?

But the Frum-Perle enemies' list is not complete. France, if she does not
shape up, is to be treated as an enemy.
From every page of this book there oozes a sense of urgency that >borders
on the desperate for action this day: "We can feel the will to win ebbing in
Washington, we sense the reversion to the bad old habits of complacency and
denial."

The neocons are not wrong here. With the cost of war at $ 200billion and
rising, with deaths mounting, and with the possibility growing that Iraq
could collapse in chaos and civil war, President Bush appears to be
experiencing buyer's remorse about the lemon he was sold by Perle and
friends.

They promised him a "cakewalk," that we would be hailed as "liberators,"
that democracy would take root in Iraq and flourish in the Middle East, that
Palestinians and Israelis would break bread and make peace. With Lord
Melbourne, Bush must be muttering, "What all the wise men promised has not
happened, and what all the damn fools said would happen has come to pass."

What do Perle and Frum see as our decisive failing in Iraq?

But of all our mistakes, probably the most serious was our unwillingness to
allow the Iraqi National Congress, Iraq's leading anti-Saddam resistance
movement, to form a provisional government after the fall of Baghdad. In1944
, we took care to let French troops enter Paris before U.S. or British
forces. We should have shown equal tact in2003 .

Thus, we are in trouble because Ahmad Chalabi was not allowed to play de
Gaulle leading his war-weary, battle-hardened Free Iraqis into Baghdad.

Why was Perle's protégé passed over? Because the "INC terrified the Saudis
and therefore terrified those in our government who wished to placate the
Saudis." The damned Arabists at State did it again.

Hastily written, replete with errors, with no index, An End to Evil is a
brief in defense of neoconservatives against their impending indictment on
charges they lied us into a war that may prove our greatest disaster since
Vietnam. And the charge of deliberate deceit is not without merit.

In mid-December2001 , in a column distributed by Copley News, Perle asserted
that Saddam "is busily at work on a nuclear weapon .... it's simply a matter
of time before he acquires nuclear weapons."

Naming Khidir Hamza, "one of the people who ran the nuclear weapons program
for Saddam," as his source, Perle gave credence to Hamza's tale of 400
uranium enrichment facilities spread all over Iraq. "Some of them look like
farmhouses, some of them look like classrooms, some of them look like
warehouses. You'll never find them." Only "preemptive action" can save us,
said Perle.

By the end of2001 , according to Perle, the threat of a nuclear-armed Saddam
was imminent:

With each passing day he comes closer to his dream of a nuclear arsenal. We
know he has a clandestine program, spread over many hidden sites, to enrich
natural uranium to weapons grade .... And intelligence sources know he is in
the market, with plenty of money, for both weapons material and components
as well as finished nuclear weapons. How close is he? We do not know. Two
years, three years, tomorrow even?

When he wrote this, Perle, as chairman of the Defense Policy Board, had
access to secret intelligence. So the question cannot be evaded: did Hamza
deliberately deceive Perle, or did Perle deliberately deceive us?

For those unpersuaded that Saddam was a strategic threat, there were his
links to the9 / 11massacre. Saddam's "collaboration with terrorism is well
documented," wrote Perle, "Evidence of a meeting in Prague between a senior
Iraqi intelligence agent and Mohamed Atta, the September 11 ringleader, is
convincing."

Thus did the neocons get the war they wanted. And after America fought the
war for which they had beaten the drums, how do Perle & Co. explain why it
did not turn out as they assured us it would?

Answer: any disaster in Iraq, the authors argue, will be due to the venality
and cowardice of the State Department, CIA, FBI, retired generals, and
ex-ambassadors bought off by the Saudis. "We have offered concrete
recommendations equal to the seriousness of the threat, and the softliners
have not, because we have wanted to fight and they have not."

Which brings us back to the point made at the outset: the neocon moment may
be passing, for they appear to be losing their grip on reality as well as
their influence on policy. Rather than looking for new wars to involve us
more deeply in the Middle East, Bush and Rumsfeld seem to be looking for the
next exit ramp out of our Mesopotamian morass. "No war in '04" is said to be
the watchword of Karl Rove.

Moreover, Americans are coming to appreciate that, all that bombast about
"unipolar" moments and "American empire" aside, there are limits to American
power, and we are approaching them. U.S. ground forces of 480 , 000are
stretched thin. There is grumbling in Army, Reserve, and National Guard
units about too many tours too far from home. Backing off his "axis-of-evil"
rhetoric, Bush said in this year's State of the Union, "We have no desire to
dominate, no ambitions of empire."

The long retreat of American empire has begun.

In Washington, there are rumors of the return of James Baker and the
imminent departure of Paul Wolfowitz. As Frederick the Great, weary of the
antics and peculations of his house guest Voltaire, said, "One squeezes the
orange and throws away the rind."

Moreover, the radicalism of their schemes for two, three, many wars, seems,
given our embroilment in Iraq, not only rash but also rooted in unreality.
Before Bush could take us to war with any of these regimes, he would have to
convince his country of the necessity of war and persuade Congress to grant
him the power to go to war. Yet absent a new atrocity on the magnitude of9
/11, directly traceable to one of the regimes on the Perle-Frum list, the
president could not win this authority. Nor does it appear he intends to
try. And were the United States to attack Libya, Syria, or Saudi Arabia, we
would alienate every ally in the Islamic world and Europe-including Tony
Blair's Britain. To fight these wars and occupy these nations would bleed
our armed forces and mandate a return to the draft. But how would any of
these wars make us more secure from terrorism here at home?

Indeed, it is because Americans cannot see the correlation between the wars
the authors demand and security at home that Frum and Perle must resort to
fear-mongering about holocausts, the end of civilization, and our demise as
a nation. If it is America we defend, An End to Evil makes no sense. The
Perle-Frum prescription for permanent war makes sense only if it is the
mission of the armed forces of the United States to make the Middle East
safe for Sharon-and here we come to the heart of the quarrel between us.

On Sept.11 , al-Qaeda attacked us. Al-Qaeda is our enemy, not Syria, Libya,
or Saudi Arabia. And the way to cut off al-Qaeda and kill it is to isolate
it from all Arab and Islamic nations and centers of power including Syria,
Libya, Saudi Arabia, and Iran. None of these nations had a hand in9 /11. All
have a vital interest in not being linked to an al-Qaeda for whom an enraged
superpower is on the mortal hunt. Thus, no matter the character of these
regimes, we have interests in common. And if Bush can use carrots to get
Bashir Assad to help us find and finish al-Qaeda-as his father got Assad's
father to help us expel Iraq from Kuwait-let us make Syria an ally rather
than another enemy of the United States.

But here is the rub: The neocons do not want to narrow our list of enemies.
They do not want to confine America's war to those who attacked us. They
want to expand our list of enemies to include Israel's enemies. They want to
escalate and widen what Chris Matthews calls "the Firemen's War" into a war
for hegemony in the Middle East. They had hoped to exploit9 / 11to erect an
empire, and as they see the vision vanish, their desperation knows no
bounds.

That great American military mind Col. John Boyd once described strategy as
appending to yourself as many centers of power as possible and isolating
your enemy from as many centers of power as possible.

This was the strategy used by Bush I in the Gulf War. He persuaded Russia
and China to sign on in the Security Council, Germany and Japan to finance
his war, Syria and Egypt to send soldiers, Britain and France to help us
fight it. By giving everyone a stake in an American victory-call it imperial
bribery, if you will-Bush I lined up the world against Iraq. As did George
W. Bush, brilliantly, in Afghanistan.

But what Frum and Perle are pressing on him now is an altogether opposite
strategy. They want Bush to expand the war, broaden the theater of
operations, multiply our enemies, and ignore our allies. If Bush should
adopt this strategy, it would be America and Israel against the Arab and
Islamic world with Europe neutral and almost all of Asia rooting for our
humiliation.

Let it be said: it is vital to victory over al-Qaeda, to the security of our
country, the safety of our people, and our broader interests in an Arab and
Islamic world of 57 nations that stretches from Morocco to Malaysia that we
not let the neocons conflate our war on terror with their war for hegemony.

Neocons believe the Palestinian Authority must be crushed, Arafat
eliminated, and the Golan Heights, West Bank, and East Jerusalem held by
Israel forever. They want Hezbollah eradicated, Syria denatured, the Saudi
monarchy brought down. Let them so believe. But their agenda is not America'
s agenda, and their fight is not America's fight.

There is no vital U.S. interest in whose flag flies over the Golan or East
Jerusalem, when Barak was willing to give up both. But if we allow the
neoconservatives to morph our war on al-Qaeda into Israel's war for
Palestine, our war will never end. And that is the hidden agenda of the
neoconservatives: permanent war for their permanent empowerment. As Frum and
Perle concede, this is "our generation's great cause."

"Who are those guys?" Butch and Sundance asked. Indeed, who are these men
who would plunge our country into serial wars of preemption and retribution
across the arc of crisis from Libya to Korea?

Frum is not even an American. He is a Canadian who did not become a citizen
until offered a job in the Bush speechwriting shop. He was cashiered after
one year when his wife bragged on the Internet that David invented the
"axis-of-evil" phrase. Expelled from the White House, Frum ratted out his
old colleagues in a "hot" book and got himself hired by National Review,
where he produced a cover story about a dirty dozen "Unpatriotic
Conservatives" who hate neocons, hate Bush, hate the GOP, hate America, and
"wish to see the United States defeated in the War on Terror."

Frum ordered all 12 purged from the conservative movement. (And we must, in
fairness, report that all three editors of this magazine and four regular
writers were among the 12 who went to the stake.)

Who is Perle? Unlike Frum, a cipher on foreign policy, Perle has been a
serious player since the Nixon era. But throughout those years he has
betrayed a passionate attachment to a foreign power. In1996 , Perle
co-authored "A Clean Break," a now-famous paper urging Benjamin Netanyahu to
dump the Oslo Accords, seize the West Bank, and confront Syria. The road to
Damascus lies through Baghdad, Perle told the receptive Israeli Prime
Minister.

Then an adviser to Republican candidate Robert Dole, Perle was thus secretly
urging a foreign government to abrogate a peace accord supported by his own
government. In1998 , he and other neoconservatives signed a letter to then
President Clinton urging the United States to initiate all-out war on Iraq
and pledging neoconservative support if Clinton would launch it.

Query: why is Perle permitted to retain his post at the Department of
Defense while agitating for wars on four or five countries, including Saudi
Arabia, a friend of the United States? Why does President Bush put up with
this? His father would never have tolerated it.

The neocons have also begun to injure their reputations and isolate
themselves with the nastiness and irrationality of their attacks. French
cannon once bore the inscription ultima ratio regum, the last argument of
kings. The toxic charge of "Anti-Semite!" has become the last argument of
the neocons. But they have wheeled out that cannon too many times. People
are less intimidated now. They have seen men look into its muzzle and walk
away.

Gen. Anthony Zinni, former head of Centcom, is a hero of Vietnam. He opposed
war with Iraq, arguing that the U.S. military was overstretched and we would
unleash forces we could not control. In an interview, Zinni related his
astonishment at the vapidity of the Wolfowitz clique with which he had to
deal at the Department of Defense:

The more I saw, the more I thought that this [war] was the product of the
neocons who didn't understand the region and were going to create havoc
there. These were dilettantes from Washington think tanks who never had had
an idea that worked on the ground .... I don't know where the neocons came
from-that was not the platform [Bush and Cheney] ran on .... Somehow, the
neocons captured the president. They captured the vice president.

National Review's response was to brand Zinni an anti-Semite. In a separate
column, NR regular Joel Mowbray not only accused the general of having
"blamed the Jews," he insisted that the term neocon, in common usage for 25
years, is now an anti-Semitic code word for Jews:

Neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney ... was to blame. It was
the Jews. They captured both Bush and Cheney .. Technically, the former head
of the Central Command in the Middle East didn't say 'Jews.' He instead used
a term that has become a new favorite for anti-Semites: 'neoconservatives.'

Mowbray and National Review thus slandered a brave and brilliant soldier who
has bled for his country. Such slanders do the neocons no good but only add
to their isolation and the burgeoning detestation of their tactics.

New York Times columnist David Brooks has also begun to smear critics of the
neocons as anti-Semites. In the word "neocon," he writes, the "con" stands
for conservative and the "neo" stands for Jewish.

But the problem for neocons is not that so many are Jewish, but that so few
are conservative. Lawrence Kaplan, a Perle colleague who co-authored a book
with William Kristol, after reading An End to Evil, declared: "This is not
conservatism. It is liberalism, with very sharp teeth."

If the neocons purport to see ethnic hatred in everyone else's motives, is
it unfair to explore for an ethnic affinity in their own? Why does every
grand strategy neocons advance, from "American empire" to "benevolent global
hegemony" to "a Pax Americana" to "world democratic revolution" have as its
centerpiece solidarity with Sharon and a vigorous wielding of American power
against all the enemies of Israel?

Why is every peace plan proposed or endorsed by a president to give the
Palestinians a home of their own-the Rogers Plan, the Oslo accords, Camp
David, the Taba Plan, the Saudi Plan, the Mitchell Plan, the Road Map-a
Munich sellout? Why is any American patriot, who demands that Ariel Sharon
stop building settlements on Palestinian land and walling off Jerusalem, a
State Department Arabist, a pawn of the Texas oil lobby, a Coughlinite, an
anti-Semite, or a bought-and-paid-for lickspittle of the Saudis?

The United States remains committed morally and politically to the security
and survival of Israel and to providing her with the weaponry to guarantee
it. No president is going to back off that commitment. But because Israel is
a friend does not mean that the Sharonites have preemptive absolution to
settle or seize Arab lands or permanently to deny Arab peoples the rights we
preach to the world. In our own national interests, we must say so-in the
clear.

This is a time for truth. With a mighty and hostile Soviet Empire no longer
militarily present in the Maghreb and Middle East, U.S. and Israeli
strategic interests have ceased to coincide. And with nightly pictures of
Palestinian suffering on Al Jazeera, they have begun to collide.

Thus between traditional conservatives and neoconservatives a breach has
been opened and an irreconcilable conflict has arisen. We of the Old Right
only have one country. We believe U.S. foreign policy must be determined by
what is best for America. And what is best for America is what our
forefathers taught: If you would preserve this Republic, stay out of foreign
wars, avoid "permanent alliances," beware of "passionate attachments" to
nations not your own.

In1778 , Washington rejoiced in the alliance with France. But when victory
was won, that alliance became an entanglement that could drag the Republic
into Europe's wars. American statesmen who had celebrated the French
alliance now sought to sever it, and, under Adams, succeeded.

With the end of the Cold War, an alliance with Israel has ceased to be
central to U.S. interests. Indeed, our reputation as armorers and allies of
Israel only damages us as Sharon rampages through the West Bank and Gaza
walling off Arab land and denying to Palestinians that very right of
self-determination we Americans espouse. Sharon is making hypocrites of us,
and we are cowards for permitting it.

To the neocons, however, Zionism is second nature. They cannot conceive of a
foreign policy that is good for America that does not entail absolute
solidarity with Israel. They are dangerously close to imbibing the poisonous
brew that drove Jonathan Pollard to treason: If it is good for Israel, it
cannot be bad for America.

To evade admission of the transparent truth, neocons have begun to
rationalize their passionate attachment, to sublimate it. "The Arab-Israeli
quarrel is not a cause of Islamic extremism," Frum and Perle protest.

But when every returning journalist and diplomat and every opinion survey
says it is America's uncritical support for Israeli repression of the
Palestinians that makes us hated in the region, how can honest men write
this? Have they blinded themselves to the truth because it is too painful?

We stand by Israel, writes Irving Kristol, because America is an
"ideological" nation, "like the Soviet Union of yesteryear." We and Israel
are democracies, the Arab countries are not, and that is all there is to it.

That is why it was in our national interest to come to the defense of France
and Britain in World War II. That is why we feel it necessary to defend
Israel today, when its survival is threatened. No complicated geopolitical
calculations of national interest are necessary.

But this is nonsense, and Kristol knows it. When Britain and France declared
war on Hitler on September3 ,1939 , FDR did not "come to the defense of
France and Britain." He delivered a fireside chat that night promising the
nation America would stay out. There will be "no blackout of peace" here,
FDR promised us.When France fell in May-June of 1940 , pleading for planes,
FDR sent words of encouragement. Not until 18 months after the fall of
France did we declare war on Hitler and not until after Hitler declared war
on us. Thus, we did not go to war to defend democracy in Britain or France.
We went to war to smash the Japanese Empire that attacked us at Pearl
Harbor. Kristol is parroting liberal myths.

In the Cold War the United States welcomed as allies Chiang Kai-shek,
Salazar, Franco, Somoza, the Shah, Suharto, Syngman Rhee, Park Chung Hee and
the Korean generals, Greek colonels, military regimes in Brazil, Argentina,
and Turkey, Marcos, and Pinochet because these autocrats proved far more
reliable than democratists like Nehru, Olaf Palme, Willy Brandt, and Pierre
Trudeau. When it comes to wars that threaten us, hot or cold, we Americans
are at one with Nietzsche, "A state, it is the coldest of all cold
monsters."

India is democratic and 200 times the size of Israel. Yet in India's wars
with Pakistan, we tilted toward Pakistan. Why? Because the Pakistanis were
allies, and India sided with Moscow. That India was democratic and Pakistan
autocratic made no difference to us.

As for Israel, has America really given her $ 100 billion and taken her side
in every Arab quarrel because she is a democracy?

Tell it to Tony Judt. When this British historian proposed-given the
impossibility of separating Arabs from Jews on the West Bank-that Israel
annex the West Bank, become a bi-national state, and give Palestinians equal
rights, neocons went berserk. Frum called Judt's idea "genocidal liberalism"
that would leave Jews exposed to slaughter. John Podhoretz declared it
"unthinkable" and "the definition of intellectual corruption." "[H]aughty
and ugly," said the New Republic, which hurled Judt from its masthead.

But if the just solution to the South African problem was to abolish
bantustans and create a one-man, one-vote democracy, why is that not even a
debatable solution to the Palestinian problem?

In temperament, too, neoconservatives have revealed themselves as the
antithesis of conservative. In the depiction of scholar Claes Ryn, they are
the "neo-Jacobins" of modernity whose dominant trait is conceit.

Only great conceit could inspire a dream of armed world hegemony. The
ideology of benevolent American empire and global democracy dresses up a
voracious appetite for power. It signifies the ascent to power of a new kind
of American, one profoundly at odds with that older type who aspired to
modesty and self-restraint.

The Perle-Frum book is marinated in conceit, which may prove the neocons'
fatal flaw. In the run-up to the invasion, when critics were exposing their
plotting for war long before9 /11, the neocons did not bother to deny it.
They reveled in it. They boasted about who they were, where they came from,
what they believed, how they were different, and how they had become the new
elite. With Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush marching to their war drums, one of
them bellowed, "We are all neoconservatives now!"

But it is always unwise of courtiers to boast of their influence with the
prince. And now the neocons have outed themselves. We all know who they are.
We all have the coordinates. We all have them bracketed.

With the heady days of the fall of Baghdad behind us and our country
ensnared in a Lebanon of our own, neocons seem fearful that it is they who
will be made to take the fall if it all turns out badly in Iraq, as McNamara
and his Whiz Kids had to take the fall for Vietnam.

And this one they've got right.

Feb20 ,2004
rjj
2004-02-22 14:30:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_G
http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html
<snipped a lot>
Post by David_G
If
death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of
death-birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is
dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his
estate.
While it is nice that a person attacks Perle and his associates, I do
think above remarks are as stupid and dangerous as anything the neocons
have said. I'm surprised you (as the group most vehemently anti
religionist) didn't comment on this.
Furthermore, it is hard to lay a finger on it -that's why I snipped the
rest also-, but I felt his line of arguing is definitely anti-semitic.
And that means to me that his arguments are not worthy of serious
consideration.
As you can see, I changed the subject line accordingly

regards
roelof
tm
2004-02-23 01:45:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
Post by David_G
http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html
If
death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of
death-birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is
dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his
estate.
While it is nice that a person attacks Perle and his associates, I do
think above remarks are as stupid and dangerous as anything the neocons
have said. I'm surprised you (as the group most vehemently anti
religionist) didn't comment on this.
Furthermore, it is hard to lay a finger on it -that's why I snipped the
rest also-, but I felt his line of arguing is definitely anti-semitic.
And that means to me that his arguments are not worthy of serious
consideration.
It's Pat Buchanan. Many people have often found his writings vaguely
antisemitic. He is on the outrageous fringe of the american right wing.
He was a 'confidant' of Nixon.
http://www.realchange.org/buchanan.htm
http://www.townhall.com/spotlights/archive/8-28-95/buchbio.html
http://www.buchanan.org/
Post by rjj
As you can see, I changed the subject line accordingly
Heh. I won't mention the obvious irony.
David_G
2004-02-23 09:02:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
Post by David_G
http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html
<snipped a lot>
Post by David_G
If
death comes to the West it will be because we embraced a culture of
death-birth control, abortion, sterilization, euthanasia. Western man is
dying as Islamic man migrates north to await his passing and inherit his
estate.
While it is nice that a person attacks Perle and his associates, I do
think above remarks are as stupid and dangerous as anything the neocons
have said. I'm surprised you (as the group most vehemently anti
religionist) didn't comment on this.
Furthermore, it is hard to lay a finger on it -that's why I snipped the
rest also-, but I felt his line of arguing is definitely anti-semitic.
And that means to me that his arguments are not worthy of serious
consideration.
As you can see, I changed the subject line accordingly
I have never found any one argument to be 100% acceptable. I was surprised
to find that I could agree with anything written in that magazine! I do not
know Buchanan or his past, but that is a separate issue from his article
which stands or fall on the basis of its arguments.

But his attacks on Perle (and we should perhaps add Wolfovitz and others to
him...) are most welcome from the reactionary camp, and are worth drawing
attention to.

We should never tire of repeating the truth fact that the Iraqi invasion and
occupation was part of a plan drawn up years earlier by those who are now
manipulating the pliable weakling they contrived to put in the White House
to do their bidding and serve their interests, and 9/11 was the excuse that
the WH used so cynically to repay that sinister group for their past
services, and make old George Bush happy (apparently without success).
Steve Caple
2004-02-23 18:24:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_G
But his attacks on Perle (and we should perhaps add Wolfovitz and others to
him...) are most welcome from the reactionary camp, and are worth drawing
attention to.
I'm more than a little suspicious that Buchanan's animus to
Wolfowitz and Perle comes from assumptions about their
ethnic/religious identity. He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
--
Steve Caple
EW
2004-02-23 21:08:35 UTC
Permalink
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance for
a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.

But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien (and
against Vincente Fox of Mexico).

However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
Annie Keitz
2004-02-23 21:23:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance for
a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien (and
against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.

Remember too that Buchanan was one of Nixon's true believers.

Annie
Peter McCormack
2004-02-23 21:41:40 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@4ax.com>,
***@his.com says...
----------------------------8<
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Annie Keitz
2004-02-23 21:46:36 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:41:40 -0000, Peter McCormack
Post by Peter McCormack
----------------------------8<
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Old nickname for the Republican Party -- stands for "Grand Old
Party"...

Kinda like the Tories.
Peter McCormack
2004-02-23 22:00:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annie Keitz
On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 21:41:40 -0000, Peter McCormack
Post by Peter McCormack
----------------------------8<
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Old nickname for the Republican Party -- stands for "Grand Old
Party"...
Kinda like the Tories.
Aha! Thanks Annie.
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 01:28:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McCormack
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
--
Steve Caple
Geoffrey
2004-02-24 01:34:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
Post by Peter McCormack
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
That certainly seems more accurate. Though, be careful. Truth in
advertising is probably a terrorist act.

Geoffrey
--
The lies won't stop until we fire the liars.
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 07:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Truth in advertising is probably a terrorist act.
Saw on tonight's news where Rod Paige apologized for calling
the NEA a "terrorist organization".

This from a guy who was smack dab in the middle of the book
cooking that made the miraculous (yeah, just about THAT real!)
"Texas miracle". Kids not scoring well? Get 'em to drop out
and don't count 'em as dropouts. Wow!!! More amazing than a
Popeil Pocket Fisherman!
--
Steve Caple
Eugene Gallagher
2004-02-24 11:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
Truth in advertising is probably a terrorist act.
Saw on tonight's news where Rod Paige apologized for calling
the NEA a "terrorist organization".
This from a guy who was smack dab in the middle of the book
cooking that made the miraculous (yeah, just about THAT real!)
"Texas miracle". Kids not scoring well? Get 'em to drop out
and don't count 'em as dropouts. Wow!!! More amazing than a
Popeil Pocket Fisherman!
Disgusting. But Paige didn't apologize. He said he was sorry that he
said the NEA was a terrorist organization. Not the same thing. Paige is
a disgrace, as was the travesty he created in Houston.
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-24 12:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
Post by Peter McCormack
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
This doesn't explain why they use it for themselves.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
ah
2004-02-24 13:20:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
Post by Steve Caple
Post by Peter McCormack
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
This doesn't explain why they use it for themselves.
A lot can be hidden in an acronym.

YMMV HAND
--
ah
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 17:05:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
This doesn't explain why they use it for themselves.
It's a religious obligation - it's their true theology.
--
Steve Caple
DE
2004-02-24 17:47:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
Post by Steve Caple
Post by Peter McCormack
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
This doesn't explain why they use it for themselves.
You assume they might find that description negative.

I believe some of 'em are rather proud of it, actually. Remember, some
folks really think the world *should* work on that basis.

-- DE
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-25 13:21:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
Post by Steve Caple
Don't believe Annie - it's Greed, Oligarchy and Plutocracy
This doesn't explain why they use it for themselves.
You assume they might find that description negative.
Ok, you got me.
--
Giuseppe "with my pants down if it were the other thread" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-24 12:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter McCormack
----------------------------8<
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Would one of you please explain what GOP means? Web
searches yield nothing so I guess I'll just have to bite
the bullet and look stoopid. :-)
AHA! You haven't been attentive enough! I asked the exact same
question some time ago!
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
EW
2004-02-24 01:24:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Remember too that Buchanan was one of Nixon's true believers.
Who is/was Buchanan's father? Never heard of him - although he must have had
one.

Buchanan (the younger) must have flirted with neo-Nazis as the Nazis
themselves would have been long gone by the time he reached puberty. Was
he a supporter of David Duke?

And was Nixon a closet anti-semite? He was a lot of not very pleasant
things dating back to his McCarthy days, but I can't recall him being
referred to up here as an anti-semite. One would think it wasn't too
strong an element of his character given the trust he place in Henry
Kissinger.
Annie Keitz
2004-02-24 03:06:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Remember too that Buchanan was one of Nixon's true believers.
Who is/was Buchanan's father? Never heard of him - although he must have had
one.
Was a government bureaucrat who eventually joined a private accounting
firm and was able to provide a comfortable upper middle class
livestyle for his family.
Post by EW
Buchanan (the younger) must have flirted with neo-Nazis as the Nazis
themselves would have been long gone by the time he reached puberty. Was
he a supporter of David Duke?
He wasn't like David Duke -- no he's a Northerner in mindset. Rather
his was a sympathy for ex Nazis and statments that Germany in the
1930's wasn't too bad.
Post by EW
And was Nixon a closet anti-semite? He was a lot of not very pleasant
things dating back to his McCarthy days, but I can't recall him being
referred to up here as an anti-semite. One would think it wasn't too
strong an element of his character given the trust he place in Henry
Kissinger.
Yes Nixon was an anti-semite -- though long suspected, it was recently
confirmed in recent releases of his White House tapes.


Annie Keitz
***@his.com
EW
2004-02-24 03:33:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annie Keitz
Post by EW
Who is/was Buchanan's father? Never heard of him - although he must have
had one.
Was a government bureaucrat who eventually joined a private accounting
firm and was able to provide a comfortable upper middle class
livestyle for his family.
Well I'll certainly keep an eye on how Geoffrey's thinking evolves in case
that's a professional thing. <g>
Post by Annie Keitz
Post by EW
Buchanan (the younger) must have flirted with neo-Nazis as the Nazis
themselves would have been long gone by the time he reached puberty.  Was
he a supporter of David Duke?
He wasn't like David Duke -- no he's a Northerner in mindset. Rather
his was a sympathy for ex Nazis and statments that Germany in the
1930's wasn't too bad.
I guess for some it wasn't, at least initially. Not my cup of tea, however
- although I wonder if many in the US recognize the similar drift of their
polity since 9/11.
Post by Annie Keitz
Post by EW
And was Nixon a closet anti-semite?  He was a lot of not very pleasant
things dating back to his McCarthy days, but I can't recall him being
referred to up here as an anti-semite.  One would think it wasn't too
strong an element of his character given the trust he place in Henry
Kissinger.
Yes Nixon was an anti-semite -- though long suspected, it was recently
confirmed in recent releases of his White House tapes.
Why am I not surprised. Nixon seems to have missed the Brotherly Love
lessons of his Quaker upbringing. A strange man. Always felt sorry for
his wife.

Thanks.
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 07:50:11 UTC
Permalink
Always felt sorry for his wife.
Somehow they seemed to deserve each other.
--
Steve Caple
Geoffrey
2004-02-25 02:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
Always felt sorry for his wife.
Somehow they seemed to deserve each other.
It does seem unlikely that she could possess ethics, given who she married.

Geoffrey
--
The lies won't stop until we fire the liars.
Steve Caple
2004-02-25 09:48:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Geoffrey
It does seem unlikely that she could possess ethics,
given who she married.
Well, Georgie's born agin, doncha know. But if the 17 year
old she killed when she ran a stop sign two weeks before
Kennedy was killed has evidently not reappeared on Earth.

But he was driving a Corvair, so he deserved it, right?
--
Steve Caple
Geoffrey
2004-02-25 02:55:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Annie Keitz
Post by EW
Who is/was Buchanan's father? Never heard of him - although he must
have had one.
Was a government bureaucrat who eventually joined a private
accounting firm and was able to provide a comfortable upper middle
class livestyle for his family.
Well I'll certainly keep an eye on how Geoffrey's thinking evolves in
case that's a professional thing. <g>
Wrong direction, I went from public to government.

Geoffrey
--
The lies won't stop until we fire the liars.
EW
2004-02-24 03:45:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Annie Keitz
Was a government bureaucrat who eventually joined a private accounting
firm and was able to provide a comfortable upper middle class
livestyle for his family.
I could perhaps understand Buchanan's xenophobia better if he could first
help me determine whether the name "Buchanan" is of Shawnee or of Sioux
origin.
tm
2004-02-24 03:35:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Annie Keitz
Buchnan's anti-semitism is IMO related to his flirtations with Nazism
and his father's connections to the German Bund. He's a conservative
populist -- more a descendent of the Taft wing of the GOP that battled
Roosevelt over getting involved in WWII (Pre-Pearl Harbor) combined
with the cult of personality fascism of Huey Long.
Remember too that Buchanan was one of Nixon's true believers.
Who is/was Buchanan's father? Never heard of him - although he must have had
one.
William.
http://www.infoplease.com/spot/patbuchanan1.html
Post by EW
Buchanan (the younger) must have flirted with neo-Nazis as the Nazis
themselves would have been long gone by the time he reached puberty. Was
he a supporter of David Duke?
http://slate.msn.com/id/1003634/
Post by EW
And was Nixon a closet anti-semite? He was a lot of not very pleasant
things dating back to his McCarthy days, but I can't recall him being
referred to up here as an anti-semite. One would think it wasn't too
strong an element of his character given the trust he place in Henry
Kissinger.
Perhaps Nixon's most famous mention of Jews-
" What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter
with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=12666
Of course there's also-
Nixon to former Texas Governor John Connally: "Look at the Justice
Department. It's full of jews."

And H. R. Haldeman telling Billy Graham before Graham had lunch with
Time magazine editors, "You meet with all their editors, you better
take your jewish beanie."
But that's another guy.
And of course, who can forget this oldie but goodie-

July 5, 1971: Nixon, Haldeman, and Ziegler, 4:03 P.M., Oval Office
Conversation #537-4; cassette #876
NIXON :
Jewish families are close, but there's this strange malignancy that
seems to creep among them -- radicalism. I can imagine how the fact
that Ellsberg is in this must really tear a fella like Henry to pieces
-- or Garment. Just like the Rosenbergs and all that. It just has to
kill them. I feel horrible about it.
ZIEGLER :
Could make up an English name.
HALDEMAN :
... Rosenstein could change his name. ...
[general laughter ]
ZIEGLER :
It is right. It's always an "Ellsberg."
NIXON :
Every one's a Jew. Ellsberg's a Jew. Halperin's a Jew.
HALDEMAN :
Gelb's a Jew.
NIXON :
But there are [ unclear ] -- Hiss was not a Jew. Very interesting
thing. So few of those who engage in espionage -- are Negroes. ... In
fact, very few of them become Communists. If they do, they like, they
get into Angela Davis -- they're more the capitalist type. And they
throw bombs and this and that. But the Negroes. -- have you ever
noticed? ... Any Negro spies?
HALDEMAN :
Not intellectual enough, not smart enough... not smart enough to be
spies.
NIXON :
The Jews -- the Jews are, are born spies. You notice how many of them
are just in up to their necks?
HALDEMAN :
A basic deviousness.
http://www.rotten.com/library/bio/presidents/richard-m-nixon/

Fascinating man, Nixon. He also disliked 'fags'.
EW
2004-02-24 03:56:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
Perhaps Nixon's most famous mention of Jews-
" What the Christ is the matter with the Jews, Bob? What is the matter
with them? I suppose it's because most of them are psychiatrists."
Shit. And here I thought he was afraid of psychiatrists out of fear they'd
spot him as a nutjob. (How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico
cats?)


Man, they were a gang of real winners, weren't they.
tm
2004-02-24 04:48:02 UTC
Permalink
How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico cats?
God, no doubt, told him to.

"Let the eagle soar,
Like she's never soared before.
From rocky coast to golden shore,
Let the mighty eagle soar.
Soar with healing in her wings,
As the land beneath her sings:
'Only god, no other kings.'
This country's far too young to die.
We've still got a lot of climbing to do,
And we can make it if we try.
Built by toils and struggles
God has led us through."

Sing along here-
http://www.cnn.com/video/us/2002/02/25/ashcroft.sings.wbtv.med.html
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 07:52:52 UTC
Permalink
How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico cats?
Not to mention his mortal fear of tits. Must have had a
terrible childhood experience with a breast.
--
Steve Caple
DE
2004-02-24 08:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico cats?
Same as fear of redheads: incarnation of the devil.

If you've ever owned a calico cat, you know it's true. <wg>
Post by Steve Caple
Not to mention his mortal fear of tits.
Not just cats, but birds too?
Post by Steve Caple
Must have had a
terrible childhood experience with a breast.
Turkeys, maybe?

Or birds of another feather?
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 17:06:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
Post by Steve Caple
Not to mention his mortal fear of tits.
Not just cats, but birds too?
Post by Steve Caple
Must have had a
terrible childhood experience with a breast.
Turkeys, maybe?
Or birds of another feather?
I love it when they flock together!
--
Steve Caple
wim
2004-02-24 09:32:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Steve Caple
How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico cats?
Not to mention his mortal fear of tits. Must have had a
terrible childhood experience with a breast.
Or when he was 18-19, those can be traumatic experiences if you are born
again
.

Wim
David_G
2004-02-24 09:40:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by Steve Caple
How does one explain Ashcroft's fear of calico cats?
Not to mention his mortal fear of tits. Must have had a
terrible childhood experience with a breast.
Or when he was 18-19, those can be traumatic experiences if you are born
again
Didn't you know that women (who were made as an afterthought, because god
hadn't realised at first that man might feel a bit lonely doing it all on
his own) are sent by the devil to get men worked up, give them impure
thoughts, and make them craven and guilty, begging on bended knees for
pardon and redemption.

Isn't that what 'born again' mans?
Sadly in some people's case it makes them think they are gods!
That's why the devil was cast out of the Garden of Eden.
Watch out George!!!!
DE
2004-02-24 06:45:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Steve Caple
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance for
a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien (and
against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?

You might be right, you just might be.

-- DE
David_G
2004-02-24 07:16:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
Post by EW
Post by Steve Caple
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance for
a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien (and
against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?
You might be right, you just might be.
I'd never heard of him until I read that article. I'm glad I raised it.
Presumably his publishers also knew. That says a lot about them.
Peter
2004-02-24 11:47:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
Post by EW
Post by Steve Caple
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance for
a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien (and
against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?
You might be right, you just might be.
Almost right. He makes a living by spreadng hate
--
Peter
ah
2004-02-24 13:26:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
[snip]
Buchanan . . . .
[snip]
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?
You might be right, you just might be.
"I'm not a bigot: I hate everyone!"
--
ah
EW
2004-02-24 14:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by DE
Post by EW
Post by Steve Caple
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance
for a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien
(and against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?
Buchanan seems to be a tribalist. He hates anybody who isn't an American -
and even hates the 99% of Americans who don't agree with him. He reminds
me a lot of the Quebec Pequistes, the Rawandans, the various leaders of the
Balkan states, the Ayran tribalists of Germany a half-century ago, the
factional leadership in today's Iraq, ......, and has faint echos in the
current Dutch leadership in respect of their removal of illegal immigrants.

Tribalism is a step deeper than nationalism as a vehicle for vicious mayhem.
rjj
2004-02-25 00:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by DE
Post by EW
Post by Steve Caple
He's long been making a living
pandering to nativist anti-semitism and racism.
Buchanan is certainly a xenophobe, an anti-freetrader (a curious stance
for a self-identified conservative), and one with no compunction about US
interference in toppling socialist governments wherever they might be
found.
But I do wonder about your label of anti-semitism. He has criticized Israel
and the US alliance with that country. But I don't know that he is any
more anti-semitic than he is anti-Canadian, despite his constant epithets
against that pinko Trudeau and his closet-socialist henchman, Chretien
(and against Vincente Fox of Mexico).
However, I'll bet you have some concrete citations that you're anxious to
share with this group that would show that his anti-semitism is somehow
different than his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border.
So your basic premise is that he hates just about everybody?
Buchanan seems to be a tribalist. He hates anybody who isn't an American -
and even hates the 99% of Americans who don't agree with him. He reminds
me a lot of the Quebec Pequistes, the Rawandans, the various leaders of the
Balkan states, the Ayran tribalists of Germany a half-century ago, the
factional leadership in today's Iraq, ......, and has faint echos in the
current Dutch leadership in respect of their removal of illegal immigrants.
Tribalism is a step deeper than nationalism as a vehicle for vicious mayhem.
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.

roelof
EW
2004-02-25 02:46:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad points.
One of the essential objectives of any government is the preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be forestalled.
The question is how that is best done. I would glibly think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.

Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.

With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.

My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
Wim
2004-02-25 06:49:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad points.
One of the essential objectives of any government is the preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be forestalled.
The question is how that is best done. I would glibly think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.
With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.
My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
He, I still want to come back one of these days, leave me some room.
But without a firm European immigration policy we be lost anyhow.

Wim
rjj
2004-02-25 12:22:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Wim
Post by EW
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad
points. One of the essential objectives of any government is the
preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be
forestalled. The question is how that is best done. I would glibly
think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.
With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.
My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
He, I still want to come back one of these days, leave me some room.
But without a firm European immigration policy we be lost anyhow.
Wim
the most sure way to stop immigration is to shrink the economy. :)

roelof
wim
2004-02-25 14:04:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
Post by Wim
He, I still want to come back one of these days, leave me some room.
But without a firm European immigration policy we be lost anyhow.
Wim
the most sure way to stop immigration is to shrink the economy. :)
Are you with this confirming that most of our asylum seekers are
economic, rather than political refugees ? It seems like it.

Our economy will aways look better than theirs.

Wim
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-25 18:14:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by rjj
Post by Wim
He, I still want to come back one of these days, leave me some room.
But without a firm European immigration policy we be lost anyhow.
Wim
the most sure way to stop immigration is to shrink the economy. :)
Are you with this confirming that most of our asylum seekers are
economic, rather than political refugees ? It seems like it.
Our economy will aways look better than theirs.
The grass of your neighbor and all that.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
rjj
2004-02-26 00:37:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by rjj
Post by Wim
He, I still want to come back one of these days, leave me some room.
But without a firm European immigration policy we be lost anyhow.
Wim
the most sure way to stop immigration is to shrink the economy. :)
Are you with this confirming that most of our asylum seekers are
economic, rather than political refugees ? It seems like it.
Our economy will aways look better than theirs.
Wim
A Sudanese farmer was driven from his arreable land because rebels
fought the government or vice-versa. He is not for or against any of
them. Only he has no land to plough, no crops to harvest. He decides to
flee his country and seek a place where he can feed himself and his
family. Is he an economic or a political refugee?
A Iranian women was forbidden to work in her country. Work, as a doctor,
she loved. She didn't partake in demonstrations against the ayatollahs
en came here, just wanting to do what she liked to do. Economical?
Political? Her application was denied of course.
The distinction between a political and an economic refugee is not
always as clear as some people would like us to believe.
Fact is that a rotten economy often goes with an oppressive dictatorial
government and that a lot of people are fleeing that sort of country
just to have a chance on a life.

It is not our economy alone which attacks people, also the relative
stable and safe society of which most of them want to be a part. And
unless we (the west) find ways to share our wealth instead of devising
ways to get an even bigger part of the cake, people will be coming to
us, peacefully or otherwise. Present governments prepare for the other way.
There is a movie titled The March. In that movie the whole population of
African refugee camps decide to march to Europe. The result is devastating.

regards
roelof

regards
roelof
rjj
2004-02-25 12:19:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad points.
One of the essential objectives of any government is the preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be forestalled.
The question is how that is best done. I would glibly think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
Agreed, only I think that our present government is mostly occupied with
destruction of the harmony. They do it by fearmongering, fear for the
unknown other, who could be a criminal, a profiteer of social services,
a muslim.
France is doing what it always has been doing since their Revolution:
forced assimilation. A policy which worked in the past, but the results
of which are now doubtful because of technological changes. (internet,
airplanes).
OTOH, in the recent past, most european governments have allowed the
birth of ´no~go areas´ These areas have become the cradle of illiberty
and crime. And no~one knows exactly how to incorporate the people in
these areas in the mainstream again.
Post by EW
Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.
But history takes time. Not one generation, not two, but at least three.
Present politicians want to solve the alleged problem at once.
Post by EW
With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.
Th deportation is not of illegal immigrants. The victims of these tough
measures are those asylum-seekers, who tried to get a residency permit,
where denied it and tried to exploit the procedures in such a way that
they could and did stay longer.
Argument of the government is roughly that when they were rejected the
first time they should have left. That the appeals and so on they used
were perfectly legal at the time, that for many of them a return to
their country is not an option, because their country doesn´t recognize
them or their children, doesn´t matter in this view. That the government
themselves created this loopholes, that after five or more years of
sloppy procedures and investigations, that the immigration and
naturalization service isn´t working right lot of times, all that has
not been taken into account.
Post by EW
My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
Again the present problem is not about illegals. I think that will be
the next problem.

I do believe that the feared clash of cultures is brought about by that
fear. I do also think that the reaction of most western governments is
proving the point of ObL and others, that the West is hypocritical and
self/serving. Civil rights are only valid if you are a westerner.

And of course breaking of law is undemocratic. Unless, there is always
necessity. A physical necessity or a necessity of conscience. And in
that case the law should be broken. And I should be willing to accept
the consequences.

regards
roelof -a little bit ranting I believe.
wim
2004-02-25 14:02:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
Post by EW
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad
points. One of the essential objectives of any government is the
preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be
forestalled. The question is how that is best done. I would glibly
think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
Agreed, only I think that our present government is mostly occupied with
destruction of the harmony. They do it by fearmongering, fear for the
unknown other, who could be a criminal, a profiteer of social services,
a muslim.
I think our government is reacting to those fears coming from the Dutch
population. In the 60's we were a very law abiding, bourgeois people
who screwed up as long as the problems were not in my back yard. So
things are out of control, if you believe the statistics as to who gets
napped for crimes and who is in jail.
Post by rjj
forced assimilation. A policy which worked in the past, but the results
of which are now doubtful because of technological changes. (internet,
airplanes).
OTOH, in the recent past, most european governments have allowed the
birth of ´no~go areas´ These areas have become the cradle of illiberty
and crime. And no~one knows exactly how to incorporate the people in
these areas in the mainstream again.
Post by EW
Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.
But history takes time. Not one generation, not two, but at least three.
Present politicians want to solve the alleged problem at once.
Post by EW
With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.
Th deportation is not of illegal immigrants. The victims of these tough
measures are those asylum-seekers, who tried to get a residency permit,
where denied it and tried to exploit the procedures in such a way that
they could and did stay longer.
Argument of the government is roughly that when they were rejected the
first time they should have left. That the appeals and so on they used
were perfectly legal at the time, that for many of them a return to
their country is not an option, because their country doesn´t recognize
them or their children, doesn´t matter in this view.
We told people they couldn't stay forever, but wouldn't expel them as
long as the situation in their countries wasn't clear. Maybe we should
teach them a trade first before they are send them back, to build up
their own countries.
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
Post by rjj
That the government
themselves created this loopholes, that after five or more years of
sloppy procedures and investigations, that the immigration and
naturalization service isn´t working right lot of times, all that has
not been taken into account.
Nor the fact that we had never before had to handle such an influx of
people, had no laws dealing with immigrants, obliging them to adapt.
Post by rjj
Post by EW
My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
Again the present problem is not about illegals. I think that will be
the next problem.
I do believe that the feared clash of cultures is brought about by that
fear. I do also think that the reaction of most western governments is
proving the point of ObL and others, that the West is hypocritical and
self/serving. Civil rights are only valid if you are a westerner.
Civil right apply to those that respect the law. It used to be that in
Switzerland they rejected extending work/residence permits if you
exceded the speed limit very often or were arrested for DWI
Post by rjj
And of course breaking of law is undemocratic. Unless, there is always
necessity. A physical necessity or a necessity of conscience. And in
that case the law should be broken. And I should be willing to accept
the consequences.
I'm not willing to accept this. Any law has its opposition. you can
only defy the law by changing it, not by abrogating it, which will
abrogate the rights of those obeing that law.

Wim
EW
2004-02-25 14:43:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
Is there a real difference between the two - does it change the ethics if
your child's future is thwarted because you support the wrong politics or
if it is curtailed just because you lack money?
wim
2004-02-25 15:06:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by wim
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
Is there a real difference between the two - does it change the ethics if
your child's future is thwarted because you support the wrong politics or
if it is curtailed just because you lack money?
Yes, you tell that your seeking political asylum, because your life is
at risk in your home country.
Whereas the only thing you want is the "high" income, without realizing
the high cost, being cheated by your own countrymen, who rip you off
because you don't understand the language, the laws and who have you
join the illegal labor market
.

Wim
EW
2004-02-25 15:30:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by EW
Post by wim
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
Is there a real difference between the two - does it change the ethics if
your child's future is thwarted because you support the wrong politics or
if it is curtailed just because you lack money?
Yes, you tell that your seeking political asylum, because your life is
at risk in your home country.
Whereas the only thing you want is the "high" income, without realizing
the high cost, being cheated by your own countrymen, who rip you off
because you don't understand the language, the laws and who have you
join the illegal labor market
.
Twenty-five years ago, Helmut Schmidt and Pierre Trudeau were jointly
beating the "North-South Dialog" drum, to the dismay of the other G7
countries, advocating that there must be a vast sharing of the riches of
the west with the 3rd-world countries, not only because that met their test
of fairness, but in order to prevent the outbreak of global wars.

Because there was a genuine reluctance of the western populations to share
their wealth (it meant diminishing somewhat the prosperity of each of us in
the wealthy countries), that was not acted upon and the inevitable economic
migrations of peoples started. One sees in Holland and France (plus
presumably elsewhere in Europe) the consequent upset in their societies.

The global free trade thrust is a follow-on to the "North-South Dialog"
concept. As we now see in the US, this means jobs flow to the 3rd world
enriching them, while putting strains on the prospects of those who lost
the jobs and, as trickle-down, reducing the wealth of their neighbours.

I am of the view that either we all adjust to this change - which is
economic (which itself begets the political) - or we go rather quickly to
global war - IMO, something far worse. We had the opportunity to share
wisely. We didn't. Now we are forced to share in ways that we might not
find quite as pleasant.
Eric de Souza
2004-02-25 15:59:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Because there was a genuine reluctance of the western populations to share
their wealth (it meant diminishing somewhat the prosperity of each of us in
the wealthy countries), that was not acted upon and the inevitable economic
migrations of peoples started. One sees in Holland and France (plus
presumably elsewhere in Europe) the consequent upset in their societies.
The global free trade thrust is a follow-on to the "North-South Dialog"
concept. As we now see in the US, this means jobs flow to the 3rd world
enriching them, while putting strains on the prospects of those who lost
the jobs and, as trickle-down, reducing the wealth of their neighbours.
"Sharing wealth" is an empty concept. How does one goes about sharing
one's wealth between nations? Going one step further, is it even
necessary to "share wealth"? The economic pie is not of a fixed size.

As to outsourcing, the Economist of this week has a good critical
article on it. As does Brad DeLong on his website following Gregory
Mankiw statement on it. In this case DeLong stands by Mankiw.

http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2454530
http://tinyurl.com/yq3p5

http://www.j-bradford-delong.net/movable_type/2004_archives/000291.html
http://tinyurl.com/32sxr

Eric
EW
2004-02-25 16:23:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
"Sharing wealth" is an empty concept. How does one goes about sharing
one's wealth between nations? Going one step further, is it even
necessary to "share wealth"? The economic pie is not of a fixed size.
Sharing wealth is hardly an empty concept. It occurs every day in families.
I think the extension of that to nations and larger groups to be fairly
obvious, including the evolution and change that occurs as the family ages
and the newer members gain skills and experience.

I agree that the economic pie is not fixed and tends to grow as the wealth
is shared. That is economic orthodoxy - and largely true, which is why the
sharing isn't as painful as some think.

However, there are, one suspects, limits to the validity of it. When
looking about, "wealthy" nations have one common attribute: they are large
net per capita users of cheap fossil fuel energy. There is a finite cap, a
finite supply, of cheap energy. (One can debate at length whether energy
usage is cause or effect - and indeed whether the finite nature of the cap
has been the impetus of current international disputes.)

Energy sharing was one of the points that Schmidt and Trudeau were trying to
get the world to deal with. We didn't, and haven't yet. But the question
is becoming more critical as each year passes and even more so as we begin
to toss into the equation the impact of global warming.
Eric de Souza
2004-02-25 18:36:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
"Sharing wealth" is an empty concept. How does one goes about sharing
one's wealth between nations? Going one step further, is it even
necessary to "share wealth"? The economic pie is not of a fixed size.
Sharing wealth is hardly an empty concept. It occurs every day in families.
I think the extension of that to nations and larger groups to be fairly
obvious, including the evolution and change that occurs as the family ages
and the newer members gain skills and experience.
If I'm not mistaken, you used it in the context of sharing wealth
between nations, which is the context in which I answered.
Post by EW
I agree that the economic pie is not fixed and tends to grow as the wealth
is shared. That is economic orthodoxy - and largely true, which is why the
sharing isn't as painful as some think.
If you want to call "mutual gains", sharing, it becomes an issue of
semantics, but not neutral in connotation. Even though opening to free
trade is good for the country, it is always painful for some: there
are winners and losers within a country depending on which sector
expands and which contracts. The tasks of governments is to ensure
proper adjustment mechanisms, not to submit to protectionist reflexes
from the contracting sectors.
Post by EW
However, there are, one suspects, limits to the validity of it. When
looking about, "wealthy" nations have one common attribute: they are large
net per capita users of cheap fossil fuel energy. There is a finite cap, a
finite supply, of cheap energy. (One can debate at length whether energy
usage is cause or effect - and indeed whether the finite nature of the cap
has been the impetus of current international disputes.)
Energy sharing was one of the points that Schmidt and Trudeau were trying to
get the world to deal with. We didn't, and haven't yet. But the question
is becoming more critical as each year passes and even more so as we begin
to toss into the equation the impact of global warming.
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.

Eric
EW
2004-02-25 19:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
If you want to call "mutual gains", sharing, it becomes an issue of
semantics, but not neutral in connotation. Even though opening to free
trade is good for the country, it is always painful for some: there
are winners and losers within a country depending on which sector
expands and which contracts. The tasks of governments is to ensure
proper adjustment mechanisms, not to submit to protectionist reflexes
from the contracting sectors.
Quite so. The Canadian government wisely had a 5-year transitional program
with the beginning of NAFTA. There were some sectors that were wiped out -
clothing and footwear (concentrated on Montreal and Cornwall) are two that
come to mind. Effectively, those workers had to be retrained for other
jobs as the whole industry closed.
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Energy sharing was one of the points that Schmidt and Trudeau were trying
to get the world to deal with.  We didn't, and haven't yet.  But the
question is becoming more critical as each year passes and even more so as
we begin to toss into the equation the impact of global warming.
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
Eric de Souza
2004-02-25 19:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Eric
EW
2004-02-25 20:26:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Eric
Of course, and I make no apologies for that. I can't see the point of
economic argument that is deliberately unhinged from fact.
Eric de Souza
2004-02-25 20:32:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Eric
Of course, and I make no apologies for that. I can't see the point of
economic argument that is deliberately unhinged from fact.
But it isn't. Economic argument has to take into account technological
progress and innovation. And there is very intensive research going on
it this field. Just one illustration:
http://www.whec15.jp/
which is the site for the forthcoming world hydrogen conference
Eric
EW
2004-02-25 22:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is
whether the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a
drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Eric
Of course, and I make no apologies for that. I can't see the point of
economic argument that is deliberately unhinged from fact.
But it isn't. Economic argument has to take into account technological
progress and innovation. And there is very intensive research going on
http://www.whec15.jp/
which is the site for the forthcoming world hydrogen conference
Eric
As I understand it, hydrogen is a means of transmission rather than a
primary source of energy. Energy is consumed in its creation (molecular
disassociation). That energy is re-released in its use. Others with more
knowledge, please weigh in.


Hydrogen doesn't address the need for/world-balance of cheap energy in the
first place. I will grant that hydrogen could be somewhat more efficient
if adopted in grand scale - if technologiucal barriers are cracked (as they
might well) - be but it is not significantly so. Again as I understand it,
hydrogen and other alternative systems will only be viable when the cost of
conventional fuels rises significantly, ie, when we depart from the cheap
fuel that has thus far funded the high standard of living in the west. That
underscores my arguement that engergy will only be available to the 3rd
world in quantity when the west's standard of living falls because it
loses, or voluntarily gives away, its current monopoly share of cheap
energy.
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-25 23:54:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
A state which the industries that control energy production have all
interests in maintaining since it gives them total control on the
destiny of nations.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
EW
2004-02-29 03:54:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Here is what appears to be a blog on the coming oil crunch. Some
interesting stuff there.

BTW: It was under the agis of the Club of Rome that Schmidt and Trudeau
launched their "North-South Dialog" crusade that went nowhere.


http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageOne.html
Peter McCormack
2004-02-29 06:44:50 UTC
Permalink
In article <Snd0c.50058$ah.25819
@twister01.bloor.is.net.cable.rogers.com>, ***@nowhere.ca
says...
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
Post by EW
Post by Eric de Souza
The problematic of the rate of natural resource extraction is not an
issue of sharing wealth.
It is if you accept the premise that national wealth depends upon the
availablility of cheap energy. One cannot share the wealth around the
globe without sharing the energy. Trouble is, there isn't enough to go
around to bring everyone up to western standards. The question is whether
the west is willing to accept less of the energy pie (with a drop in living
standards), to share it with others, or not. That last means going to war
to protect the current share disposition. (That sets aside the
possiblility that some new, much more efficient, source of energy is
developed.)
But this reasoning is conditioned on the actual state of technology.
Here is what appears to be a blog on the coming oil crunch. Some
interesting stuff there.
BTW: It was under the agis of the Club of Rome that Schmidt and Trudeau
launched their "North-South Dialog" crusade that went nowhere.
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/PageOne.html
Nicely summed up at the top of the page:

"Deal with Reality, or Reality will Deal with You."

wim
2004-02-25 17:33:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
Post by wim
Post by EW
Post by wim
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
Is there a real difference between the two - does it change the ethics if
your child's future is thwarted because you support the wrong politics or
if it is curtailed just because you lack money?
Yes, you tell that your seeking political asylum, because your life is
at risk in your home country.
Whereas the only thing you want is the "high" income, without realizing
the high cost, being cheated by your own countrymen, who rip you off
because you don't understand the language, the laws and who have you
join the illegal labor market
.
Twenty-five years ago, Helmut Schmidt and Pierre Trudeau were jointly
beating the "North-South Dialog" drum, to the dismay of the other G7
countries, advocating that there must be a vast sharing of the riches of
the west with the 3rd-world countries, not only because that met their test
of fairness, but in order to prevent the outbreak of global wars.
Because there was a genuine reluctance of the western populations to share
their wealth (it meant diminishing somewhat the prosperity of each of us in
the wealthy countries), that was not acted upon and the inevitable economic
migrations of peoples started. One sees in Holland and France (plus
presumably elsewhere in Europe) the consequent upset in their societies.
The idea sounded and still seems utopian in nature.
It started in the USA with Mexicans and people further south. In Europe
with the abolition of our colonies and thheir inhabitants having a
European passport. The end of the iron curtain doesn't help nor our
real need for labor.
Post by EW
The global free trade thrust is a follow-on to the "North-South Dialog"
concept. As we now see in the US, this means jobs flow to the 3rd world
enriching them, while putting strains on the prospects of those who lost
the jobs and, as trickle-down, reducing the wealth of their neighbours.
I am of the view that either we all adjust to this change - which is
economic (which itself begets the political) - or we go rather quickly to
global war - IMO, something far worse. We had the opportunity to share
wisely. We didn't. Now we are forced to share in ways that we might not
find quite as pleasant.
There is no other way. You can't ask people to give up their jobs so
that the poor soul somewhere has a miserable job.
Our lives and our jobs markets are equalizing, for as long as the newer
economies don't produce for their own needs, but only for export
purposes. The difference in standard of living is too big

Wim
rjj
2004-02-26 00:55:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by rjj
Post by EW
Post by rjj
The echo is not so faint. The present Dutch leadership is tribalist in
behaviour and thought.Funny thing is though that the most outspoken
member of parliament about the need for assimilation or expulsion is a
refugee from Somalia.
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad
points. One of the essential objectives of any government is the
preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be
forestalled. The question is how that is best done. I would glibly
think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
Agreed, only I think that our present government is mostly occupied
with destruction of the harmony. They do it by fearmongering, fear for
the unknown other, who could be a criminal, a profiteer of social
services, a muslim.
I think our government is reacting to those fears coming from the Dutch
population. In the 60's we were a very law abiding, bourgeois people
who screwed up as long as the problems were not in my back yard. So
things are out of control, if you believe the statistics as to who gets
napped for crimes and who is in jail.
From the statistics I learn that the underclass is in jail, as has
always been the case. I also learn that in itself it is not the majority
of the immigrants who are in jail. Most of them aren't doing that badly.
Post by wim
Post by rjj
forced assimilation. A policy which worked in the past, but the
results of which are now doubtful because of technological changes.
(internet, airplanes).
OTOH, in the recent past, most european governments have allowed the
birth of ´no~go areas´ These areas have become the cradle of illiberty
and crime. And no~one knows exactly how to incorporate the people in
these areas in the mainstream again.
Post by EW
Assi,ilation is a fluid thing. People don't assimilate without changing
that they're assimilating with. The objection seems more to the speed at
which the change takes place. History again suggests that the change is
inevitable in any event.
But history takes time. Not one generation, not two, but at least
three. Present politicians want to solve the alleged problem at once.
Post by EW
With the Dutch illegal immigrants, the major difficulty I see is that
granting them permanent residency tends to defeats the democratically
agreed laws and, further, must be extremely galling to those citizens who
did undergo all the cost/delays and jump through the bureaucratic hoops
required for legal residency. And the question arises whether individuals
who deliberately break laws, even if they are immigration laws, are the
type of citizen one wants in a country - breaking laws is, afterall, the
most undemocratic of acts.
Th deportation is not of illegal immigrants. The victims of these
tough measures are those asylum-seekers, who tried to get a residency
permit, where denied it and tried to exploit the procedures in such a
way that they could and did stay longer.
Argument of the government is roughly that when they were rejected the
first time they should have left. That the appeals and so on they used
were perfectly legal at the time, that for many of them a return to
their country is not an option, because their country doesn´t
recognize them or their children, doesn´t matter in this view.
We told people they couldn't stay forever, but wouldn't expel them as
long as the situation in their countries wasn't clear. Maybe we should
teach them a trade first before they are send them back, to build up
their own countries.
Situation in amongst others Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iran,
Congo, Azerbeidzjan and even Liberia and Sierra Leone is still not
clear. And the government wants to send them back. And yes they can
learn a trade if they know enough Dutch to follow the lessons. Sadly
they are not allowed to learn Dutch or English.
Post by wim
If you hear what they pay at times to come to our part of the world, you
should wonder if their need is political or economical.
The wonder is more how they can afford it. Mostly because their families
has pledged all they have. And the people themselves have the obligation
to pay it back.
Post by wim
Post by rjj
That the government themselves created this loopholes, that after
five or more years of sloppy procedures and investigations, that the
immigration and naturalization service isn´t working right lot of
times, all that has not been taken into account.
Nor the fact that we had never before had to handle such an influx of
people, had no laws dealing with immigrants, obliging them to adapt.
Post by rjj
Post by EW
My inclination, for this country as well as others, is that if an illegal
has been around for 5 years or more, to heck with it, waive the other
qualifying requirements and bring them into permanent residency status -
but with the same cost and delay as anyone applying through regular
channels. If they aren't prepared to shoulder that minimum amount of
compliance with law, boot them out.
Again the present problem is not about illegals. I think that will be
the next problem.
I do believe that the feared clash of cultures is brought about by
that fear. I do also think that the reaction of most western
governments is proving the point of ObL and others, that the West is
hypocritical and self/serving. Civil rights are only valid if you are
a westerner.
Civil right apply to those that respect the law. It used to be that in
Switzerland they rejected extending work/residence permits if you
exceded the speed limit very often or were arrested for DWI
I should have used the word: human rights. And they should apply to
everyone.
Post by wim
Post by rjj
And of course breaking of law is undemocratic. Unless, there is always
necessity. A physical necessity or a necessity of conscience. And in
that case the law should be broken. And I should be willing to accept
the consequences.
I'm not willing to accept this. Any law has its opposition. you can
only defy the law by changing it, not by abrogating it, which will
abrogate the rights of those obeing that law.
Wim
Civil disobedience can be a duty sometimes. If all other means to change
the law are exhausted and the law is still felt to be wrong, than you
may defy it. But you have to do it publicly -notifying the police
beforehand :)- and be willing to pay the price for that breaking.

regards
roelof
tm
2004-02-26 03:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by rjj
Situation in amongst others Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iran,
Congo, Azerbeidzjan and even Liberia and Sierra Leone is still not
clear. And the government wants to send them back. And yes they can
learn a trade if they know enough Dutch to follow the lessons. Sadly
they are not allowed to learn Dutch or English.
Not allowed? How can that work? You mean they are not allowed to
attend schools?
Forgive me, I'm completely ignorant of current Dutch politics. Any
suggestions where I could read up on this?
rjj
2004-02-26 23:47:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by tm
Post by rjj
Situation in amongst others Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Iran,
Congo, Azerbeidzjan and even Liberia and Sierra Leone is still not
clear. And the government wants to send them back. And yes they can
learn a trade if they know enough Dutch to follow the lessons. Sadly
they are not allowed to learn Dutch or English.
Not allowed? How can that work? You mean they are not allowed to
attend schools?
Forgive me, I'm completely ignorant of current Dutch politics. Any
suggestions where I could read up on this?
There are provision for some teaching while they are awaiting the
decision on their request. This period can take longer than a year under
the present laws, it used to be much longer. In that time they are not
or only very limited allowed to work, to get schooling etc..

roelof
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-25 13:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad points.
One of the essential objectives of any government is the preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be forestalled.
The question is how that is best done. I would glibly think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
I would say that's one of the stupidest thing they could do in that
regard. "Sure, we're tolerant as long as you don't show your
difference."
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
wim
2004-02-25 14:10:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
Post by EW
As with most things, there are many sides to a story. The Dutch project,
like that of the French in the schools, has good points and bad points.
One of the essential objectives of any government is the preservation of
harmony within the country. History would suggest that when one culture
runs up against another, clashes with violence and death are the frequent
result. It seems to the good of all that these clashes be forestalled.
The question is how that is best done. I would glibly think that education
and tolerance on both sides is the way, but I hardly think banning headgear
as France is contemplating does very much for either education or for
tolerance.
I would say that's one of the stupidest thing they could do in that
regard. "Sure, we're tolerant as long as you don't show your
difference."
Or if you give one finger, they will take the whole hand. I think
France and other governments in Europe too, are afraid read people the
riot act; Adapt, behave (not more not less than the indigent population)
If you want an Islamic society, African society, stay where you are,
don't come here.

Wim
Giuseppe Bilotta
2004-02-25 23:55:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
I would say that's one of the stupidest thing they could do in that
regard. "Sure, we're tolerant as long as you don't show your
difference."
Or if you give one finger, they will take the whole hand. I think
France and other governments in Europe too, are afraid read people the
riot act; Adapt, behave (not more not less than the indigent population)
If you want an Islamic society, African society, stay where you are,
don't come here.
There is an assumption there that head cover is about Islam or
something. Forcing women not to wear it is akin to forcing Wester
women to wear miniskirts.
--
Giuseppe "Oblomov" Bilotta

Can't you see
It all makes perfect sense
Expressed in dollar and cents
Pounds shillings and pence
(Roger Waters)
David_G
2004-02-26 09:00:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Giuseppe Bilotta
Post by wim
don't come here.
There is an assumption there that head cover is about Islam or
something. Forcing women not to wear it is akin to forcing Wester
women to wear miniskirts.
France has always been illiberal. It certainly won't change under Chirac!
The whole thing is farcical.

Are transvestites also to be banned from public buildings?
Peter
2004-02-27 23:31:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_G
Are transvestites also to be banned from public buildings?
Do they announce bans for transvestites, or does it depend on the natural
sex of each partner?
--
Peter
Peter
2004-02-26 19:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by wim
Or if you give one finger,
You get shot by some asshole with road rage.
--
Peter
Steve Caple
2004-02-24 07:55:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by EW
his approach to we non-semite misfits and soft-as-shit
military weaklings north and south of the US border
Surrender monkeys, just more fucking surrender monkeys,
wherever you look, talking funny and eating wierd food.

(OK, he does have a point about poutine)
--
Steve Caple
DE
2004-02-22 16:15:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by David_G
http://amconmag.com/3_1_04/cover.html
The Frum-Perle prescription would ensnare America in endless conflict
By Patrick J. Buchanan
March1 , 2004 issue, The American Conservative
...
I'd argue with the extent of your "excerpt" unless they give permission
for quoting-in-full; this is an old argument around here, though.
Post by David_G
"[A] radical strain within Islam," says Perle, " ... seeks to overthrow our
civilization and remake the nations of the West into Islamic societies,
imposing on the whole world its religion and laws."
And the Christians in the US are not seeking to do *exactly* that, seeking
to overthrow the governments of MidEast countries and remake them into
Judeo-Christian societies?

Have we not already said we won't *allow* the new Iraqi Constitution to be
based on Islamic law -- the law of THEIR land and the religion of THEIR
people -- and we will barely tolerate that it will be "guided by" Islamic
law, even at the same time the very same people are pushing the US to
adapt new laws based on Christian-defined moralilty and beliefs?

-- DE
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...