Yet another persian carpet

Ah yes, the arab's favorite word: dialog. I believe the muslims love this word because it can be used in so many different ways.
Among the most common usages is "I prefer dialog." Whenever an arab uses this what you are really hearing is "I need a break from getting my ass kicked"

I first encountered this sentence in bing West's book No True Glory. The Marines had just watched the Fallujah brigade fail completely. The city had become the epicenter of terror in Iraq and was the lair of Zarqawhi. during a meeting between the USMC commanders and the "city elders" a sunni spokesman uttered the now infamous sentence. Of course he also denied that there were any foreign fighters in the city and went on to demand that America send money to Fallujah but stay out of the city.

the Marines replied: "We'll see you in the city." The Sunni negotiator was lying. He knew he was lying, he also knew that the Marines were aware that what he said was false. The fact that he could say these things with a straight face is indicative of the people we are confronting in the war against Islamic Terror.

My point is straightforward: our patience with "negotiation" should be reaching its end. We should have seen enough.

Many of us watched in horror as the so called "global community" allowed Yassir Arafat to run roughshod over them. Perhaps the pinnacle of his perfidy, and the nadir of the west's credulity was the Nobel Peace Prize. Peace, as we now know, was the last thing Arafat desired. His duplicity was surpassed only by his rapacity. I remain firmly convinced that the only reason he lingered on in that French hospital was that satan needed a few days to coax Hitler out of the front seat in hell.

How about a more geostrategic and contemporary example. Here's the AP report on Germany's reaction to Iran's most recent response to demands that it cease its efforts to aquire nuclear weapons:

BERLIN - Germany said Thursday that Iran's response to a package of incentives for halting its nuclear program appears unsatisfactory because it is missing a reference to whether Tehran will suspend uranium enrichment. "We are still examining it, but from everything that I hear we cannot be satisfied," Chancellor Angela Merkel said in an interview with N24 television.

Iran's track record is also quite clear. They negotiated with the Europeans while simultaneously engaging in forbidden development. They simply lied. For years they lied and the western powers in a spasm of gullible denial continued to offer greater and greater incentives to the people who had sworn to kill them.

In the coming weeks we will hear many demands for "dialog" or "negotiation" with the muslims who are intent upon killing us. We must be prepared to respond to these demands with well reasoned arguments. These arguments must speak to the rational and emotional aspects of this issue.

The arguments against negotiation are clear. Negotiation is only effective when the parties are honest in their words and in their intent. As the three examples here indicate, our enemy demonstrates no such honesty. Is there any reason to believe that the Iranians, who selected Ahmandinejihadi as there public face, will adhere to any committment they make? At this point the only words uttered by any Iranian leader that we should accept at face value is their sworn oath to destroy Israel and America.

Why would anyone in their right mind spend a minute of their precious time negotiating with Nasrallah? This guy is in the Arafat league to be sure and nothing he says, except of course his vow to kill jews, should be given any plausiblity at all.

Yes, the arabs use negotiation as a fundamental tool in their culture. Everything and everybody has a price. The life expectancy of any given committment is based on the time it takes to get a better offer. If I seem unPC, its because I am. We are confronting a dysfunctional culture and the cultural imperatives that the Muslims bring to the bargaining table must be well understood.

At this late date, it is after all almost september 29, 1938, it simply foolish to expect negotiation to bear fruit. A leopard is a leopard, a terror master who has sworn to kill us is a terror master who has sworn to kill us.

so from a rational point of view negotiation with the Iranians, the syrians, the Hezbullah or the palestinians is pointless. They have no ability to act in an honest manner nor will they adhere to the committments they keep. Perhaps keeping committments is just a quaint western custom that has be outmoded by the WIIFM of the modern world, but certainly negotiation is meaningless without it.

The emotional side of this is also important to understand. Few on the western side of this conflict desire a broader, more deadly war. However, many simply refuse to see this threat. Some refuse to view the past record of Arab duplicity as an indicator of future performance. some demand that the species instantly evolve past this need for violence.

This is denial. Pure unadulterated denial. The same dynamic that keeps alcoholics drinking and battered wives at home. Pure simple denial. We have seen this denial in action before. Again, september, 1938. that inability to confront the threat in its early stages cost 40 million lives. The difficult choices forced upon the leaders of the free world once the threat could no longer be denied resulted in the virtual enslavement of much of eastern Europe.

History is clear: the differential between acting now and acting later can be measured in human lives. A bitter confrontation in continental europe in 1937, a more active response to the axis involvement in spain, a more open minded view of the issues raised by the people who defied their government and fought against the axis proxy might well have spared the world enormous sorrow.

the indications were clear, Hitler had no intention of adhering to any agreement he made. The provision of men and material to spain in flagrant violation of international treaty should have alerted the world yet the demands for negotiation continued unabated. So, too, in our time the emotional driver for this very same demand is a thoughtless hope that the comfortable numbness of denial continues if only for a day and even at a terrible cost.

Perhaps its time to meet with a few counselors at my local drug treatment center. I imagine these people know quite a bit about denial. Perhaps a study of this dynamic will help us learn how to overcome it. For denial will get us killed.

A little introspection is in order

Recently it occurred to me that I write extensive comments on other blogs. While it is clear that I am heavily engaged in events of our time, I wondered why I spent so much of my time on comments. Part of the answer was simple narcissism. I write at popular blogs because I want to be read.

A few of the blogs I haunt are focused on the events that most interest me. It's fun to engage in a lively debate with some sniveling, slab sided, grass combing, dutch built bugger. But sometimes my thinking goes beyond the topics presented by the other bloggers. Highjacking a thread is considered impolite. Further, the commenting can become addictive and I have a lot of work to do.

So my hope is to post here more frequently and comment at other sites less frequently. If I can limit myself I should be more productive.

Finally, I hope to use this as a method to flesh out some of the ideas that pop into my brain while engaged in living this life of mine. There's nothing like standing hip deep in water waving a stick in the air to refine one's thinking about life, the universe and everything. So it is my intention to post some embryonic theses and see where they takes me.

The first such thesis is my belief that there is a parallel between the behavior of Russia in 2006 and the actions of America during the period 1914 to 1917.

Here's what I'm thinking,.

In the pre war era America's economy was in a deep depression. Charles Tansill, writing in 1938 notes that factories were working at 60% capacity and unemployment was widespread. The outlook for recovery when the war broke out was gloomy. But, the beligerents needed all sorts of material. As Andrew Carnegie (yes that andrew carnegie) wrote in a letter to President Wilson "The allies purchases from us from Horses on down are certain to be great."

It is my opinion that Russia finds itself in a similar situation. WE now have a war between beligerents to which it is not a direct party. Russia faces an economy ravaged by the stupidity of Communism and barely able to sustain itself. Unemployment, discontent and malaise abound. But the beligerents need "stuff" and some of this stuff is military equipment. Purchases of hardware like the Kornet anti tank missle that showed up in Lebanon mean hard currency for the Rodina and work for its unemployed.

If you read the quote from Carnegie carefully you'll see the seed of the issue that lead to America's ultimately becoming a beligerent. Carnegie mentions only the "allies". Would we have sold to the Germans? I believe we would have and the reasons that we didn't are both complex and revealing. Sufficient for my purposes now though is the simple fact that we supplied only one side with material.

Russia is NOT selling material to us, the israelis or any of the other involved parties. Their clients are the despotic states of the Middle East, most notably Iran and Syria. That one sided customer base makes neutrality almost impossible. Wilson couldn't sustain it in the prewar era and he was a dyed in the wool Princeton peacenik. Certainly Putin with his own despotic proclivities will not be able to sustain even a pretense of neutralities and the fighting drags on.

At this point I'll quit. The darling daughter and I are going to catch an early movie. She's going to drive so I must fortify myself with more coffee and a whole bunch of ibuprophen.

This is a test

If it were an actual life instructions would have been provided.