One Lone Conservative's Reality in a Sea of Liberal Delusion's
...and want America's downfall
Published on February 11, 2005 By couchman In Politics
After doing some surf'n I ran into this intresting (at least in my opinion) little article and thought I'd like to see whats everyones take on it. (By the way to all my fans on the left (who hate me for some reason, come on you know you do) I am back-Couchman)

Why the Left Loves Osama
By Nelson Ascher
Europundits.blogspot.com | February 11, 2005


Maybe we, or at least many of us, were too busy commemorating the fall of the Berlin wall in late 1989. Thus, we overlooked all those people who weren’t exactly happy with the outcome of the Cold War. Well, perhaps “overlooking” is not the appropriate term.

I, for instance, had an acquaintance (deceased since then), a hardliner Trotskyite who should have felt partly vindicated by the failure of the system erected by his hero’s archenemy, Stalin. But he didn’t look vindicated at all. It wasn’t easy for him, in that climate of euphoria, to give full vent to his disappointment, but still he managed to mutter a few words about the “wrong” turn events were beginning to take in Eastern Europe, and he was not talking about the looming shadows of the Balkan wars (which were clearly visible by then). No: he complained that those societies, instead of using their newly conquered freedom to correct their course and head full-speed towards the socialist utopia, were rather turning to Western style “alienated” consumerism.

But there were probably, no, not probably, but surely, those who felt utterly defeated at the time. They just didn’t think it was advisable to go public with their anger and frustration. Also, in the late 80s and early 90s, Western Europe was at the top of its economic and social performance. Western Europeans were then almost as affluent as the Americans and, so, some could console themselves with the appearance that the whole thing wasn’t basically an American victory, but rather a Western one - and that Europe would anyway soon eclipse the USA.

For Western Europe however, the next 15 years were a unidirectional stroll down the slope. It became less and less competitive compared to the US and both high levels of unemployment and low growth rates came to stay. And the growing, alienated, Muslim minorities didn’t become any more assimilated in the meanwhile. But, on the other hand, Bill Clinton asking non-stop the world to forgive his country’s sins and his reluctance to take decisive action after many terrorist attacks projected a re-comforting image of a repentant, humbled and weakened America.

Those whom the fall of the Berlin Wall had left orphans of a cause, spent the next decade plotting the containment of the US. It was a complex operation that involved the (in many cases state-sponsored) mushrooming of NGOs, Kyoto, the creation of the ICC, the salami tactics applied against America’s main strategic ally in the Middle-East, Israel, through the Trojan Horse of the Oslo agreements, the subversion of the sanctions against Iraq etc. I’m not as conspiratorially-minded as to think that all these efforts were in any way centralized or that they had some kind of master-plan behind them. It was above all the case of the spirit of the times converging, through many independent manifestations, towards a single goal. Nonetheless we can be sure that, after those manifestations reached a critical mass, there has been no lack of efforts to coordinate them.

And so, spontaneously up to a point, anti-Americanism became the alternative ideology that came to fill in the vacuum left by the failure of traditional, USSR-based communism and its Maoist or Trotskyite satellites. Before 1989, the global left had something to fight for: either the strengthening of the communist states or the correction of what they called their bureaucratic distortions. To fight for something is simultaneously to fight against whatever threatens it, and thus, the leftists were anti-Western and anti-Americans too, anti-capitalistic in short.

Now, whatever they wanted to defend or protect doesn’t exist anymore. They have only things to destroy, and all those things are personified in the US, in its very existence. They may, outwardly, fight for some positive cause: save the whales, rescue the world from global heating and so on. But let’s not be deceived by this: they choose as their so-called positive causes only the ones that have both the potential of conferring some kind of innocent legitimacy on themselves and, much more important, that of doing most harm to their enemy, whether physically or to its image.

We, well, at least I was wrong to dismiss the pre-1989 leftists as dinosaurs condemned to extinction by evolution. While I was looking the other way, they were regrouping, inventing new slogans, creating new tactics and, above all, keeping the flames of their hatred burning. The history is still to be written about the moment when the left made its collective mind up and decided to strike an alliance with radical Islam. It had been tried before, in Iran/79, but, threatened by the USSR to the north and by its Iraqi client to the West, Khomeini didn’t have much time for the local leftists, nor did he need them. The idea of such an alliance was probably (re)-born in several different minds and in several different places, and it would be as difficult to say exactly where it took place first as it is to say which grain of corn is the first to pop when one’s making pop-corn. All that can be said is that, right now, we have a “fait accompli”.

This newly ever-growing Western left, not only in Europe, but in Latin America and even in the US itself, has a clear goal: the destruction of the country and society that vanquished its dreams fifteen years ago. But it does not have, as in the old days of the Soviet Union, the hard power to accomplish this by itself. Thanks to this, all our leftist friends’ bets are now on radical Islam. What can they do to help it? Answer: tie down America’s superior strength with a million Liliputian ropes: legal ones, political ones, with propaganda and disinformation etc. Anything and everything will do.

In the same way as the murderers of 911 used the West’s technology against itself, the contemporary left will do its best to turn democracy into a suicidal pact. This is already being done, obviously. The fight for Guantanamo Bay is, in many ways, as important as that for Baghdad. And, whenever a British born terrorist is released and sent back to the UK, to be joyfully acclaimed by the pages of “The Guardian”, “The Independent” or through the waves of the BBC, that fight is being lost. Radical Islam is being given one more tactical victory and the left’s strategy is being vindicated.

There has been some talk recently about the probable inevitability of a nuclear attack on the mainland US in, say, the next ten or fifteen years. The Berlin Wall’s orphans are already busy creating the slogans, formulating the dogmas, writing down the articles and books that will allow them, when the worst happens, to lay all the blame on the victims, making retaliation as difficult as it can be. They’re carefully preparing their case and the court is already in session.


Comments (Page 3)
4 Pages1 2 3 4 
on Mar 05, 2005
managed to mess it up and help set the stage for 911 by effectively deserting the afghanis once the russians pulled out, leaving a vacuum the terrorists and the pakistanis were only too happy to fill.


If I'm not mistaken the Dem controlled congress in 1990 voted against any further funding/presence in afghanistan which possibly led to 9-11....
on Mar 05, 2005
my guess is he was alluding to good ol sgt rock of easy company...the ultimate military hero of guys like perle, wolfowitz, ollie north and millions of 10-year-old comic readers.


Frankly the only military hero(s) I have ever had were my grandfather who was at Normandy Beach during D-Day and my father, 20-year vet of Marines who retired a D.I.

But I consider all who serve in the armed forces heros....with very few exceptions....

on Mar 05, 2005
Frankly the only military hero(s) I have ever had were my grandfather who was at Normandy Beach during D-Day and my father, 20-year vet of Marines who retired a D.I.

But I consider all who serve in the armed forces heros....with very few exceptions....


you've good reason to be proud of your grandfather and father...and i agree with you about the heroism of those who serve in combat.

while i cant speak for anyone else, my allusion to sgt rock wasn't meant to be a reflection on you in any respect whatsoever. i prolly shouldn't have run with it since the comment wasn't directed to me. whatever bitch you have with kerry, the fact of the matter is he actually came under fire during real combat unlike many of those (perle, wolfowitz, cheney, rice, abrams, etc.)who--no longer subject to the draft--have spent years fiercely advocating sending someone else over to kick ass in iraq because war is such an enobling and rewarding endeavor. or maybe its just cuz bigger kids regularly forced them to surrender their comic books.
on Mar 05, 2005
my guess is he was alluding to good ol sgt rock of easy company...the ultimate military hero of guys like perle, wolfowitz, ollie north and millions of 10-year-old comic readers.


Frankly the only military hero(s) I have ever had were my grandfather who was at Normandy Beach during D-Day and my father, 20-year vet of Marines who retired a D.I.

But I consider all who serve in the armed forces heros....with very few exceptions....


Then you didn't read many comics as a kid did you? Who could forget Sgt Rock of Easy Company
on Mar 05, 2005
Well, at least a few of you got my Sgt. Rock reference...
on Mar 05, 2005
Well, at least a few of you got my Sgt. Rock reference...


I know full well who Sgt. Rock was....
on Mar 05, 2005
whatever bitch you have with kerry, the fact of the matter is he actually came under fire during real combat unlike many of those (perle, wolfowitz, cheney, rice, abrams, etc.)who--no longer subject to the draft--have spent years fiercely advocating sending someone else over to kick ass in iraq because war is such an enobling and rewarding endeavor.


The problem I have with Kerry is simple...he puffed his service up.....x-mas in Cambodia(68) anyone?????or his using a very rarely used loophole to leave Vietnam....as to those who didnt serve yet propose uses for the military, last I checked the military was and is subordinate to the civilian leadership...not the other way around....and in the last 100 years, very few of our leaders have had military experience let alone combat experience.....
on Mar 08, 2005
You know, I keep seeing on here, JU, I mean, over and over an over, how the US supplied both Osama bin Laden and Saddam. And now...OMIGOSH! We're fighting with them!
So ultimately, the argument seems to become one of the US more or less deserving what it got on 9/11 and after, because we put them in there and armed them(with Reagan always playing the role of Satan in this little Passion Play, of course) in the first place.
I'm so freeekin' sick of that argument. I've seen it shot down time and time and time again, and still it keeps coming up like a cheap zombie in a B movie.
Let go of it, Lefties.....yes, we put Saddam in, and when he became too much of a pimply butthole, it's been us who put him in his place, both times.
The Taliban used weapons we gave the mujaheddin to fight the Soviets. Big deal.
Both were our Frankensteins and both were taken down by us. We did what we had to to safeguard our interests, then and today. Live with it. Enough of that, already.
on Mar 08, 2005
Both were our Frankensteins and both were taken down by us. We did what we had to to safeguard our interests, then and today. Live with it. Enough of that, already.


I have to say I agree whole heartedly with that.....it's like since we helped engineer Saddams rise to power....and supported him(funny how it's always as if the US was Iraq's major supplier, when it was nowhere near the case) that we sould not have a right to take him out....aside from the fact he ignored both UN and the cease-fire agreements for how long, 12 years? Maybe positive thinking and being nice to these tin horn dictators and terrorist thugs is all they want...maybe they need a hug (while they detonate a bomb vest). go figure
on Mar 08, 2005
Well I can't speak for other leftists, but surely it would have been more efficient to just have chosen not to put him in place in the first instance? That's why I criticised the whole Yay Saddam!/Boo Saddam! deal. It'd be better if the gov doesn't put another dictator in place now (ie hears the stories about the past the left offers and then learns from them). And apparently if all reports can be believed they have learned from it.

It's not that I don't think countries should deal with its mistakes, just that they should be learnt from. And that it should be obvious that helping a homicidal maniac to gain control over a country is probably going to bite you in the arse - so try not to do it too many more times, okay?
on Mar 08, 2005
Well I can't speak for other leftists, but surely it would have been more efficient to just have chosen not to put him in place in the first instance?


Back in 1959, the CIA among other western intelligence agencies began using Saddam..but it wasn't till the 63' coup that Saddam's cousin (I believe) and not Saddam came to power, Saddam was in the backround in various positions (head of the intelligence services for one) but it was in the late 70's that his cousin as president of Iraq 'stepped-down' clearing the way for his rise...(the CIA didnt back it...nor did they block it...but the myth they did makes for enjoyable reading).

The fact that he was aided during the cold war is almost lost on the left except for any 'talking points' they might achieve from it. The cold war was by no means peaceful or clean...applying morality and civil law concepts to what was done then and what needs to be done now in the War on Terror is nothing but a hollow approach. What was done was simply in the national interests of the United States and its allies. For example, during the Iran-Iraq war, it was in the national intrest of the US to back Iraq over aextreme islamic fundimentalist regime(Iran)...as it was for the USSR and its allies...probably one of the few cases where Nato and Warsaw nations interests crossed paths to an extent...did that make Iraq boy scouts? No...sure we probably be happy if Iraq was...but Nations generally take what allies then can get, and the mid-east was/is deffinately a take what you can get situation.

For a bit of historical reference, in may ways support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is akin to WW2 and the support of the USSR. As murderous as Hitler and the nazis were, Stalin and the communists surpassed them (prior to and during the war)and yet we gave Stalin support knowing full well the blood on his hands....and yet when those on the Left, sorry gotta use that term, are debated bout this issue it's almost like they get a case of memory loss...

In todays terms, if anyone believes the US would continue to consider Saudi Arabia an 'ally' 20 or so years from now in the same way if alternative fuels/energy sorces were discovered and used reducing dramaticly the reliance on mid-east oil then your kidding yourself. But that also doesnt take into account the possibility of reforms on the kingdom and the results of said reforms 20 years hense....who knows
on Mar 09, 2005
For example, during the Iran-Iraq war, it was in the national intrest of the US to back Iraq over aextreme islamic fundimentalist regime(Iran)...


in whose interest will it be when iraq & iran are both islamic fundamentalist regimes?
on Mar 09, 2005
but Nations generally take what allies then can get, and the mid-east was/is deffinately a take what you can get situation.


I have said these very same words so many times, as have others, yet it never seems to sink in.

For a bit of historical reference, in may ways support of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq war is akin to WW2 and the support of the USSR. As murderous as Hitler and the nazis were, Stalin and the communists surpassed them (prior to and during the war)and yet we gave Stalin support knowing full well the blood on his hands....and yet when those on the Left, sorry gotta use that term, are debated bout this issue it's almost like they get a case of memory loss...


Were we separated at birth or something? If not, will you marry me, couchman?

in whose interest will it be when iraq & iran are both islamic fundamentalist regimes?
---kingbee

Who says Iraq will fall into that mess? I'll tell you who: Only the kind of pessimistic Lefties who kept up the mantra, for example, of how the Iraqi elections would fail or never be held at all. Give things time....democracy may take root there, whether you folks on the Left want it to or not.
on Mar 09, 2005
And that it should be obvious that helping a homicidal maniac to gain control over a country is probably going to bite you in the arse - so try not to do it too many more times, okay?
---cacto

I'll say it again, lefty....try to absorb it this time.
This is another example of taking allies where you can find them, like them or not. If we were to take as allies only those nations that held to our beliefs in standard of conduct and individual rights, the coalition against the commies, for example, would have been a small one indeed.
I mean, even Hitler, early on, considered the idea of a London-Paris-Berlin (and Washington, perhaps?) alliance against Soviet Communism.
Would we have allied ourselves with Hitler's odious Germany against Stalinist hegemony in Europe/Asia? As was pointed out somewhere above, we allied with Stalin against Hitler, so, yes, we would have, if need be. Any port in a storm, any port in a storm.
on Mar 10, 2005
in whose interest will it be when iraq & iran are both islamic fundamentalist regimes?


Talk bout stereotyping.....first off....Iraqi shites dont suscribe/follow the same sect of Islam as say Iran or Saudi Arabia.......
In Iran they follow the Qom (I believe I spelled it right) sect of Islam which is basiclly reactionary and extremist(though 75% are 35 and under and have a huge and growing hatred of their theocratic rulers and goverment. Saudi's tend to fall in to the wahabbist sect of Islam, repressive and extremist.....in Iraq, it's quite the opposite, they follow a more moderate version of Islam (sorry but I forgot the name). Iran goverment itself is balancing itself desperately in an effort to stave off being overthrown(hiring non-Iranians to aid them in controling their disillusioned population, enabling wide spread drug use (a no-no under their strict islamic beliefs) as a way of controling dissent, etc).

Even grand ayotolah al-Sistani (an Iranian) has repeatedly said that the last thing he wants to see is a theocratic goverment (akin to Iran) installed in Iraq....even going so far as to tell off diplomaticlly of course Iranian representatives from Iran many times (most notably when he was bed ridden in a UK hospital last year)...they offered him carte blanch....he told them to get fucked basicly...

When all is said and done.....while I am excited by the prospects in the last few months in the mid-east, the best course for anyone to take is guarded optimism...least we get ahead of ourselves...we have only reached the end of the beginning....which was the easy part....what lies ahead down the road is still an unknown....
4 Pages1 2 3 4