"One Foot In Terror One Foot In Politics"

President Bush as Napoleon Bonaparte, flanked by Foreign Secretary Condoleezza Rice, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel as The Angel, the original painting is 'Allegory on The Peace of Pressburg' by Andrea Appiani ca.1808 (its first debut being in my 'Rules of Engagement' post)

 

Sorry about not being able to post yesterday...one of those days straight from hell...and back.

I did however manage to follow the news, as world leaders, politicians and all of us were treated to a rare display of how immensely powerful and influential true leadership can be.

I am talking about the immediate dynamic created, producing a shift in tone and attitude almost all news channels underwent immediately after Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's press conference (transcript). Moments later, everywhere I looked, Rice's message had been picked up to confront Arab leaders in hitherto unprecedented clarity and directness.

Pointing to the problem that "1559 anticipated of having groups within the political process that have one foot in terror and one foot in politics. It's not sustainable over the long run. But I think the immediate problem is to get back into a political framework that can allow Lebanon to start to reassert its sovereignty."

Despite Secretary Rice being repeatedly barraged with questions as to whether she was concerned that the delay in halting the fighting and the loss of many civilian lives in Lebanon will hamper the efforts to win the hearts and minds of the Arab world, she relentlessly stood by her message that despite being concerned about civilian casualties, a ceasefire on its own was simply not good enough "...The unfortunate fact is that if we don't do this right, if we don't create political conditions that allow an end to the violence to also deal with the root cause, deal with the circumstances that produced this violence, then we're going to be back here in several months more."

Shortly after the press conference, CNN's Becky Anderson put it straight to a Syrian Foreign Minister spokesperson: "When will you stop using Hezbollah as your proxy army?"

It is now 10 days since Hezbollah abducted the two IDF soldiers and  killed eight others. Much has been said about the conflict, mostly centering around Israel's military actions and the impact for Lebanese civilians. But not until Secretary Rice spelled out, what everyone had known for 10 days, in her customary clear and unvarnished language, did the MSM pick up the beacon of truth and let it shine into the faces of those who constantly seek to obfuscate it. Will it last? Of course not, but it momentarily changed the overall tone considerably towards a more balanced approach.

It was a pleasure to watch and listen to. Diplomatic daylight may not be too far away, despite The-Thug-In-Chief having written to Germany's Chancellor Merkel, revealing his all too obvious, agenda

[...] the correspondence from Tehran comes just as the mullahs have said they will respond to the West by Aug. 22. Iran's Supreme National Security Council also said it would reconsider its nuclear policies if sanctions were imposed by the UN Security Council. "In case the path of confrontation is chosen instead of the path of dialogue ... and Iran's definite rights are threatened, then there will be no option for Iran but to reconsider its nuclear policies."

I was not far wrong with my recent assumption when I said that Iran in turn can now do what it planned all along, which is to get up from the negotiating table and announce that this is the very reason it must now go its own way and finish building its nuclear capabilities. Of course the enrichment was originally only destined for peaceful energy purposes, but now of course Iran must defend itself, and the Islamic world as a whole. If it can take a sovereign state like Lebanon, and a member of the UN to boot as spoils of war, so much the better.

Coming back to the stellar performance by Secretary Rice, this is what true leadership can achieve, and should achieve. This is a lesson for us all, irrespective whether on the world stage of politics or at home and amongst our friends: When we stand up for our friends and express our support unequivocally, others will follow. If we don't, we inadvertently deliver our friends to their detractors.

In this instance, they are the lying, deceiving agents who are relentlessly pursuing the destruction of Israel. I say, One-Nil against Jihadist Islam, as we fasten our seat belts with Ed Morrissey, and prepare for the 'coming invasion'. The Democrats are still confused with their terminology: when terrorists attack Israel, it is an act of moral equivalence, when Israel attempts to defend itself, it is an act of genocide. Yeah right. 

Neo-neocon blogging from Winds of Change: "Enough is enough". Go-Condi-go....

A few recent related posts on ATB:
UN's Global Mission: Reviving, Fueling And Spreading Rabid Anti-Semitism
The Devil's Arithmetic Part II
The Devil's Arithmetic Part I
The Muslim Brotherhood And Hezbollah Detonate The Political Bomb
The Washington Post Inaugurates The New Moderate
Unmasking The Hamas Code Of Honor
'Israel Cannot Succeed By Empowering Terrorists'
'Pallywood Does Not Recognize Israel
'The Palestinian-Spin-Of-The-Century' The World's Most Audacious Marketing Coup'
Total War

Comments

[gringoman]

Crusader,

(By the way, your handle reminds me that I still have to do a post sometime, whether here, at gringoman.com or wherever, about a topic that is so Politically Incorrect it might cause therapeutic bloodshed at the Unctuous Nations, not to mention at the Arab League, The Daily Moulitsas and the blog 'I Am Juan Cole, Arab Expert', i.e. I mean the subject of the Muslim Çrusaders,'who preceded by centuries, of course, the Christians who still get the bum rap, thanx to Íslam scholars'and Western so-called intellectuals and media pundits.)

You make some interesting points about Israeli strategy vs. tactics, likewise about Israeli's knowing how to coolly handle Kofi Inane's UN "piece-keepers" (a term they've richly earned for rapine, not to mention even pedophilia across Africa and Asia, which even Inane's ïnvestigative organs' have announced they will investigate, OMG!)

Yes, Israel can play along with the diplomatic game while doing what it needs to do; turn any sign of Hezbollah into rubble. This may work, to a degree. The big question: to what degree? It's not just that the Islamo-Hezbo cancer has metastisized all over the once-lovely body of Lebanon. The simple fact is that so much of the world----forgetting even the UN----will be complicit. World Media, whether Islamo, Socialismo or US MSMo, will dependably focus on Israeli "war crimes,"while down-playing the fact that the Hezbos have managed to turn the entire state of Lebanon into a "war crime"against Israel. The UN's Jan England, of course, just managed to mouth something about the Hezbo's cowardly use of and hiding behind civilians. See? Now he's on record as being "impartial."i.e. the Unctuous Nations can now proceed to indite Israel as the "big war criminal," as it creates all that messy rubble, and is blamed for more of Hezbo's human sacrifices. Who can't see it coming? They will not blame the Islamo fanatics. The blame will be heaped on Israel for not accepting the cunning Islamo strategy. This is called realpolitik, Inane style. The sanctimony crowd like the Left and Juan Cole, love it. They get to denounce Israel and feel that real blood is running in their dhimmi veins. The academic. even the blogademic, loves to be able to feel like a sentient creature of compassion. Imagine the alternative!

Yes, Israel will try to be undeterred by the Compassion Con. But who can deny that Media is now a player---in fact a power player? That weird alliance of the secular neo-coms with the jumping jihadis will blow on it for all they're worth. Homosexuals screaming for marriage rights will in effect support Islamos who can scream even louder, "Death to faggot infidels!"

Frustrated Femi-nuts in their war against men (mainly white men, of course, since these goofy broads are sober enough to know that everyone else will smack them down, and fast----only white men put up with their nonsense)will gladly support the Burqa Brigade aginst Georgie Bush.

A mad, mad world? Or just the War of the Monotheists?

The gringoVision point: We know how Israel entered Lebanon in this current affair. But will it leave like kosher Romans, or like Kofi-blessed diplomats?

[jess1dering]

CNR:
You sure can be one funny soul.
Great reads everyone, thanks

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

The thing to understand about the UN and the EU is that they care far less about solutions than they do about deferrence. The UN and EU are staffed by unelected demagogues who care only about being indespensible. The limitless moral vanity of the Jan Egelands and Louise Arbours and Kofi Annans demands respect, damn it (at least from countries containing a lot of white people) and I think Israel has figured out how to "play" them right. The Cartmanian cry of "repsect my authorit-eye!" must be seen to be heard.

What Sudan and Rwanda, and East Timor have shown is that if Israel appears to defer to the wisdom of the UN and EU, she can do just about anything. Least that's my admittedly biased take. OK, not just about anything, she contains far too many white people to be allowed to do that, but she can do a lot more than she used to.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

gringoman:

On the question of the "typical UN clown show": Is there any other kind of UN operation?

This language by Israel is perfect. They have made it clear that they welcome a UN force, but the requirements they will make of such a force will be

(a) totally reasonable, and indeed acceptable to the Great Powers,
(b) totally impossible for the UN to mount.

Once again, the UN will have two choices: (c) agree to sit this one out, and defer to the Great Powers, all the while doing what the UN does best, ie talking until everyone is dead,
or (d) be forced to admit they cannot provide any meaningful Israeli security (ie the Israeli demands are reasonable but unmanageable by the UN) and thus the UN is no longer of any use.

I think Annan is an international criminal, but he is not stupid. He has a great kickback scheme going - why risk it? He'll choose option (c).

And all the while Israel makes like Iran, and talks and talks while simply carrying on the fight.

"See world, we're co-operating, we're seeking a solution, we're engaged in the right processes. (Oh, Avi, pass me another truckload of artillery shells will ya?) Oh sorry Kofi, where we? Ah, yes the UN peacekeeping force - hold on, oh wait Mr Annan, can I call you right back? Call you right back, don't go away."

"Hi Kofi (you molesting s*****g)! Er, sorry about that. Yes that UN force. Yes border with Israel, uhuh, monitors, etc...Hmmmm? What's that? Oh, yes, sounds great. When do you disarm Hizb'allah? Not? No good for me, doesn't work at this time, because conditions aren't quite right yet, but hey, can we talk again tomorrow? I sense the progress, dude. Man I love this diplomacy thing."

"Oh, sorry, gotta go again..."

Israel should be able to drag this thing out for weeks on end. Hizb'allah is now officially excreting oven-fired clay-based construction blocks. Sometimes UN incompetence can be a beautiful thing. Just ask Saddam Hussein.

[Kenny Pierce]

Okay, finally remembered. The guy's name is Edward Luttwak (can't imagine why I had trouble remembering that), and his article is "Give War a Chance." It opens as follows:

An unpleasant truth often overlooked is that although war is a great evil, it does have a great virtue: it can resolve political conflicts and lead to peace. This can happen when all belligerents become exhausted or when one wins decisively. Either way the key is that the fighting must continue until a resolution is reached. War brings peace only after passing a culminating phase of violence. Hopes of military success must fade for accommodation to become more attractive than further combat.

Since the establishment of the United Nations and the enshrinement of great–power politics in its Security Council, however, wars among lesser powers have rarely been allowed to run their natural course. Instead, they have typically been interrupted early on, before they could burn themselves out and establish the preconditions for a lasting settlement. Cease–fires and armistices have frequently been imposed under the aegis of the Security Council in order to halt fighting. NATO’s intervention in the Kosovo crisis follows this pattern.

But a cease–fire tends to arrest war–induced exhaustion and lets belligerents reconstitute and rearm their forces. It intensifies and prolongs the struggle once the cease–fire ends—and it does usually end. This was true of the Arab–Israeli war of 1948–49, which might have come to closure in a matter of weeks if two cease–fires ordained by the Security Council had not let the combatants recuperate. It has recently been true in the Balkans. Imposed cease–fires frequently interrupted the fighting between Serbs and Croats in Krajina, between the forces of the rump Yugoslav federation and the Croat army, and between the Serbs, Croats, and Muslims in Bosnia. Each time, the opponents used the pause to recruit, train, and equip additional forces for further combat, prolonging the war and widening the scope of its killing and destruction. Imposed armistices, meanwhile—again, unless followed by negotiated peace accords—artificially freeze conflict and perpetuate a state of war indefinitely by shielding the weaker side from the consequences of refusing to make concessions for peace.

Read the whole thing; it's fascinating and even if you don't buy it it's important to grapple with the issues it raises. Its relevance here I think is obvious.

[Kenny]

Joe,

No, but it's the same idea.

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

gringommentary. Nice, has an "efficiency" about it that I like.

I suspect Israel's "talk" about peacekeeping forces is just that. You know, they've learned a thing or two from Iran and North Korea. I expect them to play the diplomatic game superbly now, letting themselves "be engaged" in the "diplomatic process", keeping the UN and EU happy, because after all, the UN and EU want to talk, and talk, and talk, and talk. That's great, talk costs nothing. Meanwhile Israel continues the war. Israel is now an older and wiser state.

I think many years ago Israel was tactically superb, but strategically dumb. That seems, in my opinion, to be changing. There will be Israeli bodybags (great post about the cost of war by the way - I like how you put it). This time around I think the Israelis will change the terms of victory for the Arabs. The Arabs will crow and coo about blowing up a few tanks, or shooting 20 or 30 Israeli soldiers, while Lebanon is turned into a parking lot, and thousands of "civilians" are killed. No matter how much Hamas and Hizb'allah try to talk up their "victory", it will be hard to argue with the fact that Haifa has a lot of broken windows, while Lebanon now looks like Afghanistan.

The Israelis may now have become tactically a bit dumber, but strategically superb. They will measure victory by how badly they have mauled the enemy and his country, not by how many Israelis were lost. The Israelis just may have gone "Maoist" on Hizb'allah.

[gringoman]

Crusader/Jess/Epam:

Yes, yes and yes. However, unfolding events in ME indicate to types like pro-Israel Ralph Peters and myself the degree of plight in Israel's fight. Previous gringommentary strongly suggested that due to Hezbo's very effective organization (and lets not forget the slackening of Israel in the meantime, apparently including even its once vaunted intelligence superiority and its nouveau convictions a la Washington that you can do war on the cheap, with air power and slick techie stuff, either in economic or manpower terms, or both (hey, talk about the 'Rumsfeld effect,' even the Israeli Defense Minister, Dan what's-his-name, is a civilian!)Israel now is beginning to realize that there is no substitute for boots on the ground, often grim, often grueling, always dangerous. Barbarians have always understood. Sometimes the civilized understand too, like the Romans once did. Today the civilized want to forget. They want to think they're too smart for body bags. A new---yet very old---enemy is going to re-educate them.

Repeat: Under pc ROE, the IDF can create a lot of rubble and probably push back the Hezbos for a while. They cannot extirpate them. In other words, true victory at this time is impossible.

Don't take gringoWord for it. Look at Israel. It's beginning already to show some signs of what my previous comment indicated: It may have entered Lebanon like kosher Romans, but it will leave--sooner or later--- like diplomats, more or less approved by UN. Or how else to "translate" the latest, i.e. that Israel will or might accept a UN "peace-keeping" body in Lebanon? Yes, they're wise enough to make clear that they do not want the typical old UN clown show. They want "battle-hardened" Europeans, maybe NATO "peace-keepers." (By the way, are there any such creatures atound anymore---"battle-hardened" Europeans? Are the Israelis, this new prosperous generation, in danger of becoming oxymoronic?)

The Europeans appear to have little appreciation for the idea that this is not just about Israel and the Arabs. But you expect that. Do you also expect it from such large swaths of the U.S., including such "Nixonian/Reagan realists" as Pat Buchanan?

I credit Islam with clarity. They know that a war is going on for a world. The war may take this form or that form, but it goes on. And they have always known it. By comparison, what does the West and its multy-culty vaudeville know, or think it knows?

[epaminondas]

Ghost dansing, you want Sherman..here you go...all perfectly applicable to the ONE war going on out there..
1) Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster.
2) I would make this war as severe as possible, and show no symptoms of tiring till they beg for mercy.
3) This war differs from other wars, in this particular. We are not fighting armies but a hostile people, and must make old and young, rich and poor, feel the hard hand of war.
4)War is cruelty. There is no use trying to reform it. The crueler it is, the sooner it will be over.
5) War is the remedy that our enemies have chosen, and I say let us give them all they want.
6)My aim, then, was to whip them, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

but at the end...

But, my dear sirs, when peace does come, you may call on me for any thing. Then will I share with you the last cracker, and watch with you to shield your homes and families against danger from every quarter.

[Joe]

Kenny, perhaps you were thinking of this article by Thomas Sowell?

[jess1dering]

Crusader NoRegrets,
ABSOLUTELY !

[Crusader.NoRegrets.]

gringoman,

I think you are really spot on with your analysis about Israel "losing" under current ROE's. However, let me indulge in a little wild and unsubstantiated opinion-mongering if you will.

Israel will win (a) no matter the cost, (b) because defeat is not an option.

Sun Tzu said: "never leave your enemy with no way out" (my paraphrasing). Let us ask the question "who can afford to lose?".

Clearly Hizb'allah is a diffuse paramilitary organisation, but the reality is that Israel has no interest in exterminating all the Lebanese, either now or ever, has no interest in conquering territory, and no interest in driving the Lebanese out of Lebanon permanently. Can one say the same about Hizb'allah?

They are clearly engaged in a war of conquest over the UN-recognised territory of a UN member. They seek the ethnic cleansing of Jews from the region. They seek the eventual destruction of the Jewish race. I know the raving sycophants will try to tell me that's just rhetoric, but I prefer to take men of destiny at their word. But they can also tell themselves that they can run, and live to fight another day (whether they can is irrelevant. It's whether they believe they have a choice). The Jews however tried once to run, all the way to Russia, and Poland, and Germany. That was not a safe option then, and it is even less safe now, with the growing population of Muslims in Europe.

Thus it is in fact Israel that is backed into the corner, with no way out but victory. The question will soon raise itself, how does Israel win that victory? Can she do it within the current ROE's? She will go to great lengths to do so. But if she fails, the gloves will come off, for survival is a greater imperative than International Law. The UN has shown its weakness and irrelevance throughout its history, but never more so than in its failure to address the safety of the Jews. NATO can scarce be trusted either, when all the rhetoric coming out of Europe is totally lopsided and "disproportionate" at best, outright anti-Semitic at worst.

So if past wars in history are any indication, one's motives for fighting are extremely important. Israel will win, or the Jews will die.

I hear a lot of the old "are we creating more terrorists?" line. The Hizb'allah supporters should instead ask themselves "are we creating more Zionists?"

I for one will ship out and go and fight for Israel if it comes to that, even though I am not a Jew.

[Kenny]

Patrick,

No, not Hegel; this guy is alive and writing articles. I can't believe I still can't fetch his name out of the memory archives; usually when I lose a name like that it pops back into my head as soon as I start thinking of something else.

Michael, your arguments are pretty similar to this guy's (whoever he is); and I think there are lots of situations where that particular analysis is spot on.

[Ghost Dansing]

Gawd Kenny...I thought I was geeking-out.

Saving the Appearances: A Study in Idolatry. London: Faber and Faber, 1957; reissued New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1965; Middletown, CT: Wesleyan U P, 1988.

"Barfield’s most important book (his own opinion and by general consensus as well) was the product of a new amount of free time for his intellectual pursuits made possible by diminishing involvement in the law. Saving the Appearances, a book made up of a variety of short but densely packed chapters resulting in a "a sort of outline sketch, with one or two parts completed in greater detail, for a history of human consciousness, particularly the consciousness of western humanity during the last three thousand years or so" (Saving 13), crystallized out of wide reading in anthropology, history of science, and philosophy. It is Since Barfield never authored the magnum opus he once imagined in a poem, Saving the Appearances will have to play that role. It comes closer than any of his other works to laying out methodically, in less than two hundred pages, Barfield’s "system." In writing about Worlds Apart, his next published book, R. J. Reilly has taken note of "the progression" Barfield system intends: an evolution "from the solitude of private thought, to the strengthened thought that rays out into the thought of the universe, to the absolute dissolution of private thought in the universe, or the Kingdom--or from subjective idealism to Anthroposophy to heaven" (76). Saving the Appearances is the Baedeker for such a journey." (Verlag Karl Baedeker is a Germany-based publisher of worldwide travel guides)

"Barfield tells how he first became conscious of the concept of "saving the appearances" while reading Gavin Ardley's book Aquinas and Kant during the research which led to the 1957 book which would adopt the phrase as its title.
The idea derives from Simplicius' sixth century commentary on Aristotle's De Caelo.

**...Simply put, saving the appearances means that hypotheses which explain appearances are not for that reason necessarily true. Under this conception, two contradictory hypotheses can both explain--i.e., "save"--the appearances, as did both the Ptolemaic and Copernican conceptions of the cosmos."

Kool guy...but he works to hard, at least by modern thought processes that take much of the points he is making for granted...perhaps because of people like him who had to work hard to make the points in the first place.

For example, one could ask a reasonably intelligence academically-oriented 25 year old if it is possible to build an automobile engine using the framework of Newtonian Physics or Quantum Physics...the answer of course is "yes", however the systems are not unified.

In Scientific research (Physical Sciences), the problems of Human Perspectivity is manifest in the gestalt of Scientists attempting to know the "thing-in-itself" perfectly devoid of the intrusion of observation with all of its issues with perspective and temporality...to name a few...first problem is by ignoring the very conditions of the human exsitential ground, they were trying to do the impossible. Heisenburg later mitigated some of these problems for Physics, however talk of getting at the "really real" in one form or another persists. Second problem was the necessary assumption regarding the "existence" of the "thing-in-itself", in an environment that was theoretically trying to divest iteself of all human assumptions...were in fact tacitly assuming an entire ontological framework begot by certain philosophical schools and traditions of thought. Making these assumptions explicit, complicated their assumed world with human perspectivity as a chronic factor and undermined their notion that getting at the "thing-in-itself" was even possible.

In Scientific Research (Human Sciences like Anthropology, Sociology, Psychology...that are characterized by humans trying to study themselves...largely started with many of the same assumptions as the "Natural-Physical Sciences") the ubiquitous problem of cultural relativity eventually became manifest in the conduct of their work...once again the impact of the observation iteself on the subject matter, different cultural frames of reference used for the interpretation of behaviors, the basic impossibility of a white-guy from a Washington State EVER assimilating into any other culture completely so as to attain even a good understanding of its complexities...or having approximately done so...being able to translate them back into the culture of his birth.

See the nuanced difference between Enculturation and Acculturation

enculturation

n : the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture; "the socialization of children to the norms of their culture" [syn: socialization, socialisation, acculturation]

acculturation

n 1: the adoption of the behavior patterns of the surrounding culture; "the socialization of children to the norms of their culture" [syn: socialization, socialisation, enculturation] 2: all the knowledge and values shared by a society [syn: culture] 3: the process of assimilating new ideas into an existing cognitive structure [syn: assimilation]

The insights of Barfield are better characterized as poetic...the assimilation and rendering of a broad academic field of concerns through the beautifully ground idiosyncratic lense of his own existence.

But then...to some degree that's what we all do.

[gringoman]

Jeremayalakovka:

Thanks for mentioning the pro-Israel Ralph Peter's rather grim assessment of Israel's situation--or is it plight?--in the current struggle with Hezbollah. The cold water of reality, sprayed on misplaced euphoria, can be very bracing. He did a good job of fleshing out the facts only hinted at in a previous comment of mine. It also appears that Israeli intelligence has not been what it used to be, and they even re-played an old American (even Clintonite) delusion, believing that intensive air strikes and hotshot tech could substitute for the grueling, dangerous work of ground troops.

My view remains: Hezbollah is now much too crafty and well organized, too dug in, too intimidating, too media-savvy, too dominant in Lebanon to be crushed or uprooted under current conditions and ROE (Rules of Engagement.) The IDF can damage it, yes, but if, as is likely, IDF casualties mount in days and weeks ahead, the Hezbollah rockets keep hitting Israel despite the IDF offensive and rubble in Lebanon, Hezbollah in effect "wins." regardless of whatever face-saving diplomatic "solution"is cobbled together. And this would amount to a huge victory for Islamo-Fascismo--and not just in the Middle East. Not many in the West seem to understand the implications.

Is this analysis "wrong" or too "superficial"? (It's just a very sketchy gist---maybe there can still be some gray ambiguities of interest that will materialize) Well, one can always hope so, no? By the way, if events prove Ralph Peters and me mistaken, I'll be glad to admit my error, will even admit it in advance, if that helps. (I'd better let Mr.Peters speak for himself.)

PS. Previous comment on 'The Igout Initiative' drew no reaction. I don't even have the faintest on whether Alexandra under any circumstance would endorse the proposal. This tells me that maybe the Left is correct, i.e. the idea of Great Powers seizing the Middle East and its oil is too outlandish, too impossible, too unspeakable to merit serious discussion. The one other possibility: the idea is still too far ahead of its time. Getting the folds of the brain around it right now is still too problematic.

[Michael van der Galien]

LOL Patrick! I knew I heard that name before! haha ahwell.

[Patrick]

Sorry about the wild hare...

I answered the question I saw, not the question Kenny posed. Hegel predicted these things but he never saw the UN. My mind looked at the argument itself and his philosophy is the closest to this argument from the small pantheon of philosophers I am familiar with. Since Hegel died in 1831, he obviously made no comments on the UN.

from: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/phil/blphil_eth_wardef_hegel.htm
"...unlike humans, who can appeal to arbiters and courts to settle their differences, states have few means by which conflict between them can be resolved peacefully. When two individuals argue, the state can intervene to reach a resolution, but the same is not true when states themselves argue. This leaves two choices: one state dropping its claims or all involved states eventually engaging in armed conflict."

"Moreover, Hegel also argued that warfare had positive benefits for individuals as well. According to Hegel, war serves to eliminate various forms of corruption and injustice which can develop in stable, "safe" societies." and the site also it has the quote I used in the above post.

It is interesting that Hegel actually argues that the lack of war would be disasterous.

[liquid]

Rich---" was somewhat disappointed with the press conference.
I kept hoping for a repetitive answer along these lines: Hezbollah can stop the fighting by returning the two soldiers they kidnapped and by stopping firing rockets at Israel. What part of that answer don't you understand?"
------------------------------------

Seems simple doesn't it? But reasonable request doesn't work when the motive of the enemy is to wipe you off the map!

[Jeremayakovka]

Don't get comfortable. From today's Ralph Peters's column in the NY Post:

July 22, 2006 -- ISRAEL is losing this war. For a lifelong Israel supporter, that's a painful thing to write. But it's true. And the situation's worsening each day.

A U.S. government official put it to me this way: "Israel's got the clock, but Hezbollah's got the time." The sands of the hourglass favor the terrorists - every day they hold out and drop more rockets on Israel, Hezbollah scores a propaganda win.

All Hezbollah has to do to achieve victory is not to lose completely. But for Israel to emerge the acknowledged winner, it has to shatter Hezbollah. Yet Israeli miscalculations have left Hezbollah alive and kicking.

[rich]

I was somewhat disappointed with the press conference.

I kept hoping for a repetitive answer along these lines:

Hezbollah can stop the fighting by returning the two soldiers they kidnapped and by stopping firing rockets at Israel. What part of that answer don't you understand?

[Michael van der Galien]

Kenny, that is a very interesting quasi-quote (quasi because it's not literal). Is Patrick right about the person who said it? I would be interested to read a little bit more about this line of thinking.

In a quick response I think there is some truth to it, at least in so far that the IC / UN forces countries to stop fighting, while, in some cases, both don't want to stop. This means that one or both (for the sake of keeping it simple we'll act if only 2 countries are involved) will continue fighting whenever it has / they have an excuse that would make it somewhat / remotely acceptable / 'explainable'.

Lets say two countries are involved in a war that is going on for 6 months already. One side is - obviously - losing and will be defeated within, say, 2 months.
Suddenly, however, the UN steps in, builts a broad coalition and sends forces. The result is that both parties have to withdraw.
However; the one party that was weaker / losing holds, of course, a great grudge against its enemy. It - simply put - wants revenge. It uses the security of the UN Forces to rebuild its army. 2 years later it once again has a strong army, able to fight against its (former) enemy. Not much longer the UN pulls back it forces / that country doesn't give a damn about the UN presence now its strong again and goes ahead and attacks its neighboor.
Once again a war is going on that will last 6 months before the UN is able to truly intervene.
Cycle repeats itself.

The important thing to remember is that in the far majority of wars at this day in age, something must be changed within at least one of the countries involved itself. Otherwise, every peace will simply be a temporary peace and this so-called peace will be used to strengthen oneself for the coming (second) war.
Relating to the Israel / Lebanon conflict:
Israel is only fighting because she has been attacked by terrorists who can do what they want to do in southern Lebanon. Israel is not fighting out of aggression, Israel is not fighting in an attempt to enlarge her territory; she's only fighting to defend herself / her people.
Hizbullah, however, is not fighting out of self defense. In fact, it fights in an attempt to hurt or even destroy a sovereign nation (Israel).

One of the consequences of this is that Israel will be happy to stop fighting (if the safety of her citizens is garanteed), whereas Hizbullah is not willing to stop fighting at all: it's the aggressor.

Now, lets say the UN calls for a cease fire and somehow, both parties accept it. This cease fire, or even peace, cannot be anything else but temporary because one of the parties doesn't change anything within itself. I'm not simply talking about Hizbullah, but also about Lebanon.
If we want to create a lasting peace, Lebanon itself must be changed: the structure, governmental power, etc.
This means that a cease fire will not solve anything as long as Hizbullah isn't destroyed (changing it's ideology equals destruction, be it in another manner). This is the change that must happen within Lebanon itself.
This can either be done by Lebanon, by the UN even or by Israel. By now we know that the Lebanese government isn't willing to truly fight Hizbullah and of course the same can be said about the UN.
That leaves only one option open: Israel must do it herself. Lebanon itself must be changed, if not by itself, than by others.

[liquid]

Do you guys remember THIS

On October 7, 2000, Hezbollah forces illegally crossed the Israeli border with Lebanon through a UN patrolled area and kidnapped three Israel Defense Force soldiers, Adi Avitan, Binyamin Avraham, and Omar Souad. UNIFIL peacekeepers videotaped the incident; however, the United Nations denied possessing any such videotape for almost nine months. On July 6, 2001, The UN admitted, contrary to their earlier denials, that they had possession of the tape as of 18 hours after the incident occurred.

The Israeli government requested the tape to help investigate the incident and hopefully recover the soldiers. However, the United Nations refused to turn the tape over to Israel, citing a desire to maintain a neutral role in the region.

I can see why Israel wouldn't trust the UN!

[Patrick]

Didn't even preview. Forgive the inability to type...

[Patrick]

Sorry,

The only one that jumps to mind is Hegel and "Pholosophy of Right" with warfare is healthy to remove corrupt governments...

the ethical health of peoples is preserved in their indifference to the stabilization of finite institutions; just as the blowing of the winds preserves the sea from the foulness which would be the result of a prolonged calm, so also corruption in nations would be the product of prolonged, let alone 'perpetual,' peace.

Don't think this is what you were reaching for, but the best I have for now.

[Kenny]

I think both Rice and Bolton have done a remarkable job in the last couple of days of cutting through bullshit and stating plainly what ought to be -- but apparently is not, to many people -- transparently clear without their explaining it: war now may be the only way to true peace later, in which case a cease-fire now destroys the hope of true peace.

I have suddenly gone completely blank on the name of the guy who argues that war doesn't usually go away until one side is crushed so badly that it recognizes that it can't win, and that the U.N. policy of leaping in to stop every outbreak of hostilities with a premature cease-fire, has greatly increased the sum of human misery in the twentieth century by making it practically impossible to resolve war-level conflicts and move on to genuine solutions. Somebody here is bound to know the guy I'm talking about but his name has dropped clean out of my head.

[Liquid]

Great stuff here today!

As for watching global opinion scurry around to suit up and get in on the third quarter of all this, I have to say that if I was Israel, I wouldn't give a sh#! about public opinion or winning over any one's approval. Much of the world (which much of it denies the ideology behind this conflict) wants a referee and wants that someone to 'call the game' as if Iran's proxy attack plays by the rules, but IMHO, as we continue to see many doing an evacuation of their citizens out of the area, the intensity grows because most know that as soon as that's done to the best it can be done, which probably will be fullfilled within this week, that all hell is going to break loose because Israel has been kicking ass via air, water, and now the land and she is making herself crystal clear to all watching that she means business. Survival instinct has kicked in! It's about time! Israel has to do what she has to do and it's great to see a force finally standing up and fighting the ideology that wants our destruction and wants the entire world's knees to bow down to Allah! I wish for all nations to gain that strength of bravery because sitting behind this war provocation is Iran's mentality of wiping Israel off the map and the madhi concept of Islamifying the entire world. The outcome here affects all of us.
P.S. I love the photoshop Alexandra!

[Ghost Dansing]

"Once a war starts, the only concern is making sure more of the enemy dies for their cause than your soldiers. And by my count, Israel still owes Hezbollah a few rockets."

Nice paraphrase of George Patton...here are some others.

It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell.

~General William Tecumseh Sherman

Just remember, Cain was successful in killing Abel, but it got Cain a bad reputation.

-Ghost Dansing :)

War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality.

~Senator John McCain

The supreme excellence is to subdue the armies of your enemies without even having to fight them.

~Sun Tzu

From fanaticism to barbarism is only one step.

~Denis Diderot

Interestingly, The Torah find's God apparently unable to find either Abel or his body, or at least not admitting to doing so.

He questions Cain about Abel's location. In a response that has become a well known saying, Cain answers Am I my brother's keeper?.

In "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn Rand has the intellectuals rebel against a society that preaches altruism and fair play.

Basically, this novel's society at large is a society that teaches struggling victims that sacrifices for the sake of others is proper and moral and one that indoctrinates its youth with a vicious, destructive skepticism. In other words, she was painting a caricature of Western society as she felt it was emerging...too much altruism.

She paints the picture that need is the most important claim to virtue and thus productive, capable men are forced into virtual enslavement by a vicious code of directives intended to eliminate all economic class distinctions.

Indeed, the Obermensch should not have to be brother's keeper...they are far too capable and impressive.

A corollary; should a people be in the way of progress, or otherwise not fit the paradigm of the Obermensch, they should, of course eventually disappear...perhaps with occasional help from the superior society.

Do what you will with war; however we can forgo any sense of sanctimony or righteousness...war is always a colossal human failure.

Rand's "objectivism" is a reactionary philosophy. Since Communism started out philosophically with some sort of altruistic ideal (kinda like Christianity) and ended in totalitarian dicatorship, altruism must be a bad thing, and any altruistic concerns disruptive.

Talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. She ends up with a Superman that values only self interest (missing completely that altruistic impulses are in each individual's self-interest intrinsically allowing for cooperation and society itself), and then builds that into the polarity of Communism...a radicalized individualism...just as idealized as the perfect commune, and just as prone to totalitarian government and aggressions.

Freud called that "identification with the aggressor".

So shrug away.

[Alexandra]

Ahem,

I do my own photoshop work thank you. I don't need to USE any other. And as for the irony, I would say by your superciliousness it is entirely lost on YOU.

[ahem]

Really, if you want a Photoshop of Bush as Napoleon, you ought to use this one after David. Although I think the irony may be lost on you.

[Darrell]

Good then. Let's hear your reasonable, objective, non-judgemental restatement of the views(perspectives) of Bush and other Republicans. Or are you a zealot? James Atlas? I shrug!

Once a war starts, the only concern is making sure more of the enemy dies for their cause than your soldiers. And by my count, Israel still owes Hezbollah a few rockets. If we're counting 'beans,' that is. Do they have to shoot them as inaccurately, too? Such philosophical mind games are for Lefties sitting in French cafés, drinking wine and smoking cigarettes, contemplating suicide. If only they would act...

Iran isn't fooling anyone-not even Democrats. They have united the Arab world though, at least as far as Hezbollah goes. We now know that everyone would be happier if they just disappear.

[Jeremayakovka]

Good morning, Alexandra, (it's morning where I am), glad you're back. Thanks for the round up. It's reassuring to read that Rice and those "darned neo-cons" have put on their thinking caps. Rock on. If PJM ever created a position of Press Secretary, as the White House and Defense and State have them, I nominate you for the post.

[Kenny]

Trying to decide whether I want to get into this epistemological debate with you, Ghost...have you by any chance read Owen Barfield's Saving the Appearances?

You know what? It's off the topic Alexandra intended to start, so I don't think I will. We'll save the discussions of perception and figuration and connotation and denotation and noumena and phenoumena and sharpening and objective truth and subjective truth and objective certainty and subjective certainty, for another day and a more appropriate thread. Fair enough?

[Ghost Dansing]

Napoleon I was crowned Emperor of the French on a cold December 2nd in 1804.

Napoleon planed his coronation with as great a care as he did his wars. The task of organizing the coronation was given to L. Ph. de Ségur, the Grand master of Ceremonies, and A. L. de Rémusat, then First Chamberlain. The architects Percier and Fontaine took care of the temporary decorations and Jean Baptiste Isabey (1767-1855) designed the costumes.

It was in March of 1804 that the senate offered First Consul Bonaparte the title of emperor. The French Senate voted a law on May 18, 1804 whose first article reads: "The government of the Republic is vested in an Emperor, who takes the title of Emperor of the French."

I wonder if the Congress will do the same for Dubya?

The sarcastic comment of French General Antoine-Guillaume Maurilhac Delmas during Napoleon's imposing coronation ceremony recorded that the old Republican declared: "What a shame that the 300,000 Frenchmen who died to overthrow one throne are unable to enjoy the superb fruit of their sacrifice."

So where do the comments regarding "moral equivalence" come from...and what's the gripe from the so-called "conservatives"...products of modern American Republicanism in the United States?

"...democracy's most numerous and influential educators deny the existence of objective truth concerning good and evil. In other words, they deny the existence of rational standards by which to determine whether the beliefs and goals of one individual, group, or nation are more valid or intrinsically superior to those of another. Reinforcing this relativism is the behavioral doctrine that humanity in general, and their rulers in particular, employ altruistic language like "peace" or "justice" or the "common good" to conceal egotistical motives or dignify self-serving ends. Cynicism is rampant."

"There is extraordinary danger in treating terror and democracy equivalently. There is extraordinary danger in placing the burden on your friends, because you are scared to tell the enemy the truth".
- Congressman Newt Gingrich (R-GA), Speaker of the House of Representatives, April 9, 1997, criticizing the Clinton administration for pressuring Israel but not the Arabs.

All of this is a problem only from the perspective of and absolutist...an "either-or" thinker.

The problem of human perspective and cultural relativism are empirically demonstrable phenomena...not theories.

The fact that human beings think and act from within weltanschauung and zeitgeist, often derived from the particular existence into which they find themselves thrown complicates the analysis of many cultural phenomena, including inter-societal frictions resulting in war.

The simple Liberal acknowledgement of fact, i.e. that there are at least two-sides to any argument, basically drives the zealot...the partisan desiring an absolutist position crazy.

Also, the realization that rationalizing, reasoning, an all forms of quasi-logical machinations seldom deliver a perfectly deduced answer also drives them crazy...therefore they turn toward strident assertion of their point of view, and aggressive suppression or elimination of countervailing perspectives.

Indeed, human perspectivity and cultural relativity is a problem for the zealot.

However, if you want an absolute, these phenomena must absolutely be acknowledged by anyone pretending to negotiate anything.

Strident positions are adequate for those who's only purpose is impaling the enemy on a lance.

If the objective is peace, that singlemindedness will prove insurmountable.

But then, to everything...there is a time for war.

Weltanschauung: world·view ( P ) Pronunciation Key (wûrldvy)
n. In both senses also called Weltanschauung.
The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

Zeit·geist ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tstgst, zt-)
n.
The spirit of the time; the taste and outlook characteristic of a period or generation: “It's easy to see how a student... in the 1940's could imbibe such notions. The Zeitgeist encouraged Philosopher-Kings” (James Atlas).