Urgh.

Mixed emotions here. I consider myself a leftie (though hard-core Israeli lefties eye me suspiciously); yet I support the war on terror and will not try to excuse the murderousness of the jihadis (reason for aforementioned evil stares); and yet I think the Iraq war was a costly mistake and that the loosening of the Geneva convention in the US armed forces even costlier.

The main enemy was never Saddam. The main enemy is the house of Saud and its alliance with Wahhabist. To go into Iraq was a costly mistake, because a. it diverted assets from the main war effort (Afghanistan, for instance) and b. it damaged American credibility beyond belief. When a real menace arise - say, Iran - the US, which is the main power for liberty in the world, will lack both the military assets and the neccessary international good-will to tackle it.

As for the loosening of the Geneva convention - it is the main recruiting tool of the jihadis. Over here, in Israel, we are pretty well familiar with the problem of democracy having to fight with one hand tied behind its back - but torture is never helpful, and indifference (not to mention cruelty) will lose you any good-will, even though you may be fighting scumbag. The scumbag are locals and they share the culture. In order to win, you have to hold the moral high ground.

That's too lefty a position for you, I guess, but why do you consider those who hold it to be dishonest?

Very first time I read something intelligent on this blog ! :)
But the last I presume, too ....

Mr. Gurvitz,

Neither left nor right are fixed terms. We write about that which we deal with, that being Anglo-, Franco-, and American lefties, examples of all but the French can be found in our post. We imagine being a lefty in Israel is a very different proposition than being a lefty in Manhattan and something altogether different than a lefty from the place du colonel Fabien.

Our complaint is with lefty arguments that are dishonest not every lefty position. We had thought our wording made this clear:

By and large the left is not so much stupid as dishonest. And there is no honest debate with the dishonest.

As for you your particular points, they are rather airy and loaded with unexplicated assumptions. We will try to address a few.

Let's look at your claim of the "loosening" of the Geneva Convention, by which we surmise you mean the Third Convention. You appear to be conflating Abu Ghraib abuses, which have been identified, investigated, and prosecuted as prescribed in the convention, and the fabled torture of "unlawful combatants" which falls outside of the protections of the convention, specifically Article 4. We invite you to read the actual document as your vague claim appears to proceed from the vaguest understanding of the Convention's provisions.

Israel employs torture against suspected terrorists to protect its most vulnerable citizens. For an Israeli to claim that torture is "never helpful" is to be smugly ignorant or dishonest or callously indifferent to the murder of innocents.

We recall three years ago the left was telling us that Iran was not a real threat. And the left prevailed. Then, magically overnight, Iran now presents itself a threat. Of course it wasn't overnight, it was in the course of the three years when Iran was only to happy to play for time and affirm the left's assessment. This is the same dance-step Iraq employed, but the left did not prevail.

"Saddam was never the main enemy" is pat lefty cant. We are left wondering, well, who is? There is no palpable "main" enemy in the War on Terror. The war on terror is not confined to a spitting match between the West and Islamism, or nutcase nations with nuclear aspirations or some huddle of despots, or drug cartels. The main enemy in the War on Terror is just that, terror. And it is legion. Terror openly is used to force political outcomes. Terror is openly threatened, and, when it is exercised, is openly accredited. Terror has devolved from a criminal act to a tolerated "nuisance" to an acceptable political weapon. Unlike the left, we do not believe terror will go away by holding endless tea parties.

Further we do not believe in your "moral high ground" sniff test. Moral ground tends to be level -- not high and low -- because moral precepts are understood to be universal, applicable to all and derivative of an unimpeachable authority. Nations are not global moral enterprises. In the community of nations each is self-interested and preservationist.

Now here is a flare, were America a nation of forbearing and long-suffering saints it would not earn America a single extra jot of goodwill among nations. The self-extinguishing saintly Albigensians were not extolled but were hurried along to the afterlife by worldly forces. Here is a little exercise. Go and read the lofty UN charter. Then come back and explain to us why nations like Sudan, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Myanmar have not been expelled when each is in clear violation of one or more of the charter articles. A world that gives seats on its human rights commission to Sudan, Syria, and Cuba is not a world much impressed with your "moral high ground".

Mr. Gurvitz, we do not think your arguments dishonest, but we do find them defective.

Regards,
DGB

As for the loosening of the Geneva convention - it is the main recruiting tool of the jihadis.

Actually the main recruiting tool of the jihadis is the quran. You can read it here: www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/

By the way, save Iraqis Academics :

http://www.brusselstribunal.org/Academics.htm

Stéphane,

I'm still waiting for answers regarding communism and its violation of natural rights...

Of course, as always, when you have no answer, you disappear only to re-appear a couple of days/weeks later in another thread as if nothing had happened.

This is not even funny anymore. Aren't you growing up with the years passing by?

Of course I could do that, but I don't think it would make any sense talking about that with you...

'cause even if I'm right, you will tell me that I'm wrong and stupid.

(sigh)

Of course Stephane. This is so easy and you are so typical of the dishonest Damian mentioned. Thanks for being a perfect example.

You know what? I sincerely - and I really mean it - wish you the communist future you long for.

There has yet to be any communist regime created anywhere that did not have to have a built in domestic terror/police state mechanism to suppress its citizenry. No communist state ever had to have border security to keep immigrants out but all have had to have sever border security measures to keep their citizenry in.

The main problem with those still advocating communism is that they are deficit in competence, ie. They have no ability to relate cause to effect in a rational and consistant manner.

It's not so much that they are dishonest, but simply incapable.

Thank you Carine !

:-)

Hope you will be part of it ! ;-)

Hey ! I found a damn good one, while I was drunk :

Have you guys ever noticed that Bush rhymes with douche ?

HAHAHA

Grimmy,

That's precisely why I hope Stéphane will "learn the hard way".

Too many French people have been calling for communism by their actions and reasoning - or absence of reasoning - for so long, it's time for them to get what they wish.

I'm sick and tired of fighting and paying for a bunch of lazy profiteers and trying to explain to them what the consequences are and will be.

I'm no servile citizen, that's probably why it's been a very very long time since I've "felt" French.

Dear Batte de Lune

I think y'all are jumping on the Haditha crapwagon a bit too soon. Investigations are ongoing, and I haven't read anything yet that would lead me to believe the jarheads were out of control.

If this unit is guilty, the Marines will clean their clocks for them. Nothing bothers an honorable warrior (of any country) more than having his profession dishonored.

Of course, I know it doesn't matter, but if they are exonerated to everyone's (except your) satisfaction, you'll just ignore it, and go on to the next mythical Quran flushing.

One would think that you might have noticed that the crocodile tears of protest aren’t working as well as it did in the 70s…that’s probably because no (1) one trusts you anymore and (2) there is a big freakin hole in the middle of Manhattan to remind us we are at war, inconvenient as that is for you.

I think that Chauve-souris de Lune was what I meant, not Batte de Lune. Sue me.