Thinking Meat

Peace through strength revisited

Hey, remember all those warnings that our "unilateral, cowboy approach" to Iraq would damage our other diplomatic interests? Remember the calls to deal with the North Koreans first?

Well, apparently, being tough militarily really does pay off in other diplomatic crises. Who knew?

Chinese officials may now be looking hopefully at the Iraq war - despite their official calls for it to end - to buttress their case with Pyongyang.

"When the administration started this war in Iraq, they sent a message to countries who have or have had conflicts with the U.S., a clear message: The U.S. is not a paper tiger, it's a real tiger. And also that as a major power, the U.S.'s voice and principles should be listened to closely," said Zhang Liankui, a Central Party School professor. "If the U.S. quickly finishes this war successfully, the North Koreans will be more cautious in the future."

(By way of The Command Post.)

Saddam's Swimming Saboteurs

A blurb in OpinionJournal mentions this ironic tale of a San Diego man who was attacked and bloodied by a seal while trying to prove that seals pose no danger to people.

A man was clawed and scratched by a seal during a demonstration by a group of swimmers attempting to show that people and seals can coexist at Children's Pool in La Jolla.

For some reason, no one has noticed that the story is filed under the heading "Iraq." This can only mean one thing: the seals were working for Hussein.

Paramilitary indeed.

There's a great new blog for quick links to late-breaking Iraq War news, called The Command Post. The blog was started by Michele of A Small Victory and Alan of Avocare. Many names familiar to blog readers have been posting there, so go check it out. Oh yeah, I post there too. :-)

Incidentally, the official address for this site is www.command-post.org, but until this address is known to Internet name servers, you can use http://216.134.209.67/~command/ instead. The official address should be working within a day or so.

Who needs Iraqi propaganda when you've got Reuters?

Oh man... that is just brutal

The Sun's treatment of Chirac probably violates the Geneva Convention.

What amuses me is not the sophomoric humor, though, but that it seemed to really get a rise out of the French:

She said: "It's not Chirac who threatens world peace. It is Bush. We are proud of our president."

Her friend Emilie Lamotte, 19, said: "All Chirac is doing is protecting us. You English have no one to protect you. If I were English I would be very scared."

Another student, Angelique Bienassis, 19, said: "You cannot call Chirac a harlot. That is so offensive to the French people. Whatever his faults he is our protector."

There is something very creepy in people who worship their leader this way, and call him their "protector." It reeks of -- what's that word? oh yeah -- fascism and a cult of personality. Sure, it's just three very young mademoiselles, but still... Chirac as the Grand Protector is a notion as creepy as it is hilarious.

Anyway, back to the sophisticated French:

Vincent Bouis, 32, was shocked at our display of good old British contempt for the French president.

He screamed: "This is violent and destructive language."

I'd go on, but mocking people like this is redundant.

(Found by way of Iron Fist in LGF comments.)

If there is one word that sums up the events of the last couple of years, that word is consequences.

The attacks of September 11th were a consequence of many years and many layers of policies and actions, from the U.S., the Russians, the Arabs, the Radical Muslims, etc. (Don't worry, there is no Chomskyite rant coming up. But those attacks didn't happen in a vacuum.) The subsequent destruction of the Taliban was a consequence of their harboring Osama bin Laden. The current invasion of Iraq is the consequence of several wars and policies pursued by the Hussein regime, of our unwillingness to remove the regime in 1991, and the fear of what consequences may result from failing to remove it today, before it goes nuclear. Our disregard for the UN is a consequence of its loss of credibility, as it failed to enforce 12 years of empty resolution after empty resolution.

Turkey will not be getting its economic aid package, as a consequence of refusing to let our troops use their land to open a northern front against Iraq. They finally let use their airspace, in fear of more dire consequences. France will really have to be confronted with some unpleasantless, as a consequence of their attempt to score political points at our expense, and lying to Colin Powell about their intentions. Diplomatic retribution against them is a necessity, regardless of French intentions or whether the U.S. was right or wrong in this case, lest others get the idea that going against the U.S. is cheap and easy. That's an idea we've allowed to persist for way too long.

Another idea that's been around for too long and getting a bit ripe is that any "demonstration" is a legitimate expression, and therefore protected by freedom of speech. Well, this isn't legitimate. Neither is this. Both of these actions illegally restrict the freedom of movement of people who are not involved in the politics of the protestors -- and they have every right to stay uninvolved. Keeping someone from going home in order to get your onanistic self-righteousness on television is at least as wrong as the police detaining someone for their political views. Either way, the result is the same, and those responsible should be punished. The protesters are counting on the fact that prosecuting them is expensive, and lenient sentences are generally handed out to keep from having to jail them. Unfortunately, that minimizes the consequences for their disruption (which is quite the euphemism for detaining thousands of people on the road, and refusing to let them go home), which makes them more and more aggressive, violent, and destructive, and puts everyone involved -- bystander, policeman, and protester -- in danger. It also breaks down the foundations of our society, one of which is that dissent is welcomed and appreciated, as long as it is peaceful, non-destructive, lawful, and respectful towards those who disagree or are indifferent. Words, even loud ones, shouted from the sidelines are acceptable. Deliberately blocking traffic, is not.

Arresting and fully prosecuting all those people is probably impractical. But the authorities can't just let it slide without consequences, or else it will continue and get worse, until someone is seriously injured or killed. They can't arrest everyone, but they can arrest some, and prosecute them fully. I doubt that the jail terms would be long, but whatever they are, they should be fully served out; maximum fines should be levied as well. We can't surrender our cities and our process of government to self-righteous thugs.

Just to be perfectly clear: I am not suggesting that we arrest people for holding or voicing dissenting opinions. But "direct actions" that are such clear illegal assholery should have serious consequences, regardless of whether is a bunch of bigots blockading an Alabama schoolhouse, or a bunch of "anti-war" nimrods storming federal buildings and blocking people from going about their business. Your protest cannot involve unwilling participants. If it does, you're committing a crime, and violating their civil rights -- which should land you in jail. It's a consequence a true "radical" should be willing to live with.

Quick follow-up: I wonder if any of these walking street trash realize just how counter-productive their tactics are. It's a bit silly to try "raising awareness" of the Iraqi conflict now (who isn't aware?!), but there's no better way to discredit your cause than getting it associated with a few jackasses who keep decent people from going about their business. If a bunch of them got tossed in jail for a month or two, I doubt too many people would cry over it. Act like a thug, sleep with thugs -- end of story.

Update: Mike at Cold Fury has much more.

There's going to be real trouble in this country soon. If these idiots don't begin to realize that their right to protest and free speech stops well short of wanton destruction of property, of bringing entire cities to a grinding halt with their antics, of hindering people from going about their business peacefully, of tying up police and firefighters in major cities where they have plenty of better things to do - then there's going to be some heads kicked in, possibly worse. These protesters are showing how little they really value the American principles of free speech, open debate, and representative government. What they're showing is that if they lose the argument, they'll throw a hissy fit until they get their way illegitimately. They figure it worked with the Vietnam War, so it'll work now.

And so does Dipnut.

It has begun. Godspeed to the American, British, and Australian military men and women.