Wednesday, 30 May 2007

Tehran promises "peace in our time."

If a fox were to offer to guard the hen-house, or to help train and equip the hen-house guards, what kind of fool would any farmer be to take such an offer seriously.

So why is Iran's offer to to train and equip the Iraqi army and police to create "a new military and security structure [in Iraq]" taken as anything other than what it is: an offer by the chief trainer, armourer and supplier of Iraqi insurgency to help destroy what little security there is in Iraq.

This is what comes of the foolish notion that if you don't identify your enemy and you talk with them instead, that both of you are fooled by your evasion. The US might be fooled, but the mullahs and the haters and the bombers know exactly what they're doing. [Hat tip Mike, at Primacy of Awesome]. Said Yaron Brook months ago,
Any U.S. appeal to Iran or Syria for help in Iraq would be suicidal and immoral. By evading the evil of these regimes and pretending that they're peace-seekers who share our goals, the United States would be encouraging and rewarding their aggression. Dispensing with moral judgment is not a short-cut to achieving peace; it is a sure way of unleashing and goading the killers to redouble their efforts...
It's the same 'shortcut' to peace that's been tried for the last sixty years ... and it will prove just as successful now for Bush and the Iraqis as it did once for Neville Chamberlain and the citizens of Czechoslovakia, and the world.

UPDATE: A commenter accused me here of invoking the Nazis, and equating the Nazis with the Islamofascists. Now as it happens, I wasn't doing that -- at least not here. In this post, I was simply pointing out one of the many lessons from history that if not learned we are condemned to repeat -- which is itself one of those lessons.

However, just because I didn't directly invoke it doesn't mean it isn't true, and in this webcast David Horowitz invites you to consider that the invocation wouldn't be at all out of place. See Islamic Mein Kampf.


  1. Got to put in the comment from C&F;
    "It's bad enough that the Bush Administration actually thinks talking with Iran is going to stop them from killing even more of our troops in Iraq. Worse still, these talks officially end our diplomatic isolation of Iran since 1979 when the Iranians took Americans hostage. ***But it is flat out obscene that the talks were held on Memorial Day. There are Americans at gravesides today mourning loved ones who were cut down by Iranian-backed militias.***" [Emphasis mine.]

  2. That is just hysterical. Iran as the new Nazi Germany - you have to be joking - have you every been to the middle east?

    The people living in Iran are indeed suffering because their state is controlled by persons who have no respect for individual liberty.

    However, labeling millions of people as enemies, then expressing indignation when their fanatical leaders start behaving like enemies is just barmy. Particularly as those leaders grip on power depends upon the perceived need for strong leaders to stand up to an external threat. It is much more difficult for Iranians who wish to fight for their freedom to do so when the 'free world' make statements which imply invasion and occupation - particularly when there is ample recent history to suggest that they mean it. This certainly isn't the the way to promote human-thriving, individual liberty and prosperity.

    Instead of parroting WHAT Ayn Rand told you to think, try thinking HOW she suggested you should.

    Dave Christian

  3. You seem unaware, Dave, that whether individual Iranians like it or not (and there does seem a significant number opposed to the present regime) Tehran is already at war in Iraq, they just haven't declared it.

    As the principle supplier, trainer, financier and armourer of Shiiter militias, and infiltrator of the Iraqi security forces, they're principally responsible for the undeclared civil war.

    They're already training and equipping the enemies of peace, so to hear them suggest they should also train and equip the Iraqi army and police -- who are presently being attacked, blown up and killed by Iranian-supplied materiel defies credulity, and could only be taken seriously by the credulous.

    You think the offer should be taken seriously?

    You don't think there are lessons to be drawn from pre-1940 Europe?

    Or it that you just wish to ignore the lessons of history?

  4. "principle supplier"

    Ah, spkg of grammar and all that
    (recent post) .. shouldn't that be 'principal' - adjective, not noun - supplier? :)

  5. The neocons in Washington are to be blamed for the current chaos in Iraq and not Iran.

  6. Yes, we already know your muddled views on "the neocons in Washington" -- now how about some condemnation for the people behind the bombs on roadsides and in crowded mosques and markets?

    D'you think the scum blowing up other Iraqis might be somewhat to blame?

    D'you think the people training, supplying and financing the scum might be somewhat to blame?

    D'you have nothing to say about them? Nothing at all?

    Your condemnation looks rather one-sided.

  7. Sus: Ah bugger. You've got me.

    Although I could argue that the Mullahs also supply the murderous principles themselves, couldn't I?

  8. I think you assume this 'ruth' is me. It is not. I'm now signing in to blogger to comment on blogspot.

    I do believe I know who this is - he posts on Farrar's blog as well. It's a man who has followed me around for sometime. If he continues with this misrepresentation maybe you could provide me with the log details so I can take it further.


1. Commenters are welcome and invited.
2. All comments are moderated. Off-topic grandstanding, spam, and gibberish will be ignored. Tu quoque will be moderated.
3. Read the post before you comment. Challenge facts, but don't simply ignore them.
4. Use a name. If it's important enough to say, it's important enough to put a name to.
5. Above all: Act with honour. Say what you mean, and mean what you say.