If war breaks out, let's blame the Jews

Washington Times ^ | 3/14/03 | Wesley Pruden

[Mr. Mojo]

He [Bush] understands that hostility to America would not evaporate even if Israel disappears overnight in a puff of paleo-con pixie dust.

A point completely lost on the paleo-cons --- their Jew hatred completely blinds them to the Islamist threat.

[Destro]

The paleo-cons don't think that and the paleo-cons can fire back the reverse that hostility to America would not evaporate even if [democratic Iraq appears] overnight in a puff of neo-con pixie dust.

[Destro]

I am not a voter of Pat's (nor will I ever be) but Pat and neo-cons were warning of the Islamist threat going back to Bosnia and Kosovo while neo-cons cheered on military support for Muslim groups now shown to have links to al-Qaeda.

[goody2shooz]

The paleo-cons seem to hate everything having to do with Western Civilization and Judeo-Christian thought and traditions.

Being brazenly anti-Jewish packs a punch in the press, mostly due to knowledge about the Holocaust among Americans.

[Mr. Mojo]

hostility to America would not evaporate even if [democratic Iraq appears] overnight in a puff of neo-con pixie dust.

Hostility to the U.S. might not evaporate in such an instance, but a brutal dictator who has stockpiled (and used) massive amounts of WMD and has both harbored and collaborated with terrorist organizations bent on the complete destruction of the United States would be in the ash-heap of history. Is this not a good thing? I submit that it is, and most of America (and almost ALL coservative Americans) agree with me.

[Mr. Mojo]

while neo-cons cheered on military support for Muslim groups now shown to have links to al-Qaeda.

Some neo-cons did, and some didn't.

[Destro]

Which neo-cons didn't so I can praise them? I am not against the Iraqi mission, I just judge the results of how the mission is being handled and framed by the neo-cons and it makes me lukewarm.

[JasonC]

We don't expect, or even particularly want, hostility to the US to disappear. Security is not a popularity contest. We want certain particularly well armed and active hostiles to die. A perfectly rational and achievable aim, and one very much in our national interest.

[JasonC]

It has nothing to do with ancient history. It has to do with modern history. Israel's right to the land in controls rests on its victorious arms. All of the states of the region have only been independent since the withdrawl of the great powers after WW II. All of them were subjects of the Ottoman Turks before WW I, and still would be but for victorious British arms.

In the corporeal world, a right over a territory means victory in the last war fought over that territory. If various Arabs don't like the verdict of the last war, they are welcome to lose a new one.

[Mr. Mojo]

Specifically, what don't you like about the way the Iraqi mission is being "handled and framed by the neo-cons?" (...Neocons like Fred Barnes, William F. Buckley, Bill Kristol, Rush Limbaugh, Charles Krauthammer, etc).

You ask which neocons were against the war in Kosovo? I'd have to do a little research before I gave you a definitive answer, but I'm pretty sure that Limbaugh and Buckley were against it. I'm interested in find out myself now, so I'll remember to get back to you on that.

[Destro]

The perpetual war theory...hmm what banned criminal and defunct party embraced that doctrine? Very Nietzscheian of you.

[Mr. Mojo]

Well said, and accurate.

[Destro]

I don't like how the neo-cons call people who are unsold on this war traitors, I don't like how they failed to show a link to al-Qaeda (and there are links) beyond-trust our word rhetoric, I don't like how they have managed to phack up our alliances and consider Bulgaria and Albania equal if not better substitutes for Germany and Turkey. I don't like they way they are buying allies. A purchased ally is not an ally. I don't like how the neo-cons do not want to come before congress at any point along the way to war for authorization. That is just from the top of my head.

I know I remember Hannity wanting to arm the Kosovo Liberation Army as a substitute for the airwar. Yes Hannity, let us arm Islamo-Narco-terrorists at the taxpayers expenze and have NATO serve as their airforce to boot..brilliant.

[Mr. Mojo]

I don't like how they have managed to phack up our alliances ..................I don't like how the neo-cons do not want to come before congress at any point along the way to war for authorization.

Your criticisms are fair ones, except the above two. NATO is a dinosaur of an alliance without any clear purpose now that the Soviet Union is gone, so what alliances are you referring to? I'd just assume NATO dissolved and we formed new alliances with nations that share our interests. The UN will also probably be a casualty of this "phack up" in alliances, and from where I sit, that's a very good thing.

The administration went before Congress in October, and got all the authorization they needed to take care of business in Iraq.

[JasonC]

There is nothing perpetual about it. War exists when anyone does not accept the existing division of territory between states and risks defeat trying to change it. Peace exists when no one is willing to run that risk. Usually because the side that won the last war arranged things as it saw fit, and the side that lost does not want to lose again. This is not "Nietzschean", it is not even a doctrine. It is a flat, unvarnished description of historical reality.

[Destro]

oh I agree NATO is dead--its the argument that the neo-con pundits champion that this coalition of the willing is of any merit. Coalition of the billing is more like it. That kind of either intellectual dishonisty or willful ignorance is what I can't stand. I think because neo-cons as ex-Marxists see eveything as "inevitable" and thus blind themselves to pragmatic solutions. Its all revolution for them.

Again, I am not against the Iraqi mission, I just judge the results of how the mission set-up is being handled and the debate framed by the neo-cons and it makes me lukewarm.

[Mr. Mojo]

because neo-cons as ex-Marxists

Neocon ex-Marxists are over 80 years old by know....ancient history. The vast majority of today's neocons have been conservatives their whole lives. The founder of "neoconservatism", William F. Buckley, is pushing 80 and is a lifelong conservative. I think you're inaccurately generalizating the majority of them into the "Jewish ex-Marxist" box. Very, very few of those types are still around, and as I mentioned, they weren't even the founders of the movement!