[++]
When self-described ‘experts’ discuss religion, they often speak about the three ‘great’ religions, meaning Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. This is done, I think, to establish at the beginning a moral equivalence between the three; Moses equals Jesus equals Mohammed, right? Anyone who has actually studied something of the histories of each of these three faiths would disagree with such a misleading presumption, to say nothing of anyone who has studied the applied doctrines they live by. But the equivalence is an important element in Liberal blame-politics; the ‘blame-America’ crowd has to pretend a war against terrorism is a war against Islam, and rather than criticize Islam for its flaws, the faith must be presented as equal or superior to other faiths.
I mentioned the ‘great three’ lie, because it ignores a number of significant faiths, such as the Hindus and the Sikhs, and of course the Buddhists. Not so very long ago, the Taliban (I heard somewhere that they were Muslims) was going aroud blowing up large statues of the Buddha, in order to erase some inconvenient Afghan history. It helps to recall that Buddhism has been around for longer than Islam, and certainly long enough and with significant numbers in worship to be considered a major religion. Frankly, the practices of Buddhism stack up well historically with almost anyone. For instance, when was the last time anyone heard of a devout Buddhist who was a murdering despot? When was the last time that anyone heard of a bunch of Buddhists taking over a nation and then invading its neighbors in a conquest to impose Buddhism on other people by force. Sorry, doesn’t happen.
A religion becomes popular for any number of reasons, but it only survives a millenium because it has at least one basic truth to it. The reader will know by now that I find much in Islam to praise; a conviction of fundamental truths, a commitment to moral character, respect for tradition and spiritual growth. But the reader will also understand that Islam has ben hijacked a number of times in its history, and the present Jihadist is just such a situation. I cannot believe but that the latest fake ‘Mahdi’ will fail just as his predecessors did, and will cost many people their lives and security in doing so, to say nothing of once again killing the promise of Islamic culture as it was meant to be. But there is something which, oddly enough, the Jihadist movement may do to make a difference in the world for the better. I am speaking about bringing Christians around the world closer to the beliefs which Christ intended.
Hugh Hewitt interviewed author Robert Ferrigno about his book, “Prayers for the Assassin”, and linked to it on his site. In the interview, it was chilling how matter-of-factly Mr. Ferrigno mentioned that in the fictionalized America under Sharia, gays and lesbians would be summarily executed. I have no doubt, at all, that he is absolutely right,and this is one of those ‘flashbulb’ moments where a moral lesson becomes indelibly etched into my mind. Granted, in years past the Church has not been particularly kind to the GLBT community. I have always considered that, personally, to be a grave misreading of Scripture. Not because I am GLBT myself or believe that the lifestyle so often promoted by GLBT activists is a good moral choice, but when I go driving around and see the things which are available for entertainment - I could go to a bar and drink, and if I had the mind to, go to a bar where there were women in various stages of undress, all the way down to nude. I could pay to watch movies with extreme violence, or if that was not good enough, the web offers films of all kinds of real violence, up to real killings. And then there are casinos, where a hard-working man can ruin his life in one night if he’s stupid enough, and all sorts of similar temptations. But that’s America, liberty and pursuit of happiness assured, even if that pursuit destroys your life and soul.
Don’t think I’m arguing to take that freedom away, though. Making the U.S. a prison where you are compelled to do the right thing is useless, and more than a little hypocritical, since some people are always in position to do as they please, and in any case, forcing people to do the right thing when they don’t want to, does nothing to make them desire virtue. Sharia does not understand this, and the imposition of brutal punishment for effectively trivial offenses and personal choices is the mark of evil. even the strictest ‘God hates homosexuality’ ranter I know, stops short of wanting them dead, but Sharia would kill them quick as the Mullahs could find them. And facing that fact might wake up a lot of Christians. The differences between believers and followers of the Messiah Jesus quickly dissolve when we see real evil. Not Islam, but the perverted message of Jihad which thinks to take over the world. The ‘Caliphate’ they desire must be opposed, not because it is Muslim but because it serves death instead of life, fear instead of hope, and terror instead of understanding. The tools identify the spirit behind the mask. And if there is any good to such a vision, it is that we can quickly identify the people who are just like us where it really counts, and put away some of the things which have only led to factions and bickering in the past.
Saturday, February 18, 2006
Friday, February 17, 2006
The Deadly Song Of Fascism
[z]
The Jihadists are insane. Seriously. Not in a clinical sense, necessarily, but in any pragmatic review of the facts their cause must be regarded as uniquely ill-suited to their goals. Yet, the statements by such men as Iran’s Presidentr Ahmadinejad carry the evidence that they mean to win. And the election of terrorist groups like Hamas to leadership of the Palestinian Authority also play that same two-edged game, running against reason by supporting leaders they know the world at large will not respect, but putting the hopes of millions behind such thugs all the same. We should be uneasy when facing such evidence of insanity, especially knowing the history of such behavior.
Fortunately, there is also a bright side to such madness. The Jihadists have essentially locked in the philosophy and methods of Fascism, which makes them predictable to a degree, and which reminds me of a fatal flaw in their plans.
Rage.
Rage is a powerful emotion, and the Nazis rode it. They used it to gain seats in the German government, then to blame the Communists for the Reichstag fire, then to support preparations for the invasions of Austria, then Czechoslovakia (we only want ‘living room’, promised Der FruitLoop ) and finally Poland before the West came to its belated sense. Rage whipped the troops into a frenzy, especially the Stormtroopers (yes Virginia, there were Stormtroopers before ‘Star Wars’), and the ‘blitzkrieg’.
But rage runs out, and is ultimately no match for a hard resolve. The Nazis could not finish the job in Russia, and never even crossed the English Channel to roll the dice against Churchill. And this was no one-time blunder. Long ago, the early Muslims raged across the Middle East and into Europe, finally being stopped at Poitiers in 732. Yes folks, Europe was saved from the Jihadists in 732 by the French army.
Rage also ran out for the Hun, whose armies were unstoppable until they simply tired of always fighting, and stopped to enjoy what they had. Contentment drains rage, as does doubt. Many empires have slowed down and stopped because their subjects began to doubt the purpose of their conquest. Even Rome could not spur the legions in simply because there was more land and more people out there.
Also, as I have noted before, Islam has a serious problem with its Jihad. In the seventh and eighth centuries, the Jihadists enjoyed a culture which was as technologically advanced as any on the globe, and a religious doctrine which was comparatively honest. Not so now, where the Jihadists face weaponry and orders of battle against which they literally cannot prevail without hope of Divine intervention. That divine intervention is less likely than they believe, because the Jihadists’ version of Sharia is corrupt, manipulated by Mullahs in every situation where it serves them to change the practice. Stoning a woman to death for showing her face may feed the rage of some of the men, but others will wonder where the Mercy and Compassion of Allah, so often written of in the Quran, is to be found, where even a minor indiscretion is brutally treated, and where the powerful can replace traditional law with personal interpretations. This is one reason why so few Muslims ran to support the Taliban in Afghanistan, or to prop up Saddam’s regime; these men were apostates in actual fact, and to my mind many Muslims view a Jihad of conquest in much the same light. Not that many will protest in the street about it, but there is not the support for the campaign that the Jihadists envision, and so if they move to take over other nations, the Jihadists will certainly overstep their mark. As heavy as the price will be to stop such men, it is nonetheless a comfort to know this fact.
The Jihadists are insane. Seriously. Not in a clinical sense, necessarily, but in any pragmatic review of the facts their cause must be regarded as uniquely ill-suited to their goals. Yet, the statements by such men as Iran’s Presidentr Ahmadinejad carry the evidence that they mean to win. And the election of terrorist groups like Hamas to leadership of the Palestinian Authority also play that same two-edged game, running against reason by supporting leaders they know the world at large will not respect, but putting the hopes of millions behind such thugs all the same. We should be uneasy when facing such evidence of insanity, especially knowing the history of such behavior.
Fortunately, there is also a bright side to such madness. The Jihadists have essentially locked in the philosophy and methods of Fascism, which makes them predictable to a degree, and which reminds me of a fatal flaw in their plans.
Rage.
Rage is a powerful emotion, and the Nazis rode it. They used it to gain seats in the German government, then to blame the Communists for the Reichstag fire, then to support preparations for the invasions of Austria, then Czechoslovakia (we only want ‘living room’, promised Der FruitLoop ) and finally Poland before the West came to its belated sense. Rage whipped the troops into a frenzy, especially the Stormtroopers (yes Virginia, there were Stormtroopers before ‘Star Wars’), and the ‘blitzkrieg’.
But rage runs out, and is ultimately no match for a hard resolve. The Nazis could not finish the job in Russia, and never even crossed the English Channel to roll the dice against Churchill. And this was no one-time blunder. Long ago, the early Muslims raged across the Middle East and into Europe, finally being stopped at Poitiers in 732. Yes folks, Europe was saved from the Jihadists in 732 by the French army.
Rage also ran out for the Hun, whose armies were unstoppable until they simply tired of always fighting, and stopped to enjoy what they had. Contentment drains rage, as does doubt. Many empires have slowed down and stopped because their subjects began to doubt the purpose of their conquest. Even Rome could not spur the legions in simply because there was more land and more people out there.
Also, as I have noted before, Islam has a serious problem with its Jihad. In the seventh and eighth centuries, the Jihadists enjoyed a culture which was as technologically advanced as any on the globe, and a religious doctrine which was comparatively honest. Not so now, where the Jihadists face weaponry and orders of battle against which they literally cannot prevail without hope of Divine intervention. That divine intervention is less likely than they believe, because the Jihadists’ version of Sharia is corrupt, manipulated by Mullahs in every situation where it serves them to change the practice. Stoning a woman to death for showing her face may feed the rage of some of the men, but others will wonder where the Mercy and Compassion of Allah, so often written of in the Quran, is to be found, where even a minor indiscretion is brutally treated, and where the powerful can replace traditional law with personal interpretations. This is one reason why so few Muslims ran to support the Taliban in Afghanistan, or to prop up Saddam’s regime; these men were apostates in actual fact, and to my mind many Muslims view a Jihad of conquest in much the same light. Not that many will protest in the street about it, but there is not the support for the campaign that the Jihadists envision, and so if they move to take over other nations, the Jihadists will certainly overstep their mark. As heavy as the price will be to stop such men, it is nonetheless a comfort to know this fact.
Thursday, February 16, 2006
What Will Iran Do?
[~~]
Earlier this week, I suggested that the United States might do well to remind Iran and it’s Jihadist puppetmasters, that the US possesses both the means and the will to totally eradicate their nation from the planet, and to destroy every “holy” site known to Islam. But in actual fact, that is not really necessary; it only needs saying that Israel also has that same capacity.
Somewhere after the Six-Day War in 1967, acquiring nuclear weapons became a top priority for Israel, as the government believed the survival of their nation depended on that ability to deter invasion. And it’s worked; despite continuing rabid hatred against Jews and many acts of violence, no nation has attempted to invade Israel, because of Israel’s nuclear capability. This needs to be understood, because Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons stands as both a motivation for an Islamic nation to also acquire nukes, and as an effective restraint on Jihadist actions.
A lot of people seem to have this mental image of those nations with nuclear weapons as some kind of exclusive club; the press has often mentioned the “Nuclear Club”, as if the US and the old USSR sent officers to play golf together and discuss polo scores, instead of practicing the immolation of their enemy. But in fact, a prime reason for many members of the “club” for joining, was the fear or hatred of an enemy which had or was pursuing a nuclear bomb. And nations have discovered that acquiring nuclear capability was not, in fact, the peace of mind they hoped to find. In Israel’s case, for instance, the desire of so many Islamist regimes to destroy them has hardly abated because Israel has nukes. And the ability to destroy large cities has not prevented individuals and small groups from committing terrorist acts within Israel’s borders. Also, as a nation equipped with nuclear weapons and significant delivery systems, Israel finds that every other nuclear-armed nation has an eye on their actions – and quite possibly a few missiles aimed at them. I imagine that Iran is likely to be quite surprised by the reality of having nuclear weapons, as opposed to what they imagine. But I also imagine that allowing Iran to actually achieve that level of capacity is quite out of the question.
I also mentioned, earlier this week, that Ahmadinejad has probably considered the tactics of Saddam Hussein in his calculations. Certainly the mullahs who put him in office have done so, but quite possibly they have neglected to look far enough back in history to consider the matter in proper context. I am referring not only to the resolve of Ronald Reagan, whom the Jihadists still do not understand, but the 1981 raid on Osirak.
To this day, the official version of the air raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak is suspiciously thin on detail and curiously coincidental in its assumptions. More than a few writers have speculated, though with little corroboration from American and Soviet authorities, that the situation constituted a sufficient provocation that collaboration between arch-enemies was the most prudent course. The most reasonable theory which I have heard, is that the Soviet Union provided HUMINT, the US provided satellite data, and the Israelis did the heavy lifting, sending in a squadron of specially-equipped F-16s to attack the Osirak Nuclear reactor. An interesting situation existed – a militant Middle East leader, speaking in angry tones, attempting to quickly gain access to a nuclear bomb. Sound familiar?
Of course, the likelihood that Israel would run another mission, this time to attack Iran, is on a low level of probability, for a number of reasons. My personal favorite method, if I had to choose and I thought most options were equally feasible, would be the ‘accidental’ meltdown of a major Iranian reactor. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, and if done right could not only cause concern within the Iranian regime about the feasibility of the enrichment program, but bring serious public pressure against the militarization of the nuclear reactors. Never forget, the 1979 Revolution against the Shah was fueled by a popular uprising, and every Mullah since Khomeini has found it necessary to continue the appearance of listening to the people, so a sudden discontent among the average Farsi speaker is something the Mullahs would have to deal with. Kind of a secret weapon, that. Look what happened in Lebanon when Syria suddenly had tens of thousands of angry protestors, just a wee bit upset because someone in Assad’s family had their leader killed. It can happen anywhere, and oligarchies are singularly ill-equipped to address such things; they will almost necessarily have to retreat, unless they put down the uprising brutally, in which case the possibility of counter-revolution goes way, way up in the long run.
Another problem for Iran is one thing I mentioned very early on – not everyone in the military or among the young, approves of what the Mullahs in Teheran are doing. This means that, however unlikely it seems, the possibility that a finished nuclear bomb could be hijacked by forces hostile to the regime. If that happens, all bets are off and the stakes go up very quickly. The possibility of military intervention, to prevent something far worse, is a real contingency, and I suspect a game or two has already been played out to see how to handle such a scenario.
But skip ahead to the meat of the question: Suppose Iran actually gets a nuke, or has one? What do they do with it? Ahmadinejad is a very angry man in his speeches, but does he really believe he can destroy the United States or Israel? Certainly not with one nuke, or even a small stockpile. If Ahmadinajad wanted, for example, to destroy Israel with a nuclear attack, he would need at least ten nuclear weapons of better than 100kt potency, and a dependable delivery system. At the moment, Iran lacks even one of the three traditional arms of a nuclear strike capability; missiles, bombers, subs. Oh yes, Iran has all those things, but ‘dependable’ they are not. The missiles Iran has are either short-range, or they are effectively Scud variants, with CEP far beyond even the ball-park accuracy needed for nukes. The Iranian idea of a bomber is little better than target practice for the IDF (the story of Iran’s desperate attempt to maintain and repair the F-14s left after the Americans fled Iran is very funny, but also speaks volumes about the complete lack of support for any sort of high-technology air force), and Iran’s subs are noisy and slow, with effectively no confidence that they could be made missile platforms. That leaves Iran with an old favorite – the terrorist infiltration bomb. The problem there is, Iran cannot coordinate the kinds of simultaneous strikes necessary to decapitate the Israeli response – and unlike most nations, Israel has never wavered about what it would do in response to a nuclear attack, no matter who was in office.
So, maybe the U.S.? Certainly Iran has reason to hope for good results if it strikes while a Clinton, a Gore, or a Kerry is in the White House. But that would amount to short-term political gain, and a general feel-good condition for terrorists everywhere, such as the period from 1994 to 1999 offered. But it is difficult to imagine a terrorist nuclear bomb not getting the response it earns, especially given the improved ability of the US to sort out the culprit. While Ahmadinejad may hope for it, I don’t see the “destruction” of the United States by Iran.
This explains the stance taken by the French, because the more I look at it, the more likely Iran is to strike Paris. The Jihadists clearly would like to make gains in Europe, and the best way to do that (they believe) would be to destabilize a major European government. Russia is out of the question; too big to topple, and the Russian Mafia would become a dangerous enemy. Poland and Italy and England have shown far too much resolve and spirit for the Jihadists to believe they could win there, but France? A much different story, and with a long history of capitulation to back up the impressions given by the current Franco regime. I am not trying to insult France; any serious examination of France shows the prowess and courage of the Resistance and the French Foreign Legion, but must also reveal the complete lack of principles in international responsibility. This is a weakness at the core of the French identity, which the Jihadists have certainly identified and are targeting, as the recent riots demonstrate. France is now forced to come to some difficult terms, or face a long and difficult conflict with a merciless enemy. In either case the public confidence will be tested, and in such a condition a devastating blow from a terrorist group using a nuclear bomb provided by Iran could lead to a complete dissolution of the French infrastructure. In the ensuing chaos one of two conditions is extremely likely – either France would fail to respond with sufficient military force, or would over-react, using its own nuclear arsenal in an attack which would set off a conflict they could not well survive. The invasion of France itself by an Iran/Syria alliance is not unlikely in such a situation, and this would provoke some hard decisions in Washington and Tel Aviv.
But back to Israel. Israel remains the key to everything, because Iran fears Israel, as they should. Because Israel is close enough to Iran, that on the one hand it will take no action without careful consideration of the consequences, but on the other hand Israel will allow no adventures which endanger its survival. If Iran knows this, they will not move to a more active role in their campaign against Central and Western Europe until they are satisfied they will not be attacked by Israel. If they do not, then there is a war coming, which will be between the proxies of Iran and Israel. America and China will essentially broker that war, if it falls that way.
Earlier this week, I suggested that the United States might do well to remind Iran and it’s Jihadist puppetmasters, that the US possesses both the means and the will to totally eradicate their nation from the planet, and to destroy every “holy” site known to Islam. But in actual fact, that is not really necessary; it only needs saying that Israel also has that same capacity.
Somewhere after the Six-Day War in 1967, acquiring nuclear weapons became a top priority for Israel, as the government believed the survival of their nation depended on that ability to deter invasion. And it’s worked; despite continuing rabid hatred against Jews and many acts of violence, no nation has attempted to invade Israel, because of Israel’s nuclear capability. This needs to be understood, because Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons stands as both a motivation for an Islamic nation to also acquire nukes, and as an effective restraint on Jihadist actions.
A lot of people seem to have this mental image of those nations with nuclear weapons as some kind of exclusive club; the press has often mentioned the “Nuclear Club”, as if the US and the old USSR sent officers to play golf together and discuss polo scores, instead of practicing the immolation of their enemy. But in fact, a prime reason for many members of the “club” for joining, was the fear or hatred of an enemy which had or was pursuing a nuclear bomb. And nations have discovered that acquiring nuclear capability was not, in fact, the peace of mind they hoped to find. In Israel’s case, for instance, the desire of so many Islamist regimes to destroy them has hardly abated because Israel has nukes. And the ability to destroy large cities has not prevented individuals and small groups from committing terrorist acts within Israel’s borders. Also, as a nation equipped with nuclear weapons and significant delivery systems, Israel finds that every other nuclear-armed nation has an eye on their actions – and quite possibly a few missiles aimed at them. I imagine that Iran is likely to be quite surprised by the reality of having nuclear weapons, as opposed to what they imagine. But I also imagine that allowing Iran to actually achieve that level of capacity is quite out of the question.
I also mentioned, earlier this week, that Ahmadinejad has probably considered the tactics of Saddam Hussein in his calculations. Certainly the mullahs who put him in office have done so, but quite possibly they have neglected to look far enough back in history to consider the matter in proper context. I am referring not only to the resolve of Ronald Reagan, whom the Jihadists still do not understand, but the 1981 raid on Osirak.
To this day, the official version of the air raid on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak is suspiciously thin on detail and curiously coincidental in its assumptions. More than a few writers have speculated, though with little corroboration from American and Soviet authorities, that the situation constituted a sufficient provocation that collaboration between arch-enemies was the most prudent course. The most reasonable theory which I have heard, is that the Soviet Union provided HUMINT, the US provided satellite data, and the Israelis did the heavy lifting, sending in a squadron of specially-equipped F-16s to attack the Osirak Nuclear reactor. An interesting situation existed – a militant Middle East leader, speaking in angry tones, attempting to quickly gain access to a nuclear bomb. Sound familiar?
Of course, the likelihood that Israel would run another mission, this time to attack Iran, is on a low level of probability, for a number of reasons. My personal favorite method, if I had to choose and I thought most options were equally feasible, would be the ‘accidental’ meltdown of a major Iranian reactor. This could be accomplished in a number of ways, and if done right could not only cause concern within the Iranian regime about the feasibility of the enrichment program, but bring serious public pressure against the militarization of the nuclear reactors. Never forget, the 1979 Revolution against the Shah was fueled by a popular uprising, and every Mullah since Khomeini has found it necessary to continue the appearance of listening to the people, so a sudden discontent among the average Farsi speaker is something the Mullahs would have to deal with. Kind of a secret weapon, that. Look what happened in Lebanon when Syria suddenly had tens of thousands of angry protestors, just a wee bit upset because someone in Assad’s family had their leader killed. It can happen anywhere, and oligarchies are singularly ill-equipped to address such things; they will almost necessarily have to retreat, unless they put down the uprising brutally, in which case the possibility of counter-revolution goes way, way up in the long run.
Another problem for Iran is one thing I mentioned very early on – not everyone in the military or among the young, approves of what the Mullahs in Teheran are doing. This means that, however unlikely it seems, the possibility that a finished nuclear bomb could be hijacked by forces hostile to the regime. If that happens, all bets are off and the stakes go up very quickly. The possibility of military intervention, to prevent something far worse, is a real contingency, and I suspect a game or two has already been played out to see how to handle such a scenario.
But skip ahead to the meat of the question: Suppose Iran actually gets a nuke, or has one? What do they do with it? Ahmadinejad is a very angry man in his speeches, but does he really believe he can destroy the United States or Israel? Certainly not with one nuke, or even a small stockpile. If Ahmadinajad wanted, for example, to destroy Israel with a nuclear attack, he would need at least ten nuclear weapons of better than 100kt potency, and a dependable delivery system. At the moment, Iran lacks even one of the three traditional arms of a nuclear strike capability; missiles, bombers, subs. Oh yes, Iran has all those things, but ‘dependable’ they are not. The missiles Iran has are either short-range, or they are effectively Scud variants, with CEP far beyond even the ball-park accuracy needed for nukes. The Iranian idea of a bomber is little better than target practice for the IDF (the story of Iran’s desperate attempt to maintain and repair the F-14s left after the Americans fled Iran is very funny, but also speaks volumes about the complete lack of support for any sort of high-technology air force), and Iran’s subs are noisy and slow, with effectively no confidence that they could be made missile platforms. That leaves Iran with an old favorite – the terrorist infiltration bomb. The problem there is, Iran cannot coordinate the kinds of simultaneous strikes necessary to decapitate the Israeli response – and unlike most nations, Israel has never wavered about what it would do in response to a nuclear attack, no matter who was in office.
So, maybe the U.S.? Certainly Iran has reason to hope for good results if it strikes while a Clinton, a Gore, or a Kerry is in the White House. But that would amount to short-term political gain, and a general feel-good condition for terrorists everywhere, such as the period from 1994 to 1999 offered. But it is difficult to imagine a terrorist nuclear bomb not getting the response it earns, especially given the improved ability of the US to sort out the culprit. While Ahmadinejad may hope for it, I don’t see the “destruction” of the United States by Iran.
This explains the stance taken by the French, because the more I look at it, the more likely Iran is to strike Paris. The Jihadists clearly would like to make gains in Europe, and the best way to do that (they believe) would be to destabilize a major European government. Russia is out of the question; too big to topple, and the Russian Mafia would become a dangerous enemy. Poland and Italy and England have shown far too much resolve and spirit for the Jihadists to believe they could win there, but France? A much different story, and with a long history of capitulation to back up the impressions given by the current Franco regime. I am not trying to insult France; any serious examination of France shows the prowess and courage of the Resistance and the French Foreign Legion, but must also reveal the complete lack of principles in international responsibility. This is a weakness at the core of the French identity, which the Jihadists have certainly identified and are targeting, as the recent riots demonstrate. France is now forced to come to some difficult terms, or face a long and difficult conflict with a merciless enemy. In either case the public confidence will be tested, and in such a condition a devastating blow from a terrorist group using a nuclear bomb provided by Iran could lead to a complete dissolution of the French infrastructure. In the ensuing chaos one of two conditions is extremely likely – either France would fail to respond with sufficient military force, or would over-react, using its own nuclear arsenal in an attack which would set off a conflict they could not well survive. The invasion of France itself by an Iran/Syria alliance is not unlikely in such a situation, and this would provoke some hard decisions in Washington and Tel Aviv.
But back to Israel. Israel remains the key to everything, because Iran fears Israel, as they should. Because Israel is close enough to Iran, that on the one hand it will take no action without careful consideration of the consequences, but on the other hand Israel will allow no adventures which endanger its survival. If Iran knows this, they will not move to a more active role in their campaign against Central and Western Europe until they are satisfied they will not be attacked by Israel. If they do not, then there is a war coming, which will be between the proxies of Iran and Israel. America and China will essentially broker that war, if it falls that way.
Wednesday, February 15, 2006
More Thoughts On War
[o]
Yesterday, I wrote that the United States should make clear to Iran and like-minded regimes, that the full military might of the United States is sufficient to literally obliterate any nation in the Middle East, an option which no other nation possesses. Part of that article was a simple emotional vent, a certain frustration that our State Department cannot express the clear intentions and requirements of American foreign policy and the applied Doctrine of the Administration. And I am forced to concede that the effectiveness of any initiative or policy directed by the White House runs into dilution and opposition from a host of petulant egos and rebellious malcontents. In peacetime this is bad enough, but in war it is to my mind nothing short of seditious. Unfortunately, as things stand this concern must be set aside for another time, with the hope that the reforms intended by Goss, Negroponte, and Rice will improve the conditions under which we must fight.
Returning to the question of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, however, I believe our best course is to explore the matter with an open mind to all the possibilities and the most effective means to preventing the most undesirable events. Among the possibilities, must be considered the chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad understands the West well enough to lay a trap for us, or at least that he plans to use our various factions against each other. Certainly we have fallen for such tactics often enough, that such an effort would seem reasonable.
But to the essentials. First off, we can start by separating the question into whether Iran does or does not already have the Bomb. A great many people seem to have forgotten that Iran has had a large amount of weapons-grade uranium on hand, ironically ever since we started to invade Iraq in 2003, but I will leave off that interesting speculation for another time. The second question surrounds why Ahmadinejad would make the statements he has, in the light of either already having the Bomb, or not having it. An object lesson for this condition can be found by studying the recent decisions by Saddam Hussein.
Bearing in mind that tyrants are not known for peer review or serious consideration of their judgment, it is still interesting to me, to examine the motivation behind Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with the terms of the 1991 Cease-fire. After all, acting as if you have WMD when you know the United States is particularly sensitive to threats from terrorists is just about as stupid as bathing in beef broth and then dancing in front of a pack of pit bulls, and the reaction is also pretty much a foregone conclusion. And yet there he was, the Butcher in Baghdad acting as if he was in complete control of the situation. From his transmissions and recorded statements, Saddam kept up the act almost as long as Baghdad Bob did.
Well, that is until he did his ‘dictator in a hole' routine, the international signal for ‘coward caught running away from justice’. My point is, that Ahmadinejad seems to have caught the same fever, believing that if he can just not be as stupid as Saddam, he can beat the West at the game of brinksmanship. In his eyes, Saddam made the mistake of trying his run without Islam behind him, and even then he almost got away. To Ahmadinejad, having Allah at your back means you can’t lose. And yes, I think he really believes that.
Since I am one of those who believes Iran already has a nuclear bomb, I will start by examining what if Iran does not yet possess a nuclear bomb. In such a case, a person might reasonably ask why Ahmadinejad is raising such a ruckus. One must conclude either that the President of Iran has a more subtle method in mind, or else he is simply stupid beyond what we normally experience from elected officials. Of course, it must be recognized that in the light of Al Gore’s recent rhetorical attack on his own homeland, presumably for reasons involving a hefty honorarium and a bitterly wounded pride, that Ahmadinejad seems almost reasonable in implying that getting a nuke means he would use it on America and or Israel, as if a bomb or two could rid him of his two most enduring enemies.
Of course, if one presumes that Iran has already constructed such a bomb, Ahmadinejad could be testing the waters of regional opinion to see what would happen when he tests the thing. Because that is the next stage of the process; whether or not he has the bomb, Ahmadinejad’s science guys are sure to have told him that the weapon must be tested, for yield and fallout and all the things a Jihadist needs to know.
It should be understood, that for a great many years Muslims had no taste for Chemical Weapons, to say nothing of Bio-weapons of Nuclear bombs. This is because Islam requires a ritual cleanliness in all matters of importance. Sharia, for example, is quite strict about how to treat a body for burial and interment . It speaks to just how much the world has changed, that a Muslim should not only be willing to destroy his body in the pursuit of Jihad, but that such men should be praised for it. Aside from the little moral question of murdering innocents en masse, the sacrifice of one’s body to a condition unsuitable for traditional burial must either mean that the deceased was an abomination to Allah and a great fool besides, or else a hero willing to accept the disgrace of unclean demise for the greater Jihad. While opinions change over time, it should be understood that an unclean death is still a great taboo for many Muslims.
Of course, the Jihadist has no qualms about causing others to die an unclean death, and so it suits the men so willing to hijack the Will of Allah to their own ends, to hope for and plot a nasty demise for their enemies. And yet, if WMD were the ends to their objective, one must wonder why the Jihadists did not simply use some of the available Bio-weapons they had developed, or some of the Chemical weapons available? In a word – cowardice. For the use of any WMD will bring a response. Knowing this, the Jihadists hide their intent, greatly preferring a battle where their victim cannot strike back, and so they settle for women, children, innocent passersby where they may find them, while they hope for a lucky break, a moment of weakness on our side, or a lapse in attention.
It should be noted that the Jihadists are often described as ‘Islamo-Fascists’, and there is ground for that comparison. For one thing, religion is usually an intensely personal practice and a path to peace for many people, but Fascism is about death – the adoration of murder, and the bloody path to power through the blood of your enemies. It hardly matters whether the present Jihadists are echoing the mantra of the Nazis, or the Nazis echoed the Hashashin so many years before, they are kindred spirits – demons all.
And so, just as many ritualist Muslims find themselves praying to Allah by way of a rock in Mecca, the Fascist Muslims find themselves praying for their victory by way of another sort of idol – the talisman of death embodied in a nuclear weapon, the quintessential peak of technology, violence, purity of hatred and racism contained in an elegant case, as if a terrible genie waiting to be unleashed upon the infidel.
Yet the Jihadists pause – because the Americans have such genies as well – and so also do the Israelis. And there are many of those genies, and the Americans know so very, very much about war, and when roused they are fierce beyond the ability of any nation to restrain. And so Ahmadenijad watches how we react and speak among ourselves, trusting to boredom and affluence to blunt the edge of our weapons and our vigilance, and his speeches are consequently made to inflame passion, hoping it will die all the quicker when there is no immediate attack. Enough times with the call, and he will both embolden his troops and lull the West, thinks Ahmadenijad. Time and our counsel will tell whether this evil man is clever, or a great fool doomed by his pride.
Yesterday, I wrote that the United States should make clear to Iran and like-minded regimes, that the full military might of the United States is sufficient to literally obliterate any nation in the Middle East, an option which no other nation possesses. Part of that article was a simple emotional vent, a certain frustration that our State Department cannot express the clear intentions and requirements of American foreign policy and the applied Doctrine of the Administration. And I am forced to concede that the effectiveness of any initiative or policy directed by the White House runs into dilution and opposition from a host of petulant egos and rebellious malcontents. In peacetime this is bad enough, but in war it is to my mind nothing short of seditious. Unfortunately, as things stand this concern must be set aside for another time, with the hope that the reforms intended by Goss, Negroponte, and Rice will improve the conditions under which we must fight.
Returning to the question of a possible Iranian nuclear weapon, however, I believe our best course is to explore the matter with an open mind to all the possibilities and the most effective means to preventing the most undesirable events. Among the possibilities, must be considered the chance that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad understands the West well enough to lay a trap for us, or at least that he plans to use our various factions against each other. Certainly we have fallen for such tactics often enough, that such an effort would seem reasonable.
But to the essentials. First off, we can start by separating the question into whether Iran does or does not already have the Bomb. A great many people seem to have forgotten that Iran has had a large amount of weapons-grade uranium on hand, ironically ever since we started to invade Iraq in 2003, but I will leave off that interesting speculation for another time. The second question surrounds why Ahmadinejad would make the statements he has, in the light of either already having the Bomb, or not having it. An object lesson for this condition can be found by studying the recent decisions by Saddam Hussein.
Bearing in mind that tyrants are not known for peer review or serious consideration of their judgment, it is still interesting to me, to examine the motivation behind Hussein’s refusal to cooperate with the terms of the 1991 Cease-fire. After all, acting as if you have WMD when you know the United States is particularly sensitive to threats from terrorists is just about as stupid as bathing in beef broth and then dancing in front of a pack of pit bulls, and the reaction is also pretty much a foregone conclusion. And yet there he was, the Butcher in Baghdad acting as if he was in complete control of the situation. From his transmissions and recorded statements, Saddam kept up the act almost as long as Baghdad Bob did.
Well, that is until he did his ‘dictator in a hole' routine, the international signal for ‘coward caught running away from justice’. My point is, that Ahmadinejad seems to have caught the same fever, believing that if he can just not be as stupid as Saddam, he can beat the West at the game of brinksmanship. In his eyes, Saddam made the mistake of trying his run without Islam behind him, and even then he almost got away. To Ahmadinejad, having Allah at your back means you can’t lose. And yes, I think he really believes that.
Since I am one of those who believes Iran already has a nuclear bomb, I will start by examining what if Iran does not yet possess a nuclear bomb. In such a case, a person might reasonably ask why Ahmadinejad is raising such a ruckus. One must conclude either that the President of Iran has a more subtle method in mind, or else he is simply stupid beyond what we normally experience from elected officials. Of course, it must be recognized that in the light of Al Gore’s recent rhetorical attack on his own homeland, presumably for reasons involving a hefty honorarium and a bitterly wounded pride, that Ahmadinejad seems almost reasonable in implying that getting a nuke means he would use it on America and or Israel, as if a bomb or two could rid him of his two most enduring enemies.
Of course, if one presumes that Iran has already constructed such a bomb, Ahmadinejad could be testing the waters of regional opinion to see what would happen when he tests the thing. Because that is the next stage of the process; whether or not he has the bomb, Ahmadinejad’s science guys are sure to have told him that the weapon must be tested, for yield and fallout and all the things a Jihadist needs to know.
It should be understood, that for a great many years Muslims had no taste for Chemical Weapons, to say nothing of Bio-weapons of Nuclear bombs. This is because Islam requires a ritual cleanliness in all matters of importance. Sharia, for example, is quite strict about how to treat a body for burial and interment . It speaks to just how much the world has changed, that a Muslim should not only be willing to destroy his body in the pursuit of Jihad, but that such men should be praised for it. Aside from the little moral question of murdering innocents en masse, the sacrifice of one’s body to a condition unsuitable for traditional burial must either mean that the deceased was an abomination to Allah and a great fool besides, or else a hero willing to accept the disgrace of unclean demise for the greater Jihad. While opinions change over time, it should be understood that an unclean death is still a great taboo for many Muslims.
Of course, the Jihadist has no qualms about causing others to die an unclean death, and so it suits the men so willing to hijack the Will of Allah to their own ends, to hope for and plot a nasty demise for their enemies. And yet, if WMD were the ends to their objective, one must wonder why the Jihadists did not simply use some of the available Bio-weapons they had developed, or some of the Chemical weapons available? In a word – cowardice. For the use of any WMD will bring a response. Knowing this, the Jihadists hide their intent, greatly preferring a battle where their victim cannot strike back, and so they settle for women, children, innocent passersby where they may find them, while they hope for a lucky break, a moment of weakness on our side, or a lapse in attention.
It should be noted that the Jihadists are often described as ‘Islamo-Fascists’, and there is ground for that comparison. For one thing, religion is usually an intensely personal practice and a path to peace for many people, but Fascism is about death – the adoration of murder, and the bloody path to power through the blood of your enemies. It hardly matters whether the present Jihadists are echoing the mantra of the Nazis, or the Nazis echoed the Hashashin so many years before, they are kindred spirits – demons all.
And so, just as many ritualist Muslims find themselves praying to Allah by way of a rock in Mecca, the Fascist Muslims find themselves praying for their victory by way of another sort of idol – the talisman of death embodied in a nuclear weapon, the quintessential peak of technology, violence, purity of hatred and racism contained in an elegant case, as if a terrible genie waiting to be unleashed upon the infidel.
Yet the Jihadists pause – because the Americans have such genies as well – and so also do the Israelis. And there are many of those genies, and the Americans know so very, very much about war, and when roused they are fierce beyond the ability of any nation to restrain. And so Ahmadenijad watches how we react and speak among ourselves, trusting to boredom and affluence to blunt the edge of our weapons and our vigilance, and his speeches are consequently made to inflame passion, hoping it will die all the quicker when there is no immediate attack. Enough times with the call, and he will both embolden his troops and lull the West, thinks Ahmadenijad. Time and our counsel will tell whether this evil man is clever, or a great fool doomed by his pride.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Valentine’s Day? Then It’s Time To Talk About Nuclear War Again
.*.
I hate Valentine’ Day. Not the day so much, as all the false expectations imposed on us. After all, if you really love her, you will blow at least a couple pay checks on trinkets and baubles to impress her, as if the love of your life should be considered simply a more expensive call girl. That is what the jewelers and florists and restauranteurs demand, after all – only a cad would forego financial ruin when he can – momentarily at least – sate his companion’s material appetite and personal ego. But the expectations have been there so long, that young men as early as preschool are told what to do, and how. It’s beyond gauche you see, because now it’s tradition.
There are political equivalents, of course, and one of those shows up whenever nuclear war is considered. You see, one of the reasons we are so different in resolve from the generation willing to do whatever was needed to defeat the Fascists from Germany and Japan and Italy, was that the resolve extended all the way to using nuclear weapons. No regrets, pal. You didn’t want Hiroshima vaporized, maybe you should have reconsidered your treatment of prisoners during the Bataan Death March. Unhappy that Nagasaki became flatter than Nebraska in winter, maybe you shouldn’t have raped and/or murdered every civilian in a sizable portion of China. Uncle Sam might take a while, but he always delivers, brother, and so you might want to think about what you’re ordering in your package. We had only 2 bullets in that gun but we shot ‘em both, and made like we had plenty more. So the Emperor in Tokyo blinked, and more than a million people got to keep breathing because the damn war the Fascists started was ended by a bold use of a weapon of unparalleled devastation. Small wonder that just a couple years later, President Truman was able to bluff Josef Stalin out of Iran. Um, well, at least I think Truman was bluffing. He did have a stockpile of nukes by then, and a rather direct approach to addressing Soviet aggression.
Anyway, here we are in 2006, and we are still whining about nukes. The press and Hollywood are no help, not that anyone with a brain figured those low-lifes would be stand-up when the nation was at stake. George Clooney would sell the corpse of Patrick Henry if there was a movie deal in it for him, and everyone else out there in Havana West pretty much thinks the same way. I can only figure the few who have brains and love for their country, like Bruce Willis, only stay there on orders from Cheney, to report what America’s enemies are planning. Democrats have completely lost any sense of National Security in their leadership, and far too many “moderates” want to negotiate with the enemy, even when they admit that diplomacy will fail.
President Bush is doing the right things on the strategic level, and he’s listening to most of the right people and applying the right kinds of pressure, for the most part. But we cannot be shy about our big gun, especially since the enemy doesn’t have one yet. But even if the sheetheads out of Qum get themselves a nuke, that hardly means we can’t make clear that they are making things harder on themselves, not easier. A simple review of the basic facts explains the stone-cold reality:
· With the demise of the Soviet Union, the single most advanced nation in terms of the theoretical knowledge and practical application of nuclear warfare, is the United States. We are so advanced, second place does not exist in any realistic sense.
· The United States has more delivery systems and weapons scale selections than you can imagine. The US can choose to destroy part of a city, part of a country, or everything you know. If they get a nuke, Iran can destroy a city, maybe part of Israel if they build a stockpile and the missiles China sold them work as promised. Or maybe they can sneak in a bomb into a city like New York or Los Angeles, and hit the ‘Great Satan’ in a way which kills a lot of people, but does nothing to prevent America from a truly devastating response.
· Nuclear weapons are hardly immune to defenses or detection. The United States has been working for two generations and more to discover and defuse nuclear bombs, and no one knows as much as America about missile defense and nuclear detection.
If I called the shots, I would send an emissary to President Ahmadinejad, and speak “frankly”, as the diplo’s call it. Here would be my working text:
‘For more than half a century, the United States has respected the other members of the Nuclear Club, and since your country is intent on joining, let me say ‘welcome’. You now have, by virtue of the hostility and instability of your regime, the full respect, attention and operational focus of a nation which possesses upwards of twenty thousand nuclear weapons, and the practical knowledge of their use in scenario modeling and scaled retribution options.
You have expressed the desire, perhaps rhetorically, to remove the nations of Israel and/or the United States from existence. I tell you now, quite clearly, that we will not allow this potential to approach reality. If Iran pursues the eventual ability to hurt the United States, be advised that we hold the power to destroy Iran utterly, and to end Islam as you know it if this should be required.
The United States has never sought to utterly destroy any nation; even where we have occupied enemies in the past, we always restored them and brought them to economic health and stability. But we will never surrender to threats, and if our survival requires the end of another nation we will not hesitate to use that power, and restraint will not overrule self-defense.
If you attack America with a nuclear weapon, we will destroy you.
If you attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, we will destroy you.
If a terrorist nuclear weapon goes off in either Israel or America, we will presume from your statements that you directed the attack, and we will destroy you.
Congratulations, we respect you. Enough to have thousands of megatons aimed at everything you hold dear.
Oh, and happy Valentine’s Day.’
I hate Valentine’ Day. Not the day so much, as all the false expectations imposed on us. After all, if you really love her, you will blow at least a couple pay checks on trinkets and baubles to impress her, as if the love of your life should be considered simply a more expensive call girl. That is what the jewelers and florists and restauranteurs demand, after all – only a cad would forego financial ruin when he can – momentarily at least – sate his companion’s material appetite and personal ego. But the expectations have been there so long, that young men as early as preschool are told what to do, and how. It’s beyond gauche you see, because now it’s tradition.
There are political equivalents, of course, and one of those shows up whenever nuclear war is considered. You see, one of the reasons we are so different in resolve from the generation willing to do whatever was needed to defeat the Fascists from Germany and Japan and Italy, was that the resolve extended all the way to using nuclear weapons. No regrets, pal. You didn’t want Hiroshima vaporized, maybe you should have reconsidered your treatment of prisoners during the Bataan Death March. Unhappy that Nagasaki became flatter than Nebraska in winter, maybe you shouldn’t have raped and/or murdered every civilian in a sizable portion of China. Uncle Sam might take a while, but he always delivers, brother, and so you might want to think about what you’re ordering in your package. We had only 2 bullets in that gun but we shot ‘em both, and made like we had plenty more. So the Emperor in Tokyo blinked, and more than a million people got to keep breathing because the damn war the Fascists started was ended by a bold use of a weapon of unparalleled devastation. Small wonder that just a couple years later, President Truman was able to bluff Josef Stalin out of Iran. Um, well, at least I think Truman was bluffing. He did have a stockpile of nukes by then, and a rather direct approach to addressing Soviet aggression.
Anyway, here we are in 2006, and we are still whining about nukes. The press and Hollywood are no help, not that anyone with a brain figured those low-lifes would be stand-up when the nation was at stake. George Clooney would sell the corpse of Patrick Henry if there was a movie deal in it for him, and everyone else out there in Havana West pretty much thinks the same way. I can only figure the few who have brains and love for their country, like Bruce Willis, only stay there on orders from Cheney, to report what America’s enemies are planning. Democrats have completely lost any sense of National Security in their leadership, and far too many “moderates” want to negotiate with the enemy, even when they admit that diplomacy will fail.
President Bush is doing the right things on the strategic level, and he’s listening to most of the right people and applying the right kinds of pressure, for the most part. But we cannot be shy about our big gun, especially since the enemy doesn’t have one yet. But even if the sheetheads out of Qum get themselves a nuke, that hardly means we can’t make clear that they are making things harder on themselves, not easier. A simple review of the basic facts explains the stone-cold reality:
· With the demise of the Soviet Union, the single most advanced nation in terms of the theoretical knowledge and practical application of nuclear warfare, is the United States. We are so advanced, second place does not exist in any realistic sense.
· The United States has more delivery systems and weapons scale selections than you can imagine. The US can choose to destroy part of a city, part of a country, or everything you know. If they get a nuke, Iran can destroy a city, maybe part of Israel if they build a stockpile and the missiles China sold them work as promised. Or maybe they can sneak in a bomb into a city like New York or Los Angeles, and hit the ‘Great Satan’ in a way which kills a lot of people, but does nothing to prevent America from a truly devastating response.
· Nuclear weapons are hardly immune to defenses or detection. The United States has been working for two generations and more to discover and defuse nuclear bombs, and no one knows as much as America about missile defense and nuclear detection.
If I called the shots, I would send an emissary to President Ahmadinejad, and speak “frankly”, as the diplo’s call it. Here would be my working text:
‘For more than half a century, the United States has respected the other members of the Nuclear Club, and since your country is intent on joining, let me say ‘welcome’. You now have, by virtue of the hostility and instability of your regime, the full respect, attention and operational focus of a nation which possesses upwards of twenty thousand nuclear weapons, and the practical knowledge of their use in scenario modeling and scaled retribution options.
You have expressed the desire, perhaps rhetorically, to remove the nations of Israel and/or the United States from existence. I tell you now, quite clearly, that we will not allow this potential to approach reality. If Iran pursues the eventual ability to hurt the United States, be advised that we hold the power to destroy Iran utterly, and to end Islam as you know it if this should be required.
The United States has never sought to utterly destroy any nation; even where we have occupied enemies in the past, we always restored them and brought them to economic health and stability. But we will never surrender to threats, and if our survival requires the end of another nation we will not hesitate to use that power, and restraint will not overrule self-defense.
If you attack America with a nuclear weapon, we will destroy you.
If you attack Israel with a nuclear weapon, we will destroy you.
If a terrorist nuclear weapon goes off in either Israel or America, we will presume from your statements that you directed the attack, and we will destroy you.
Congratulations, we respect you. Enough to have thousands of megatons aimed at everything you hold dear.
Oh, and happy Valentine’s Day.’
Monday, February 13, 2006
The Sum Of All (Liberal) Fears
[ r ]
Well, I finally saw “Sum Of All Fears” Sunday night. I skipped it in theaters, since I heard the plot was redone to avoid offending our Jihadist friends. And brother, did that mess up the story! The original design was elegant; the reader could easily imagine the glee with which Jihadist terrorists would use an Israeli nuclear weapon made with American plutonium, on an American city in order to foment a devastating war between the United States and Russia, their two most hated enemies. The convenience of finding their weapon on Islamic soil also fit the theme well, and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of headlines knew about the Jihadists and their plans; since the movie was released by Hollywood in 2002, it would have been exceptionally timely as well.
But no, Hollywood chose a different path; a cowardly, weak, and stupid one. They had to make up a mythical cabal of worldwide neo-fascists, who appeared to have nothing to gain but to somehow avenge Der Fuhrer’s death by wiping out two of the nations most responsible for his demise, even though Europe post-fallout would hardly be a charming spot for the Fourth Reich. Never mind those facts, there’s a story to sell, and never mind that the story they chose was far less powerful than the original. Hollywood, once again, chose the road that was less controversial with their liberal friends, even though it produced a poor product, and less revenue than it should have made.
The box revenues for the four Tom Clancy movies released so far are as follows:
Hunt for Red October (1990) $200.5 Million worldwide
Patriot Games (1992) $178.1 Million worldwide
Clear and Present Danger (1994) $207.5 Million worldwide
Sum of All Fears (2002) $193.5 Million worldwide
Adjusted for inflation, however, in 2005 dollars those grosses become less balanced:
Hunt for Red October (1990) $340.66 Million worldwide
Patriot Games (1992) $277.76 Million worldwide
Clear and Present Danger (1994) $302.52 Million worldwide
Sum of All Fears (2002) $216.0 Million worldwide
(Inflation data source)
In comparable monies, the most recent film was the least successful of the four. Well, at least they managed to avoid making SOAF an action film about gay sheepherders, “Brokeback Mountain”, Oscar nominations or not, has only pulled in $97.6 Million worldwide, and does not appear to be gaining strength at the box office. For comparison, the much-snubbed ‘Narnia’ movie has already grabbed $511 Million at the box office.
Of course, it didn’t help that some 'genius' thought Ben Affleck would make a good Jack Ryan. Sorry, but Ben Affleck is such a poor actor, the only suitable roles for this guy would involve hair products, Canadians, the French, or over-priced skin care products. Affleck tries to look tough, but only manages a slightly constipated look, as though Richard Gere finally talked him into giving the gerbil treatment a try.
But maybe I shouldn’t be too hard on Hollywood. They’ve hard a hard time of it, if you look at their last few decades. We should have known it was coming, this hyper-sensitivity to avoid offending the truly evil. The French influence alone is telling. After all, when Hollywood decided to tell the story about heroin traffic into New York, they called it “The French Connection”. Then, realizing the French might be offended by a straight-action policemen, Hollywood mended fences by making Inspector Clouseau their new hero in “The Pink Panther”. Hollywood seems to have always copied the French, whether in matters of style and fashion, or an unhealthy infatuation with Socialism coupled with Narcissm, or in a peculiar eagerness to submit to thuggery; when the Mob finally began to lose its grip on Hollywood, in came the Culture Police, which demanded supremacy for those outcasts of Society, especially anyone versed in Moral Turpitude. If an act is noted in the Bible as a sin, Hollywood has featured it in film. That sort of thing for so many years can make it hard for a director to understand Reality as most of us understand the concept.
I have noticed that movies which hate America seldom do better outside the United States; indeed, quite the opposite. For whatever reason the ‘Rambo’ movies are still quite popular in Southeast Asia, and many films with strong Western values, like "Chariots of Fire", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "Saving Private Ryan", did just as well outside the United States as in, but Hollywood films which flop in the U.S. also flop outside it.
It seems if you want to make money in movies, you ought to make sure thoe story is told the way the audience wants it, and sorry Liberals, your version doesn't cut it.
Well, I finally saw “Sum Of All Fears” Sunday night. I skipped it in theaters, since I heard the plot was redone to avoid offending our Jihadist friends. And brother, did that mess up the story! The original design was elegant; the reader could easily imagine the glee with which Jihadist terrorists would use an Israeli nuclear weapon made with American plutonium, on an American city in order to foment a devastating war between the United States and Russia, their two most hated enemies. The convenience of finding their weapon on Islamic soil also fit the theme well, and anyone with even a cursory knowledge of headlines knew about the Jihadists and their plans; since the movie was released by Hollywood in 2002, it would have been exceptionally timely as well.
But no, Hollywood chose a different path; a cowardly, weak, and stupid one. They had to make up a mythical cabal of worldwide neo-fascists, who appeared to have nothing to gain but to somehow avenge Der Fuhrer’s death by wiping out two of the nations most responsible for his demise, even though Europe post-fallout would hardly be a charming spot for the Fourth Reich. Never mind those facts, there’s a story to sell, and never mind that the story they chose was far less powerful than the original. Hollywood, once again, chose the road that was less controversial with their liberal friends, even though it produced a poor product, and less revenue than it should have made.
The box revenues for the four Tom Clancy movies released so far are as follows:
Hunt for Red October (1990) $200.5 Million worldwide
Patriot Games (1992) $178.1 Million worldwide
Clear and Present Danger (1994) $207.5 Million worldwide
Sum of All Fears (2002) $193.5 Million worldwide
Adjusted for inflation, however, in 2005 dollars those grosses become less balanced:
Hunt for Red October (1990) $340.66 Million worldwide
Patriot Games (1992) $277.76 Million worldwide
Clear and Present Danger (1994) $302.52 Million worldwide
Sum of All Fears (2002) $216.0 Million worldwide
(Inflation data source)
In comparable monies, the most recent film was the least successful of the four. Well, at least they managed to avoid making SOAF an action film about gay sheepherders, “Brokeback Mountain”, Oscar nominations or not, has only pulled in $97.6 Million worldwide, and does not appear to be gaining strength at the box office. For comparison, the much-snubbed ‘Narnia’ movie has already grabbed $511 Million at the box office.
Of course, it didn’t help that some 'genius' thought Ben Affleck would make a good Jack Ryan. Sorry, but Ben Affleck is such a poor actor, the only suitable roles for this guy would involve hair products, Canadians, the French, or over-priced skin care products. Affleck tries to look tough, but only manages a slightly constipated look, as though Richard Gere finally talked him into giving the gerbil treatment a try.
But maybe I shouldn’t be too hard on Hollywood. They’ve hard a hard time of it, if you look at their last few decades. We should have known it was coming, this hyper-sensitivity to avoid offending the truly evil. The French influence alone is telling. After all, when Hollywood decided to tell the story about heroin traffic into New York, they called it “The French Connection”. Then, realizing the French might be offended by a straight-action policemen, Hollywood mended fences by making Inspector Clouseau their new hero in “The Pink Panther”. Hollywood seems to have always copied the French, whether in matters of style and fashion, or an unhealthy infatuation with Socialism coupled with Narcissm, or in a peculiar eagerness to submit to thuggery; when the Mob finally began to lose its grip on Hollywood, in came the Culture Police, which demanded supremacy for those outcasts of Society, especially anyone versed in Moral Turpitude. If an act is noted in the Bible as a sin, Hollywood has featured it in film. That sort of thing for so many years can make it hard for a director to understand Reality as most of us understand the concept.
I have noticed that movies which hate America seldom do better outside the United States; indeed, quite the opposite. For whatever reason the ‘Rambo’ movies are still quite popular in Southeast Asia, and many films with strong Western values, like "Chariots of Fire", "Raiders of the Lost Ark", and "Saving Private Ryan", did just as well outside the United States as in, but Hollywood films which flop in the U.S. also flop outside it.
It seems if you want to make money in movies, you ought to make sure thoe story is told the way the audience wants it, and sorry Liberals, your version doesn't cut it.
“McCain Is Courting Bush Loyalists”
...
Yeah, good luck with that.
Meanwhile, in related news Iranian President Ahmadinejad said he hopes Jews will rally behind his program for a new Middle East.
Also, Iraqi social activist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi said he was looking forward to meeting with Americans at some point in the future.
Yeah, good luck with that.
Meanwhile, in related news Iranian President Ahmadinejad said he hopes Jews will rally behind his program for a new Middle East.
Also, Iraqi social activist Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi said he was looking forward to meeting with Americans at some point in the future.
Sunday, February 12, 2006
Faded Heroes
.
It’s no surprise that Democrats, especially Liberals among them, have been exceptionally unhappy with President George W. Bush. Besides the obvious self-pity that they exude at every opportunity, and the ill-chosen flight from maturity in their choice of descriptions, there seems a genuine note of desperation. And that got me thinking.
When 2009 rolls in, two of the last three Republican Presidents will have been 2-termers, and very successful in the more important parts of their job. In between them is a Republican who won a solid majority in his election, and generally did an above-average job in the Oval Office. Even the most disgraced Republican President in memory had achievements in his work which commiserate his historical position.
Compare with them the Democrats; the last Democrat to serve as President was impeached, and later admitted to the essential facts in the charges against him. The last Democrat before him to win election, was a one-term Democrat who managed to create two simultaneous conditions which economists previously thought impossible; Consumer Price Index showing Inflation above ten percent, at the same time as wager-earner Unemployment above ten percent. The last Democrat before him to hold office, chose not to run for re-election because his own party said they wouldn’t support him. Not a happy string of terms and results.
Also, there is recent history. Nine of the last fourteen Presidential elections have gone to the Republicans, and five of the last seven. Census reports and public opinion polls show a steady drift from a Democratic preference among party identification to a an even balance. And if trends continue among minority shifts, the exurban control by conservatives and the political death of the liberal bastions at union halls and college campuses, the Republicans may expect to see an effective permanent majority.
When someone mentions the “Bush Doctrine”, people know what he means. Same for Reagan. But no one can explain what, if anything, was addressed by the “Clinton Doctrine”, or the “Carter Doctrine”. No Democrat since Kennedy has been an effective speaker on his foreign policy, or defined a realistic economic program. And no Democrat since FDR has been able to show the promised results. Republicans can point to modern history and current events, once the MSM spin has been corrected. Democrats cannot, even with spin in their favor, show anything for their promises.
Democrats need a hero, because all the ones they could point to on their side have faded into obscurity. And it sure looks like the only heroes on the horizon today, are on the Right side of the issues.
It’s no surprise that Democrats, especially Liberals among them, have been exceptionally unhappy with President George W. Bush. Besides the obvious self-pity that they exude at every opportunity, and the ill-chosen flight from maturity in their choice of descriptions, there seems a genuine note of desperation. And that got me thinking.
When 2009 rolls in, two of the last three Republican Presidents will have been 2-termers, and very successful in the more important parts of their job. In between them is a Republican who won a solid majority in his election, and generally did an above-average job in the Oval Office. Even the most disgraced Republican President in memory had achievements in his work which commiserate his historical position.
Compare with them the Democrats; the last Democrat to serve as President was impeached, and later admitted to the essential facts in the charges against him. The last Democrat before him to win election, was a one-term Democrat who managed to create two simultaneous conditions which economists previously thought impossible; Consumer Price Index showing Inflation above ten percent, at the same time as wager-earner Unemployment above ten percent. The last Democrat before him to hold office, chose not to run for re-election because his own party said they wouldn’t support him. Not a happy string of terms and results.
Also, there is recent history. Nine of the last fourteen Presidential elections have gone to the Republicans, and five of the last seven. Census reports and public opinion polls show a steady drift from a Democratic preference among party identification to a an even balance. And if trends continue among minority shifts, the exurban control by conservatives and the political death of the liberal bastions at union halls and college campuses, the Republicans may expect to see an effective permanent majority.
When someone mentions the “Bush Doctrine”, people know what he means. Same for Reagan. But no one can explain what, if anything, was addressed by the “Clinton Doctrine”, or the “Carter Doctrine”. No Democrat since Kennedy has been an effective speaker on his foreign policy, or defined a realistic economic program. And no Democrat since FDR has been able to show the promised results. Republicans can point to modern history and current events, once the MSM spin has been corrected. Democrats cannot, even with spin in their favor, show anything for their promises.
Democrats need a hero, because all the ones they could point to on their side have faded into obscurity. And it sure looks like the only heroes on the horizon today, are on the Right side of the issues.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
