Tuesday, December 12, 2006

"The Wanderer" : an Anglo-Saxon Poem

Often the solitary man enjoys (or awaits)
The grace and mercy of the Lord, though careworn
He has long been forced to stir by hand
The ice-cold sea on many waterways,
Travel the exile's path; fate is relentless. 5

So spoke a wanderer who called to mind
Hardships and cruel wars and deaths of lords:
"Frequently have I had to mourn alone
My cares each morning; now no living person
Exists to whom I dare reveal my heart 10
Openly; and I know it for a truth
That in a man it is a noble virtue
To hide away his thoughts, lock up
His private feelings--however he may feel.
A weary heart cannot oppose inexorable fate, 15
And anxious thoughts can bring no remedy.
Therefore those jealous of their reputations
Often bind fast their sadness in their breasts.
And so I, heartsick, deprived of my homeland,
Far from my noble kin, have often had 20
To tie in fetters my own troubled spirit,
Since long ago I wrapped my lord's remains
In darkness of the earth, and from that place
Sadly journeyed by winter over icy waves,
And suffering sought the hall of a new patron, 25
If in any land I might find one willing
To show me recognition in his mead-hall,
Comfort me, friendless--tempt me
With pleasures."


One who has experienced it
Knows how bitter sorrow is as a companion 30
To one who has few real friends; strands of
Braided gold are not for him; paths of exile are;
Coldness of heart, not the pleasures of this world.
He recalls the gifts of treasure, the hall-companions,
And remembers how his gold-friend, long ago, 35
Used to entertain him at the feast.
Now all that joy Has gone.
Therefore, one who long must do without
His beloved lord's advice understands,
When sleep and sorrow joined together
Often bind him, alone with his sadness. 40
In his mind it seems that he embraces
And kisses his liege lord, and on his knee
Lays hand and head, as he did in days gone by,
When he enjoyed gifts from the throne;
Then the joyless man then wakes up 45
And sees instead the yellow waves,
The sea-birds bathing, stretching out their wings,
While snow and hail and frost fall all together.
Then his heart becomes, for that reason, yet heavier,
Grief for the loved one gone.
Sorrow is renewed, 50
Then, when memories of kinsmen fill the mind,
He greets them gladly, gazes on them attentively.
But again and again his old friends swim away;
The floating spirits bring him all to few
Of the old well-known songs.
Care is renewed 55
For one who must continually send
His weary spirit over icy waves.


"Therefore I see no reason in the world
Why my heart does not grow dark, when I ponder
The lives of warriors, how they suddenly 60
Have left their halls, those bold and noble thanes,
Just as this middle-earth and everything on it
Declines and weakens each and every day."


Therefore no man may become wise before
He's lived his share of winters in the world. 65
A wise man must be patient, not too passionate
Or too impetuous in words; not too timid a fighter,
Nor too anxious, too carefree, nor too covetous
Of wealth; nor ever too quick to boast before fully
Understanding. A man should wait, 70
Before he makes a vow, until in pride he truly can
Assess where his heart's intentions will lead him.


The wise must know how awesome it will be
When all the wealth of the world stands desolate, 75
As now in various parts throughout this middle-earth
Stand wind-blown walls, frost-covered, ruined homes.
The wine-halls crumble; monarchs lifeless lie,
Deprived of pleasures, all the company of heroes
Dead by the wall. Some battle carried off 80
Took from this world; some the foul bird removed
Over the ocean deep; some the grey wolf
Consigned to death; some a tear-stained hero
Concealed from daylight in an earthy cave.
Just so in days long past humankind's Creator 85
Destroyed this earth until, lacking the joyous sounds
Of inhabitants, the ancient works of giants stood Desolate.
One who has wisely thought and considered
Carefully this creation and this dark life,
Experienced in spirit has often deeply pondered 90
Countless slaughters, and might say these words:


'Where is the horse now, and the hero?
Where is the generous lord, the feast-benches, the joys
Of the hall. Alas for the bright cup; alas, the armored
Hero; alas, the prince's glory.
That time is over, 95
Gone beneath night's shadow as if it had never been.


A splendid lofty wall, adorned with shapes,
Of serpents now stands as a memorial
To that beloved band.
The savage, blood-greedy spear
And mighty destiny have carried off the heroes, 100
And storms now knock against these stony slopes.
Falling sleet and snow bind the world
In winter's vice; then darkness comes
Shadowy night approaches; the north sends down
Fierce hailstorms in malice against men. 105
And all is hardship in this earthly kingdom; the work
Of fate alters the world lying beneath the heavens.
Here belongings and friends pass away;
Here man himself and kinsmen pass away;
And all this earthly structure comes to nothing." 110


Thus spoke the thoughtful sage, as he sat alone, meditating.
Happy is he who keeps his faith; a man must never be too eager
To reveal the cares of his heart, before he knows their remedy,
And pursues it eagerly.
It will be better for one who seeks grace
Comfort from our father in the heavens, where for us all security stands. 115 [source]


Translation by Richard Hamer (copyright 1970)
(much revised by Míceál F. Vaughan, 1983/1996)

68 comments:

Anonymous said...

an impression : it is a dedication to someone we know, though beautiful image ! I did not know that poem, if you got more on that type, I am a customer

Anonymous said...

surfing on the same vein,

beowulf : bear wulf, another name for Odin,
the myth of the bear was celebrated not only in north countries but in most indo-european civilisations
a link in french (sorry)

the bear myth

Highlander said...

Yes Nomad, Beowulf is another beautiful legend. Thanks for the link .By the way qu'est ce qui te fais pensee que ce poeme est dediee ?

Libyan Warrior( The King Of Al-Andalaus) said...

"The Wanderer" yeah he seems to wander everywhere, one might get the impression he has no home of his own. Sometimes, I wish he and all his kin would wonder of a cliff, hey everyone wins, he will be in Valhalla, and mankind would be at peace. :)

Sorry.lol. I have really had it up to here with Nordic Mythology. I have been into it for too long. I think I almost threw up after the last Amon Amarth album, please no more, Odin, Thor, Valhalla, Ragnarok, Valkyries, Asgard,Baldur, Fenrir, or any of that crap.

Now H, as a Libyan, you should take pride of our pagan heritage, talk about things from our part of the world talk about Libyan/Greek Mythology. Talk about the Libyan Gods. Have you visited the temple of Zeus latley?

Anonymous said...

Why did you delete your last comment H?
Nomad where is your reply ?
Nice poem by the way I wouldn't mind having the poet as my psychiatrist.

Safia speaks said...

Beowulf is funny, because it is considered as an archtype of British literature history. Yet, when I read the poem I found it was written in ...old Danish, not English!!

That is probably due to the invasion of the Vikings. After all, ENglish is nothing but an evolutionary continuence of the old Danish language.

Interesting is the fact that the old Danish tradition of battling each other with long, epic poems is very similar yo the old Arabic poetic traditions.

http://www.humanities.mcmaster.ca/~beowulf/textlist.html

Anonymous said...

Safia,

Yet, when I read the poem I found it was written in ...old Danish, not English!!

The anglo-saxons predate the existance of Denmark and the existance of teh Danish language, therefore. And, in fact, one of the three tribes that merged to form the Anglo-Saxons came from Jutland (which became Denamark much later) so in a very real sense, you could say that the Anglo-Saxons WERE Danes. The other two tribes came from the coastal region just to the south of the Jutland peninsula. Anglo-Saxons are the original inhabitants of that land.

Methinks you have it backwards. Danish is more likely to be based on the Anglo-Saxon dialect of german than anything else :)

A point of interest:

The word "Thane" used in Highlander's poem here is spelled:

Anglo-Saxon: þeg(e)n.

Old Norse: þegn

Old High German: degan

As you can see, the Anglo-Saxon version of the word is identical to the old norse version, but substantially different from old German.

Denmark was founded after the last battle between the Saxons who remained on the continent, and the Vikings. Some 400 years after the Anglo-Saxons left the continent - inluding Jutland :) - to invade Britain.

This poem was probably written at about the time Denmark was being founded, actually. Wiki says the 9th century was when it first appeared in written form. And it's most likely part of a Bard's "oral tradition" from long before the Christian Church put it in writing.

Same with Beowulf.

Highlander, I enjoyed this poem immensely, and I never read it before. Thanks for posting it. I actually think I prefer it to Beowulf.

I'll comment some more on it later, I just got sidetracked by Safia's comment because it was the last thing I read :)

Anonymous said...

Blogger has become quite annoying while I was gone. I keep getting error messages after long timeouts when I try to comment, so I try again and again... and then ten minutes later the comments that got errorred out show up as dupes. And I can't seem to have an option to delete comments anymore, since I switched to the "beta" which should be called "garbage" apparrently! Anyway, can you fix it with the duplicates, H? This one will probably be duplicated as well since this is the third time I'm trying to post it! Sorry! Anyway....


Nomad, I think Highlander is dedicating that poem to Ahmadinejad, since he declared race war on the "anglo-saxons" last year. He's gonna be one unhappy pineapple head if the "anglo-saxons" get all tribal on his ass and become the barbarians they once were, not that long ago! I doubt the persians at their peak would have handled the combined tribes of Northern Germany any better than the Romans did... and Iran is a long way from Persia at it's peak. Whereas the "anglo-saxons" have come to dominate the world in a way nobody else ever has. What a fool this man is. Does he think the Mahdi is going to save him from the barbarian hordes? What if Mahdi doesn't show up? Will Ahmadinejad be hiding in a cave like bin Ladin? Or in a rat hole, like Saddam?

Libyan Dude, didn't the Phoenicians worship Ba'al Hammon and Ba'al Tanit? Any association with Greek and Roman Gods is only incidental due to the "role" the pagan Gods played. Hammon is associated with the harvest, for instance, and is therefore equated to Cronus and Saturn. But it's hardly the same deity. In Hebrew scripture, Ba'al Hammon (Dagon) is considered a demon. And considering the Carthaginians sacrificed children to Ba'al Hammon, I'd say the Hebrews had it pretty close to right!

Your pagan gods are no match for mine, pansy!

Anonymous said...

Blogger has become quite annoying while I was gone. I keep getting error messages after long timeouts when I try to comment, so I try again and again... and then ten minutes later the comments that got errorred out show up as dupes. And I can't seem to have an option to delete comments anymore, since I switched to the "beta" which should be called "garbage" apparrently! Anyway, can you fix it with the duplicates, H? And another thing, I can't even see the comments on the post, I only see them when I go into the "add a comment" section. Weird! And also grounds for Google to start laying off idiots and clear up some space fro people who actually know what they are doing, eh?

Anonymous said...

It could be me or anyone else at the same time

a french ballade

Dites-moi où, n'en quel pays,
Est Flora la belle Romaine,
Archipiades, ni Thaïs,
Qui fut sa cousine germaine,
Écho parlant quand bruit on mène
Dessus rivière ou sur étang,
Qui beauté eut trop plus qu'humaine
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?

Où est la très sage Héloïs,
Pour qui fut châtré et puis moine
Pierre Abelard à Saint-Denis?
Pour son amour eut cette essoine.
Semblablement, où est la reine
Qui commanda que Buridan
Fut jeté en un sac en Seine?
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?

La reine Blanche comme lis
Qui chantait à voix de sirène,
Berthe au grand pied, Bietris, Alis,
Haremburgis qui tint le Maine,
Et Jeanne la bonne Lorraine
Qu'Anglais brûlèrent à Rouen;
Où sont-ils, où, Vierge souveraine?
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?

Prince, n'enquerrez de semaine
Où elles sont, ni de cet an,
Qu'à ce refrain ne vous remaine:
Mais où sont les neiges d'antan?


François Villon


written later as the Beowulf one,
(otherwise you could have had the"chanson de Roland", which is describing Charlemagne's war facts in Spain)
often in our complaints, ballades, gestuals songs... the poet dedicated his verses to ladies, times which were over... so already, you could see that typical french sense of enjoying life pleasures

Anonymous said...

you should not take A. seriously , he is in a muppets show, directed by the mollahcraty, and his time of presidenty has just been reduced of 18 months by them, they also want us to believe there is an opposition to him for the next elections, it is powder in eyes to get more time for their discussions with west and especillay US

Highlander said...

Anonymous no idea what happened to the comment , having problems with Blogger lately. Anyway I asked Lw to tell us about the Libyan pagan Gods and maybe post about them in his blog. I think he has interesting things to say about them. I also think that Nomad has answered
Ps can you elaborate on the psychiatrist thingy ?

Safia , that's why I chose this poem it reminded me of the kasaed ( epic poems) sung by Arab warriors.

Programmer Craig you are welcome, that was quite a research you got for us out there :) Hey but methinks there are more to the pagan Libyan Gods then meets the eye and maybe there are actually different ones then Baal :P or the demon God ..
As for Ahmadinaja, I think Nomad has a point Craig - why don't you ponder on her reply ? Nice try to change the topic :P I can see you LOL.
PS Beta is causing so much problem so I commiserate with you and I cleared your duplicates no problem.

LW last time I visited the Zeus Temple was with the school picnic day probably!

Nomad. J'adore la chanson de Roland.

PPS Why is everybody wondering about my 'hidden' intentions posting this poem - I had no less than 5 requests about it already -this is so funny :)

Anonymous said...

je pense que ce poême est le reflet d'une introspection que le hero fait au seuil de la mort ;
un necessaire retour en arriere pour faire un bilan de sa vie, reconnaissant qu'il a parcouru ce chemin en solitaire, délaissé amis et parents, dont l'image cependant ne peut s'effacer de son esprit, et constate au moment où vient sa fin qu'il est horriblement seul à se pleurer lui-même, à constater que tout ce qu'il a entrepris était vain ; beaucoup de bruits et de fureurs pour rien, désolation est l'image
quant à ton intention,en postant ce poême, j'y vois là une image destinées à nos amis du nouveau monde, que restera-til de leur passage dans nos vieux mondes, s'ils ne peuvent faire l'analyse de leur conscience ;

mais cela s'applique également à chacun de nous dans chaque parcours où nous passons sur les sentiments des autres pour montrer que nous sommes les plus forts, et les dégâts que nous faisons en détruisant des amitiés ; voilà pour ma référence

Anonymous said...

PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO


http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1134673789364675735&q=Fallujah&pl=true

Anonymous said...

Thanks for cleaning up my mess, Highlander :)

As for Ahmadinaja, I think Nomad has a point Craig - why don't you ponder on her reply ?

Of course she has a point. The pretense at "democracy" has always been nothing but a meaningless game, in Iran. It's a placebo to make the people believe they actually have some input into what the government does. I believe that's really irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. Ahmadinejad says what he is supposed to say, and there is a reason for everything he says. I'm wondering why the obvious bigotry of Iranians (and arabs, for that matter) such as the holocaust denail combined with the threats to exterminate jews in israel, and the announced intent to destroy the anglo-saxon race, always seems to go unchallenged - or at least, it's written off as the stupidity of child-like people. And yet the accusations of religious bigotry and racism against westerners are constant and never-ending. It's getting old. But I've commented on that before, and recently too :)

Nice try to change the topic :P

I didn't have much choice, I don't understand the interplay in French between you and Nomad, and all else there has been was this request to watch a 2 year old propaganda video :P

Nomad,

it is powder in eyes to get more time for their discussions with west and especillay US

It doesn't really matter. There's nothing to discuss, except Iran making amends for past transgressions, Iran ceasing it's nuclear program, Iran ceasing it's international terrorism, and Iran ceasing it's interference in Lebanon and Iraq. Iran is obviously not going to do any of those things. And I don't believe it's unimportant, these racial and religious threats, Nomad. Hitler really meant it when he said similar things. I believe the leadership in Iran is also deadly serious. The IRI is a brutal and cruel government, and is quite capable of committing genocide, in my opinion. I think they'd relish it, in fact, if given the opportunity.

But yes, as all past Presidents of Iran, AJ does exactly what he's supposed to do. I agree with you. The only thing I don't understand is why so many people take the IRI seriously, when it pretends to be a government interested in having good and sincere relationships with other countries. There is a reason Iran is a pariah state. It ha svictimized every nation it has dealt with since 1979, at least once. The government of Iran murdered Iranian dissidents in France, for instance, and was also behind the murder of French peacekeepers in Lebanon in 1983. Yet, France is still anxious to play footsie with the IRI. Why is that, Nomad? Can you explain? WHy does diplomacy have to be so damned difficult? If France and other countries treated the regime in Iran the way it deserves to be treated, Iran would have a different government, right now. And we (the world) wouldn't be having to deal with all this shit Iran is stirring up!

Non-Blogging said...

Craig, my dear friend, long time no debate with you. Time to change that ;-).

I'm wondering why the obvious bigotry of Iranians (and arabs, for that matter) such as the holocaust denail combined with the threats to exterminate jews in israel, and the announced intent to destroy the anglo-saxon race, always seems to go unchallenged - - - .

Here I have to disagree with you somewhat. The picture is not so bad in fact. Just remember the reactions of Western states to Ahmadinejad's threats to annihilate Israel and recently on the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Both have been heavily condemned not only by the US but also by us Euro-weenies. In fact so much that I don't know if any pseudo-scientific conference anywhere has recently received as much negative attention abroad.

And yet the accusations of religious bigotry and racism against westerners are constant and never-ending.

Here I agree of course.

There is a reason Iran is a pariah state. It ha svictimized every nation it has dealt with since 1979, at least once. The government of Iran murdered Iranian dissidents in France, for instance, and was also behind the murder of French peacekeepers in Lebanon in 1983.

The current Iranian regime must remain a pariah regime, that I agree on wholeheartedly (a pity for all the lovely Iranians out there).

However, every time the threat of Iran to world peace is discussed, I simply can't help but compare the reaction of the West to the admittedly nasty dictatorship in Iran to that of Pakistan (which does have nuclear weapons and which did support Taliban unlike Iran).

Check this for example:

http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=4568&l=1&m=1

(Or if the link grows old, Pakistan’s Tribal Areas: Stop Appeasing the Militants is the name of the study.)

I simply fail to take anyone who criticizes the West's softness on Iran seriously as long as his/her own government keeps silent on Pakistan which has more to account for to the world for its tolerance of terrorism, extremism and proven weapons of mass destruction.

Interestingly, whenever I refer to this topic anywhere, people like Craig and Curt from Houston stop arguing.

Myself, I regard this as double standards and appeasing of terrorist supporters against other terrorist supporters. However, if I weren't that cynical could I say Iran isn't a real risk because Pakistan isn't that either despite almost a decade of nuclear weapons at its disposal, support of Taliban, military coup and failure to control its own country? Well, I think the latter is too positive a picture.

The French government is admittedly one of the most hypocritical in the democratic world, yet the tolerance of assassinations of other countries' dissidents on democratic soil is not limited to France only, as this famous case shows:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orlando_Letelier .

If France and other countries treated the regime in Iran the way it deserves to be treated, Iran would have a different government, right now.

So how should Iran be treated? Like Pakistan or North Korea? Probably South Africa is the only example of sanctions ever having really worked, and history has some badly ended attempts of democracy export (and some success stories usually limited to countries with previous democractic experience).

Anonymous said...

Craig, I agree with most of you said, except France is not the support of Iran as it appears in most anglo-saxon medias ; since Ayatola Komeiny came in power, all our exportations for nuclear civil ceased, and, so far I could not find any source for contrary proofs ;
yes our diplomacy is a bit shadowed by Chirac personal inputs ;
but so far that's the discretion way diplomats have always managed France influence : kind of old diplomaty school.

anyway, our government influence in that aera is no more than the european one,it appears that we handle better languages with ME, and that most educated Iranians speak french, ; we also have a great iranian diaspora living in our country, difficult for us to ignore it, and that's why we are in front ;
certainly, our position could be clearer, we expect it with a new president next year, so far Segolene was clear with the issues of condamning Iran pretention to nuclear war power, don't speak of Sarko, he is aligned on US policy.

As I read also dissident Iranians blogs, I know that the mullahs are bluffing : no more money to pay their revolutionars guards since 3 years (and they are the mullahs guards) ; Russia has just turned freezing their exanges too, after having signed oil contracts with mullahs, now they don't care of what is going to happen to people there, so I think Iran will continue to anoy us for a while, but with nothing in their "garde-manger" (pantry, so an inside popular revolution is expected !

Libyan Warrior( The King Of Al-Andalaus) said...

Oh no, this dude is back :(

Nomad, I think Highlander is dedicating that poem to Ahmadinejad, since he declared race war on the "anglo-saxons" last year.

LMAO. I heard that from a talk show host, but I thought they where just lying like the story about all jews having to wear special clothes.:)


I'm wondering why the obvious bigotry of Iranians (and arabs, for that matter) such as the holocaust denail combined with the threats to exterminate jews in israel

1. He never Denied the "Holocost", he mearly said he wanted a open ended discussion, debate, and research. Anyone with a brain cell will tell you that the numbers dont add up. The Ultra Orthodox jews themselves stated that the numbers where exagerated.

2. "Arabs", "Bigotry"

Is David Duke a Arab?

Are The Whole Congragation of Gray Bearded wise old Rabbis "Arabs"
The majority of the people at the confrence where from the "West" many intelectuals from East Europe attended.

3. Mahmooud Ahmadinajad NEVER said he was going to extermanate the jews, he said that the "Israel" will no longer exist. He went on to say that a regime change is neccesery, and the indigonous people of the region have first say in who governs them. MA is actually very fond of Jewish people, he treats his population very well.

3. We the World can longer mourn the aledged 6 Million dead, we Must mourn the other 50 Million who died in WW2.

Yes I know we are gentiles, our lives are expendable, we are only here to serve our beloved Jewish Masters? right :)

4. WHAT DO YOU CARE?

I am a Dual citzen, i have a stake in this, from my perspective as a American, I could careless,(what about you?) but as a LIBYAN, having a war-mongering bloodthirsty nation as a neighbor, run by Jewish Facists, who wish to bring about the Jewish Messiah, armed to the teeth with Nukes, well thats very worrying. They showed us that this summer.


If anyone had doubts that Israel is a threat to World Peace, and the security of my region, all those doubts where flushed down the tolite with the Bombing of Lebonan. The indiscrimanate killing of women and children outnumbered those who died on 9/11 babies, where pulled out of the rubble as if they where rag dolls. The nation was pushed back 30 years, with great glee on the part of the Jewish Facists.

Rabbis passed religouse ethicits stating that the Killing of Women and Children is PERMISSABLE, and technically they are right from a biblical perspective no Jew or Christian can argue this, the verses are very clear.

It's a placebo to make the people believe they actually have some input into what the government does.

No Craig I belive thats our government.:)

you have no right to make the assertion, the Iranian people are very devout followers of the Shia religion. They have a history of voting in this manner, MA, is what suits them.

The IRI is a brutal and cruel government, and is quite capable of committing genocide, in my opinion

Well thank god your opinion is not valid. But then again mabe it is. Racial and religouse facists know talent when their own kind when they are in their presence.

Seeing as how your people wiped of a whole race of people in the name of Christiandom, shamelessly stole their land, and then from that outpost, launched genocidal attacks on the rest of the non-European world in the name of religouse and racial suprmicy, lets see was it Iran or the Anglo-Saxons who wiped out those two lovley japanese cities, and claimed the nuke was from god?

Was it MA or Rosovelt who stated that people of color were a "burden" that the white man must carry as part of his Christian duty.
http://www.americanpresident.org/history/theodoreroosevelt/

NOMAD-

Have you decided to accept your responsiblity for the Algerian Genocide Yet, how about the Tugree Berber genocide? How about The Genocide in Rawanda?

Anonymous said...

Hey there, NBA :)

Just remember the reactions of Western states to Ahmadinejad's threats to annihilate Israel and recently on the Holocaust denial conference in Tehran. Both have been heavily condemned not only by the US but also by us Euro-weenies.

Lip-service in the press. While at the same time, those very same press agencies condemn the Bush Administration (and Americans in general) for the hardline on Iran.

In fact so much that I don't know if any pseudo-scientific conference anywhere has recently received as much negative attention abroad.

What about the US declining to join Kyoto? What about the protests against the World Bank and the IMF? What about the protests against the US when it was first developing anti-missile technology?

Come on, NBA. I could list 100 US policy decisions that drew PROTESTS IN THE STREETS by tens of thousands of Europeans, and you know it as well as I do. Where are the protests in the street against Tehran? Where are the demands from European citizenry that their governments make a stand?

To be fair,it's the same here in the US. The reaction is something along the lines of "What do you expect them to do, that's the way they are" - my question is, why are Arabs and Iranians held to such a low standard?

What would the reaction be in Europe if Americans started burning European embassies, NBA?

However, every time the threat of Iran to world peace is discussed, I simply can't help but compare the reaction of the West to the admittedly nasty dictatorship in Iran to that of Pakistan (which does have nuclear weapons and which did support Taliban unlike Iran).

Why? Pakistan is no worse than any of the Arab dictatorships, NBA. Iran, is. Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. Not only has it funded and in fact created terrorist groups to do it's dirty work, it has DIRECTLY committed acts of terrorism (hostage crisis in 1979, the murder of Iranian dissidents abroad, etc) and it has murdered completely innocent foreign nationals inside Iran. That's what Iran has done IN ADDITION to things like allowing embassies to be burned, etc - the things that Pakistan and most Arab regimes are guilty of.

Iran is in a different category from Pakistan or Syria. And I don't see the similarity that you are pointing to.

I simply fail to take anyone who criticizes the West's softness on Iran seriously as long as his/her own government keeps silent on Pakistan which has more to account for to the world for its tolerance of terrorism, extremism and proven weapons of mass destruction.

Can you explain what you mean? What do you believe the alternative to Musharref is? And what do you believe Pakistan is guilty of, at a state level? Other than activities in Afghanistan and India/Kashmir, I mean?

Interestingly, whenever I refer to this topic anywhere, people like Craig and Curt from Houston stop arguing.

I don't recall having chickened out on this subject in the past, NBA. I've discussed Pakistan many times, in many forums. I'm perfectly willing to debate the issue with you, but you have to give me some specifics rather than just blanket statements like "Pakistan is a dictatorship with nuclear weapons" - what exactly are you accusing Musharref of, and what do you think is a better alternative? What should be done? I don't like Pakistan's government much either, and I only trust Musharref with nukes SLIGHTLY more than I trust Al Qaeda itself with nukes. And I believe Musharref is allowing Al Qaeda to continue to exist in Pakistan precisely because he wants to present the US with this choice - "it's me or Al Qaeda" - but what can anybody do about it?

I was unable to get your link to load. I don't think it's important though - nobody wants assinations to occur on their soil. My question is why it seems like the more Iranian regime commits crimes against western governments and their citizens, the more those very same western governments work at trying to "improve" relations with an intolerable government. What's up with that? Is that how you deal with a bully? That just encourages the aggressive and criminal conduct. I can't even understand why Iran hasn't had it's UN membership suspended back in 1979, or why any member state of the UN sends an embassy to Iran - they VIOLATED the diplomatic protocols of the United Nations in every single detail in 1979. How do you try to engage in diplomacy with somebody who spits on the most important diplomatic treaty that there is? And got away with it? Why wouldn't they do the same thing again? And again? And again? They will. Whenever it suits them to do so.

They will do EVERYTHING they have ever done, again and again and again. Why? Because they've never been called to account for any of it. It's all paid off for the Islamic Republic of Iran.

So how should Iran be treated?

I'm glad you asked!

1) Iran should have it's membership in the United Nations suspended, until such time as it delivers up for justice all those who were involved in (directly or indirectly) the 1979 hostage crisis, to face charges of kidnapping and terrorism.

2) No member state of the United Nations should have an embassy or other diplomatic mission in Iran. Nor should Iran be permitted to operate diplomatic missions in those countries, until the same conditions are met.

3) Iranian diplomats should not be permitted to travel abroad. Nor should Iranian government officials. If they do, they should be arrested and held pending investigation to see if they have been involved in any international crime and/or any human rights abuses within Iran.

4) The Iranian government should be prohibited from engaging in any commercial contract with other governments, or with any private enterprise. Trade and other sorts of economic interaction must be direct and strictly supervised, or it must be prohibited. And not like Iraq's "oil for food" program, either.

None of that involves sanctions. And I wouldn't recommend sanctions. However I think this would be enough to topple that government, in short order. And it would have been enough in 1980, too. But of course, none of it happened, did it? Nor will it now.

Well, that's my opinion, anyway :)

Anonymous said...

Hi Nomad,

Craig, I agree with most of you said, except France is not the support of Iran as it appears in most anglo-saxon medias ; since Ayatola Komeiny came in power, all our exportations for nuclear civil ceased, and, so far I could not find any source for contrary proofs ;

Yes, I agree... I haven't heard that France exports and nuclear tech to Iran. That seems to be on Russia and Pakistan. France, however, seems to be the leading proponent of forgiving Iran for all it has done in the past, overlooking all that Iran is doing in the present, and basically letting them get away with everything and starting fresh. Like everything is fine. With an unrepentent terrorist state of Iran, in possession of nuclear weapons. And asserting control over most of the middle east. That's all fine.

yes our diplomacy is a bit shadowed by Chirac personal inputs ;
but so far that's the discretion way diplomats have always managed France influence : kind of old diplomaty school.


Well, US diplomats engage in all kinds of disgusting deal too, but not with the support of the people. There's usually a big scandal and often criminal prosecutions. If not that, there's a huge public outcry and people get voted out of office over it. Remember the Iran-Contra scandal? That tainted Reagan's Presidency, and he's the most popular US President (by far) that there has been in my lifetime. In France, It seems that the people only complain when their government gets tough, they don't complain when their government kisses ass or does business with criminals. I don't understand it.

anyway, our government influence in that aera is no more than the european one,it appears that we handle better languages with ME, and that most educated Iranians speak french, ; we also have a great iranian diaspora living in our country, difficult for us to ignore it, and that's why we are in front ;

I doubt there are more Iranians in France than in the United States. There are over a million Iranians living within 10 kilometers of where I'm sitting right now. And I don't think more Iranians speak French than English, either. Iran was never under the French sphere of influence. Britain and the US were the key players in Iran prior to 1979. I don't really wish to argue about this, though, I'm just saying both of your points are equally true for America, so I don't think that can explain France's position re: Iran.

certainly, our position could be clearer, we expect it with a new president next year, so far Segolene was clear with the issues of condamning Iran pretention to nuclear war power, don't speak of Sarko, he is aligned on US policy.

Well, France has a history of condemning while at the same time going through the back door with a warm smile and a handshake, Nomad. Action is required!

As I read also dissident Iranians blogs, I know that the mullahs are bluffing : no more money to pay their revolutionars guards since 3 years (and they are the mullahs guards) ;

Where did you get that information from? I'm highly suspicious - the reports I've read indicate the regime's revenues have more than tripled in the last 5 years, due to the increased oil prices and because of their lucrative deals with China.

I suspect this is misinformation meant to mislead the Iranian people (who aren't doing well financially) so that they don't question why if the government is making so much more money, their lives aren't getting any better.

It's probably also meant to get the hopes of the west up, that there will be a revolution. And therefore, to delay any strong action in hopes that the situation will resolve itself.

The IRI has been very clever about building up false hopes to buy time in the past. Khatami with his fake reforms comes to mind.

I don't think anything that's unverifiable as fact can be trusted, if it comes out of Iran. Even if it appears to come from "dissidents" - the IRI has many agents posing as dissidents, all over the world. It was "dissidents" who conducted most of those assassinations, after all.

Russia has just turned freezing their exanges too, after having signed oil contracts with mullahs, now they don't care of what is going to happen to people there

I don't trust Russia at all, but especially when it comes to Iran. It was the support of the USSR for Iran that prevented the US from doing anything about Iran's aggression back in the 1980s. The Cold War hasn't really ended, apparently. China and Russia still openly back America's enemies, for no reason other than thwarting America. No reason at all. Does it matter to China or Russia what kind of government Iran has? No. Not a bit. They can deal with any government in Iran. They support the IRI just because it is in opposition to the USA.

so I think Iran will continue to anoy us for a while, but with nothing in their "garde-manger" (pantry, so an inside popular revolution is expected !

I used to believe a revolution was imminent in Iran a few years ago. I really don't, anymore. Which makes me sad, because I really don't think there's anybody of any political affiliation in the US who is willing to take a gamble that Iran with nuclear weapons will not use those nuclear weapons on an American city.

Anonymous said...

LW,

Have you decided to accept your responsiblity for the Algerian Genocide Yet, how about the Tugree Berber genocide?

why don't you send an email to Sarkosy or Segolène ? instead of mourning always your same victimisation remanent problem, they are the ones who can handle it

Anonymous said...

Craig,

- leading poponent for forgiving Iran... overlooking... seems you forget England, Germany and Spain !

actually all these countries carry on discussions, don't know what they expect, may-be that there will not be a new blizt-kreeg in ME

- they don't complain when their government kisses ass or does business with criminals... seems US is not in rest too. don't want to cite exemples, you know them I expect !

- that can't explain France's position re: Iran... as I tried to explain you, we are not alone on the deal, and certinly not important enough to make rocking the decision of EU too ;

anyway, Why US are still waiting that we show their way in every problem on earth ? your policy can be wrong in the approch too (alike Irak war)

- France has a history of condamning while at the same time going through the back door... the diplomacy ways are impenetrable !
yes I agree, their mistakes are not often shown to public lectures ; our archives stay close too long, not as in your country, I deplore that. remind me of asking the question to Segolène !

about Iranian revenue, yes they increased in mullahs'porfolios, to pay hezbollahs' maintenance, palestinians'revolt, shias' terrorism in Irak, but no more money for their own country .
Did you know they sell their oil at lower prices to european raffineries, (id France) and get it back in Iran at the real price, cause the mullahcraty get backchichs in the operation ? they have oil but not the raffineries (or too old, dating from the Sha times), too bad !

I suppose my sources are OK, they criticize France as Well !

Anonymous said...

Hey Nomad, thanks for the reply :)

- leading poponent for forgiving Iran... overlooking... seems you forget England, Germany and Spain !

No I don't, but France is the self-proclaimed leader of the Axis-of-Weasel :P

actually all these countries carry on discussions, don't know what they expect, may-be that there will not be a new blizt-kreeg in ME

By leaving the US alone it's hardline vs. Iran, Europe is guaranteeing this very war that you say you are trying to prevent, Nomad. The options are

a) the world (or at least most of it) unites to rein Iran in, or

b) the US reins in Iran alone

Option A doesn't necessarily involve military force. Option B does. Which option are we headed towards?

I know you probably believe there is a third way. I do not.

I think most Europeans are perfectly willing to let the US do what needs to be done while they sit around and pretend that they oppose it, so that they can feel they are morally superior. It was the same during the Cold War. Europeans never stopped complaining about every single thing the US tried to do to protect EUROPEANS from Soviet expansion. The entire Cold War was to keep western europe on the free side of the Iron curtain, and you never forgave us for taking your side on the issue, did you?

And you'll never forgive us for doing what needs to be done to stop Iran, either. Even though it would end better for everyone if you got on-board with US policy, especially since it's also in YOUR best interests to check Iran. Iran is not your friend. Iran is your enemy. As it has demonstrated many times, violently.

- that can't explain France's position re: Iran... as I tried to explain you, we are not alone on the deal, and certinly not important enough to make rocking the decision of EU too ;

What is this "EU" you speak of? :P

France is important primarily because it has been the leader of the vehement anti-american movement in Europe. When France broke teh NATO alliance, it changed everything. Russia no longer has any respect for NATO (or for Western Europe) and neither does anybody else. Europe made itself largely irrelevant when it broke with America. It's now America alone, against all the various rogue elements in the world. I'm wondering why it had to be that way. What did France gain?

anyway, Why US are still waiting that we show their way in every problem on earth ?

When did he US ever wait for Europe to show the way on anything? The veneer of civilization and morality is very thin in Europe, and easily torn. The genocide in the balkans was only last a decade ago, Nomad! How many people did the Soviets murder in the 20th century? And I hardly need to remind you what Hitler and Mussolini did! And Libyan Warrior will be happy to tell you what France and Italy did in the 20th century, in North Africa.

We don't want to follow the European lead, Nomad. We want you to follow ours. Your way, sucks ass. We don't need to be like you. You need to be like us. We don't do the things you do, and we don't have the history you have. Learn from us, don't ask us to learn from you. Our way is the better one.

yes I agree, their mistakes are not often shown to public lectures ; our archives stay close too long, not as in your country, I deplore that. remind me of asking the question to Segolène !

Glad we agree on something at least :)

about Iranian revenue, yes they increased in mullahs'porfolios, to pay hezbollahs' maintenance, palestinians'revolt, shias' terrorism in Irak, but no more money for their own country .

Yes. But I still think the Revolutionary Guard is being paid, and paid well. The Revolutionary Guard controls the prisons, the justice system, the Basij militias, Hezbollah itself, and is undoubtedly responsible for promoting Iranian "interests" in Iraq. There is no way on this earth that the IRI is going to let the Revolutionary Guard become unhappy.

Did you know they sell their oil at lower prices to european raffineries, (id France) and get it back in Iran at the real price, cause the mullahcraty get backchichs in the operation ? they have oil but not the raffineries (or too old, dating from the Sha times), too bad !

Yes. They have to import gasoline. That's actually Iran's main weakness, if it comes to sanctions. They need refined gasoline more than the world needs their crude oil. They couldn't last more than a couple of weeks without gasoline imports.

I suppose my sources are OK, they criticize France as Well !

That makes me a pretty good source too, eh? :P

Seriously, I think the regime in Iran has plenty opf money for buying weapons from China and Russia (and then ship soem of them to Hezbollah, of course!), for nuclear technology, and for building up the Revolutionary Guard Corps. And with plenty to spare for Mullah bank accounts, too. I read Rafsanjani is one of the richest men in the world. Disgusting, isn't it?

PS-I'll try and answer your e-mial later today :)

Anonymous said...

I am not so radical as you, so I give up tonight !

(different of surrending !)

Anonymous said...

OK, Nomad :)

Thanks for the replies and the debate, I appreciate you making the effort to answer my challenges. That was probably rude of me. I know I get mad at Adam and sometimes NBA when they grill me about US policy and actions, and then I turned around and did it to you.

Anonymous said...

yeah , your Mr "tapes dur", (Mr hit harsh); but we get in use of your tactic therefore we can manage to avoid the conflict :lol:

don't worry, I'll answer some of your points later on (I got to work now, some kind of euphemism for non-frenchs :lol:)

Non-Blogging said...

Craig, my dear friend, please don't forget I also bashed the French hypocrites above and do that often also about my own country's stupid policies ;-).

What about the US declining to join Kyoto? What about the protests against the World Bank and the IMF? What about the protests against the US when it was first developing anti-missile technology?

Come on, NBA. I could list 100 US policy decisions that drew PROTESTS IN THE STREETS by tens of thousands of Europeans, and you know it as well as I do. Where are the protests in the street against Tehran? Where are the demands from European citizenry that their governments make a stand?


I also remember crowds here deeply moved by 9/11 and sympathetic to the innocent victims ;-).

Haven't seen big crowds in the USA either demonstrating for a harder line against Tehran. If there were any significant crowds like that, I'm sure all our anti-American Euro-weenie news agencies would show them eagerly to give us an idea how neo-Con war mongerers are gaining ground in the USA ;-).

Why? Pakistan is no worse than any of the Arab dictatorships, NBA. Iran, is. Iran has been a state sponsor of terrorism since 1979. Not only has it funded and in fact created terrorist groups to do it's dirty work, it has DIRECTLY committed acts of terrorism (hostage crisis in 1979, the murder of Iranian dissidents abroad, etc) and it has murdered completely innocent foreign nationals inside Iran. That's what Iran has done IN ADDITION to things like allowing embassies to be burned, etc - the things that Pakistan and most Arab regimes are guilty of.

The current Iranian government is nasty, I admit, and the Shah was a bloody dictator as well. My point is not whitewashing them, just trying to argue that Pakistan is even worse and more dangerous.

Anyway, Pakistan is far more responsible for the growth of international extremism and terrorism than you admit. Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the like should be measured with the same criteria as Iran which unfortunately is not the case today the only reason for which must be than somehow they all ended up Western so-called allies.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were two of the three countries in the whole international community that ever recognized the criminal Taliban regime which hid and trained the perpetrators of 9/11 and are thus quite directly linked to the deaths of thousands of your own countrymen.

Both countries' intelligence services and dozens of indiovidual citizens have advocated, financed and tolerated extremists and terrorists for decades in addition to having created intolerant societies at home. As I wrote sometime in the spring I think in the debate on the attack on the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Pakistani authorities consciously failed to act during as they should have during an attack on the US Embassy in Islamabad around the same time of the Tehran embassy siege.

Pakistan has developed nuclear weapons, has a highly risky situation with another country which also has nukes, is ruled by a military dictator who admittedly might be better than any realist alternative, has little respect for human rights, democracy or the freedom of religion and is thoroughly sorrupt so that it has allegedly also participated in the development of nukes for Libya and North Korea.

Furthermore, the government is both unwilling an unable to catch Al-Qaeda members, OBL most likely included, on its own soil. Pakistan has also very likely financed and supported terrorist acts in India.

As much as I try, I simply fail to understand why Pakistan (and from a slightly different view point Saudi Arabia) still count as close allies of the world's leading power instead of being labelled failed rogue states which they should be if the same criteria were used as for Iran, Saddam's Iraq and North Korea.

In fact, the only difference I see between Iran and Pakistan is that practically in everything, the latter's government is responsible for all sins the mullahs are but they're even worse and have indirectly killed more Americans than the Tehran regime. This shouldn't go unpunished but for some reason it goes.

Likewise, in an ideal world the intolerant Saudi despots would be a pariah regime, not superficial partners againts terrorists they created in the first place.

So how should Iran be treated?

1) Iran should have it's membership in the United Nations suspended, until such time as it delivers up for justice all those who were involved in (directly or indirectly) the 1979 hostage crisis, to face charges of kidnapping and terrorism.


Not sure this would soften the regime. Taiwan which partly due to US policies was suspended of its UN membership which was handed over to the communist dictatorship in Beijing, is a working democracy. Hitler cancelled Germany's membership in the UN's predecessor the League of Nation and Stalin's Soviet Union was kicked out of there only to become an ally of the world's leading democracies a couple of years later.

But all in all, although we both know your programme is unrealistic in this evil world, I kind of liked your proposals. Me the Euro-weenie likes all strategies not involving any nuking out of anyone ;-).

Anonymous said...

Craig,

-Axis of weasel : yeah the evil machiavelic frenchs ! (Machiavel was a great Medicis'adviser though)and we learn a lot from the Medicis, our kings'wifes were often coming from Medicis families :lol:

-morally superior : I would better say realitilly superior :lol:

-Cold war : didn't really concern us as we were already a "comunist country" for US
De Gaulle was the first to recognize China and to find other horizons to balance US policy

- support american plans for Iran :
Surely we don't condamn US to resist to iran imperialism, and would certainly help them if we were not aware of the damages US interventions produce in ME countries : see, is Irak in better situation by now ?
before going to war, every consensus must be searched to avoid it.
seems Bush could not wait and did not want to hear about "old world"
advices.
how long will it take to Americans to forget 600 000 dead iraki and 3000 dead US soldiers ?

- what is it EU you speak of ? :
Comission des affaires étrangères

-France leader of the vehement ant-american movement in Europe :
yes, we were the ones who dared to speak loudly at UN in 2003
but seems that we were not alone to think the same, majority of people manifested against the war in EU, alike, Britain, Spain, Italy who were your allies though

-De Gaulle left the NATO cause he was dispised by your officials. If he had not been a clever leader, US would have ruled France as an US satellit, therefore not like an independant country

- France gain : cause Bush was acting like an arrogant greedy imperator

US policy is often right in the ground analyse, but not in the ordonance of the medicaments
The problem, you want things done "right now", an expeditive cure.
we need more time to engage people life in conflicts (2000 years of inter-european wars gave us the idea how harmless is to prompt things)

-Iran guards : I am not certain that the guards are well paid (cf my previous citation)

-that makes me a pretty good source too : of course, thus we know how an average american citizen sees our "old world" :lol:

possible Iran exchanges arms vs oil, now, most of their production belongs to Russia

yes, cold war again ; don't know yet if EU energy supplies will get in the balance, at least not till we get our energy independance and find other oil markets ; glad we have nuclear civil energy.

so Craig, anyway, good to exchange our points of view, may-be erroneous : we are not policy professionals, just people who try to understand each other !

Anonymous said...

Sorry for the delay, I took a day off :)

Non-Blogging,

I also remember crowds here deeply moved by 9/11 and sympathetic to the innocent victims ;-).

The one and only time in my life I ever saw anyone in the world ever show sympathy or support for the United States. And it didn't last more than a week or so before the press started bashing the US again, and all the theories started about all that the US had done to deserve being attacked.

Haven't seen big crowds in the USA either demonstrating for a harder line against Tehran.

No, because the only people who do street protests in the US are leftists, and they support the IRI, as they support everything that is in opposition to their own country and it's positions.

That doesn't change the fact that some 64% of Americans support their country taking unilateral action being taken against Iran, if necessary to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Even now, after the disaster in Iraq.

And you won't find any prominent politician of either party who doesn't support the hardline on Iran, NBA.

Can you say the same about Europe? I hope your answer is "yes" but I suspect it's not.

The current Iranian government is nasty, I admit, and the Shah was a bloody dictator as well.

There you go with your gray areas again, painting everyone with the same gray-shaded brush :)

The Shah did nothing to anyone outside of Iran. No foreign country has or had any reason to complain about the Shah or his father. The only people who had cause to complain of the Shah were Iranians.

Not the same thing. At all.

Anyway, Pakistan is far more responsible for the growth of international extremism and terrorism than you admit.

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. What's your proof? And how do you tie it to Musharif?

Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and the like should be measured with the same criteria as Iran which unfortunately is not the case today the only reason for which must be than somehow they all ended up Western so-called allies.

Ok... tell me in what way Pakistan and Saudi Arabia have been state sponsors of international terrorism then, please?

Calling them "responsible" for it is fine and all, but proof is required.

Pakistan and Saudi Arabia were two of the three countries in the whole international community that ever recognized the criminal Taliban regime which hid and trained the perpetrators of 9/11 and are thus quite directly linked to the deaths of thousands of your own countrymen.

So what? Is that a crime? We get to decide what governments other countries recognize as legitimate?

Both countries' intelligence services and dozens of indiovidual citizens have advocated, financed and tolerated extremists and terrorists for decades in addition to having created intolerant societies at home.

You could say the same about every muslim country. Including Highlander's Libya.

As I wrote sometime in the spring I think in the debate on the attack on the Italian consulate in Benghazi, Pakistani authorities consciously failed to act during as they should have during an attack on the US Embassy in Islamabad around the same time of the Tehran embassy siege.

Not the same. Iranian officials "failed to act" for 444 days, while American diplomatic staff was paraded around on television in blindfolds, with guns pointed at their heads. Some of those Americans were held in Iranian prisons, and were interrogated by Iranian government officials. There is NO QUESTION about official state endorsement and DIRECT INVOLVEMENT in that act. To this day, Iranians celebrate those hostage takers as heroes of the revolution.

Get off the gray areas, NBA :)

Pakistan has developed nuclear weapons, has a highly risky situation with another country which also has nukes, is ruled by a military dictator who admittedly might be better than any realist alternative, has little respect for human rights, democracy or the freedom of religion and is thoroughly sorrupt so that it has allegedly also participated in the development of nukes for Libya and North Korea.

You could say all those things about China and Russia, too. Should we go to war with China and Russia?

Furthermore, the government is both unwilling an unable to catch Al-Qaeda members, OBL most likely included, on its own soil. Pakistan has also very likely financed and supported terrorist acts in India.

Yes. Point?

Libyans have committed terrorist acts against Americans (and Iraqis) in Iraq. As have Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis, Lebanese, Yemenis, Sudanese and others.

Do we hold all those countries responsible for what their citizens do? I'm certain in some of those cases, those terrorist fighters had tacit support of at least some of the officials in their own governments.

It's not the same thing as Iran, which has created, funded, trained and led Hezbollah, and has armed it and continues to arm it. Iranian officials meet with Hezbollah leaders in Damascus almost every day, and theere are Pasdaran officers in Lebanon right now, working with Hezbollah.

Not the same. At all.

As much as I try, I simply fail to understand why Pakistan (and from a slightly different view point Saudi Arabia) still count as close allies of the world's leading power instead of being labelled failed rogue states

You're mistaken if you think there is anyone in the US who views Pakistan as an ally. I've seen people asking as recently as a year ago, why the US considered Syria an ally. That kind of comment just leaves me scratching my head, because I doubt you could find anybody in America who think of Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia) as an ally of the United States.

which they should be if the same criteria were used as for Iran, Saddam's Iraq and North Korea.

The US was technically still at war with Iraq, dating back to 1991, NBA. We never had anything but a ceasefire agreement with Iraq. And as the Quran says, a ceasefire agreement should be betrayed at the earliest opportunity - it means nothing. Nothing at all. It's just a ploy to gain advantage over your enemies. So says the Quran. So it must be.

The US has been formally at war with North Korea since 1950.

The US is not officially at war with Iran, but I would argue an unofficial state of war has existed between the US and Iran since 1979, when they committed one of the most egregious acts of war against America that one country can commit against another.

You seem to be asking why we don't treat people we aren't at war with the same way we treat people we *are* at war with. I don't understand.

But all in all, although we both know your programme is unrealistic in this evil world, I kind of liked your proposals. Me the Euro-weenie likes all strategies not involving any nuking out of anyone ;-).

Glad you liked my ideas, at least :)

Yes, none of that will ever happen. The UN never does any of the things it SHOULD do. That's why the UN is a hopeless institution that should be abolished, like it's predecssor the League of Nations, was. I used to think the UN was better than nothing. I don't believe that, anymore. I think the UN gets in the way, and causes harm to international diplomacy, now. It hinders, it doesn't help. Therefore I think the world doesn't need the UN, nor want it either. I bet if we took a worldwide vote, there'd be no UN, going forward.

Highlander said...

Programmer_Craig :)

And as the Quran says, a ceasefire agreement should be betrayed at the earliest opportunity - it means nothing. Nothing at all. It's just a ploy to gain advantage over your enemies. So says the Quran. So it must be.

Hmmm ... interesting before posting such a sweeping statement checking the sources might have been better. The direct source being the Qu'ran which is available online as well and in English translations for those who cannot read Arabic and when in doubt check the Arabic version and ask a friend for the meaning.

From my basic Islamic classes this is what was drilled into my head: that a treaty, a promise a covenant etc.. are all a religious duty to be kept unless the other party breaches that.

Direct quotes from the Qur'an for your edification :)

(a) “[..]And those who keep their treaty when they make one…”
(Qur'an 2:177

(b) “Yes, whoever fulfils his covenant (bi-`ahd-ihi) and fears God much; verily, then God loves those who are the pious.”

(Qur'an 3:76)

(c) O you who believe! Fulfill your indentures…”

(Qur'an 5:1)

(d) “Successful indeed are the believers…who faithfully observe their trusts and their covenants” (Qur'an 23:1-8)

(e) “God does not forbid you respecting those who have not made war against, you on account of [your] religion, and have not driven you forth from your homes, that you show them kindness and deal with them justly; surely God loves the doers of justice.

God only forbids you respecting those who made war upon you on account of (your) religion, and drove you forth from your homes and backed up (others) in your expulsion, that you make friends with them, and whoever makes friends with them, these are the unjust.

(Qur’an, 60:8-9)

(f) And if they incline to peace, incline thou also to it, and trust in Allah. Lo! He, even He, is the Hearer, the Knower.
(Qur’an, 8:61)

That demonstrates the sacred nature of a covenant or promise or peace treaty or truce, and a ceasefire counts as such right ?

If you are saying that the Iranians as Shia perhaps have another version of the Qur'an , then I don't know about that. However, if you are saying that some Iranian scholars are manipulating other non Qur'an Islamic sources to their advantage then that could be possible but again we cannot claim 'so says the Qur'an '.
If parties break their word, this is not attribuable to the teaching of the Qur'an but rather to the person. Otherwise you start to sound like how LW used to sound before, or even *gasp * a conspiracy theorist :P I'm sure that's not what you meant my dear friend :).

Anonymous said...

Like u say "where is the proof" that the quran says that a treaty must be nullified at the nearest oppertunity?
It doesn't not, the arabic one at least, maybe the pentagon issued translation says so?

Anonymous said...

Nomad,

-Axis of weasel : yeah the evil machiavelic frenchs ! (Machiavel was a great Medicis'adviser though)and we learn a lot from the Medicis, our kings'wifes were often coming from Medicis families :lol:

I don't see anything to be proud of, there. Machiavelli and his philosophy WAS and is, evil. Old school evil. Torture, assassination, genocide, forced deportation, taking of political prisoners, collective punishment - there isn't ANYTHING Machiavelli didn't support, to protect the power of the state.

That's evil. By anyone's definition, Nomad. And I see French people speaking of their Machiavellian philosophy with pride!

-morally superior : I would better say realitilly superior :lol:

You think French are tuned in to reality? Paris burns while Frenchmen say everything is just fine :P

-Cold war : didn't really concern us as we were already a "comunist country" for US
De Gaulle was the first to recognize China and to find other horizons to balance US policy


Well, we agree on this. A lot of Americans think French anti-Americanism is something new, but they have short memories!

- support american plans for Iran :
Surely we don't condamn US to resist to iran imperialism, and would certainly help them if we were not aware of the damages US interventions produce in ME countries : see, is Irak in better situation by now ?


And you knew that it would be a disaster, before the fact? How?

The US does not have a long history of interventions in the Middle-East. France, however, does. France is intervening in Lebanon and Syria as we speak. What good has come from French intervention? Why is France willing to intervene in Lebanon (it's former colony) but not in Iran? Or in Iraq, for that matter?

And what makes you think that whatever is true for an arab country also holds true for Iran, anyway? You seem to think French are experts on middle-eastern mentality - I see no evidence of that, but French do at least have a lot of experience dealing with arab countries. But, what experience with Iran?

Americans aren't the only ones who are arrogant, methinks :)

It seems to me that France is repeating past mistakes and expecting things to work out differently than they did, before. In Lebanon, for instance. If you do everything the same way you did before (and you are) why do you think things will end better? That doesn't seem sensible. At least America is not doing that. I doubt the experiment in Iraq will ever be repeated in a muslim country. Nor do I expect a return to the old ways of installing dictators. I think in the future we'll have an entirely new plan. I'm not sure what that is, yet, though.

before going to war, every consensus must be searched to avoid it.

Eh.... this might be more credible, if you weren't French! :P

No offense intended, Nomad. But the French were still trying to reach a diplomatic solution when the Nazis weer marching through Paris. In fact, I think they did! Their diplomatic solution was to surrender, and then co-operate :)

seems Bush could not wait and did not want to hear about "old world"
advices.


Nope. He did not. And I did not. He did not ask for your advice. He invoked NATO, and asked for your help. Not your advice.

how long will it take to Americans to forget 600 000 dead iraki and 3000 dead US soldiers ?

How long did it take the soviets to forget 9 million dead Russian soldiers, Nomad?

Don't try a numbers game with Iraq. The numbers are not large. It doesn't work.

yes, we were the ones who dared to speak loudly at UN in 2003
but seems that we were not alone to think the same, majority of people manifested against the war in EU, alike, Britain, Spain, Italy who were your allies though


France could have quietly opted out, when the alliance was invoked. Instead, France started rallying America's enemies.

If that's not a broken alliance, Nomad, I don't know what is. How long will it take Americans to forget THAT? A lot longer than you think, I suspect.

-De Gaulle left the NATO cause he was dispised by your officials. If he had not been a clever leader, US would have ruled France as an US satellit, therefore not like an independant country

Delusions of grandeur, I think it's called :)

- France gain : cause Bush was acting like an arrogant greedy imperator

That should have made him very popular in France, I would have though!?

US policy is often right in the ground analyse, but not in the ordonance of the medicaments
The problem, you want things done "right now", an expeditive cure.


Yes.

we need more time to engage people life in conflicts (2000 years of inter-european wars gave us the idea how harmless is to prompt things)

We don't have that history. We have the history of coming to your aid, during those inter-european wars. "right now" instead of spending decades thinking about it. And even then, people criticize us for taking too long to get involved. "Sitting on the sidelines" is what I've heard Europeans say.

-that makes me a pretty good source too : of course, thus we know how an average american citizen sees our "old world" :lol:

The average American has never been outside of the United States, and knows nothing about Europe except what's written in textbooks. At least, that was the case until recently. Now, the average American views Europe with a great deal of distaste. Just so you know :)

yes, cold war again ;

Only, now western Europe is with the eastern bloc. At least, that's how it looks from over here. Western Europe is NOT on the same side with America, this time.

I hope that works out well for you guys, Nomad, because if it doesn't, I (personally) think it's highly unlikely the US will ever get involved in a ground war in Europe, again. Whatever happens, you'll have to live with it, next time.

so Craig, anyway, good to exchange our points of view, may-be erroneous : we are not policy professionals,

Thank God! That means we tell the truth once in a while, right? :)

just people who try to understand each other !

Yes. Thanks for all the input, I appreciate it. And the civil tone as well. You too, NBA :)

Non-Blogging said...

Craig,

Sorry to say but I find it impossible to argue with you. You whitewash dictatorships such as Pakistan better than any PR agency ever could.

Also, I find it very strange that you completely disregard the feelings of Iranians who suffered under the shah's despotic rule and think that wasn't a problem because the shah didn't do anything abroad. God damn what kind of thinking.

(Yes, I've argued earlier that the mullahs are even worse. Call that grey areas ;-).)

Now that you've previously hinted that people like me are terrorist supporters, it's interesting to see - for example - that you don't see OBL hiding in Pakistan as a problem.

As for your claim that

You're mistaken if you think there is anyone in the US who views Pakistan as an ally. I've seen people asking as recently as a year ago, why the US considered Syria an ally. That kind of comment just leaves me scratching my head, because I doubt you could find anybody in America who think of Pakistan (or Saudi Arabia) as an ally of the United States.

What you write above is complete nonsense. Check the fact sheet below - from the White House website - how your country cooperaters with the country. Pakistan is a vital US ally officially:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/03/20060304-4.html

As for the rest, I lay it rest. I don't want to argue with someone who shows so much compassion and understanding for dictatorships and regimes that harbour people and movements that have killed numerous of his own countrymen.

Seriously, look at this for example:

Furthermore, the government is both unwilling an unable to catch Al-Qaeda members, OBL most likely included, on its own soil. Pakistan has also very likely financed and supported terrorist acts in India.

Yes. Point?


So much understanding for terrorists I haven't seen for ages from anyone in his senses. To me, these are sad facts, not irrelevant things. Until now I thought you wanted to have people between 9/11 and other international terrorists punished, now I see it's a matter of no importance to you.

Anonymous said...

Highlander, I'm surprised at you - you quote to me what the Quran says about peace treaties! I was speaking of ceasefire agreements, which the Quran treats quite differently!


Quran 004.091

YUSUFALI: Others you will find that wish to gain your confidence as well as that of their people: Every time they are sent back to temptation, they succumb thereto: if they withdraw not from you nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands, seize them and slay them wherever ye get them: In their case We have provided you with a clear argument against them.

nor give you (guarantees) of peace besides restraining their hands

Classic ceasefire agreement. A ceasfire agreemnet with muslims gets you this:

slay them wherever ye get them

That's right out of the Quran. A ceasfire agreement is not good enough, when dealing with muslims. A peace treaty is required.

I didn't really want to get into this, but I will point out why a peace agreement is not always good enough, too:

Quran 008.056

YUSUFALI: They are those with whom thou didst make a covenant, but they break their covenant every time, and they have not the fear (of Allah).

Covenant = treaty.

Quran 008.057

YUSUFALI: If ye gain the mastery over them in war, disperse, with them, those who follow them, that they may remember.

Iran is a covenant breaker. I view this as the Quranic fate that awaits Iranians. Of course, they get an exemption because they are muslims, but they are still covenant breakers, and the Quran is clear that covenant breakers are to be treated harshly. For Allah loves not the treacherous.

However, the Quran seems to give muslims permission to break treaties (even peace treaties) with non-muslims:

Quran 008.058

YUSUFALI: If thou fearest treachery from any group, throw back (their covenant) to them, (so as to be) on equal terms: for Allah loveth not the treacherous.

So, there's no way for non-muslims to deal with muslims, diplomatically. No way at all. It cannot be done.

Another reason why it's foolish for the west to engage Syria and Iran in dialog.

Anonymous said...

NBA,

Sorry to say but I find it impossible to argue with you. You whitewash dictatorships such as Pakistan better than any PR agency ever could.

Whitewash? I'm just saying they aren't any worse than 100 other countries!! For God's sake, NBA, do you expect Ameriuca to change every government in the god damned world!? You act like you do!! Jesus, man. Is Musharif worse than Q? Do you want the US to invade Libya too!?

Forget it, man. I've tried to get you to leave the fuzzy thinking behind before. I give up. It must feel very nice to sit on that little morally superior high-horse condemning everyone else's misconduct, eh?

Why don't you get YOUR government to fix everything? We're pretty fucking busy over here in the US at the moment! A little help, please.

Anonymous said...

For an example of what a ceasefire is worth with Islamists, look at the way Hezbollah continued attacking Israel, despite a ceasefire agreement. And kidnapped Israeli soldiers, after invading Israeli territory, too.

In fact, I could go back thoughout history and I doubt I'd find a single case where muslims ever honored a ceasefire. Saddam broke the ceasefire in 1991 as soon as the coalition forces left Kuwait, and he continued to violate it on a daily basis for 10 years.

Anonymous said...

what ceasefire agreement?
Israel unilaterally withdrew from a failed invasion to save itself, it only agreed with the US on it or the other way around.
You can start a war when u want but can't stop it when u want.
As for the phrases u propose are from the Quran give me the name of the sura? or at least post it in arabic so we can see the Quran jihadwatch.org isn't our reference for religious preaching.

Anonymous said...

Non-Blogging, sorry about the harsh tone. But it was you (I think) that posted a link to that international poll, which showed the US to be the most hated country in the world. Everyone is against us. We don't have the luxury of treating everyone who is merely a philosophical enemy the same as people who are real, honest to God killing-americans-and-trying-to-end-the-existance of-the-United-States-of-America.

Iran is a *real* enemy of America.

North Korea is a *real* enemy of America.

Those are our priorities. As far as everyone who just hates our guts, we'll have to live with that. But it's in no way in America's interests to lose sight of who our real shooting-war enemies are.

Anonymous said...

anonymous,

Perhaps you should give your *name* before you start demanding I give my sources? :)

This is not Jihad Watch:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/MSA/quran/

Quran 008.058

When I say that, it means

Quran

Chapter 8

Verse 58

That's how we do scriptural notations in English. Chapter means the same as Surah. So my quotes were from Surah 4 and Surah 8.

That site is University of Southern California, one of our best Universities. It has the whole Quran (and other Islamic texts) translated by 3 different scholars, with all 3 translations side by side. Sorry if that's not good enough for you, but it's the best I've been able to find, and I consider it to be reputable. I'm not playing this "if it's not in arabic, it's not valid" game anymore. Too many muslims have accused me of not knowing what I'm talking aboiut because I haven't read the Quran. They say this knowing that I can't read arabic. I can almost see the smirk on their mugs. So, that's done with. Muslims demand westerners learn about Islam, then we will learn about Islam in English.

Were you challenging any of that by the way? By content, and not by language, I mean?

As for your claim about ceasefires, well - it's very clever, considering Hezbollah has no authority to make or break a ceasefire, anyway, isn't it? And is therefore exempt from having to even recognize an agreement it is not party to, right?

Can you name any time in history a muslim army has honored a ceasefire with a non-muslim army?

If you can, I would be very interested in that, because it would give me some hope for the future. It really is my view that there can never be meaningful diplomatic relations between muslims and non-muslims. And I think history bears out my reading of the Quran, and not Highlander's.

Anonymous said...

no chapter isn't the same as surrah a chapter has more than one surrah.

And even the lebanese government didn't negotiate a ceasefire, but at the end of the day since you said they were clever they were, they never brokered a ceasefire to break it.

As for your translation of the quran I will not argue much, but what i will say is that you said that was an american translation right? so isn't it your view of the quran? you can translate it like you want add parts remove parts like you do in the bible? but at the end of the day it isn't what we believe in; its what you think we believe in so you can't judge us on your own perception of who we are, if the muslims who you spoke to like highlander and others say that this is a wrong translation and it is taken out of context who's word are u going to take theirs or the university of california.

As for truces we have never, to my mind broken a truce, truces are bound by conditions and if those conditions are broken then the truce is meaningless and that is the generally understanding of a truce even for non-muslims. An example when the crusaders killed salahadin's sister after pillaging her caravan even though there was a truce ?

Even if a truce was broken how do u know it was based on religious teachings and not individual military thought of the ruler?

A link on the misinterpretations of the quran :
Does the bible preach violence?

and if u don't believe highlander, and you are only here to argue with NBA why don't u create your own blog and take it there? or are you only here to ruin the blog and war monger?

Highlander said...

The discussion is interesting I'm enjoying reading it, please every body remember to keep tempers down and maintain civility - so far it's going well .
And for that I want to thank you all personally , especially for taking pains to write such long comments. No wonder I love my readers :) you are the best in the blogosphere seriously . mwaah ( big kiss to all of ya ) .

Anonymous said...

Craig,

got to take time for answering,

about Machiavelli's philosophy your wrong for the original meaning and Frederic the king of Prussia wrote an anti-Machiavelli book, from which your actual statement might come from

if you think we speak in pride of machiavellism, isn't it what each independant state does, and mostly yours ?

- Paris's bunring , oh, no, not again

- and you knew that it would be a disaster...
our secret service warned your CIA that a terrorist act would occured in your state, Bush forgot about it, other ideas in mind, your CIA had no agents in the accused countries, for satellit superiority = defectuous renseignments when it comes to men' minds
and we had the experience of Algeria guerillas

- France is intervening in Lebanon & Syria : Lebanon, OK, Syria, for sure no, Chirac is the one who did not want to speak with the Damas owner since Hariri was murdered
- again, why is France willing to intervene there (a former colony :
France is there at the request of your government ; I explained it many times on diverse blogs and I don't want to start the same laïus ; Lebanon was not a colony but a protectorat under UN mandat since the "traité de Sévres" ~1920
therefore Lebanon had his own goverment structures, and at the times there were about more or less 60 % christians there ; yes we got on very well with the people there, it explains also our actual position there. I agree that the actual UN mandat is a non-sense, no article 7 available !

- experience with Iran :
we constructed most of the infrastructures there during the Shah times

- Americans arent the only ones who are arrogant, :lol:, but you replace us quite well !

- diplomatic solution when the nazis..., England to, mein Herr !

I am not going to provide you again the links about our defait in 1940, due to the big panzer division, when englishes saw it they ran away

- surrender, your favorite word, thus we could not possibly carry on the war with just a few tanks and horses, then started the "resistance" of which you don't want to hear, cause de Gaulle instigated it

- Bush ask for an help : bernique ! he wanted people for doing his bloody job on the basis we did not agree at the start

- how long did it take the soviets... nice rock and roll!
I think they will be your next opponents

-broken alliance : no, just said no to a foolish enterprise ; arent we in Afghanistan, weren't we in Haïti ? or in Korea ? (ask me the link, it will be a pleasure to provide it)

-delusion of grandeur : you'll have your soon (sorry)

- we have the history of coming to your aid : no, you went here cause the germans and then the soviets would have had nuclear bases on this side of the Atlantic ; you did not want to help us for our sake, you dispased us already ; though your government was dealing with the Vichy government till then, and you wanted to replace De Gaulle by an avatar from Vichy

-Americans view Europe with a great deal of distaste : don't need to tell, I read internet too

-Unlikely the US will ever get involved in a ground war in Europe : we don't need it, anyway, you can't afford it anymore (sorry)

I don't expect you to turn in my mind, one would already knows :lol: ; But I find it OK you caring to read what the childidh old world has to say to his bid daddy :lol:

Anonymous said...

NBA:

very funny comments. LOL

Anonymous said...

Anonymous,

no chapter isn't the same as surrah a chapter has more than one surrah.

So, you are here to argue semantics with me. No thank you. Those quotes are legit. If you have something to say, say it. Otherwise, go talk to somebody who wants to bicker about scriptural interpretations. You asker where the quotes come from, and I told you, and you're still arguing about what "surah" means. Have you read the Quran yourself? Are you saying that's not in the Quran? This is teh same old dishonest claim a lot of muslims seem to use to try to defend the Quran. Instead of defending what the Quran says, they argue semantics. Like, it's not correct unless you read it in arabic. Tiresome.

Nomad, as far as Machiavelli, perhaps you don't know this, but "The Prince" is required reading at most American High Schools. Or it was when I was in High School. We know who he is, and we know what his philosophy was.

our secret service warned your CIA that a terrorist act would occured in your state...

We were talking about Iraq. Now we're discussing 9/11? Sorry, Nomad. I don't believe this. French newspapers were reporting the attacks were a hoax, and you'd have me believe French intelligence knew about the attack, before it happened? This is the stuff of conspiracy theories, or some French official, blowing his own horn. Enough. There's been enough of that, when it comes to 9/11.

and we had the experience of Algeria guerillas

And the Soviets got kicked out of Afghanistan by the Mujihedeen. Yet, you supported the invasion of Afghanistan.

And no, I'm not soliciting an opinion about whether the French knew before hand that the invasion of Afghanistan would succeed, and the mission in Iraq would fail, or how they knew it :)

I don't think it has anything to do with any of that, Nomad. I think it was pure selfish greed, as the case is with Iran, now. You spoke of the difficulties France has obtaining oil. Iraq was a great opportunity for France to obtain oil without US competition. As is Iran. Afghanistan has no oil.

Yes. I believe it's just that simple, Nomad. But I don't expect you to.

- France is intervening in Lebanon & Syria : Lebanon, OK, Syria, for sure no, Chirac is the one who did not want to speak with the Damas owner since Hariri was murdered

By intervening in Lebanon, you are also intervening with Syria. And Iran. You should remember that from last time. You lost French troops over it. And we lost American troops. Iran was behind that. Syria was the middle man. The conditions are the same, now. They are not going to let you establish and maintain a Christian enclave in Lebanon, Nomad.

- again, why is France willing France is there at the request of your government ;

This may be what you've been told, Nomad, but it is entirely untrue. The US has no interest in Lebanon, other than Hezbollah's presence there, and Iran's meddling.

It's not in American interests for Hezbollah to have a UN sanctified safe-haven to operate out of. We'd prefer no UN troops were there. At all. That way, in case things escalate, there are no UN troops present to complicate matters.

I don't need to see any classified intelligence or closed-door meeting transcripts to make this determination. What you say is just plain contrary to American interests, and therefore I do not believe the US urged France to intervene in Lebanon. And I never will :)

- experience with Iran :
we constructed most of the infrastructures there during the Shah times

Really? This is the first I've heard of it. The US and Britain ended up in post WWII, because during the war Iran was an important (critical, even) conduit for US military aid to the soviets. The only other way we had to get aid to the soviets was across the Bering strait, and all the way across Siberia. Iran really played a critical role in WW II. But I've never heard of French presence in Iran. Can you point me to some information about that? Because if France deserves some of the blame for propping up the Shah, I want to make sure you get it :P

- Americans arent the only ones who are arrogant, :lol:, but you replace us quite well !

Could be. Or, maybe it's just me :)

- diplomatic solution when the nazis..., England to, mein Herr !

Yes. England too. You guys never learn, either, do you?

I am not going to provide you again the links about our defait in 1940, due to the big panzer division, when englishes saw it they ran away

The British Expeditionary Forces were there to help you. France surrendered while they were still fighting, and abandoned them. It's a miracle they were able to evacuate off Dunkirk with their lives. If I was British, I would be pretty upset with that comment you just made, Nomad.

But I'm not British. And look what the good British people did to Tony Blair for having the temerity to stand by the best ally Britain ever had?

No, I won't take very much umbrage over your comment :)

I won't comment more about France's WWII history. I think it's pretty shameful. Especially the Vichy navy fighting for the Germans. But you are welcome to your version of it. Maybe that's why French people are so comfortable treating Americans badly. You think you didn't need us, anyway.

- Bush ask for an help : bernique ! he wanted people for doing his bloody job on the basis we did not agree at the start

You couldn't have disagreed, quietly? As other did?

No, that was an orchestrated event. An orchestrated snubbing of America, by France.

I think they will be your next opponents

I don't think so. I think they will swallow up western Europe, and the US will let them. Because the US is going to need Russia, when it comes time to fight China.

That's my opinion, anyway. The next war is going to be about oil, and Russia doesn't need to take anybody's oil. China, does. China will need the entire world's supply of oil, and even that won't be enough, by the time they are fully industrialized.

- we have the history of coming to your aid : no, you went here cause the germans and then the soviets would have had nuclear bases on this side of the Atlantic ;

What difference would that make, Nomad? All of eastern Siberia is closer to the United States than Europe is!

What are they teaching in French schools!?

Come on, Nomad, look at a map! What threat to the US is nuclear weapons in Western Europe? The Soviets already HAD ICBMs closer to America than that, starting from about 1950!

-Unlikely the US will ever get involved in a ground war in Europe : we don't need it, anyway, you can't afford it anymore (sorry)

That's good to hear that you don't need America. As far as not being able to "afford" it - no comment. Except, France needs better text books in the schools!

OK, I missed some but I don't think we're getting anywhere, anyway, Nomad. We don't even agree on history, so how can we agree about current events?

I'm beginning to understand why there's no common ground between your country and mine. We probably should never have been allies in the first place. I'll be damned if I can figure out how Britain became an ally of France.

Anonymous said...

By the way, Nomad:

I don't think so. I think they will swallow up western Europe, and the US will let them

Another reason why I think Russia will establish hegemony over western Europe, with America's blessing, is because of your changing "demographics" - which obviously neither Russia nor the US will be comfortable with.

Anonymous said...

Not to continue the argument about WWII, BUT....

- surrender, your favorite word, thus we could not possibly carry on the war with just a few tanks and horses

Hitler spent 15 years building up his military, right under your noses. In direct violation of the treaty he signed with you. Why did you have only "a few tanks and horses" when he invaded?

Just something to think about. There are similar things happening in the world today. Will the world be caught "unaware" again, Nomad?

Anonymous said...

Hitler spent 15 years building up his military, right under your noses. In direct violation of the treaty he signed with you. Why did you have only "a few tanks and horses" when he invaded?

Hitler was helped, in particular, by Mr Bush grand-father's finances, at that time most people in your country could not care much of Hitler's intentions, as anyone else in the world ;

agree that we had idiot army leaders, they still have had in mind the butchery of WW1 and thought, never that happens again ; only de Gaulle wanted a modern army with more tanks, but he was not in good intelligence with the headquaters in France too

funny how you turn history to your avantage when it comes to US or anglo-saxons actions ; my sources are equal in quality than yours, coming mostly from american writers, you know they are translated over here !

but you won't listen another version of history than the one which conforts you in good consciouness ; never doubt, you are the "good", we are the "evil"...

but the moral standards of your world have changed into evil too

Anonymous said...

a marxixt analyse of Iran policy

the marxixts help iranian revolution to settle, then they were persecuted by the mullahcraty

France/Iran relations in last centuries>

Anonymous said...

Hi Nomad,

Hitler was helped, in particular, by Mr Bush grand-father's finances, at that time most people in your country could not care much of Hitler's intentions, as anyone else in the world ;

Conspiracy theories aside, you haven't answered the question :)

agree that we had idiot army leaders, they still have had in mind the butchery of WW1 and thought, never that happens again ;

And it's different, now?

We've discussed the Maginot Line before, and I don't want to do so again.... we don't agree on that, either. But I think France was aware of the threat, and downplayed it. I don't know if the French thought their large Army (France had the largest Army in the world at the time) was sufficient deterrent, and assumed Hitler would victimize everyone else, and not France... or if France (like everyone else) was oblivious to the innovations Germany was making in war theory. But either way, there was some sort of denial going on there.

And the power of Germany's military was not as overwhelming as it at first seemed. The biggest problem people had fighting the Germans in the early years was fear. Once the Soviets stopped running and stood their ground, they found the Germans were not really unbeatable, after all. The Americans and the British found the same, in North Africa. It's possible with the help of the British, France could have lasted long enough that your troops adapted to German tactics and learned to fight back, to. But we'll never know, because France surrendered the moment things became grim.

only de Gaulle wanted a modern army with more tanks, but he was not in good intelligence with the headquaters in France too

You certainly have a high opinion of him, Nomad. Nobody had a military structure capable of fighting the Germans, in the early years of WWII. People fought them, anyway.

funny how you turn history to your avantage when it comes to US or anglo-saxons actions ; my sources are equal in quality than yours, coming mostly from american writers, you know they are translated over here !

I'm not skewing anything. There's nothing to skew. We disagree about basic facts.

America is not immune from revisionist historians. We have them in droves. They usually end up being exposed for what they are, though. Perhaps you should research the authors, before you make your selections? Unless you want to read a version of history that matches your expectations?

but you won't listen another version of history than the one which conforts you in good consciouness ;

I won't listen to a version of history that blames all of Frances failures on others, no.

It's no wonder France repeats the same mistakes it has made in the past, Nomad. French people are unaware that they have ever made a mistake. Or so it seems to me.

never doubt, you are the "good", we are the "evil"...

What does "good" and "evil" have to do with it, Nomad? We're talking about winning, and losing. Accepting responsibility for historical errors, learning from the past, other such things.

I only mentioned evil in reference to Machiavelli. And now that I think about it, revising your own history so that the state remains blameless and the fault lies elsewhere is very much in line with Machiavellian philosophy :P

but the moral standards of your world have changed into evil too

That's pretty subjective. Nothing is absolute. I believe my country acts mainly for the good. But not always.

At least we don't try to act like everyone is the same, all governments are the same, and all standards of conduct (and misconduct) are the same. We don't refuse to make a stand, based on a perception that everyone is equally guilty, of everything. Which is something I see in Europeans a lot.

the marxixts help iranian revolution to settle, then they were persecuted by the mullahcraty

Yes, the communists were the competing revolutionaries, to the Islamists. They should have known how that would end, communists being atheists by definition and all, you know?

This should be another lesson about establishing an alliance of convenience with religious fanatics, right?

I wish our American leftists would study up some on this sort of thing.

Anonymous said...

Nomad I looked at the english version of the France-Iran Relations on wikipedia, and the "Pahlavi era" so I can't comment on that one :)

Anonymous said...

Though it had a lot of information about what great trade relations there are between Iran and France since 2003 :P

Twosret said...

while we are clearly discussing the evil bad boys of Tehran and Pakistan, what about the slut Israel with nuclear weapons clearly admitted by their dumbWit Olmert.

Whoops! I forgot Israel is entitled to protect istelf from the Palestinians who owns fire works "rockets".

Mwaaah back at you too highlander LOL!

Anonymous said...

Please keep your pathological hatred of Jews on your own blog, Twosret. As far as I can recall, neither Palestinians nor Israelis were mentioned in this thread.

Non-Blogging said...

Hmm, I always find it interesting that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is brought up in discussions which originally dealt with something else and after that something else but somewhat related.

This time, however, Craig, you made the first reference to the topic. Quoting your comment on Thu, Dec 14, 12:33:00:

I'm wondering why the obvious bigotry of Iranians (and arabs, for that matter) such as the holocaust denail combined with the threats to exterminate jews in israel, and the announced intent to destroy the anglo-saxon race, always seems to go unchallenged - or at least, it's written off as the stupidity of child-like people.

Boldening by NB :-).

Anonymous said...

I am closing my discussion part on this topic, it is worth nothing but blabla, if, Craig, you want to handle the "winner" position then OK, I don't mind having "the surrending" one, it doesn't hurt me that much ; as you know , I 'll sort what ever I want out through the back-door , isn't the door anyhow that the white negers are allowed to then !

Anonymous said...

Ah, that's a cheat, NBA.... I only mentioned Israel obliquely as I was complaining about Iran :P

Twosret did provide a good example of that bigotry I was talking about, though, eh?

I'll close my comments here too. Nobody needs to "win" Nomad... we have very different views of the world. I actually enjoyed the discussion. I apologize if you didn't.

Adam said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Craig, no worry, if I didn't , I would n't bother anyway, at least it helped to recover your "good" mood

Adam said...

Ah, that's a cheat, NBA.... I only mentioned Israel obliquely as I was complaining about Iran :P

Sorry but I fail to understand the whole thing. Maybe it is because English is my third language. But what is the link between Iran and old Anlog-Saxon poetry? Seems off topic to me. And who mentioned (today's) Iran first? Eh!

Non-Blogging said...

I second my partner in Euro-softie crime, Adam (for all you anti-Euro-softies: I hide behind the back of another weenie, can you get softer than this???). The link between old Anglo-Saxon poetry and nuclear bombs in the Middle East is as strong as the link between Saddam and Al-Qaeda (sorry, couldn't help) ;-). Or the USA and France ;-).

However, let me note that I seriously believe the link between old Anglo-Saxon poetry and cute toes in nice shebsheb zanoubas is alive and kicking, so why don't we start discussing that instead?

Twosret said...

Didn't know that Iranians and Pakistanis are anglo saxon and related to the topic LOL! now I understand why Craig have dark skin and black hair and claims to be anglo saxon hehehehee!

the only example of bigotry is that the bitch Israel nuclear weapons can't be brought up :)

I will bring up anything I want Craig and you have to simply read it and live with it :)

Twosret said...

Oh NBA Shebsheb Zanoubas are related to the topic, we are talking poetry here :). A good knight will fall on his face seeing seeing our Libyan queen toes for sure, this is how poetry is created.

Anonymous said...

Highlander, If you don't call Twosret's lie (publicly) this time, I won't forgive you. I've asked you to publicly challenge her lies before and you refused because she was your friend. That's not OK with me. You're one of the few people who knows that what she says is untrue. You have to say so.

Highlander said...

Ok Craig

Dear All,

This is to clarify that Programmer _Craig is indeed white skinned, blue eyed and blond. I and Twosret both know it along with many readers on Leilouta's blog.

Dear Craig, I missed all these posts as I was away ( you know very well where I was). Reading them now I believe most people thought Twosret is joking. So please accept my deepest apologies for any moral damage done to you on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Well, I see comments have started vanishing.

Just for the record, Twosret, there are anglo-saxons with black hair. My father has black hair. It's just very uncommon.

It's not the crack about skin color and hair color that is insulting. It's the fact you are trying to defame me by claiming I am misrepresenting myself. I believ specifically you are trying to convince people I ma jewish, in order to discredit retroactively everything I have ever said about the middle-east.

You're despicable human being.

Twosret said...

Love you too Craig :)

Anonymous said...

The posts are "vanshing" because the evil spirit of Twosret prepared a spell and had to punish all the Jews with dark hair for their deeds.

Anonymous said...

what the hell is that ?

nobody cares whether your anglo, jewish, latinos, FRENCH :lol:, blond, brown, black,
at least you sound very american !

Don't let the paranoïa overwhelming you