~ BANNED IN EUROPE! ~
| My Webpage
| |
"The stream of Time, irresistible, ever moving, carries off and bears away all things that come to birth and plunges them into utter darkness, both deeds of no account and deeds which are mighty and worthy of commemoration. . .Nevertheless, the science of History is a great bulwark against the stream of Time; in a way it checks this irresistible flood, it holds in a tight grasp whatever it can seize floating on the surface and will not allow it to slip away into the depths of Oblivion. "
- Anna Comnena (1083-1153), The Alexiad
"I have taken all knowledge to be my province."
- Francis Bacon, 1592
Friday, March 7, 2003
The Willing Fools
Blix is convinced of Iraqi sincerity and cooperation. Iraq tosses Blix a few bones and he gets all mushy and declares they're substantially disarming. This is good enough and progress to some. I'm sure. All they have to do is ignore the actual text of the Resolution (1441) they insisted upon.
We also know where France stands on disarmament of Iraq. Well, it's put up or shut up time for the Axis of Weasels. Of course they'll do neither. The UN is, as expected blowing its last chance, just as Saddam blew his. I mean - we're supposed to take this as cooperation? Forget that they drug their feet even on destroying some of these missiles? Puh-leeze.
This has been going on for twelve years, and every time it seems the hammer will fall, Saddam dribbles out a little bit of something and the usual suspects get all misty-eyed over Iraqi cooperation. Real cooperation would mean bringing forth a lot more than a few missiles and grudgingly destroying them as people ratchet up the pressure. Some people are more than happy to pretend to believe Saddam's sincerity, each and every time.
The facts, however, tell another story. Twelve years ago, after the end of the Gulf War, Iraq's Saddam Hussein became our responsibility; we've been trying to get rid of him ever since. But our Presidents during those years - first George Bush, then Bill Clinton - apparently forgot that we were responsible for him, or just didn't want to think about him. . .
Saddam was legally obligated to use the money from his oil exports to bring food and medicine into Iraq. He had a good laugh at that, then used the money to build more palaces and make the weapons of mass destruction that aroused such passion in him.
The weapons were illegal, but some Western countries and Russia sold their makings to Saddam anyway. As for the UN inspectorate in Iraq, it did not know a diddle about where the weapons had been hidden. . .
Bush I and Clinton did almost nothing. But here is a chuckle - if you feel in the mood for ugly humor. It was written into those scraps of paper that Saddam threw away that after 15 days, if he did not turn over a detailed list of the whereabouts of hidden chemical, bacteriological and nuclear materials, he would be considered to be in violation of UN rules.
The 15 days passed. More than 4,000 days passed. Yet nobody at the UN has thought of announcing the obvious: Saddam has been at war with the UN ever since 1991, really, truly, at war with the whole organization.
So the second Bush decided he would have to do something about it. He sees the Saddam arsenal as a threat to the U.S. and the torture chambers a disgusting shame to all nations that do not at least try to destroy them.
It is only compared to the sloth with which the UN has dealt with Saddam for more than a decade that the President seems to be rushing to get rid of him. Which he will do.
As for the seriousness (or lack thereof) of the French, Germans, and Russians in asserting that containment is the right way to go, I'll quote Michael Walzer on their non-efforts:
What would a plausible alternative look like? The way to avoid a big war is to intensify the little war that the United States is already fighting. It is using force against Iraq every day — to protect the no-flight zones and to stop and search ships heading for Iraqi ports. Only the American threat to use force makes the inspections possible — and possibly effective. . .
And, indeed, France is not participating in it in any significant way. The little war is almost entirely the work of American and British forces; the opponents of the big war have not been prepared to join or support or even acknowledge the work that the little war requires.
Of course, Walzer's next assertion (that Bush could challenge the Restored Carolingian Empire and the Russians to more seriously participate in these efforts) is wrong. They wouldn't. It's also, in my opinion, something that would not work and would simply prolong and exacerbate the situation - to the benefit of Saddam Hussein (who can survive in power under this) and the detriment of the people of Iraq. I personally do not make a fetish out of stoping short of toppling that regime - especially since it is the source of the problem and it, not America, is the one in violation of international law (they signed a cease fire under certain terms, which they never fulfilled. They thus broke the cease fire and the war resumes). Also, Walzer's position rests on accepting that the French are good faith actors here, or at least would be if challenged to be (as if Bush has not already been challenging them to so be, since last September if not before). This is false, for reasons I've gone into elsewhere and reasons that should be clear in links associated with this very post.
So I've mentioned before that I listen to the BBC's World Briefing on the radio during my drive in to work. Sometimes they're particularly appalling.
Today was one of those days. They had a few scraps from Bush's press conference last night - some quotes, but mostly they preferred to characterize it.
Then they went to report on the mood in Paris and other areas that are opposed to Bush.
Stuff on the Security Council meeting today and the hope that Hans Blix won't say anything that might persuade people to vote for a new Resolution. Heavy emphasis on giving the French and Russian slant on things.
Followed by a interview with a guy in Baghdad who hopes we won't attack and is stashing away rice in a bunker in case evilboosh goes after poorsaddam.
Next, during the "business" segment, a very long segment (much longer than what they played of Bush's speech) with an oil executive opposed to military action in Iraq. He wanted more money spent on environmental stuff and thought foreign aid should be increased.
Followed by a round-up of what various newspapers were saying about Tony Blair's position on Iraq. Only critical articles cited, of course (wouldn't want to give the BBC listeners a inclination that there was another perspective). Blair taking a big risk (this is true, at least).
Me thinks the BBC has seen the same poll going around showing shifting public opinion in Britain, and are determined to quash it before it gets out of hand.
Followed by more news from Britain. A report on West Africans living in Britain, trying to retain part of their own culture. In this case, the chewing of Khat. Extended exchanges with a guy who likes Khat. Explanation that if you chew it long enough, it acts like an amphetamine (speed). This guy chews it with his buddies eight hours a day. He can't find a job. It's very sad. Why can't he get a job? He says he'd probably stop chewing Khat if he got a job, but for some reason no one will hire him (even in Britain employers aren't that keen on hiring speed freaks, I gather). Discussion of the possible outlawing of Khat. This would be a bad idea - people would end up in jail. It would be better if the government went after the "underlaying problems" instead, like unemployment. I guess this means prodding/coercing employers to hire dudes who chew Khat eight hours a day.
At least they didn't ask Khat-man what he thought of "Bush's War".
First the bad: I think they hired Al Gore's speech coach. I noticed this during the AEI speech last week, too. Someone told him that to sound suitably serious, somber, ernest, grave, and generally "non-cowboy", he need-ed t o t a l k r e a l s l o w.
The time he seemed more himself (when he talked about making the UNSC vote on a resolution no matter what the whip count was) was better.
Substantively, it was fine. But the s l o w s p e a k i n g manner was probably what put off some folks.
Second, the good: I've watched a lot of C-SPAN over the years. Including when they have guests to come in and punditize and field questions from callers. The "smart set" goes on and take pokes at Bush's intellect. They field questions from callers, questions almost as contorted as the ones that Bush was asked last night.
Mr. (or Ms.) Smarty will answer one part of the caller's question and then, almost invariably, turn to Brian (or Susan or Mike or whichever C-SPAN dude is moderating that day) and ask "what was the second part of the question?" Brian (or Susan or Mike, or whomever) won't remember and will ask the caller (he or she is gone).
The Press asked Bush multi-part questions and "President Dummy" answered them fully (except when it was obvious he was going around the question not because he forgot what it was but because giving a straight answer would be impolitic. More on that below). Only once did he have to ask what the second part of a particularly long-winded question (I had lost interest, too; it was obvious the reporter in question - one from CNN - was grandstanding more than asking a real question) was.
Now, on the "impolitic" thing: Bush didn't give a really straight answer to why some of our "allies" and so many people "remain unconvinced". Now, satisfying as it would have been, giving a straight answer to that question would have just set off howls of outrage from the usual suspects. We can deal bluntly with the answer to such questions here on this blog. And overseas "friends" such as the French, German, Canadian, etc politicians are perfectly free to be as catty as they want in describing American leaders motives, and we're not supposed to react badly to that (it's bad form, I suppose. It's just our lot - we deserve it, somehow).
But we're expected to be polite to fundament orifices no matter what - and this is why Rummy is in trouble for saying things that, though if he were a minister of one of the "enlightened" countries and making remarks critical or slighting of America or American officials, he would be considered sophisticated and witty, and perhaps someone like Ignatius would be penning hagiographies lionizing him. But it's just not proper form for an American government official - in particular a Republican one - to say such things.
So Bush responded to those questions with vague platitudes, refusing to offer an easy target to the critics.
Ok, time to eat a little crow. I've been saying "That Dude is Dead" ever since I had a blog. But if these letters prove to be recent, then bin Ladin is alive. For all the good that's done al-Queda.
Now some are saying March 17th is the go date to begin the campaign that is already being won. The March 17th date might actually happen this time, because we're talking about giving Saddam only a few more days, at most, to do what he was supposed to do "immediately" (per Res. 1441) last fall. Meanwhile, the usual suspects are planning to "veto war". As if (see today's other posts for more on that). Even the New York Times recognizes the absolute folly of this stance. Contrary to Ignatius, the Times says:
But the French helped create the current either-or standoff with their intransigence earlier on. After uniting with other nations behind Resolution 1441, the French sank into a position of intransigent opposition that made the current impasse almost inevitable.
In any case, the position of the opponents is folly only if you take their position at face value. If you believe that they're really sincere in disliking Saddam and wanting to see Iraq comply with the UN Resolutions, then their position is wrongheaded. However, it's long been clear that what animates them is not sincere desire for peace (France, China, and Russia, scions of non-violent solutions to problems? Puh-leeze. Pull my other leg, this one's getting tired), but simple opposition to the U.S. and a desire to preserve their existing relationships with the Ba'athist National Socialist regime. Some are referring to failed diplomacy, even those who see positive things in such a failure. But diplomacy only works on people open to arguments, people willing to be convinced. It's clear that many supposed allies are not acting in good faith.
I've never placed much stock in the UN in any event, and what the NYT sees as a "worst-case scenario" is actually something I would prefer to see happen. It would help remove the atmosphere of sanctity that surrounds the UN, and which is entirely undeserved. This litany of fecklessness is far closer to the reality of the UN than an image of it as a deliberative body looking out for the best interests of the world.
Especially since representatives of countries on the UNSC that are opposed to action use such disingenuous arguments such as "it will detract from the war on terror". Far from detracting, it is essential to fighting and winning the war on terror, for numerous reasons - which are generally ignored by those making the assertion that this is a distraction from the war on terror or will somehow derail the war on terror.
This is how many Democrats view the world. Seriously. By the by, have you all noticed all the Democratic candidates for President (and many non-candidates) out there criticizing Bush on the war? Have you also noticed the utter silence of those commentators who, last fall, were admonishing politicians against trying to score partisan points on the issue? I guess it's ok as long as it's Democrats and not Republicans making hey on the issue.
Blair Must Submit Or Risk Estrangement From "Europe"
This just in: All the scions of EU opinion agree: a single European foreign policy must, by definition, be whatever the Restored Carolingian Empire wants, and it must be opposed to that of the United States. The idea that Blair might be following his sincere beliefs rather than just following along with the U.S. to be an "Atlanticist" is likewise excluded from consideration.
I have the highest respect for Tony Blair. He has enabled Britain to play a major and unprecedented role in Europe. But he is in danger of throwing away all his hard-won progress on a war in Iraq. People talk of the prime minister straddling the Atlantic. His footing may be secure in Washington, but it is not any longer in Europe.
Nevermind that Blair's Cool Britannia hardly stands isolated among the leaders of European countries. Also forget that it is Blair is the one seeking compromise to create unity, while the Holy Belgian Empire remains intransigently dug in.
Mr Blair prefers to relay the unilateralist messages of Mr Bush.
"Unilateralist" is essentially defined as "not in concordance with the policies of the Restored Carolingian Empire". It clearly means nothing other than that. It most obviously does not mean what it apparently means ("acting alone"). It simply means "refusal to submit to the will of France". See the below post for more on the usage of this term.
By putting transatlantic solidarity before European unity, he runs the grave risk of dividing Europe and cutting Britain off from the Franco-German partnership.
The Restored Carolingian Empire, and only the Restored Carolingian Empire, determines what Europe's position is. Holding a different opinion is "dividing Europe" (and the RCE can never be accused of dividing Europe, since they define it):
The eight European prime ministers who signed the letter in support of US policy in effect brought to life the Rumsfeld caricature of a continent divided between pacifist "Old Europe" and a new Europe no doubt defined by its support for Washington. In doing so they have dealt a cruel blow to the EU's ambition to speak with one voice. The hostile atmosphere they have helped to create will not improve confidence among EU governments; it will undermine popular support among current member states for the admission of new members; and it has made the task of devising a genuinely common foreign and security policy in Europe's constitutional convention all the more difficult.
This brings me to something I'm going to post on later (I'll probably write a post on this topic this weekend): the Left's position vis a vi collectivism vs individualism is being embodied on the international level in the form of the EU, along with the concept of a "Vanguard" (the Restored Carolingian Empire, or Frankenreich, or "Franco-German partnership, or whatever term you prefer). States making decisions for themselves ("unilateralism") outside of the General Will of the collective is to be considered illegitimate, especially if it differs from the outlook promoted by the Vanguard that is anointed (by history or enlightenment or whatever. In actuality, by self-selection) to guide the group (of people or countries) into a better future.
But more on that later. In the meantime, all this is all the more disingenuous since while these guys are talking about blocking things, the UN is drawing up their plans for taking control in post-Saddam, post-war Iraq.
A couple days ago, David Ignatius wrote a hagiography of our good friend Dominique de Villepin. It needs to be translated from the Bizzaro-World lingo of Ignatius into Terran. He starts out with a slam at every Lefty's favorite whipping boy, Rush Limbaugh (a good caricature of someone, intended to discredit a position. In this case, the position the French aren't to be trusted on this).
Of course, he doesn't provide the reasons Rush (or anyone else) has for distrusting the French position. That makes it easier to set up straw man arguments. But lets move on to this:
They're glad so many countries share their critique of American unilateralism.
In Bizzaro World, America is acting "unilaterally". In the real world, America's position has more countries in Europe supporting it than the French position has. But Ignatius can trot this old dog out by simply making an argument from exclusion. As long as Ignatius (and de Villepin) ignore or dismiss all of those countries sharing the U.S. position, then they can claim to be opposing "American unilateralism".
I also will note again the interesting disparity here: When the Frankenreich does something that sets it apart from the position of its allies (such as Britain, Italy, Spain, or the U.S.), they are said to have "an independent foreign policy" (praiseworthy). When America does something that the French and Germans disagree with, America is said to be acting "unilaterally" (a crime against humanity more dangerous than anything Saddam Hussein has ever done). This is called Doublethink in the Newspeak dictionary used on Bizzaro-World.
Ignatius goes on to explain that de Villepin is disliked because he's just too perfect, darn it, and thus is "a magnet for criticism". He fights the good fight on behalf of his noble boss, Chirac, struggling against corruption in the oil companies and the like. Again, this argument can only be made by excluding all reference to Chirac's dealings with Hussein, the contracts signed between TotalFinaElf and Saddam, and the like. Ignatius slips all that down the memory hole. Ignatius goes on, in a form of self-parody, lionizing de Villepin:
In short, de Villepin is one of those modern Supermen
Perhaps of the Nietzschean sort.
De Villepin says he fears that if America attacks Baghdad, it will shatter the hard-won international consensus to fight terrorism and stop proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
No reference by Ignatius that it is the French, Germans, and Russians who have done more than any other country (with the possible exception of North Korea) to promote proliferation by selling the means of manufacturing nukes and chemical and biological weapons to whomever's willing to pay.
Also, since no country has come forward to say "hey, if you attack Iraq, we're going to stop cooperating in the war against terror", it is probably prudent to take de Villepin's statement as a threat that France will do just that. After all, they're already acting in support of radical Islamist groups in many areas.
"One must be coherent, one must be logical, one must have sang-froid. One must not enter into things in an ideological mode." From a Frenchman, that's probably the ultimate put-down.
Then it's a put down of themselves. Remember, these are the guys who were unmoved in '98 when Iraq obstructed the inspectors and tossed them out. The French instead argued for lifting sanctions. Last fall they opposed strong deadlines. Now they claim to be the greatest champions of deadlines. They are among those insisting the U.S. deal with North Korea ourselves, one-on-one ("unilaterally"), not through the UN. Oh, and that stuff about inspections in North Korea that Ignatius quotes de Villepin regarding - again, it helps that Ignatius is willing to ignore the fact that Mohammed el-Bardei's Merry IAEA Heroes were in North Korea, and it didn't stop Kim Jong Il from proceeding. The IAEA were completely oblivious to North Korea's ongoing nuclear program.
To paint de Villepin as some sort of heroic figure, Ignatius has to ignore a whole lot, doesn't he?
Meanwhile, Back on Earth
For a much more intellectually honest assessment of the Frankenreich's position, one should read Stewart Taylor's article in National Journal. Here's a key section:
And an unpoliced, anarchic world would be an economic and national security disaster for the United States as well as others. The point is to underscore how the Europeans, South Koreans and others who have become so anti-American depend on American power -- unthinkingly, ungratefully, and completely -- for their well-being. Abdicating their own responsibilities to help maintain world order, they are free riding, as my colleague Clive Crook noted last week, on the same U.S. polices that they publicly denounce.
I've described them as "free riders" myself, from time to time.
And this, not the misrepresentations promoted by Ignatius, is an accurate representation of France's true behavior:
Take the views of many anti-war Europeans that Iraq should not be invaded but "contained." By whom? France? Germany? Belgium? They could not contain the two-bit Serbian tyrant, Slobodan Milosevic. And they have been no help -- indeed, they have been a great hindrance -- in containing Iraq. They want the U.S. to do it, through a costly, draining, long-term commitment of American forces. At the same time, they bash the U.S. for the military pressure and economic sanctions -- "starving Iraqi babies" -- that undergird containment.
"We can contain Iraq" is obviously an argument for the moment, meant to save Saddam. Anyone who has even the slightest doubt that, at the earliest possible moment, the French will drop that and go back to advocating the removal of sanctions so they can proceed with their oil and weapons contracts as before, is fooling themselves. Far from being philosophical and intellectual collosi
The superficially clever Chirac and Schroeder are not wise leaders. They are fools. And they are helping to bring the world closer to a dark era of nuclear anarchy.
Welcome to the real world, Mr. Ignatius.
Update: Even this is a more accurate representation of the French position than Ignatius provides.
The Messaia of death (with Lenin as a sort of "John the Baptist" of this sort of thing) is fondly recalled on the aniversary of his demise.
He guided many of those who came after him (including a Tikriti lad) in the ways of rulership, and also became an example for those who are apologists for evil down to this day. The methods used by the "peace" crowd today were pioneered in the '20s and '30s. Reporters like Robert Fisk have their predicesors in the likes of Walter Duranty. The New York Times - then and now.
There is much to commemorate about the man who, more than any other single individual, shaped the world's Left into what it is today.
Tony Blair is hopeful about the prospects of a new UN Resolution getting support. Meanwhile, Saddam's business partners issue a veto threat over the same matter.
de Villepin is a classic here. Put his quotes together and what conclusion can you reach?
"The inspections cannot go on forever," he said. . ."We will not allow a resolution to pass that authorizes resorting to force,"
The first statement there combined with the second leads to only one conclusion: In France, it's 1998 all over again. The inspections will not go on for ever, but nothing will be done as a result; not if France has anything to say about it, at least.
Well, France had its way in '98. Inspections didn't go on for ever, and nothing was done about it except some talk about maybe removing sanctions. But France isn't going to have it's way this time. Neither is Germany or Russia. They'll have to look for contracts elsewhere.
Meanwhile, Germany's Chancellor is still upset about the whole "Axis of Evil" thing.
Asside on a unrelated matter: you know, this was exactly what came to mind when I heard about the "Human Shields" evacuating Iraq. Or at least the comparison with Brave Sir Robin is. I guess that just shows strange minds think alike.
Why? The UN hasn't earned such a role, and the UN typically screws it up when given such a role. This is the institution that still has permanent refugee camps (that are breeding grounds for terror) for the Palestinians, fifty years on. One doesn't find permanent refugee camps for the Germans who were deported from Prussia & Silesia or the Poles that were moved west from what is now Belarus. Why the difference? Lack of UN administration of the whole thing.
The UN presence, once established, tends to become a permanent fixture in other areas, too. Why? It's used as a job program for functionaries with internationalist pretensions.
The rationale, of course, is that something given the stamp of "UN" is less likely to be accused of being an "imperialist" proposition. Which is odd, because with the embedding of a permanent UN apparatus, that's really what it is (a sort of "internationalist imperialism"). One avoids the superficial appearance of imperialism at the cost of creating the substance. Conversely, a structure set up by the "Coalition of the Willing" would be less permanent, more likely to hand things over to the Iraqis when they were ready, and things would develop more along the lines of the experience in Germany and Japan. In other words, it would be accused of "imperialist" ambitions based on superficial assertions, but lack the substance of colonial rule.
People often make the argument that we cannot do it without the UN because we're "not good at this type of thing" (with no supporting evidence to back it up), while assuming the UN is, and ignoring the various problems that exist with the system of UN administration.
Our friend, Vladimir Putin, is considering using Russia's veto to try and block UN authorization for the war. Now, we can talk about all the reasons they might have for this - their self-interested reasons, and the like.
But it's really out of concern for the U.S., we now see. If we try to fight Iraq, Saddam says we'll get slaughtered.
But on the other hand, we could risk sure defeat at the hands of Saddam's fanatically loyal crack troops, and for what? Perhaps for the sake of these people. It's amazing (it shouldn't be, we shouldn't be surprised by it anymore) that so many of the "humane" people of the world are opposed to this and are casting aspersions at America's motives. So many people, ourselves included, stand to gain much in security and welfare by the fall of the Ba'athist regime. If it was still socially acceptable to describe a war as having a noble purpose, this would be one. Securing ourselves and our friends from the dangers of horrible weapons, toppling a ruthless regime that has been nothing but a menace to its neighbors throughout its existence, and liberating millions of people suffering from terrible oppression.
What do we have on the other side? The "peace" side? If it was considered socially acceptable to describe peace advocates as having an ignoble purpose, this would be such an occasion. We see people acting out of hate, countries (France, Russia, Germany, etc) opposing action for reasons of venality, envy, and spite. Betraying their own prior commitments (by, for example, opposing the clear meaning of the Resolutions, such as 1441, they solemnly committed to and voted for). We have among this illustrious band people who compare leaders of democratic republics to Hitler while helping spread (in via such organizations as the "International Action Center", "Not in Our Name" and other similar-minded ideologues and radical front groups that reserve their anger and distrust for America rather than its enemies) the propaganda of a dictator (such as the commonly repeated assertion that it is sanctions, and not Saddam, that are responsible for the deaths of so many Iraqis).
The very idea of peace is being corrupted by its adherents. Just as with institutions like the UN.
The Iraq situation from a Dark Age of Camelot perspective...
----
US: Ok, putting together RvR group for Iraq raid... who's in?
Turkey: Only if someone makes me new armor. Last Iraq raid I lost money
on
US: *sigh* Ok, can't build you the new armor, but I'll help pay for it.
How much you need.
Turkey: 6 Plat.
US: WTF?! You're not building the armor out of platinum, ya tard.. no
frikking way.
Turkey: Yeah, but I wanna get it SC...
US: 3 plat, and that's all I'm offering.
Turkey: Sweet. Ok, I'm in.
Spain: I frikking hate Iraq. They were camped at our keep for frikking
EVER, man--long time ago, but still angry off about it. Meet you at
Turkish keep.
US: Cool, thx.
Italy: Me 2
Chile: I'm in.
US: Ok, so far, got US, Turks, Spain, Italy, Chile.
Bulgaria: Umm, got room for some lowbies? Thought maybe we could leech
some RP's..
US: Yeah, sure. Why not. Just don't attack anything. Set up a /assist US
macro, ok?
France: Hey all, what's up?
US: Putting together an RvR raid, hitting Iraq.
France: No frikking way, dood. Look, I'm part of Alliance leadership,
and I say no way do we go in there. I'm using Alliance veto.
US: WTF? Alliance Veto?
France: Yeah, it's in Alliance charter. Me, Germany, US, Russia, and
China can all cancel any Alliance raid event.
Bulgaria: Hey, me and the other Eastern Europeans wanna go...
France: STFU, n00b. Your guild got no say in this.
Bulgaria: ,,!,,
Germany: I don't really want to go either.
US: ...
France: Yeah, we veto. No guildies go to Iraq.
US: What about you, Russia.
Russia: Well, if everyone else goes, it's ok, but if France and Germany
say no, then that's cool.
US: Jeezus. Dood, show some balls. You used to love going on raids.
Russia: Yeah, but that Afghanistan raid a while back was a disaster.
Total group wipe-out.
US: Yeah, but you were in different alliance, man. This is different.
Besides, we pwn3d last time we went on Iraq raid.
France: Doesn't matter. I say no.
Spain: .tell US doesn't matter if they don't go anyway, France just
gives up anytime he sees any combat anyway. He's a buttmunch. Lives next
door to me.
Spain: Oops. MT.
France: Oh yeah? Well you skipped that WWII raid completely.
Spain: Only cuz I'd just come back from dueling, was too tired to RvR.
Besides, you died in first wave, spent the rest of the raid licking dirt
and whining.
France: ..!..
US: Guys, c'mon. I'm trying to put this thing together, here... look, I
don't care what France says. I'm going, and anyone who wants to come
with me can. China, you in?
China: *shrug* Don't feel like it.
US: Ok...
North Korea has challenged you to a duel! Type /duel accept to accept or
/duel decline to decline the challenge.
/duel decline
North Korea tells you: "Dood u r teh suq. I will r0xxorz u"
You tell North Korea: No thanks, guy. Trying to get an RvR raid going.
North Korea tells you: "Ur just scaerd of teh pwnage"
You tell North Korea: Riiiigh. STFU, okay? I'm busy
North Korea taunts you.
/ignore North Korea.
US: How come you're not coming, Germany?
Germany: I'm just not into the violence anymore.
You tell Germany: Bullshit, you're just waiting for us to go into Iraq
so you can gank France again.
Germany tells you: Ooops. *blush* busted!!
You tell Germany: Dude, why bother? He's gray to you.
Germany tells you: It's just satisfying, I guess. It shuts him up for a
while, anyway.
France: I'm telling you, if anyone goes, then it'll break the Alliance.
Spain tells you: Whoop-de-@#%$, this Alliance sucks anyway. Let's go
anyways.
US: France, WTF is ur problem?
France:I want to send scouts in, first. Let them see if there's any
reason to go in.
US: Ok, how long it gonna take them?
France: Couple weeks, maybe. Months, possibly.
US: MONTHS? WTF???! Dude, I don't want to wait that long. I'll give your
scouts a week, at most. We'll reschedule then.
France: I may veto anyway.
US: Yeah, whatever.
/tell Spain yeah, may have to. He's a dipshoot.
Bulgaria tells you: If you go, let me know. Me and my lowbie buddies are
in.
You tell Bulgaria: Cool, thx. Are you someone's ALT?
Bulgaria tells you: Some of us were Russia's buffbots, but we're
soloing, now.
US: Ok, meet again next week. We'll take things from there.
Welcome to the debut of my new bloghome (I suppose this makes Porphyrogenitus.net a debutante). It was time to leave blogspot behind. It was a great run, but the usual reasons that cause people to abandon blogger finally wore me down.
Special thanks to Sekimori, Stacy Tab, and most especially Robyn Pollman, who performed sterling service designing this site under rather trying circumstances. Anything that looks particularly good here is probably her influence.
I haven't had anyone else code my pages since someone, a kindly young lady named Rach, taught me the basics of html. I know it showed - but there's something about coding your own pages (cold-coding, none of that Frontpage type stuff. It's a bit of hauteur I picked up at Shadowland, where you were expected to write your own pages, whatever it took). But boy! You can see the major difference between an amateur (myself) tinkering around and a real pro (Robyn). For one thing, my coding skills are fairly limited. For another thing, I tend to see something and say "oh, that's a kewl idea" and toss everything I can manage that I like in, but the total result can be a real mess rather than classy looking.
It was also a fairly significant investment for me. I'm not saying they overcharged. Far from it! It was worth every penny and I highly recommend. But I still haven't received my check from VRWCHQ. So I installed a tip jar. I don't really expect anyone to give (I'll be grateful if you do). It's sort of an inside joke for KoDT fans. I will be happy if I break even (unlike blogspot, Hosting Matters isn't free).
Welcome and thanks to my readers, too; regular ones, sporadic ones, or new ones. Welcome also to anyone who's been kind enough to link to me (please update your links). I'm truly grateful to anyone who's been kind enough to blogroll me, especially since I don't have a blogroll myself. Which is sort of a discourtesy to all the people who's blogs I like. In fact, I'll probably rectify that over the coming weekend.
Speaking of discourtesy, folks who've read my old blog will note some changes here. I rid myself of the title "ranting screeds". When I first started blogging, I was familiar with some blogs but must admit I hadn't been around the bloggosphere much. I was ignorant to the fact that so many established bloggers already used some variation of one or both of those (in fact, shocking as it may be to some, though I had heard of James Lileks blog, I had never actually followed a link to it at that point). So I've used the move to shead myself of what might be considered distinctive of others who had right of first usage.
Porphyrogenitus is me, though. At least as far as a net identity goes. Certainly suitable to a pedant who's inclinations and interests run to the historical (especially that of the Midieaval Roman Empire) and geopolitics.
Now since those of you who were kind enough to drop by to christen my new blog have read this far, let me take this opportunity to say what I've only said to a few of you. There are so many superb blogs out there, and one of them might be yours. If I've never sent a mail saying how much I like you're blog, it very well might have been a lapse on my part. I also don't get around the 'sphere as much as I'd like (unfortunately there's work and stuff, even if it might not seem like it. I post fairly frequently, but I'm one of those people who will post when there's a break in work. By the by, if you've seen incoherent ramblings among my posts, it's often because of hasty writing brought on by limited time. A bad habit; I probably should just wait until I have more time to collect my thoughts and assemble them in a lucid manner). I'm sure we've all also had the experience where we follow a link to a blog we've never read before, read a post, and think "this dude (or dudessa) is good. I should read this more often", fail to save the link ("I'll remember it, it's looks pretty memorable") and then never find our way back again (until perhaps we see a link to that blog again somewhere). I've done that more often than I want to remember. Folks are now free to say "hey, Porphy, that's a good reason to maintain a blogroll".
Yah, you're right.
Comments are turned on for this post. I won't normally have comments turned on. Not as a slap to my readers - it's entirely because I know me. I'm better off, for myself, leaving them off. If anyone wants to give me feedback, I encourage you all to mail me. But, for me at least, having comments on for all my posts would be too much like monitoring a mailing list or message board. Kudos to all the folks who have active commenting forums - and I know they add something (quite a bit) to the site for many readers. I'll probably turn comments on for selected posts (like this one), but the default will be "off". But if yah ever feel the desire to send me something, tell me something, or point out a spelling error, malapropism, or factual mistake and the like, that's what the e-mail is for.
Take a look around, you might find the quote at the bottom of the page of interest, for example.
But enough rambling on my part. Thanks for dropping by, please visit again.
Here's a post on the subject that I should have linked to some time ago, written by someone who's taken a fresh look at the issue and refined his views some.
Of Course They Don't Have Any of These Things, but they're going to use them on the Kurds.
If war comes to Iraq, the Kurds of Kifri will be right in the line of fire. Iraqi officials have threatened that the moment the first American bomb lands, they will reply with a chemical assault on the town.
But in the entire place, there is not a single gas mask to be had, and no detection posts, decontamination centres or safe houses.
This is one reason why we're willing to put up with a lot in order to have a "northern front" that will form a barrier between Saddam's forces and the Kurds.
This is also why I'm reluctant to join those who are joyous over the Turkish refusal because it means we won't have to cut deals with them that might be against Kurdish interests. Frankly, if the price of getting in there in a way that can prevent or at least minimize Iraqi efforts at gassing them to death as soon as the first shot is fired is cutting a deal with Turkey that reduces Kurdish autonomy after the war, I'll accept the deal. I'd rather have the Kurds alive and part of an Iraqi federation than dead but autonomous.
Yes, people are going to die during war. But if we can get our guys in place, fewer will die. Thats why it's been worth it to try and get permission from Turkey even at a fairly steep price and even with all the chain-yanking delays. Though, as I said below, I'm not that patient nor am I keen on re-voting. But I don't think Turkey's refusal is a cause for celebration.
The Turkey Vote is more annoying than anything else. They're talking about re-voting on Tuesday, and they'd only schedule another vote if it's gonna pass. Of course, they (the Turkish government) thought the last vote would give approval. But some of the MPs clearly were voting to play to the crowd last time and will vote "yes" this time.
I have to say, though, that I'm not to keen on a re-vote (though I guess it is part of the game in some of these Parliamentary systems). But then I'd have swung the ships south through the Suez Canal about a week ago and said "fine, play with yourselves all you want, deal is off". But then I'm not that patient after all.
I Was Wrong I admit it. I said I didn't think the "human shield travelling carnival" would get to Iraq before the war started. I said they'd go slow enough and time things so they'd get "stuck" on the other side of the border (and have to protest the war from someplace like Jordan).
Well, I was wrong. But in my defense I don't think they thought it would take so long for the war to start, either. They got to Iraq and, well, realized this human shield stuff might be, um, dangerous, or something (uh-huh-huh-huh). Many of them, when they realized their lives might actually be on the line, decided to go home. Others were molified by the offer of video games (this championing world peace stuff is serious business).
I wonder if any of the games they're playing have violence and stuff in it. Those teach the wrong values, you know. They should be playing "peace games", not war games.
