The Post-west: A civilization that has become just a dream

Victor Davis Hanson has a dream…then he awakens.

[quote]The Post-west: A civilization that has become just a dream
April 13, 2007, by Victor Davis Hanson

I recently had a dream that British marines fought back, like their forefathers of old, against criminals and pirates. When taken captive, they proved defiant in their silence. When released, they talked to the tabloids with restraint and dignity, and accepted no recompense.

I dreamed that a kindred German government, which best knew the wages of appeasement, cut-off all trade credits to the outlaw Iranian mullahs — even as the European Union joined the Americans in refusing commerce with this Holocaust-denying, anti-Semitic, and thuggish regime.

NATO countries would then warn Iran that their next unprovoked attack on a vessel of a member nation would incite the entire alliance against them in a response that truly would be of a “disproportionate” nature.

In this apparition of mine, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, in Syria at the time, would lecture the Assad regime that there would be consequences to its serial murdering of democratic reformers in Lebanon, to fomenting war with Israel by means of its surrogates, and to sending terrorists to destroy the nascent constitutional government in Iraq.

She would add that the United States could never be friends with an illegitimate dictatorship that does its best to destroy the only three democracies in the region. And then our speaker would explain to Iran that a U.S. Congresswoman would never detour to Tehran to dialogue with a renegade government that had utterly ignored U.N. non-proliferation mandates and daily had the blood of Americans on its hands.

Fellow Democrats like John Kerry, Barbara Boxer, and Harry Reid would add that, as defenders of the liberal tradition of the West, they were not about to call a retreat before extremist killers who behead and kidnap, who blow up children and threaten female reformers and religious minorities, and who have begun using poison gas, all in an effort to annihilate voices of tolerance in Iraq.

These Democrats would reiterate that they had not authorized a war to remove the psychopathic Saddam Hussein only to allow the hopeful country to be hijacked by equally vicious killers. And they would warn the world that their differences with the Bush administration, whatever they might be, pale in comparison to the shared American opposition to the efforts of al Qaeda, the Taliban, Syria, and Iran to kill any who would advocate freedom of the individual.

Those in Congress would not deny that Congress itself had voted for a war against Saddam on 23 counts — the vast majority of which had nothing to do with weapons of mass destruction and remain as valid today as when they were approved in 2002.

Congressional Democrats would make clear that, while in the interests of peace they might wish to talk to Iran, they had no idea how to approach a regime that subsidizes Holocaust denial, threatens to wipe out Israel, defies the world in seeking nuclear weapons, trains terrorists to kill Americans in Iraq, engages in piracy and hostage taking, and butchers or incarcerates any of its own who question the regime.

In this dream, I heard our ex-presidents add to this chorus of war-time solidarity. Jimmy Carter reminded Americans that radical Islam had started in earnest on his watch, out of an endemic hatred of all things Western. I imagined him explaining that America began being called the “Great Satan” during the presidential tenure of a liberal pacifist, not a Texan conservative.

Bill Clinton would likewise add that he bombed Iraq, and Afghanistan, and East Africa without congressional or U.N. approval because of the need for unilateral action against serial terrorism and the efforts of radicals to obtain weapons of mass destruction.

George Bush Sr. would in turn lecture the media that it was once as furious at him for not removing Saddam as it is now furious at his son for doing so; that it was once as critical of him for sending too many troops to the Middle East as it is now critical of his son for sending too few; that it was once as hostile to the dictates of his excessively large coalition as it is now disparaging of his son’s intolerably small alliance; that it was once as dismissive of his old concern about Iranian influence in Iraq as it is now aghast at his son’s naiveté about Tehran’s interest in absorbing southern Iraq; and that it was once as repulsed by his own cynical realism as it is now repulsed by his son’s blinkered idealism.

I also dreamed that the British government only laughed at calls to curtail studies of the Holocaust in deference to radical Muslims, and instead repeatedly aired a documentary on its sole Victoria Cross winner in Iraq. The British, Danish, Dutch, French, German, Italian, and Spanish foreign ministers would collectively warn the radical Islamic world that there would be no more concessions to the pre-rational primeval mind, no more backpeddling and equivocating on rioting and threats over cartoons or operas or papal statements. There would be no more apologies about how the West need make amends for a hallowed tradition that started 2,500 years ago with classical Athens, led to the Italian Republics of the Renaissance, and inspired the liberal democracies that defeated fascism, Japanese militarism, Nazism, and Communist totalitarianism, and now are likewise poised to end radical Islamic fascism.

Europeans would advise their own Muslim immigrants, from London to Berlin, that the West, founded on principles of the Hellenic and European Enlightenments, and enriched by the Sermon on the Mount, had nothing to apologize for, now or in the future. Newcomers would either accept this revered culture of tolerance, assimilation, and equality of religions and the sexes — or return home to live under its antithesis of seventh-century Sharia law.

Media critics of the ongoing war might deplore our tactics, take issue with the strategy, and lament the failure to articulate our goals and values. But they would not stoop to the lies of “no blood for oil” — not when Iraqi petroleum is now at last under transparent auspices and bid on by non-American companies, even as the price skyrockets and American ships protect the vulnerable sea-lanes, ensuring life-saving commerce for all importing nations.

I also dreamed that no columnist, no talking head, no pundit would level the charge of “We took our eye off bin Laden in Afghanistan” when they themselves had no answer on how to reach al Qaedists inside nuclear Pakistan, a country ruled by a triangulating dictator and just one bullet away from an Islamic theocracy.

And then I woke up, remembering that the West of old lives only in dreams. Yes, the new religion of the post-Westerner is neither the Enlightenment nor Christianity, but the gospel of the Path of Least Resistance — one that must lead inevitably to gratification rather than sacrifice.

Once one understands this new creed, then all the surreal present at last makes sense: life in the contemporary West is so good, so free, so undemanding, that we will pay, say, and suffer almost anything to enjoy its uninterrupted continuance — and accordingly avoid almost any principled act that might endanger it.[/quote]

“Liberalism is just Communism sold by the drink.”…P.J.O’Rourke

This revisionist fantasy was d.o.a.

Ask yourself what would happen if an Iranian military boat was a mile or so out of US territorial waters. Would the US let them go about their business?

I regard most of that article as hindsight revisionism.
Except for:

A.Q Khan & the ISI have penetrated much of the Pakistani military apparatus.
Forget about Iran, How many bombs does Pakistan have?
:noway: … estruction

I regard most of the article as an editorial lacking a clear position or argument. It seems mostly the bitter rant of the old and conservative against the young dressed up as a warning for our times.


This revisionist fantasy was d.o.a.[/quote]

[quote]With the beginning of the Iran-Iraq war in 1980, he began to sell weapons to Iraq with the backing of the United States. Since there was an embargo placed against Iraq, the weapons were funneled through various countries. His most significant deal came with the sale of 155mm French self-propelled howitzers that cost an estimated $1.4 billion USD.[5]

Iraqi leaders had initially approached the Reagan administration on the purchase of American 175mm artillery, were turned down but then encouraged by American officials to procure the weapons through private arms dealers.[6] The Iraqis turned to Soghanalian, then based in Miami, Florida in 1981, who in turned approached several European governments. He found France’s leader, Francois Mitterand, open to the idea so long as the deal was kept secret since Iran was holding French hostages at the time and so did not wish to risk further worsening relations with it. The United States encouraged Mitterand to move forward with the sale, which was entitled “Vulcan”, as it passed through a complex set of transactions.[7]

Soghanalian defended the sales when they were revealed on the eve of the Persian Gulf War in January 1991. He stated that that “We didn’t give him those weapons to fight U.S. forces. The weapons were given to him to fight the common enemy at that time. Which he did. There was no need to have direct confrontation with him and endanger American troops.”[1] His other transactions to Iraq also included artillery from South Africa, which he routed through Austria, acting as a “middle man” to bypass the United Nations’ sanctions.[8] He also helped sell to the Iraqi army military uniforms worth $280 million dollars from Romania.[1]

In an interview on 60 Minutes, Soghanalian stated that top-level American officials were aware from the beginning of his deals in Iraq including former US President Richard Nixon, former Vice-President Spiro Agnew, Nixon’s chief of staff Colonel Jack Brennan and attorney general John N. Mitchell. Encouraged by other senior officials, Nixon had written a letter on behalf of him to expedite the sale of the uniforms to Iraq. He continued on to say that “They were not only in the uniform business. They would sell their mothers if they could, just to make the money.”[/quote]

Aware? Is that worse than directly sold? Just wanted to be sure because the last time I checked the US was responsible for less than 1 percent of Saddam’s conventional weapons and less than 3.5 percent of his chemical, nuclear and missile technology and equipment. Most of this was in the form of supercomputers which could be used for dual (military) purposes. Yawn.

The World of Fredbot:

Encouraged by other senior officials, Nixon had written a letter on behalf of him to expedite the sale of the uniforms to Iraq. = Mere Awareness

Your reading comprehension… fails as usual. Zzzz.

Expediting the sale of uniforms to Iraq by a third nation? Yes, Fredbot is clearly loose with nonsense. I mean the fact that the US encouraged nations to sell weapons to Iraq but did not sell any itself. Oh dear. And those nations are precisely the ones that are most critical of the US led effort in Iraq… namely, Germany, France, Russia and China. What a coincidence right? Gosh, but there I go again just being a fredbot. Of course, your clever rebuttal does not really change the numbers on this much. The US figures for arms sales to Iraq have remained the same. So, er, what was your point again?

Pearls before swine…pearls before swine…

[quote=“TainanCowboy”]Victor Davis Hanson has a dream…then he awakens.

[quote]The Post-west: A civilization that has become just a dream
April 13, 2007, by Victor Davis Hanson

I recently had a dream that British marines fought back, like their forefathers of old, against criminals and pirates.[/quote]


“Of course, since they were heavily outnumbered and outgunned, in my dream they were slaughtered to the last man and woman, but it was so cool, just like “300”- the blood really looked real and stuff…”

It was pitiable to hear the squawks of the warhawks denied their dollop of gore from the British capture incident… “Damn! everyone got out alive…”