CNN: Jenin "terrible human tragedy"

Well, here's a link, in fact. I'm actually posting this for two reasons: 1.) I wanted to test the "BlogThis!" shortcut on Mac IE 5.1, and 2.) I actually have something to say about the story. To wit: I don't think any war crimes were committed in Jenin. It's pretty clear there was a battle there, which is most likely the source of the bodies. I'll even go so far as to suggest that if there is evidence of a massacre, most likely this evidence was planted there by Palestinians. However, if the evidence is overwhelming and sure, I'll join my voice to those saying that whoever was commanding that Israeli force should be court-martialed.

And the BlogThis! thing seems to work fine. Too bad it probably won't work with OmniWeb or Chimera Navigator or Mozilla, which are the browsers I normally use from home...

Israel is one of (or the) only countries in the Middle East where Arab Muslims have the right to vote. I think that statement says a lot about the situation. It makes it pretty clear, straight up, whose side we must be on. And thus far, the Bush Administration has fallen flat on its face over this. Anyone claiming "rope-a-dope" at this point needs to have their conspiracy detectors adjusted. Yeah, there's been some dope-roping going on, but guess who the dope is? It's the American people, and our true friends the Israelis. The Bush Administration is still mired hopelessly in the belief that Yasser Arafat is useful for something other than target practice. This is a subject I will probably rant on more often in coming days. Heck, I may even be moved to post more links about it!

And for the record, I'm Catholic.

George W. Bush is Not Running the War

OK, I'm going to sleep in a minute, so I will expand further on these thoughts at a later date. But I just read something that made me angry, so I'm going to rant for a bit. All of the success in the world in the War on Terrorism (and we haven't had all the success in the world, we've had just enough success) does not excuse the fact that George W. Bush is an idiot. Well, perhaps not an idiot, perhaps he is merely a feeble-minded buffoon. George W. Bush has not been running the War on Terrorism. He said so himself towards the beginning. He proclaimed (correctly) that he felt he should stay out of it and let the generals run it. That's the smartest decision he's ever made in his entire life, I'd wager. I'd also wager he didn't make it� I suspect Chaney had his hands on that one.

Well, I have a lot more to say about the particular subject of the War on Terrorism and exactly how successful it has been, but right now I really need to go to sleep.

UPDATE: All right, so I'm not being fair. I'm tired.

Well, Mac Thomason has added a link to this blog on War Liberal! Thanks, man! And welcome to anyone who came from there. So, for all my friends who are reading this at my behest, be sure to check out Mac Thomason's blog.

A friend just brought up a good point about the people killed in the Italian plane crash yesterday: it would actually have been better for the families if it had been terrorism. That way, they'd be more likely to get tax breaks and so forth that they need just as badly either way. And it might have provided a shot in the arm for the Europeans, as I mentioned...

I'm going to reiterate a point I don't think I emphasized enough earlier. Pacifism will not save the world. Pacifism will not change the world, either. Brutal dictatorships are not going to change their ways just because we talk to them. There must be a credible threat of force if things are to be changed. And in many cases, the threat will have to be carried out. Bluffing will not work, either. If we're going to change the world for the better, we're going to have to do more than sacrifice ourselves: we're going to have to hurt other people, too.

Hmmm, apparently the pilot of that Italian plane was 75 years old. I'm now placing my money on it being an accident. This is neither good nor bad... the people killed by an accident are just as dead as those killed by terrorism.

Today has been a very busy day at work. I realize that nobody is reading this yet, but I want to establish good habits. I expect to post some more tonight.

A small plane has crashed into a government skyscraper in Italy. Well, I think it was probably terrorism, but apparently the pilot radioed that he was having problems just before the crash. I don't know what that's about, but think about this: the building houses government offices, and the Italian PM is the guy who, shortly after 9/11, claimed Western Civilization is simply superior to others. I'm not sure that's 100% true (see Japan), I think that's just another case of linking democracy with Western Civilization.

With any luck, if this does turn out to be terrorism, I hope it serves as a bit of a wakeup call to the other European governments. I'm not holding out much hope for that, though, they seem to have their heads buried very deeply in the sand. When the excrement impacts the rotating blades, I hope they'll be our allies, but I'm not too confident of that, either...

Hmmm, I said I wasn't a linker, but then I read an article by Oriana Fallaci. Go read it. She says a lot of what I wanted to say, only better. I agree 100%. Israel is not the badguy. Israel is a democracy. It is one of the only places in the Middle East where Arab Muslims have the right to vote. I think that says a lot about the situation.

Naturally, I don't really see the policy I have suggested as being strictly imperialist. The goal, after all, is to bring freedom and democracy to the world. However, most people out there will probably view this as being an imperialist policy, and I doubt I could convince them otherwise. So why not revel in it, instead? For that matter, as I mentioned, it really would require behaving in an imperial manner, at least at first. The ultimate goal is to let the people of the world decide for themselves whether they want to be part of the United States (or a reformed United Nations, with actual powers of government), and they should be free to choose not to... as long as whatever they choose involves democratic government.

Oh yes, I figured it out. The key is to write very long posts somewhere else, and then paste them into Blogger. Because if you don't do that, your session times out and you lose everything.

Manifesto

OK, I'm going to try again, but I'm not going to be as long winded this time. Which also means I'm not going to be as convincing or clear. So, blah.

I decided on the name LiberalImperialist because I do not feel that pacifism, moral relativism, or cultural equality are necessary parts of liberalism. Equality of people (not cultures), democracy, and freedom, however, are key features of my philosophy. Absolutely key to all three of those is education. I also believe in protecting the environment, and caring for those who need help.

There are cultures and regimes in the world who do not believe in these things. They do not support the equality of humans, oppressing women, for instance. They do not allow democracy, and they deny freedoms even to their "chosen" people. Heck, they don't care about the environment, either. These cultures and regimes are the enemy of everything a liberal should stand for.

So I say these regimes should fall. These places should be occupied and (re)built by American and Western troops. They should be governed by Westerners, until the educational and economic infrastructure is in place to allow them to govern themselves as a successful liberal democracy. I take Japan as an example. There are racists who claim that only Western culture even desires democracy and freedom. They are wrong. The Japanese culture could not accommodate democracy before WWII; they even tried it and failed, just like the current Arab states, just like post-colonial Africa. Only being beaten and occupied by Americans made democracy work in Japan. And they are much better for it! The plight of the average Japanese peasant before WWII was horrible. They lived in poverty and oppression, and never even considered that there was anything better. But after the American Occupation, life improved dramatically. And now Japan is a functioning post-industrial democracy.

So why can we not do the same with the Arabs? Why are they unique in being unsuited to democracy? They are not. They just do not know the way, and they are led by evil men who refuse to see it. So we must bring democracy to them, since they will not come to it.

Yes, Americans (and likely Britons, and Canadians, and Australians, and many others) will die in the process. But this does not make the cause unjust or unnecessary. The suicide bombers who kill themselves to kill innocents are not fighting for democracy, despite their evil leaders' claims of fighting for freedom. They die to further a cause which is as far from democratic or free as you can get. There is no justification for it. To die in the defense of democracy and freedom is not the same as martyrdom! It is a genuine sacrifice, made so that the future can be a better place. To say otherwise is to deny the nobility of every soldier's death since the American Revolution. I claim it goes further than that. I claim that to die in the extension of democracy and freedom is no less noble!

That's most of what I wanted to say. I think I'll rant more later.

This is not a good first experience with this stuff. The post I just wrote was very, very long. Then I got a VBScript error and it was *ALL GONE*. This aggravated me.

OK, I've finally given in and decided to start my own blog. Basically, I will probably just post long-winded rants here, I'm not much of a "linker," but I sure do a lot of thinkering! Er, or something. I intend to cover my thoughts on war, politics, and whatever else is making me angry throughout the course of the day. I also intend to explain the name in the next post...