We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
Jacob Resler wonders what would have happend to Britain in World War II if the United States had taken an ‘even handed’ approach between the UK and Nazi Germany.
The British Government has imposed a de facto embargo on the supply of defence related items to Israel. A spokesman of the Israeli Defence Ministry by the name of Mr. Kuti Mor confirmed this in an interview. There were 130 items that the Ministry of Defence whished to purchase from British suppliers, but an export permit has been denied by Britain. British officials said it was their policy not to send military supplies to zones of conflict though they never openly declared an embargo. Most of the items were spare parts, and two of them have been cited as examples: one is a pyrotechnic charge needed to eject the pilot from Phantom fighter planes in emergencies; the other is a small engine used in unmanned aircraft (drones).
It seems Britain’s government idea is that the best way to fight terrorism is to punish its victims. In this Britain fits very well in the EU, it behaves exactely like France, Belgium or Germany. (I could not think of a worse curse). Interesting what would have happened in both World Wars if the US had adopted a policy of not sending supplies to zones of conflict. I think this piece of idiocy needs to be more exposed to the public.
Jacob Resler
Donald Rumsfeld listed Saddam’s available options in an interview with a reporter from El Mercurio, a Chilean newspaper:
“That’s a possibility. A number of leaders of countries have decided they were in a corner and they had no choice and, rather than have a conflict in their country, or rather than have their family and friends killed, that they will leave. So, that is a possibility.
Another possibility is that he will try to do what he has done repeatedly before: to lie, and to pretend-as he is already saying-that they do not have weapons of mass destruction and see how long he can fool the inspectors.
Another possibility would be simply to say, “Fair enough. We’ve got them, and you can come in and we will destroy them and life will go on.” And try to stay in office that way. Try to keep his regime intact that way. Which of those three courses of action he will end up taking I think is probably a function of how the world behaves as much as how he behaves.
If there is a determination and a steadiness of purpose, so that the countries of the world and the United Nations demonstrate to him that he really does not have a lot of choices; he does not have the choice of not disarming.”
Donald missed one, and it’s the one I’m starting to believe is the one which will actually happen.
Let’s think in medieval terms. Why would a King or Warlord arrange for his family and favorite courtiers to be sent out the backdoor of the castle? Why would he pay large sums of money to another Kingdom to ensure their safety?
Saddam knows he is going to lose. He is going to go down fighting.
He will use everything he has. Saddam expects to die and will go down shooting. Whatever you may think of him, Saddam is no soft bureaucrat. He killed his first man when he was in his teens or early twenties. He knows how to handle military weapons.
I suggest he is following a twofold strategy. First and foremost he is trying to buy time. He hopes he can pull off a fudge once again but doesn’t really believe it is going to work this time. He is using the time he buys to prepare for his final battle.
If he has made the Roman-like decision “to die well”, he has a number of options open to him. He might try hitting US forces or local allies first. Suicidal? Yes, but he might think it his best chance for inflicting casualties on us. Even if the kill ratio is badly against him he could think it a good idea to grab the initiative. We know high casualties don’t bother him much: just look to the Iran-Iraq war for proof.
There could be secret operations going on right now to deploy his nasties for the last “glorious” stand. He’ll take down half the population of Iraq if it will take more american soldiers with him. If he has bio and chem, they will be released not only in the desert. He will use them in urban battles, even in heavily populated areas. If he has nukes, he will have them pre-positioned with orders to set them off when defeat is imminent. His Fedaheen will certainly be prepared to die with and for him as they cannot expect to long survive his passing.
I assume the US military has already worked through this scenario and has plans to minimize it. They most likely have contingency plans for quickly regaining initiative if Saddam strikes first.
Make no mistake. We are dealing with someone fully capable of making a last glorious stand his statement for the history books. In his mind it’s the chance for the Persians to play the Spartans with him in the starring Leonidas role.
This game has no rules… and no limits.
A few days ago I wrote about my anger at Arabic translators being kicked out of the military. It seems I am not alone in my condemnation.
I don’t know who Johnathan Galt is but his name has a certain resonance round these here parts for reasons which don’t need a great deal of explanation.
I do know that he has a website that contains a number of video clips which most certainly look and sound authentic. (You will need some sort of reliable media-playing software to view).
Of particular interest is the footage of a man called Abu Hamza who preaches at the Finsbury Park Mosque situated but a few miles from where I live. According to Mr.Hamza, ‘kuffirs’ (er, that’s us, gentle readers) are fair game for robbery, enslavement and murder. Charming.
Jack Bell makes a timeless point and leads many at Samizdata.net wonder if not just Iran but some Western societies are not well overdue for Jefferson’s prescription.
Reason has an editorial everyone should read. It discusses the story of Dr. Hashem Aghajari who is facing a death sentence in Iran because he called for secular and religious reform. He has turned down a negotiated appeal with the religious courts of Iran because, as Dr. Aghajari says
“… those who have issued this verdict have to implement it if they think it is right or else the Judiciary has to handle it.”
Basically he is willing to die to make his point.
In these days of jihad where our focus is on the religious fanatics and their facist fellow travellers, it is good for us to know that there are also those in the Middle East who share our belief in the rights and dignity of man and the liberty of the individual. In freedom from religous and secular tyranny. Share it strongly enough to pay the same ultimate price as was once paid here in America to secure those very rights for us.
I wonder how many of us will be standing up for the count in a decade or so if (when) the apparatus of protection we are so busy erecting is used for darker purposes? Personally I think Thomas Jefferson said it best:
“What country before ever existed a century & a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon & pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it’s natural manure.”
Jack Bell
Medact, the British affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, released a paper on Tuesday which predicts that an invasion of Iraq could lead to a ‘human catastrophe’. The document is called Collateral Damage: The Health and Environmental Costs of War on Iraq.
Environmental Costs? Environmental Costs? These people are talking about the environmental costs of removing the man who ordered the systematic torching of all of Kuwait’s oil fields from power. I have some news for you, guys… there is already a ‘human catastrophe’ in Iraq. Killing Saddam Hussain and exterminating Ba’athism and its supporters is the only way that will ever end.
It is interesting that the ‘International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War’ think the best way to do that is to leave Saddam Hussain alone long enough that he can develop or acquire nuclear weapons of his own. One must remember that these are the same people who wanted the Soviet Union and NATO to disarm… but of course the West should do it first.
I will start taking these apologists for mass murdering tyranny seriously when they publish a paper called “Willful Murder: The Health and Environmental Costs of having a Socialist Dictator in Iraq”.
I have been of the opinion that Saddam Hussein will say ‘yes’ to the latest UN resolution, based on his opportunity to simply buy time and to exploit the rifts in Western opinion and short-and-shallow attention span of the Western public. I was not surprised by the Iraqi parliament’s ‘defiance’ since Saddam is the top man anyway. But Salam has more to say about it all: Nobody inside Iraq even bothered to tune in to hear what the parliamentarians had to say, while Al-Jazeera thought it was worth live coverage. But the Iraqi government did make it worth while for them. Who would have thought that they would reject the resolution? My money was on the Iraqi Parliament accepting the resolution and Saddam reluctantly giving the OK because that was the “will of his people”. Now I am very interested in the speech he will make to “justify” the acceptance of the UN resolution despite the recommendation of the Iraqi Parliament. (not that he has to justify anything or listen to recommendations, but since the whole thing was public he will make his views known, he likes to give speeches).
I may share Salam’s opinion but I can only imagine what it is like to be there:
As much as I find the resolution unfair, provocative, unrealistic in it’s demands and timeline, vague enough to allow for all sorts of traps I hope saddam does accept the resolution. Only to buy us time. It is a lose-lose situation for the Iraqi people no matter how you look at it. The USA is still talking of regime change, I think Iraq will not go past the first 30 days before the USA shouts “foul”. And in a case of war I do believe that if saddam has any biological or chemical weapons he is very likely to use them on his own people to give the CNN and Jazeera the bloody images everyone doesn’t want to see.
It’s not just a question of whether it is right or wrong to fight war with Saddam. The blogosphere has been throbbing with arguments for and against. On this blog we know which course of action to defend. So far the Big Picture, that we are used to seeing both in current affairs and history, rarely includes the individual (usually he is the one driving it, often by means of oppression and violence). Salam’s lone voice reminds me of millions of human tragedies that do not get played out on the world stage.
The blogosphere may be one way of redressing the balance. Reading Salam’s interpretation of events has had a tremendous impact on my understanding of reality of the war on Iraq. I cannot conceive of such information originating from the traditional media. Not only because I do not have faith in their abilities and motivation, but simply because they have not been designed to fulfil such role. They correspond to the Big Picture view of the world, together with historical analyses, diplomatic discourse and political decisions. The media claims of unbiased reporting and enlightenment through controversy ring hollow as there is a mismatch between their explicit role and understanding of their own limitations.
So Salam’s blog is important, not only in the context of the current international events. For now, I just hope that individual voices will become audible more and more.
For me, the highlight of last weekend’s Libertarian Conference in London was the after-dinner talk delivered by Richard Miniter.
Richard is one of those people who has a resume so chocked full of impressive achievements that it leaves one wondering how he manages to fit it all into one life. As well as being an award-winning business journalist he is also an expert on security matters and will shortly be publishing a book on America’s terror war with Al-Qaeda.
He is currently a Senior Fellow at the Centre for the New Europe.
His presentation was utterly captivating, not just because of the breadth and depth of his knowledge but also due to his style of delivery which makes every person in the room feel as if he is talking to them personally. During the hour that he spoke, I heard not one cough, nor saw one fidget, nor even one yawn stifled.
So fascinating and important were Richard’s insights that they are worth replication here, if only in a précised form. There is no way I can do the presentation full justice, nor replicate it in its entirety. I was far too interested in what was being said to bother with the distracting and unseemly practice of taking notes.
→ Continue reading: Miniter’s World
Putin really laid into the EU and reporters about his handling of Chechnya. He’s certainly got a clear idea of what it is he is fighting.
I’d say Russian and American interests are being driven ever closer together at the same time both are diverging from the EU. This is definitely one of the developing features of the geopolitical landscape to watch closely.
It could well be the defining global political feature of the 21st Century.
Glenn Reynolds pointed out an article in today’s New York Times on the 4th day of student riots in Iran.
What? You haven’t heard? Presumably that’s because the news media thinks we’re more interested in whom is buggering whom in Buckingham than in events of real import? Yes. Of course. That must be it.
The Iranian government has given a sentence of death by hanging to an academic, Hashem Aghajari, for what Americans would call an exercise of his First Amendment rights. If profs in the USA think they are losing those rights simply because someone criticises them, they should consider Iran, where the State can make you lose your head instead of just your temper.
The student protests have spread to other cities and seem likely to continue unless the medieval mullahs stomp on them, an action which would just polarize any remaining fence sitters. The Iranian students are living proof there is a liberal, tolerant 21st Century face to Islam crying out for escape from the rule of fundamentalist fruitcakes.
News media everywhere should be pushing this story with as much alacrity as possible. No reasonable person wants to see blanket hatreds grow. This is precisely what al Qaeda wants. If they have any strategy, it is to bring about the war of civilizations in hopes they can win by expending more lives than we in the civilized world have a stomach for. They are not sufficiently versed in history to understand how terribly mistaken they are or exactly how apocalyptic such a war would be for all… but most especially for them.
We must let the average guy on the street know there are Muslims out there who are just like him or her; people who want to live their lives, worship in their faith, exercise basic liberties… and most importantly, allow others to do the same.
My feelings of hope for Iran are not new. Even in the days immediately following September 11th I told friends Iran is different. There is hope for it. It was never as crazy a place as the rest of the Medieval East; it has an educated populace which understands what a civil society is about. One way or the other they will find their way out of the swamp Khomeini led them into.
I do not think their own government is quite so evil as others in the region. I do not believe Iranians will sacrifice their own children to the past and there is no other path but that of massive and violent repression if they are to block reform.
If I knew an appropriate Muslim phrase (other than Inshallah, which is a bit weak for what I wish them) I would say it for those young Iranians who seek the blessings of Liberty.
I guess “good luck and godspeed” will have to serve.
There is more information here. It leaves you with a certain level of… uncertainty. Like “why was he writing a draft statement that said this in the first place?”
Time passes….
I’ve now read the original statement by Blunkett and am left wondering who hyped this whole thing into silliness. There does not seem to be any warning of imminent attack, only a general warning of what we all know already: we’re a target and the enemy is utterly ruthless.
Rowan Williams, the next Archbishop of Canterbury, has stated that it is more important to “maintain the society of states” than to depose a murderous dictator, namely Saddam Hussain.
Now if Williams was of the opinion that Saddam Hussain was just the victim of western calumny and he was in fact the generous benefactor of the Iraqi people, then it would be quite understandable that he would oppose starting (or more accurately, completing) a war with the object of deposing him and crushing Ba’athist Socialism.
Yet that is not the case: Williams describes Saddam Hussain as “brutal and violent” and yet still takes the view that the stability of those collective edifices called ‘states’ is more important that the right of Iraqi civilians not to be murdered in order to ensure the supremacy of the Ba’athist Party.
Here is a man who, as an Anglican Archbishop, is presumably concerned not with geopolitics but with Christian morality and yet takes the view that the political stability of the Islamic world’s sundry despotisms matters more ending the nightmare of the 23 million people who live or die at Saddam Hussain’s whim. The fact Hussain is “brutal and violent” matters less than the needs of Realpolitik.
This is exactly where collectivism can lead even an Archbishop, because morality and collectivism are antithetical.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
