McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

[krakknisse]

Check out this John McCain speech. It's like seeing the ghost of the 1930s being resurrected. A super-NATO, with Israel(!), BRICs, Australia: a disastrous expansion of collective security. Note the Double-Think "I hate war". Yeah, and GWB got elected on a humble foreign policy. That worked out well. And the call for free trade EU-USA? Sure only to apply to FIRE products.

John McCain called for a new ``League of Democracies'' to strengthen U.S. alliances and advance western values in a speech outlining his foreign policy positions.
``We have to strengthen our global alliances as the core of a new global compact -- a League of Democracies -- that can harness the vast influence of the more than 100 democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests,'' McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, said told the Los Angeles World Affairs Council.
This new group should include ``the collective voice of the European Union'' as well as India, Japan, Australia, Brazil, South Korea, South Africa, Turkey and Israel, McCain said. ``We cannot build an enduring peace based on freedom by ourselves, and we do not want to,'' he said.
Russia should be excluded, he said.
``Rather than tolerate Russia's nuclear blackmail or cyber attacks, western nations should make clear that the solidarity of NATO, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, is indivisible and that the organization's doors remain open to all democracies committed to the defense of freedom,'' McCain said.
Free Trade
McCain also discussed trade, saying, ``It would be an interesting proposal I would like to make, to have a free-trade agreement between ourselves and the European Union.''
McCain, who supported President George W. Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, sought to dispel any perception that he would readily resort to war to further American policy.
``I detest war,'' he said. ``Not the valor with which it is fought, nor the nobility of the cause it serves, can glorify war.''
The Arizona senator said early in the presidential campaign that U.S. troops might be in Iraq for 50 to 100 years, triggering suggestions by Democrats that there might be no end in sight for that conflict should McCain win the presidency.
``Many Americans are leery that he could lead us into war with Iran, and they wonder whether he's so aggressive that we'll have more conflicts,'' said Bob Blendon, a public opinion expert at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts. More...

[Tulpen]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

If McCain gets elected I will move out of the USA.

New Zealand is on my radar screen.

Other suggestions?

By the way, I am serious here!

[FRED]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Check out this John McCain speech. It's like seeing the ghost of the 1930s being resurrected. A super-NATO, with Israel(!), BRICs, Australia: a disastrous expansion of collective security. Note the Double-Think "I hate war". Yeah, and GWB got elected on a humble foreign policy. That worked out well. And the call for free trade EU-USA? Sure only to apply to FIRE products.

He makes Bush some clear headed by comparison.

The President of Germany, Putin?


Who is in Iran?


Bomb Iran

[Starving Steve]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Check out this John McCain speech. It's like seeing the ghost of the 1930s being resurrected. A super-NATO, with Israel(!), BRICs, Australia: a disastrous expansion of collective security. Note the Double-Think "I hate war". Yeah, and GWB got elected on a humble foreign policy. That worked out well. And the call for free trade EU-USA? Sure only to apply to FIRE products.

I have no problem with a League of Western Democracies to replace NATO. And I think that it is time to reform the UN too.

And what is this issue with Isreal being part of this League? Or is it that when it comes to preserving democracies, the world would rather appease Hamas, Hesbollah, or the Hitler in Tehran?

Oh how my mind reflects upon the appeasers just before WWII. I reflect upon Chamberlin stepping down from that DC-3 in London in 1938 and saying, "I have here, a document with Heir Hitler's signature on it. We will have peace in our time."

And ofcourse, this stinker, Chamberlin, Britain's foreign minister at the time, gave-away the the western-most territory of Czechoslovakia to secure what turned-out to be a worthless peace.

I am not a McCain fan, and I am not going to vote for the Republicans. But McCain is fine, at least on the face of these remarks here.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Starving Steve speaks for my views too. I'm looking at iTulip's objections to this particular set of statements of McCain's and trying to grasp where the real substance of your objections lies, as Steve has pointed out these objections seem somewhat "quixotic".

What precisely is wrong with the notion of a league of democracies? Doe we entertain fond notions that this ideal is no more than a conceit? Or perhaps that those countries that fall outside of this loose description are more desirable? If that's the world you aspire to, you are collectively welcome to it, but I myself would be looking for the exit door from your percieved "better future".

I have no problem with a League of Western Democracies to replace NATO. And I think that it is time to reform the UN too.

And what is this issue with Isreal being part of this League? Or is it that when it comes to preserving democracies, the world would rather appease Hamas, Hesbollah, or the Hitler in Tehran?

Oh how my mind reflects upon the appeasers just before WWII. I reflect upon Chamberlin stepping down from that DC-3 in London in 1938 and saying, "I have here, a document with Heir Hitler's signature on it. We will have peace in our time."

And ofcourse, this stinker, Chamberlin, Britain's foreign minister at the time, gave-away the the western-most territory of Czechoslovakia to secure what turned-out to be a worthless peace.

I am not a McCain fan, and I am not going to vote for the Republicans. But McCain is fine, at least on the face of these remarks here.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Starving Steve speaks for my views too. I'm looking at iTulip's objections to this particular set of statements of McCain's and trying to grasp where the real substance of your objections lies, as Steve has pointed out these objections seem somewhat "quixotic".

What precisely is wrong with the notion of a league of democracies? Doe we entertain fond notions that this ideal is no more than a conceit? Or perhaps that those countries that fall outside of this loose description are more desirable? If that's the world you aspire to, you are collectively welcome to it, but I myself would be looking for the exit door from your percieved "better future".

It is a relatively long story. A quick summary would say that the libertarian analysis of state power predicts that expanding collective security is an unstable situation, where a small spark could explode the global powder keg. Remember that the "ITulip analysis" is really the Austrian script for a post-credit bubble situation. It is not that far from the Austrian macroeconomic script to the libertarian analysis of the broader situation. You may disagree, but it is an intellectually honest analysis, and not necessarily "pacifist at all cost". And of course, "I hate war" means "I love war".

What _really_ lead to the World in World War I and II? I don't necessarily expect all ITulipers to condone this view. It is the reason for the now-forgotten "isolationist" stance of a significant proportion of the American public before the onset of World War II. I won't explain it all, but give you a few "hooks". An overexpanded (decaying?) empire with rotting political institutions and more mouth than military power, debases its currency. It then recruits its allies into an unstable political alliance, with "barbarians" (hostile) powers waiting to fill the power vacuum. Rome? A "permanent war" situation (1984?) or a prolonged global conflict gives cover for rampant inflation and expanding public works and militaries. The recipe is age-old. Politicians egging on hostile powers (which may be really nasty) inevitably end up being as nasty as their enemies (you can't fight the chimneyman without getting dirty, eggs/omelettes etc.). Think of all the empires "democratic" Europe has been up against during the centuries. Sometimes conflict is not the best solution. Check out the Pax Mongolica - it is unknown to most people.

Remember: just a single shot - a political assasination - in an irrelevant corner of the Balcans - lead to a conflict encompassing the globe in WW1, and subsequently WW2. Was it _really_ worth it? To me, the best recipe for world democracy is a system of limited republics, simply outcompeting nastier forms of government. Collective security may or may not be right at any given point in time, but the larger the alliances are, the more unstable they are.

Get your kids out of the draft. Militarism here we come: "More meat for the grinder". You may call it tinhat, but it is a subtext that weaves through world politics. I will be following that subtext with infrequent updates here. If we do go down that road, then hold on to your gold if you have it. If we don't, then breathe a sigh of relief.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

To me, the best recipe for world democracy is a system of limited republics, simply outcompeting nastier forms of government. Collective security may or may not be right at any given point in time, but the larger the alliances are, the more unstable they are.

Excellent reply Krakknisse - and I completely agree with you in the bolded portion of your quote above, a universe of limited republics would be the very best solution.

The only quibble I offer is that you may underestimate the spontenaity with which "limited Republics" actually can spring up in the world when the world evolves along idealistic lines of "laissez faire". In my view there is no such thing as real "laissez faire" - some powers are constantly meddling. Secondly you get the "weed filled back yard" syndrome, where the world becomes filled with lots of tin-pot dictatorsips, because they obviously can thrive in many parts of the world regardless of the meddling of large powers.

Therefore I agree with you 100% that a world of devoluted small limited Republics of limited power is the closest we can get on Earth to perfection in government, but I am a permanent skeptic that these evolve in a "laissez faire" environment. If you believe they do, I would suggest your worldview retains a component of idealism notwithstanding your many other astute and highly realistic points. Limited "Federalism" is another term for "Democracy" and Democracy most decidedly does NOT spring up spontaneously worldwide.

Beware that residing in Europe, you do not unconsciously adopt a "Euro-Centric" worldview just as so many Americans unconsciously adopt an "America-Centric" world view. We presume far too often that the world will naturally gravitate to the same democratizing processes that the Western nations transitioned through (present decay or not) in the 19th and 20th Centuries. The world IMHO will most definitely NOT be "preordained" to follow this presumed "natural law" of social evolution. It may instead quite easily move in an aberrant direction of the proliferation of dictatorships instead.

The "decay of empire" which you describe in the US has a very large component of truth. Your inaccuracy in my view is in regarding the festering stews occurring in many other parts of the world as being necessarily determined by the outcome of the US decay. Those festering stews will proceed regardless, and may be rendered more vigorous by the collapse of the larger powers arond them. Those other parts of the world are vigorously evolving in directions of their own, and it is my suggestion that many of them if/when consigned to "laissez faire" will by no means come to better solutions than would be the case in the present world, presumably dominated still by the rotting empire.

Think about the apparently vigorous continual emergence of "nasty" states for a moment. Unsavory regimes, like North Korea, or arguably Mullah dominated Iran, or Venezuela under Chavez, or Syria, a police state for forty years which has been chewing up neigboring democratic Lebanon for decades, and has done more to destabilize relatioins between Israel and Lebanon than any other factor, or Serbia under Milosevic engulfing the Balkans in war, or former Iraq which fell back into a state of extreme belligerence towards it's own minorities and towards neighbors after losing the Gulf War 1, destabilizing the entire region for a decade prior to Gulf War 2. This is the same highly unstable and malignant Iraq which even after signing an unconditional armistice after the Kuwait invasion war was concluded, showed little signs of returning to the tasks of reconciliation and peace-building?

These toxic nations did not spring up primarily as a cause of the "rotting empire". Or if you want to make that argument you are pulling in some very tenuous strands of history to make your case.

All these, when left unchallenged do not wither and die away. They strengthen, and exert a growing influence on neighboring states over time. I'm thinking of a few more, like Burma, Somalia, one or two of the Central Asian Republics, etc. In your view a world governed by laissez faire would see these gradually being replaced by healthy states. In my view a world of laissez faire "grows weeds" and these actually proliferate.

This is by no means an apology for the US "rotting empire". It is rather a cynical view of what occurs in the rest of the world regardless. I think you have a component of the idealist in you if you think that the rotting away of empires produces a flowering of peace among all these "weeds". This is where the "league of democracies" notion has historically always had some merit which you perhaps do not acknowledge.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

The only quibble I offer is that you may underestimate the spontenaity with which "limited Republics" actually can spring up in the world when the world evolves along idealistic lines of "laissez faire". In my view there is no such thing as real "laissez faire" - some powers are constantly meddling. Secondly you get the "weed filled back yard" syndrome, where the world becomes filled with lots of tin-pot dictatorsips, because they obviously can thrive in many parts of the world regardless of the meddling of large powers. ... I think you have a component of the idealist in you if you think that the rotting away of empires produces a flowering of peace among all these "weeds". This is where the "league of democracies" notion has historically always had some merit which you perhaps do not acknowledge.

Interesting points.
1. I never said that limited republics arose spontaneously. One of the - still - best examples is in fact the founding of the USA, which was by all accounts a revolution and a civil war. The founders genuinely believed in a limited republic. Slavery was of course a large blemish, but that aside you could argue that the Republic is one of the most successful polities so far in history: in terms of land mass, population, economics.
2. I have to arrest you with respect to the "stews" you mention. With most of the examples, you could argue that the USA has meddled with disastrous unintended consequences in all of them ("blowback"):
a) North Korea: an obvious accident of the Cold War.
b) Iran: which US agency installed the Shah in 1953? Ron Paul has said so much
on national television.
c) The entire Middle East: don't even get me started. If it weren't for oil, it would still be a sandy backwater with entrepreneurial Arabs (and others) shuffling dates or whatever. Talk to an average Egyptian and ask them about political or economic freedom. Why are the Egyptian oligarchy still in power? Three letters, starts with a U and ends in an A.
c) Balkans. That has been festering for centuries - ever since the Ottomans and the Byzantine empire crashed. So don't jumpstart history with Milosevic. Where did the first world war start again? S-a-r-a-j-e-v-o.They have been the unfortunate victim of major powers. They'd been better off alone.
d) Contrast Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is an exercise in theocratic nastiness. Yet one actually has elections, a parliament and a political debate, while the other has no such thing. Hmm... take a guess at which of them the USA supports heavily, and which country is routinely bedeviled?

I guess I'm not saying that democracy will always happen. But people voting with their feet can exert a powerful influence - witness the growth of USA through immigration. Freedom is popular. Trade with everyone, stern rebukes yes, voluntary consumer boycotts. But "government is a fearful master and a dangerous servant". I'd simply want less of it. Either the League of Democracies will be a nice talking shop - an important moral example, or it will try to enforce freedom at gun point. That is much, much harder than you think. Witness Iraq, Balcans.

This is turning perhaps a little too political for ITulip. Just watch Ron Paul instead. But mark my words regarding the macroeconomic implications. The winds of war are blowing, subtly yet. That is what the McCain speech really means.
Buy physical gold.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

This is turning perhaps a little too political for ITulip. Just watch Ron Paul instead.

Krakknisse - this sounds like censorship of "inflammatory topics". The day I see that actually occurring at iTulip is the day I walk away from here, on principle. I will not accept being muzzled and have only passivity for a reaction, as these topics are by no means SPAM.

As for your A,B,C,D,E comparisons, I encounter these objections everywhere - but to my mind while they contain considerable components of truth they are put forward as 'full arguments' and in fact they are more like swiss cheese. Your suggestion that all these countries were 'made this way' by meddling great powers (read USA) is a pernicious half-truth.

Why? Because your thesis requires these failed republic nation-states to have been utterly passive in determining their own history for the next forty years. There is more than a little condescension towards their powers of self determination inherent in that view.

I grew up in Southern Europe. Lived in Italy for 25 years, which had the largest parliamentary participating Communist party in Europe all through the 40 post-war years. The Italian Communists were more independent of the Soviets than any other left groups in the European area for decades, and I spent my school years steeped in the views of many of these very free-thinking and I would be the first to admit, very independently minded groups.

I would remind you, that the theories you put forward found their intellectual origins in those 1960's and 1970's EU political groups who were indeed intellectually very consistent and smart. They posited that if these countries are relapsed into tin-pot dictatorships this should be laid exclusively at the doorstep of the great powers who's client states they have been for so long, and who have ruthlessly installed, removed and otherwise crudely meddled in their internal affairs for decades. There is indeed a lot of truth in these views, but it's by no means the whole truth, and it's today being employed by many as 'the whole truth of the matter'.

I got tired of these views, precisely because tucked away within them is a conceit, that these 'third world' countries cannot determine their own histories, but are rather the helpless victims of major power meddling. Part of this viewpoint is the product of some effete Western university educated conceits - these ideas have been adopted and centralized to the viewpoint of those critical of the 'rotting empire' thesis precisely because they so neatly fit into the armature of a 'world view' that explains everything in terms of the evils of imperialism.

Yes, modern day neo-imperialism sucks. No, it does not mean that these countries are off the hook for determining the shape of their own political evolution. Their political processes are archaic, their opposition groups fractious, short sighted and splintered - in most cases as unfit to govern as the tin-pots they would seek to replace.

Your thesis may risk being one you have not questioned for many years, such that you assume it is truth with no further reexamination. Great powers do meddle. And they do install puppets, but when you look 40 years past the date of that meddling and see no only lack of progress, but also a slide into the most bigoted theocratic forms of government instead of the emergence of progressive oppositions, I for one would maintain a healthy skepticisim that the entirety of their failure is attributable to the 'rotting empire' that meddled in their affairs a half century beforehand.

I've seen the world view from Europe as well as America - for half my life. Your description of the state of all these nations as 'products of the West' is an idea that I can vouch has been enthusiastically adopted in Europe, although there are certainly many proponents of it here in North America, and certainly at iTulip. I suggest it could benefit from a good hard re-think.

BTW - it would be regrettable for you to conclude such discussions are 'unseemly' for the pages of this community. That is equivalent to 'self-censorship', which hardly could be described as an attribute of the "Limited Free Republics" you espouse.

Respectfully.

[FRED]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Interesting points.
1. I never said that limited republics arose spontaneously. One of the - still - best examples is in fact the founding of the USA, which was by all accounts a revolution and a civil war. The founders genuinely believed in a limited republic. Slavery was of course a large blemish, but that aside you could argue that the Republic is one of the most successful polities so far in history: in terms of land mass, population, economics.
2. I have to arrest you with respect to the "stews" you mention. With most of the examples, you could argue that the USA has meddled with disastrous unintended consequences in all of them ("blowback"):
a) North Korea: an obvious accident of the Cold War.
b) Iran: which US agency installed the Shah in 1953? Ron Paul has said so much
on national television.
c) The entire Middle East: don't even get me started. If it weren't for oil, it would still be a sandy backwater with entrepreneurial Arabs (and others) shuffling dates or whatever. Talk to an average Egyptian and ask them about political or economic freedom. Why are the Egyptian oligarchy still in power? Three letters, starts with a U and ends in an A.
c) Balkans. That has been festering for centuries - ever since the Ottomans and the Byzantine empire crashed. So don't jumpstart history with Milosevic. Where did the first world war start again? S-a-r-a-j-e-v-o.They have been the unfortunate victim of major powers. They'd been better off alone.
d) Contrast Iran and Saudi Arabia. It is an exercise in theocratic nastiness. Yet one actually has elections, a parliament and a political debate, while the other has no such thing. Hmm... take a guess at which of them the USA supports heavily, and which country is routinely bedeviled?

I guess I'm not saying that democracy will always happen. But people voting with their feet can exert a powerful influence - witness the growth of USA through immigration. Freedom is popular. Trade with everyone, stern rebukes yes, voluntary consumer boycotts. But "government is a fearful master and a dangerous servant". I'd simply want less of it. Either the League of Democracies will be a nice talking shop - an important moral example, or it will try to enforce freedom at gun point. That is much, much harder than you think. Witness Iraq, Balcans.

This is turning perhaps a little too political for ITulip. Just watch Ron Paul instead. But mark my words regarding the macroeconomic implications. The winds of war are blowing, subtly yet. That is what the McCain speech really means.
Buy physical gold.

The Rant and Rave thread is kind of like Fight Club: the rule is that there are no rules. Well, just one: respect your fellow members. That's true all over our forums. This is a place to let it all out. Cursing is encouraged.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Yeah well Kraknisse and I are educated debaters. We don't do cursing.

BTW Kraknisse - I thoroughly enjoy all your posts, and find your commentary to be of very high calibre. So this exchange is all in good spirits.

[dbarberic]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

BTW Kraknisse - I thoroughly enjoy all your posts, and find your commentary to be of very high calibre. So this exchange is all in good spirits.

I can only hope that someday I meet the high bar of commentary that Kraknisse has set.

[krakknisse]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Yeah well Kraknisse and I are educated debaters. We don't do cursing.

BTW Kraknisse - I thoroughly enjoy all your posts, and find your commentary to be of very high calibre. So this exchange is all in good spirits.

Thanks a lot for that. There are so many interesting thoughts here. And I really do enjoy the breadth of opinions here. I may not subscribe to all of them - but I know they are out there. We have eco-fanatics vs. eco-skeptics, hard-core goldbugs and consumate traders. Groupthink is a dangerous phenomenon. We are but a small isolated group up against a financial industry and an "iron triangle" of media, bureaucracy and politicians that I think, quite literally, want our asses.

I wasn't trying to impose self-censorship. I really enjoy political debate. But as I've said during some late nights, steeped in a short-chain carbon-based solvent: we can't solve world problems anyhow - the big question is: how can we profit from the analysis we've just made. Don't get mad - get rich.

I do have sympathies for the "benign" view of spreading world democracies. I would probably be speaking Russian or German if the Americans hadn't helped. But there is such an immense sense of let-down in Europe over recent developments in the USA. This has revived the minority position of criticism of the US Empire. The problem with trusting governments to do good is that, eventually, corruption rears its ugly head. Always ask: cui bono.

So, back to making money. The winds of war and conflict are blowing softly in the background. A particular road to conflict is the following. There are protectionist noises being made, and without US leadership (remember Doha), world trade is vulnerable. A trade war makes a slippery slope towards more overt forms of agression (remember the Japan boycott, and subsequent Pearl Harbor). There are many other roads to conflict, and some that don't lead to conflict at all. My advice is to be nimble, avoid entanglements that would put your ass and assets into the grip of state power. And have a little fun: check this out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Loaj4bXLrD4

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

Krakknisse -

I very much enjoy discussing this with you, and I am extremely impressed by your intelligence and sophistication. IMHO you are a very real "live wire" in these forums, albeit you are a new arrival, and I think many readers like me have been impressed by the astute and broad minded quality of your posts.

I have some "work" to do this weekend and cannot pursue this further but wanted to add a few closing thoughts (this is primarily for all of you European readers out there who have a viewpoint about what you regard as "typically American biases" with regard to the "Israeli question" within the tormented Mkddle East).

I am reasonably comfortable with all the issues discussed above, but I remain a little sensitive about any implication that it would be "absurd" to include Israel among the "league of democratic nations" we've discussed. There is much bad press about their behavior in the ME, and it's true, they have done some things which EU or countries like Singapore or even India and China ( and we must acknowlege the US under our present administration is unfortunately the worst example f restraint in foreign policy in the past decade however, due to it's clumsy calculus after 09/11! ) never have done in modern history, i.e. engage in modern wars into neighboring countries.

However I do bristle whenever I read one-sided reports of the Israeli predicament, and unfortunately these views (in my own experience living 25 years in Europe), are much more prevalently out of Europe, than out of the US. The view of Israel's predicament from the US public is percived as "highly partisan"in Europe, where we are summarily viewed as merely "besotted" with Israel due to what are perhaps cavalierly viewed as "reactionary Christian fundamentalist" reasons.

Not true. There is a very broad segment of Americans that view the problems in the middle east with some fairly secular (and also fairly balanced) viewpoints! This quite popular European assumption of how Americans "understand" the ME events is in my view a fairly pernicious untruth. (We are in "rant and rave" here, so even these lightning rod issues may be discussed without getting dumped summarily into even more obscure pages).

What you'll never read acknowledged in mainstream EU press is a frank acknowledgment that the Israelis offered Arafat 98% of all his territorial demands at Camp David about 30 years ago, and he flatly refused. The Israelis then went on to demonstrate the seriousness with which they take peace treaties by rigorously adhering to one with the Egyptians and Jordanians for THIRTY ++ YEARS, yet you'll read few if any acknowledgements in the EU press and among the fashionable pundits surrounding the UN of this telling fact. The Israelis essentially offered Arafat "everything but the quibbling details" of his own specific contiguous land requests, in exchange for lasting freedom from strife and war, and Arafat refused on minor technicalities. Walk away from discussions for publicity effect, when you are 2% away from you life's goal?? What kind of man was he? What leader sincerely intent on delivering his people from a hellish limbo would summarily walk away from such overwhelming satisfaction of his claims??

Well, twenty years later Arafat's legacy to his people for having such highly principled views for leading his nation to peace and prosperity - was a broken nation (no real leadership) and maybe 100 million USD stashed away in his private bank account in Zurich from Western aid money.

My perennial irritation with EU "insights"into the Palestinian / Israeli question (which are reflected in the almost reflexive ridicule at the idea of Israel even conceivably being included today in a "Leage of Democracies", is that "progressive" Europeans apparently never, ever acknowledged that the Palestinians threw away the offer of 98% of their territory at a peace table (no war or intifada necessary!) which the Israelis made under Begin. The Israelis were in great hope of a massive breakthrough at those talks.

Instead if one informs oneself from the nominally "left-progressive" elements of the EU press, you will read only (quite genuinely!) heart breaking stories of the Palestinian "predicament" in places like Gaza ever since. Of course these people are desperate today - they have had the likes of Arafat and Hamas (and Hezbollah within Lebanon) for "visionary civic leaders"!!

Meantime in Europe, any stereotypical American who reminds such exquisitely sophisticated commentators of Israel's quite evident sincerity for peace with the Jordanians and Egyptians which has suceeded briliantly for the past forty years, is merely jeered down as a "proto-fascist Bush sympathiser" or some other such superficial rubbish.

I've seen it from both sides, for decades, living inside Europe for 25 years and another 25 in North America - and I wish to take this opportunity to remind perhaps a few of our readers who may disagree, that there is considerable evidence to back up what I point out. People (and they are many more in Europe than in the US), who look askance at the above viewpoints, people who think perhaps too summarily the above views are "typically uncritical American endorsements of Israel" - these people do not wish to acknowledge that the Israelis are the only country in the region to permit Arab Parliamentarians, full property rights for Arabs and Muslims, permit Arabs as Doctors or Lawyers within their nation. Those decrying Israel as a malformed appendage of the Bush Administration seem to slide into a singular reluctance when it comes to acknowledging Israel in fact provides many other aspects of civil rights for Arabs, nor that these quite naturally offered civil rights have been seriously eroded by the systematic employment of Palestinian human suicide bombers sowing indiscriminate terror as a "political voice".

Meanwhile, try finding a Jew or a Christian Doctor or Lawyer anywhere in any Arab, let alone any Muslim Country, and you will be "wandering in a desert" without any result. You cannot call yourself sincere and waltz lightly over this datum.

Having used my own two eyes to ascertain where the truth lies in that particular debate, I am not inclined to lie down like a lamb when I hear the Israelis referred to in any scoffing way as ineligible to belong to the club of democratic nations. They desperately want peace. and they live in a region where dovish gestures are regarded with contempt and presumption of weakness by apparently every other counterparty. Only strength, in the stupid, militaristic sense is respected in that region. This observation is painfully etched into the record of 40 years of history, for those willing to look dispassionately. Meanwhile, they are manifestly democratic (stunningly so compared to their neighbors) with any minorities within, as long as those minorities don't manifestly demonstrate a wish to blow them up instead of participating in the democratic peace.

Anyone here who entertains the fond belief this is not so is welcome to discuss the matter with me, and I'll pin their conceits down to their desk on this question with enthusiasm.

We may have a discredited Republican administration which is far too uncritical of the Israelis, but this is an entirely different matter from the (now paranoid and increasingly desperate) sincerity of the Israelis themselves to find ANY sincere counterparty for peace in their region. The illegal settlements are an expression of factionalism within a democracy which carries extreme left and extreme right components just exactly as we do in our other democracies. If these people had some serious interlocutors for negotiating a peace treaty those illegal settlements would be scuttled in about 24 hours.

Pardon me for sounding vehement here Kraknisse - I've heard far too much disingenuous bullshit about the permanent condition of illegitimacy governing the state of Israel, which we forget was originally sanctioned as a legitimate nation-state by the UN just like so many other newborn nations in the 20th Century whom no-one seems to feel an equivalent urgent need to question.

These highly selective expressions of concern for the "legitimacy" of this one state, while zero concern is expressed about all the other new states created with UN sanction since WWII, smells rotten to me. This same perception is perhaps where so many American's visceral objections are misunderstood, and not granted the ethical respect which in my view they still deserve amidst Bush's manifestly horrendous mismanagement of everything else. He has been a clumsy, inept ally to Israel. But many European "popular street" opinions demonstrating abject amnesia about the Israeli's offers for serious peace which Arafat threw in the trash are in my view fickle and shallow opinions, barely worth mentioning.

If any of our other broadly accepted democracies were seeking to live in such a neighborhood of rank hatred among it's neighbors, in Europe or North America, let alone where peaceful Singapore exists, or reasonably peaceful India or China or Japan exist, those countries would have long since gone militaristic in response to the mayhem occurring at their borders. I despise double standards wherever I can spot them, and I spot them in that particular question.

[Guest]

Re: McCain: rerun of 1930s - prelude to war? Super-NATO

It's "only America" stirring trouble up in the region, ex-Iraq, eh?

And just because Cheney is reported in the middle of it and a Republican presidential candidate are making some noises, we should conclude all the ominous preparations for mayhem (and the blatant premier assassinations and Quisling militias subverting democratic Lebanon) in neighboring nations to Israel are merely innocuous "lies and fabrications"?

Beware the simplistic, ideologically driven taking of sides. Just because you see Cheney in the middle, the contributors to danger and malevolence are by no means neatly lined up on his side. This is not "political lessons for Kindergartners".

Just because Cheney is in the middle does not invalidate the factuality of these preparations for war being carried out by entities outside of Israel. Why is it, that this thread on iTulip restricts itself to commenting on belligerent noises from McCain? Do you not have eyes to look around at that neighborhood and see pernicious actions elsewhere? :rolleyes:

__________


Exclusive: Hizballah more than trebles it's rocket arsenal to 40,000

March 22, 2008, 12:09 PM (GMT+02:00)

New Iranian

surface missiles delivered to Hizballah


Hizballah’s heavy armament will figure large in the talks US Vice President Dick Cheney is holding with Israeli leaders on the Iranian nuclear threat. Cheney arrived in Israel Saturday night, March 22, from talks with Saudi leaders.

DEBKAfile’s military sources disclose that Hizballah has built up its rocket arsenal to three and a half times its pre-2006 Lebanon War stocks. Some of the 40,000 rockets of Syrian and Iranian manufacture can hit Israel targets as far south as Beersheba, 350 km. away from the Shiite terror group’s launching pads north of Lebanon’s Litani River.

Not only has Tel Aviv come within range, but Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza can between them cover most of Israel except for its southernmost tip at Eilat. Using these two surrogates, Tehran can therefore make war on Israel and keep its hands clean.

And not only Iran. DEBKAfile’s military sources report the lion’s share of rockets smuggled to Hizballah in recent months are Syrian-made. Damascus has also shipped to Hizballah quantities of anti-air weapons, including shoulder-borne rockets and scores of Russian-made anti-aircraft ZSU-100 automatic 14.4 mm caliber cannon, which are most effective against low flying aircraft, helicopters and drones.

All these issues will be discussed at length mainly during the US Vice President’s session with Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak.

On his arrival, Cheney pledged that his government would not pressure Israel to take steps that threatened its security.

"America's commitment to Israel's security is enduring and unshakable, as is Israel's right to protect itself always against terrorism, rocket attacks and other attacks from forces dedicated to Israel's destruction," Cheney told a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

_________

Syria masses three army divisions on Lebanese border

March 23, 2008, 12:05 PM (GMT+02:00)




DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the Syrian deployment is backed by the concentration of pro-Syrian Palestinian factions in the Beqaa valley of Lebanon, amid rising war tensions between Hizballah and Israel.

Hassan Nasrallah declared Hizballah would wage “open war” with Israel at the end of the 40-day mourning period the group observed for Imad Mughniyeh, who was killed in Damascus February 12. His deputy has maintained that Hizballah had “100 percent solid evidence" that Israel had killed Mughniyeh, which Israel has consistently denied.

Monday, March 24, Nasrallah will address a big memorial rally in South Beirut. The Israeli army is on high alert for a possible Hizballah attack from Lebanon. The Magen David Adom ambulance service is on emergency standby across the country.
_________

New upsurge of Palestinian attacks from Gaza - 16 missiles fired Wednesday injuring 3 Israeli civilians

March 26, 2008, 10:40 PM (GMT+02:00)

A heavy barrage of 7 Qassam missiles struck Sderot Wednesday night, March 26. One exploded in the old market, injuring three people and leaving 16 in shock. Of the 16 fired during the day, one landed south of Ashkelon, several exploded in kibbutzim causing heavy damage to property. Israeli military sources tell DEBKAfile that Hamas is passing missiles to Jihad Islami in order to step up the attacks on Israel, without being held accountable and drawing Israeli fire – to heat up tensions for the arrival of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Friday.

_________


Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora says his country is not attending an Arab summit in Syria because it was behind Lebanon's long political crisis.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7318497.stm


In a televised message addressed to Arab leaders, Mr Siniora said Lebanon had been in a "presidential void" for months due to Syria's interference.

On Friday, two more Arab states - Jordan and Yemen - said their leaders would not attend the annual event.

Egypt and Saudi Arabia are also sending low-level delegations to Damascus.
They accuse Syria of interfering in Lebanese politics.

Infighting

"Before and during that period Syria played a leading role to exacerbate the crisis... interfering in Lebanon's internal affairs and blocking the election of the consensus candidate to the presidency," Mr Siniora said in his address.

Mr Siniora called on Arab leaders to help mend relations between Syria and Lebanon, stressing his country's "desire to establish healthy, brotherly relations" with its neighbour.
Lebanon has been without a president since November because of disputes between the pro-Western government, supported by Saudi Arabia and Egypt, and the opposition, which is supported by Syria and Iran.

Correspondents say Syria's detractors have used the issue of Lebanon to voice their unhappiness with Damascus as it hosts the Arab League summit.

Each side blames the other for blocking a final deal on a compromise candidate for the Lebanese presidency.

Pro-Syrian groups insist that the US and its Arab allies are the ones blocking progress.
The Syrian government says that by refusing to turn up, Lebanon has lost a golden opportunity to discuss the crisis, and perhaps find a solution.

Syria was a dominant player in Lebanon for decades before it was made to withdraw its troops in 2005 in the aftermath of the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri - an act which Damascus says it had nothing to do with.

The BBC's Katya Adler in Damascus says that across the Arab world people are sick of the infighting as leaders remain divided over who is to blame for the region's multiple crises. But it seems unlikely Arab countries will resolve those differences this weekend, she says.