Reader's Favorites
Media Casualties Mount

Administration Split On Europe Invasion

Administration In Crisis Over Burgeoning Quagmire

Congress Concerned About Diversion From War On Japan

Pot, Kettle On Line Two...

Allies Seize Paris

The Natural

Gore Book Sales Tank, Supporters Claim Unfair Tactics

Satan Files Lack Of Defamation Suit

Why This Blog Bores People With Space Stuff

A New Beginning

My Hit Parade
Instapundit (Glenn Reynolds)
Tim Blair
James Lileks Bleats
Virginia Postrel
Kausfiles
Winds Of Change (Joe Katzman)
Little Green Footballs (Charles Johnson)
Samizdata
Eject Eject Eject (Bill Whittle)

Space
Alan Boyle (MSNBC)
Space Politics (Jeff Foust)
Space Transport News (Clark Lindsey)
NASA Watch
NASA Space Flight
Hobby Space
A Voyage To Arcturus (Jay Manifold)
Dispatches From The Final Frontier (Michael Belfiore)
Personal Spaceflight (Jeff Foust)
Mars Blog
The Flame Trench (Florida Today)
Space Cynic
Rocket Forge (Michael Mealing)
COTS Watch (Michael Mealing)
Curmudgeon's Corner (Mark Whittington)
Selenian Boondocks
Tales of the Heliosphere
Out Of The Cradle
Space For Commerce (Brian Dunbar)
True Anomaly
Kevin Parkin
The Speculist (Phil Bowermaster)
Spacecraft (Chris Hall)
Space Pragmatism (Dan Schrimpsher)
Eternal Golden Braid (Fred Kiesche)
Carried Away (Dan Schmelzer)
Laughing Wolf (C. Blake Powers)
Chair Force Engineer (Air Force Procurement)
Spacearium
Saturn Follies
JesusPhreaks (Scott Bell)

Biting Commentary about Infinity, and Beyond!

« Not Impressed | Main | Sounds Good To Me »

"The Jews Didn't Vote For Us"

Speaking of not being impressed, Dean Barnett isn't with James Baker and what is rumored to be his upcoming surrender plan. Me, neither.

There's so much that James Baker doesn’t understand and never has understood; I honestly don’t know where to begin. Perhaps a good place to start would be in 1941 when the Palestinian leader, Mufti al-Husseini, journeyed to Berlin and aligned himself, his people and his movement with the Nazi agenda of annihilating the Jews. Since that time (which was actually seven years before Israel was born), extermination of the Zionist Entity and those inside of it, not any kind of peace agreement, has been the lodestar of the Radical Muslim world. To think that this leopard is suddenly going to change its spots or be satisfied with a Sudetenland-sized chunk of Israel is ludicrous. When Ahmadenijad said he wanted to wipe Israel off the map, he meant it.

Aaah, Ahmadenijad. What does this man have to do to convince our country that he means business? Last night, John Kerry was on Larry King (there’s a convergence of some sort). Kerry was fresh from having testified before the Baker Commission. Why the Baker Commission needed the insights of this particular Senator will be yet another mystery of our era for historians to unravel.

...We know who's going to love the Baker Commission recommendations. The Democrats at home who think getting out of Iraq is the only thing that matters will jump aboard the report as an intellectual life raft. Bereft of any ideas of their own for the past five years, Democrats will seize on the report as cover for getting our illiterate children in the armed forces home.

But the Iranian mullahs will be even happier. The Baker Commission report will give them the same feeling that Hitler got in Munich – these men will not fight. They will see a solid chunk of the American body politic eager to sell out an ally while making concessions to our enemies without requiring those enemies to fire a single shot.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 30, 2006 12:03 PM

Comments

Simberg,

Are you going to fight for Israel?

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 12:20 PM

Are you going to stop asking moronic "chickenhawk" questions?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 30, 2006 12:22 PM

James Baker is one of the smartest foreign policy thinkers around.

He has an excellent record in terms of not humiliating the US interest as Bush has done so thoroughly.

If he thinks we should talk to whomever, he probably has it right. If he thinks we should pull out and allow things to achieve an equilibrium of sorts while watching closely from the sidelines, he probably has it right.

We have a moral reponsibility to stanch the bloodshed borne of our war but this nation right now has clearly no stomach for correcting the litany of Bush's errors.

Posted by Anon at November 30, 2006 12:36 PM

Simberg

So you want to fight to the last American then?

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 12:40 PM

James Baker is one of the smartest foreign policy thinkers around.

[laughing]

So you want to fight to the last American then?

So you want to continue asking idiotic questions, Anonymous Moron?

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 30, 2006 01:02 PM

It's much easier for him to hijack you blog with your audience and do it as opposed to starting and maintaining his own blog.

No to mention none of us would likely even acknowledge its existance.

Perhaps a new term is ready to be coined. He is a Blogocite. A parasitic infection of another blog.

I suggest application of the delete key to reduce and remove the source of infestation. Deny him the forum and he will quicky tire of the host.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 30, 2006 01:38 PM

"No to mention none of us would likely even acknowledge its existence."

But we keep acknowledging his existence here by responding to his nonsensical posts. Maybe we ALL should rethink that policy? Just a thought.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 30, 2006 01:52 PM

Even Rand responds to him. I have to admit, it is fun to abuse the deliberately stupid from time to time.

Like I said, if I were Rand, I would implement a CoC and give trolls the boot. Cut off the blood and the tick dies. Like giving welfare to crackheads, you only breed more crackheads.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 30, 2006 02:06 PM

Well Rand has stated, in so many words, that he doesn't ban anon since his posts serve as proof of what an idiot he is. That is true, but I think anon has proved the point well enough now. I personally would like to see him/her/it gone since his/her/it's posts haven't added anything of value to any discussion here in a long time, if indeed ever.

Just my opinion, it's Rands call of course.

Posted by Cecil Trotter at November 30, 2006 02:34 PM

As I've asked before, please keep your Anon's straight since there seem to be at least two of us.

Rand, I know you are laughing about my comment regarding James Baker as a smart thinker. I'd like to know why? Where has he failed? Can you give me an example?

Frankly as a Dem supporter I should wish that he was not as capable.

Posted by Anon at November 30, 2006 02:38 PM

Also, this is to Mike and others who would rather have us anonymous morons removed: It's always better to have the opposing view or views around. Else you would pretty much be living in an echo chamber. That's why I tune in here.

It's like having your personal court jester. The court jester used to be the only way the King could be given a dissenting opinion masked in frolic. Not that I frolic.

Posted by Anon at November 30, 2006 02:43 PM

The problem is not dissenting opinions. That is a strawman argument.

It is the nature of some of the opinions that constitute trolling and not dissent. Especially, taking a thread off topic with the first post. Thing all Iraq topics are equally germaine is absurd.

I am sure Rand knows who posts what as I am sure he can see IP's.

If you wish to not be confused with others anons, pehaps you can use your real name or at least come up with a unique screen name that does not have anonymous in it.

Posted by Mike Puckett at November 30, 2006 03:11 PM

Rand, I know you are laughing about my comment regarding James Baker as a smart thinker. I'd like to know why? Where has he failed? Can you give me an example?

It's not my job to show that he's not a smart thinker. You've made the statement that he is. Make the case. I'm not aware of it, at least when it comes to foreign policy. Certainly what's rumored to be coming out of the Iraq Study Group doesn't provide any justification for it, if he doesn't recognize that we're at war with Syria and Iran.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 30, 2006 03:17 PM

Simberg

So we are at war with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Palestine and
Afghanistan.

Do you care to list the goals, structure and enemy
order of Battle?

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 04:15 PM

So we are at war with Iran, Syria, Iraq and Palestine and Afghanistan.

"Palestine" is not a country. It's one of the proxies. And we are not at war with Afghanistan or Iraq. We are at war in Afghanistan and Iraq. They are proxie wars as well.

But keep playing the idiot. You entertain.

Posted by Rand Simberg at November 30, 2006 05:04 PM

Simberg

Do you care to list the Enemy order of battle anywhere?

Can you?

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 07:38 PM

Simberg

"Terror" is not a country, yet we appear to be at war with it too.

Someone who is encouraging open war with 2 more
nation states should at least be able to state the
order of battle in the countries we are fightin in.

Posted by anonymous at November 30, 2006 07:53 PM

What do you mean by OOB?

Because I don't see where the number of I-HAWK batteries that Iran has cobbled together or the number of T-72s in Syria's brigades really matters all that much in the current situation.

Their OOB apparently includes our own media, and *that* is what's been really kicking our tail the last five years. We could overthrow either government in 2-4 weeks, take their capitols and drive their leaders into the mountains. But we won't, because we as a people are convinced that we're not supposed to do something like that.

So, absent a will to do something about it, a full OOB is rather irrelevant for an opponent you refuse to fight. Except, of course, for that subset of his OOB that he can use to kill a few million of your own without warning.

Posted by Big D at November 30, 2006 08:02 PM

Big D wrote:
"We could overthrow either government in 2-4 weeks, take their capitols and drive their leaders into the mountains. But we won't, because we as a people are convinced that we're not supposed to do something like that."

We're supposed to do _that_?
And if we did, what would we do next?
(We basically _did_ that in Iraq: look
where it got us... )

Posted by dave w at November 30, 2006 11:15 PM

dave w.;

The mistake was in giving a damn what happened to Iraq. The only thing about Iraq of any importance was oil, and damn little of that.

What we should have done, assuming Hussein was a threat in the first place, was very simple. Move in, by air and on the ground. Blow up everything worth blowing up, especially including electrical and oil installations and any and all port facilities, airports and bridges/tunnels crossing the border. Leave. Maybe come back when the civil war is over.

And on the subject of SH; why in God's name didn't someone simply toss a grenade into his spider hole and fill it in?

Posted by Fletcher Christian at December 1, 2006 01:46 AM

Fletcher, that's pretty Christian of you. Let's just sell everything we stand for so we can protect what we stand for. Super.

Posted by Offside at December 1, 2006 05:26 AM

Are you going to fight for Israel?

"Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead! Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead! Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead! Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead! Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead! Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead!"

Posted by McGehee at December 1, 2006 06:34 AM

Baker is a smart fellow. Don't cut short the guy who was head of Department of State when the Soviet Union collapsed and Germany was reunited.

However, Baker, as Secretary of State, urged then President Bush to not exceed his authority in the UN resolution in remove Saddam from power in 1991. Since the military was constrained from engaging the executive authority of Iraq, its only recourse for forcing surrender was to destroy what remained of Iraq's military. The result was the highway of death followed by 12 years of Saddam killing even more people in his own country.

I think it would be better to say Baker is a skilled expert when dealing with Western cultures, but is less then ideal when dealing with Middle Eastern cultures.

Posted by Leland at December 1, 2006 06:36 AM

Chickenhawk! Apply directly to the forehead!

Yes. Except unlike "Chickenhawk," "HeadOn," at least reportedly, is effective.

Posted by Rand Simberg at December 1, 2006 06:44 AM

IIRC, James Baker was also Secretary of State when the Soviet Union collapsed.

But Baker (and Bush) were very hesitant about actually supporting the collapse of the USSR. He (or they) opposed recognizing Ukraine, which might be understandable. Less so, and despite a consistent 50-year policy of not recognizing the Soviet take-over of the Baltic states, opposed the idea of recognizing the Balts as independent states.

Thus, at one of the most momentous moments in history, and one in which freedom really was in tension with stability, the choice of Baker (and Scowcroft, and apparently Bush-I) was to plump down for stability.

Not a shining moment, at least IMHO, but YMMV.

Posted by Lurking Observer at December 1, 2006 07:24 AM

> As I've asked before, please keep your Anon's straight since there seem to be at least two of us.

If you won't take credit for your words, why should we make any effort to attribute them correctly?

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 1, 2006 08:12 AM

Firstly, the Jews don't need any help. They're a nuclear state, I think they should be able to defend themselves.

Fletcher: What we should have done, assuming Hussein was a threat in the first place, was very simple. Move in, by air and on the ground. Blow up everything worth blowing up, especially including electrical and oil installations and any and all port facilities, airports and bridges/tunnels crossing the border.

That's what we should have done had Saddam been a threat, but even the usually inept Australian Wheat Board could see evidence to the contrary before the US went in. Unfortunately some idiots in washington had grandiose ideas about nation building. Now we have a Lauer Certified Civil War® in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a very soon to be nuclear-armed Iran to deal with.

Posted by Adrasteia at December 1, 2006 10:52 AM

I'd love to take up arms against Israel's enemies. There are plenty of those in the greater Boston area, but putting a bullet in their heads would be wrong.

Supporting the right of Israel to defend itself while not actively fighting, shouldn't we be rightly called "chickensouphawks"?

Posted by nobody important at December 1, 2006 01:52 PM

> a very soon to be nuclear-armed Iran to deal with.

So, what do you want to do about nuclear Iran?

What are you willing to do to stop Iran from getting nukes?

Note that Iran's nuke program predates Bush, so they didn't start it in response.

Posted by Andy Freeman at December 1, 2006 09:49 PM

What really would have been great was if we'd rolled into Baghdad, looked at our watches and said, "Well, damn that didn't take long, they had us penciled in for at least another 2 years of quagmire. We better just keep this gravy train rolling north till we shake hands with our buddy's in Afghanistan."

Posted by Josh Reiter at December 2, 2006 11:25 PM

Simberg

ChickenHawks don't cure disease they cause them.

Posted by anonymous at December 3, 2006 06:39 PM


Post a comment

Name:


Email Address:


URL:


Comments:


Remember info?