Likelihood of Success

Ron Coleman’s pretty good blog

Ever again

Posted by Ron Coleman on July 23, 2007

James Taranto (and others) got exercised last week over the fact that Barack Obama won’t get exercised over genocide.

It’s a nice political point to score on him, but give him points for honesty. “Never again” is the Big Lie of the second half of the twentieth century. Tonight, on the eve of the 65th anniversary of the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka, we must be honest: If we knew then what we know now, about the mass killings, the gas chambers, the sick human experimentation, the crematoria — if we knew it were going on right now …

America, and the rest of the world, would not do a damned thing about it.

Indeed, as the official position of the left, including its handmaiden the mainstream press, becomes “we would not have agreed to fight in Iraq if Bush had not lied to us about weapons of mass destruction” — however absurd a lie that is; and this is combined with the turning away from events in Darfur, and elsewhere; and it is combined, too, with the essential silence of the “world community” in the face of genocide and mass murder, especially of the despised — the niggers of the world, whether black and Jew or even, if the politics of it is right, Arab — the horrible truth becomes ever more clear:


“We” simply do not care.


56 Responses to “Ever again”

  1. The turning away

    Or, “ever again” — on the eve of the Ninth of Av.

  2. The grim truth about Europeans that conservative Americans have been saying for the past few decades – that Never Again does not mean “never again will we allow genocide,” but “never again will we elect people like that” has perhaps been true of Americans during that time as well. It may be fairer to say that Americans will make some half-hearted effort, with minor effect.

  3. Jan S. said

    Wait, I think I’ve got it. “Never again” means never again will it happen in Western Europe. Or if it does, it won’t be official government policy.

    If it happens in Iraq, Darfur, or Rwanda — or even in former East Bloc European countries — well then sorry, it’s really not our problem.

  4. SDN said

    Speak for yourself, monkey-boy.

    I consider getting rid of Saddam and his spawn to be a perfectly good reason for invading Iraq.

    The single best thing that could happen to Africa would be for Mugabe to have a MOAB for a house guest.

    That said, the utter hypocrisy of the Left in decrying military action which happens to also benefit the US, while waxing enthusiastic about intervention in some god-forsaken pesthole to make the baby-raping smurfs of the UN look good makes my gorge head for LEO.

  5. Instalanche pebble said

    I think you meant 65th anniversary.
    Naturally, I did. Fixed. Thanks.

  6. MikeT said

    Assistant Village Idiot,

    Americans tend to suffer from something far worse: the smug superiority of assuming that it can never happen here. We make up all sorts of excuses for why it can’t like our federal constitution, and an assumption that our leaders are never particularly dangerous in a dictatorial sort of way.

  7. MikeT said

    The single best thing that could happen to Africa would be for Mugabe to have a MOAB for a house guest.

    I strongly disagree. Zimbabwe needs to go to hell under Mugabe. It’s the only way that they might learn from their mistakes. Most of Africa’s problems are exacerbated by Western guilt that has caused our governments to meddle and save them from their mistakes. The only way they can learn is to suffer horribly under those policies, lose millions of their people, and then have to face the fact that they got there because of their own faults.

    And if they just blame us? Screw them. They’re not worth our time if they’re that irresponsible.

  8. Jim C. said

    Mike T. – you suffer from something even worse than what you describe.

    I give you these quotes from the late French socialist, Jean-François Revel:

    “Strangely, it is always America that is described as degenerate and ‘fascist,’ while it is solely in Europe that actual dictatorships and totalitarian regimes spring up.”

    “Obsessed by their hatred and floundering in illogicality, these dupes forget that the United States, acting in her own self-interest, is also acting in the interest of us Europeans and in the interests of many other countries, threatened, or already subverted and ruined, by terrorism.”

  9. Californio said

    Ah, if only we had a time machine. Then I could go back and try to prevent my noble relatives from fighting and dying for a LIE – you know, to free Europe from the jackboot of fascism, and all that. How dare we impose our values upon others! Cuba – 1897? None of our Business!!!

  10. In 1944, the Continental European elites had their own lower classes do all the dirty work — you know, collecting garbage, sweeping floors, killing Jews. Today they pay Muslims to do all that stuff. I guess that’s European social progress for ya.

  11. M. Simon said

    My mother is a long time advocate of “Never again”. She is Jewish, as I am.

    When I point out that leaving Iraq is likely to lead to mass murder she doesn’t disagree, she just says she doesn’t care.

    Which is why, much to my mother’s chagrin, I can never be a Democrat again.

    Sadly “Never again” is only for Jews as far as most Jews are concerned. Well, the Democrat Party is a good home for such people.

  12. Deamon said

    You know what they say, the long dark night of Fascism is always descending on America but landing on Europe

  13. jaymaster said

    Ron, I disagree.

    Yes, a large and very vocal segment of the left today would no doubt argue to “not do a damned thing about it”. Whether those folks are in the majority of the left isn’t completely clear, but it is probably so.

    And there is an occasionally vocal, but more often silent segment of the right who fall into that camp too. I doubt that they are in the majority of their “wing”, at least not in the US.

    But the evidence shows that there are still many, many folks who are willing to uphold the pledge. And I would argue that today, there are still enough folks.

    In the face of all the legitimate criticism, the over the top rhetoric, and the pure propaganda, we ARE still successfully fighting for a free Iraq. And Afghanistan too.

    And lest we forget more recent history, Kosovo is mostly free. The USSR is just a fond memory for a few thugs left in Russia. China is, well, I don’t know what it is, but its light years ahead of the oppressive society it was 20 years ago. North Korea, well, that’s still a problem.

    And yes, Africa is still a problem too. But people are at least talking, keeping it on the radar. And non-governmental efforts there are at an all time high.

    Genocide and mass murder aren’t yet extinct, but the states and environments that are part and parcel to such crimes are an endangered species.

    We now know that the domino tumbles both ways. The last domino has yet to fall, and maybe it never will. But momentum is unarguably against oppression.

  14. […] Ron Coleman is absolutely correct. Tonight, on the eve of the 65th anniversary of the deportation of Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto to Treblinka, we must be honest: If we knew then what we know now, about the mass killings, the gas chambers, the sick human experimentation, the crematoria — if we knew it were going on right now … […]

  15. Me said

    I could be wrong, but the Bosnian situation couldn’t have been as bad as what we’re seeing in Africa, can it? And yet it was OK to go there, and stay there, even with UN support.

    Iraq is low on support, and going into Africa has little or none.

    Why? Because nobody cares about black people dying– environmentalists proved it with pressure for the DDT ban (up to 200mln dead kids), and we reinforce it every time we let another hundred thousand or so die, only to send a Strongly-Worded Condemnation.

    I don’t think it’s totally the reason, but regardless it’s pretty sick. We fail the ‘Never Again’ test as a civilization close to every year.

  16. Me said

    In Bosnia I meant “without UN support”– sorry

  17. Dar said

    I’ve been saying the same thing ever since I was in Germany almost 20 years ago. I saw graffiti several times that said, “Nie wieder!” (Never again!) However, based on all the atrocities that have taken place since WWII–and based on the complete lack of intervention by other world powers and democracies–I’ve felt that it should have read, “Immer wieder!” (Again and again!) It’s a sad sick fact of history and complacent selfish peoples.

  18. Keith Behrens said

    Mr. Coleman is right.

    I feel sick. I don’t know what I am any any longer, right, left, conservative or liberal. Maybe that’s the problem we are no longer first and foremost American. It sounds a little to RHA RHA, I know.

    The candidates on the YouTube/CNN debate, they don’t know what they are, either. To actually think they are the best for the job of President, what unbelievable hubris. That thought alone should disqualify you. This goes for the Republicans too. I see no one of conviction or any sense of who or what they are. They are all caricatures of something a pollster thought up. You should be dragged kicking and screaming to the Presidency and then accept it with all the humility in the world.

    I know this, America would never forget genocide and would never let it happen again. We need to find America, America is lost. We need someone to leads us, who is first and foremost proud of who and what they are. Who will not back down from a fight, but is sick that he must fight. Someone who doesn’t want the power, but uses it for what is right for the country. Someone who will fight for the weak and oppressed. Someone who will keep our country strong. I haven’t seen that yet from either side. Hell, these “candidates” actually scare me.

    OK, a little over the top, but we have to shoot high.

    If we are not careful, “Never Again” will become “It isn’t our problem”. It might be too late….

  19. Again, and again, and again, and again, and again, and oh, how about over there? And again…

    Back when I was on the visitor services staff at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in DC, I would peruse the notebooks left out at the end of the permanent exhibition for people to record their thoughts. The recurring statement

  20. KS said

    Reading half these posts it sounds as though people believe we should go into these countries with military problems and fix them for them. But each time we have done this historically (South America, Middle East). We are basically slaughtered by the media, half the country and most of the rest of the World for the US once again putting our hands in affairs not of our own. On the homefront no matter wheather people have been “freed from oppression” or no no one ever does a good job it is always about the sacrifices and stupidity on our part.
    So how exactly can it be said that we should go into these countries and fix all their problems when they dont want our help? Use military force? Serously in Africa, is gorilla warfar your goal? Yes they have problems and we have money and man power but is forcing ourselves and ideals upon another country the proper way to go about things? It seems that although some of the countries we invade have friendlies for the most part people will unite under nationalities no matter our aims or goals because it is their home to defend. And honestly wouldnt you do the same if some one came here and said basically I’m better let me fix everything the i will give your country back to you.
    We can pour money in too countries which are suffering of dictators, genocide, famiene and basically fund their activities because the money and resources rarely actually get to the people it was intended for. Or they can develop with help from private organizations and their own national heros can be formed.
    I am not for allowing people to casually die but how will sending our millitary in solve death in countries that have been fighting before we were created?
    Would it not help economies in general if ours was fixed and emproved upon? Arrogant, but true? world players do have a habit of affecting the world.

    (sorry for the gramar I’m in a rush)

  21. thegenerousweb said

    Yes, I have heard “never again”. That is not American: it is the State of Israel saying you’ll never get us again. You guy, that’s another question. But you’ll not get the Jews again.
    Indeed, I think Israel and those Jews know that if the ovens were fired up again, the world would stand by and let it happen.
    Israel says “we’re not going to depend on you anymore: we’ll take care of ourselves, thank you very much”
    That’s what they keep the nukes for: never again.
    We, the world are alas unchanged. Darfur reminds me of nothing so much as an old Abott and Costello movie: “You can’t treat my friend like that. I dare you to do that again!”
    Except these poor people did while all posture. No, more that posture: the news is there to feed like crows. And there are people, real people, like Bono, who actually try to do something.

  22. mileage said

    Israel says “we’re not going to depend on you anymore: we’ll take care of ourselves, thank you very much”

    If that was the case then the US wouldn’t supply them with arms, money, intelligence and the only nuclear program in the Middle East.

    The US/UK started a war that has turned into Genocide, whether you agree with the reasons for starting it or not (I don’t) you have to admit the statements made by Bush and Blair were false. NO WMD’s, no threat to the west, and no links between Saddaam and Bin Laden.

    Meanwhile Africa is in turmoil, 800,000 people, men women and children killed in 100 days. Shame they don’t have oil under their feet, they would be safer if they did.

  23. Chronos said

    mileage Says:
    July 24th, 2007 at 5:15 am

    Where do I begin?

    There was never a link between Osama and Hussein No one ever said there was. But there was a link between Al-Qaeda and Hussein, as well as other terrorists (Abu Nidal).

    The war has not turned into genocide. Provide proof, if you dare.

    Hussein was a threat to the West. He provided a safe haven for terrorists and was trying to get back his WMD program. Whether or not he was successful is not as important as he was violating numerous sanctions to do so. Many have already commented on the possibility that the WMDs were shipped to Syria, though this can’t be confirmed. It wouldn’t surprise me. You also forget that there were materials found that did violate UN sanctions.

    Lastly, what would you have us do in Africa that would be completely acceptable to the rest of the world? I thought the UN was supposed to prevent something like this. Despite US power,. we can’t be everywhere. Yet you want us to be in the very environment the UN was designed to prevent. You want us to not act in our own self-interest while the rest of the world can? We’re in Iraq because the UN wouldn’t do its job. Now we’re supposed to go to Africa to fix their problem as well? Bug the UN on its ineffectiveness and coddling of dictators, instead of hounding the US.

  24. really? said

    Mileage said:
    “The US/UK started a war that has turned into Genocide, whether you agree with the reasons for starting it or not (I don’t) you have to admit the statements made by Bush and Blair were false. NO WMD’s, no threat to the west, and no links between Saddaam and Bin Laden.”

    Where to start? Iraq was not a threat to the west? Where in the universe did you wake up this morning Mileage? No links between Saddaam and Bin Laden? (a very minor part of the justification by Bush & Blair to go to war in Iraq)

    While I disagreed with the decision to go to war in Iraq I am not so ignorant as to argue it was all a big lie hatched up by Bush & Blair as some evil plot. In the post 9-11 world it was very understandably an honest and a legit concern that these brave leaders had about a nation and a rogue leader who had used chemical weapons on his own citizens and citizens of a neighboring country when he refused to cooperate with UN inspectors and intelligence apparatus of several countries pointed to him having WMD.

    How stupid can the left get? How stupid do they say they think the rest of us are when they continue to push this propoganda?

  25. Paul from Florida said

    Nothing prevents leftist from going to Darfur, taking up arms and without greedy compensation, being a light unto the world. After all, in recent history leftist Sandalistas have flocked to the bars of Nicaragua, for a while, for solidarity with the Danny Ortega. Leftist still travail to Cuba to show the peasants their I-pods. I don’t see why heroic efforts and immense amounts of evil pharmaceutical gamma globulin should not allow, albeit for a short time, some leftist men and women of action good scenes for digital recording.

    Leftist Unite! You have nothing to lose but your rent controlled apartment!( Someone will feed the cats, don’t worry.)

  26. tom swift said

    The phrase “never again” is an oldie – I remember Harding using it in a speech about WW1. The problem is that any attempt to ensure that it never happens again almost certainly means a war. Just waving a magic wand can’t do it. To insist that we take all these “never agains” seriously is to insist that someone be at war perpetually. I’m all for it but I can’t really condemn anyone for thinking otherwise.

  27. howard said

    Re: Chronos at 23.

    This is as strong of a justification for the Iraq war as I have seen. If we are going to do more than a defensive “crime reduction” approach to terrorism, isn’t reducing the effectiveness of state sponsorship of terror at the top of the list of things to do? And wasn’t Saddam’s Iraq (after 10 years of nose thumbing at aggressive international diplomatic approach) the most obvious example of a lesson to all potential state sponsors?

    But, in terms of this thread, this justification for the Iraq war is “It is in the security interest of the US,” not “We are performing a humanitarian service to end suffering.” That may have been a side benefit of ending Saddam’s regime, but not the same thing as a primary justification.

    And even this US-security justification is not enough to get a strong support for the war among the US people.

  28. Robert said

    You know, rather then sending the military in to try to ‘fix’ all these problems (Especially in Africa. And people think IRAQ is a Quagmire with it’s three or four faction vying for power? Ha!) Why don’t we, I don’t know, just ARM the groups suffering from the genocide? A crazy thought, I know, letting the people being murdered defend themselves. But still, it seems preferable to allowing one group that’s already armed to rape, murder, and mutilate their way through the second group. In the short run you may have an increase in violence and death, but on the up side, the deaths will suddenly be in BOTH groups. Genocide is a lot easier to conduct when the victims can’t fight back.

    Spend a few million dollars buying AKs (It’s not like there’s a scarcity of them) air drop them into Sudan with instruction manuals, and step back.

    As for “It could never happen here!” it COULD.. but only with great difficulty. And the second amendment is in small part of why that is so.

  29. kevino said

    The idea that this generation wouldn’t do a damn thing is a little unkind. Consider our response to the genocide in Rwanda, Darfur, and the Congo: we are actively monitoring the situation and pulling together a meeting of the Special UN Subcommittee for Writing Strongly-Worded Resolutions.

  30. […] Posted by jweaver under War , Politics , News and politics , News  Unfortunately, there was none. you see there is a segment of the Democrat Party that are untroubled with genocide. They may say […]

  31. Rob in Mass said

    Here is the main point. The left thinks the US is arrogant and needs to be chastised and brought under the yoke of international institutions like the UN. Now imagine a world in which that happened. For a start, there never would have been a resolution in the Balkans and Saddam would still be in power. That’s two instances of genocide that would never have been addressed. Then look at the places where we have been content to let the UN and the “international community” take the reins: Rwanda and Sudan. Peacekepers should arrive in Darfur just about in time to bulldoze all the bodies into mass graves. 2-3 million already died in Southern Sudan while absolutely nothing was done. 800,000 died in Rwanda. The left needs to wake up and realize that the “international community” is at best a fiction and at worst a club of self-interested despots. Exactly what will the UN do the next time there is genocide in a place where Chinese or Russian or French companies have massive contracts with the government? NOTHING.

  32. Paul said

    Robert gets the prize. I came to the same conclusion. Give the people guns. lots of guns and enough ammo to blaze away at those “devils on horseback” all night and all day. I don’t pretend that a lot of women and children will not be killed. At least they died on their feet fighting rather than being raped to death after watching them slit your child’s throat. All for the crime of being black and a non muslim.

  33. PersonFromPorlock said

    The cream of the jest is that “never again” has become a self-defeating phrase. Our response to the Cambodian holocaust was a sudden, intense interest in the nazi Holocaust that lasted for years. “Never again,” it turns out, was the perfect phrase to drown out the screaming.

    Oh, well, whatever happens in Darfur or Iraq, at least this time we’ve already got all those TV specials in the can.

  34. M Simon said Sadly “Never again” is only for Jews as far as most Jews are concerned. Well, the Democrat Party is a good home for such people.

    Not being Jewish, I can’t really know if that’s true. But, I suspect something similar to that is true about all of us in the West.

    While the young girls of Darfur are raped and mutilated to death, we watch American Idol and some dopey ex-Spice Girl. Sad.

  35. MikeT said

    Jim C,

    Mike T. – you suffer from something even worse than what you describe.

    Then you cite:

    “Strangely, it is always America that is described as degenerate and ‘fascist,’ while it is solely in Europe that actual dictatorships and totalitarian regimes spring up.”

    I am innocent as charged, Jim. Go back and read what I said. I never described our country in these terms. I was attacking the smug tendency to say “it can never happen here.” Are you one of those people, Jim? Do you really believe that if we aren’t vigilant that we still run no risk of having a madman rise to power?

    Clearly you should lump people like Ben Franklin into that when he responded, “a republic, if you can keep it.” Our own founding fathers never took our republic for granted, and neither do I. The “it can’t happen here” dimwits, however, very much take our republic for granted.

  36. TDK said

    “Never Again” is a rhetorical trick.

    You have to recall that most left wingers were once/are student activists. Their prefered way to change the world is not to actually roll up the sleeves and do something but to pass a resolution. Thus, they “denounce X”, declare “solidarity with Y”, they demonstrate as if there were no other means of achieving change. “Never again” allows them

    Once they get into power, they still think in terms of student politics. Their “arsenal of weapons” is constrained by their expeiences in their formative years. They really do believe that a “Free Tibet” sticker will do just that.

  37. Long before “Darfur” was uttered in the halls of Turtle Bay, Saddam was visiting a genocide on the Ma’dan “marsh Arabs” outside of Basra.

    It was in 1995 that the European Parliament officially designated the Ma’dan a “persecuted minority” and called the Iraqi government’s actions “genocide.” In 1995 the UN passed a resolution calling for an end to the draining of the marshlands and Iraqi military operations in the area. The word “genocide” was bandied around at the UN, and nervously so by those were were directly profiting from the sanctions regime.

    As a liberal, tree-hugging, human rights loving American, I was well aware of the plight of the Ma’dan and their marshes long before the US invaded Iraq. Living in London at the time of the invasion, I couldn’t get anyone to take the human rights or ecological angle of Basra into account – not the Amnesty folks, The Greens, not anyone at the Greenpeace offices, not anyone holding a placard that read “blood for oil”.

    Now I can’t even get ostensible defenders of the Iraq War to remember the Ma’dan, even when it can make their own argument for them.

    “Never again” means, for me, to continue making the genocide of the Ma’dan – and of the “ecocide” of the Basra marshes – as one of the pillars of my argument for conducting and continuing the war in Iraq.

    Too bad no one else has ever thought of this argument. I’ve never met anyone, Right or Left, who knows what I’m talking about! What a sad comment on “Never again.”

  38. MikeB said

    If I was in Darfur, I’d want a gun.

  39. Hmmmm.

    You cannot save people from themselves.

    That really is the enduring lesson from WWII, Iraq, Zimbabwe and the others. In every case the mass of common citizens vastly outnumbers the razor thin margin of the reigning elite. In every case the mass of common citizens could overthrow that reigning elite if they chose to.

    And in every case the people chose to endure rather than fight back.

    And if you’re willing to endure genocide rather than fight? Then you bloody well deserve it.

  40. Who is responsible for another man’s life?

    Am I willing to risk a fellow American’s life to prevent a stranger from killing another stranger?

    I don’t think I would. I value my fellow American’s life far more than any non-American.

    So where does that leave us? Despite my distaste for Clinton, he hit upon the right idea in the Balkans: bomb them until they stop.

    Do the same thing in the Sudan, Syria and Iran, only make sure you target the leaders. If they don’t care about the lives of their citizens, they’ll care enough about their own.

    Wasn’t that the rationale behind Reagan ordering the bombing of Quadaffi’s living quarters?

    So send in the drones. Send in the air cover. Shell them if you must.

    But American boots on the ground? No thank you.

  41. otpu said

    According to a couple of native born Israeli friends of mine ‘Never again’ isn’t about stopping tyrants who might try to restart the Holocaust.

    ‘Never Again’ refers to the Jewish state’s pledge to never be in a position where they are helpless to protect themselves from that tyrant. As long as there is an Israel, Israeli’s will be armed and ready to oppose any attempt to destroy Zion.


  42. Eric R. said

    One major difference this time with “Never Again”:

    This time, the Jews will not go silently. If Israel has anywhere near the arsenal ascribed to her, she will take a good chunk of the world down with her.

    Unfortunately, the hatred of Jews is so out of control today, that even the threat of hundreds of millions of dead Muslims will not stop the fanatical Nazis in Tehran, who care more about killing 13 million Jews than saving the lives of 1+ billion of their co-religionists.

  43. MikeT said

    This time, the Jews will not go silently. If Israel has anywhere near the arsenal ascribed to her, she will take a good chunk of the world down with her.

    Israeli Jews, yes. Unfortunately, many Jews in the United States haven’t learned a damn thing from the Holocaust. Most of them continue to believe that statism is a friend of, not an enemy of, the Jewish people. Everytime I see an American Jew agitate for gun control, I shrug a little and think “here we go again…”

  44. Bill Peschel, you certainly prove my point.

    As to Israelis, their vaunted toughness has been so watered down by their passive acquiescence of the buildup of Hizbollah — which now claims to have rockets in place that can reach all of Israel, and regarding which Israel has done nothing — and so many other “soft” policies that I wonder if repeating the phrase “Never Again” will do the trick. In any event, the phrase is hardly the monopoly of the Israelis or even the Jews.

    But it is just words.

    Non-orthodox Jews in America, as Mike says, see themselves as Americans first, Jews second (or ever after that), and are quite sure that it “can’t happen here.”

  45. Joe said

    A good friend of mine who lived in a kibutz in Israel for a while several years back remarked that when Israeli’s say “never again” they really mean, “we’ll never again be driven from our homes” and really means that if push comes to shove they’ll start nuking their neighbors.

    As for the build up of Hamas and Hizbollah, I say never count Israel down and out. Their best world strategy now is to play the victim, especially if with the next wave of violence, they can catch Syria’s and or Iran’s hand in the proverbial cookie jar.

    The death and destruction that followed the US withdrawal from Vietnam has rarely been conceded by the left. (I believe Tom Hayden, of all people, made this concession years ago.) That aside, Darfur is very complicated, Rwanda wasn’t. (I was furious when Rwanda was happening and even more furious when I learned of UN complicity in the tragedy. That’s what finally convinced me that the world would be better off without the UN [and the World Bank for that matter.])

  46. […] Liberty, Dhimmitude, Democrats, Human Rights, History, Politics. trackback Does the phrase “Never Again” mean anything to the Democrats and Liberals who advocate abandoning Iraq or are against […]

  47. Hmmmm.

    “That aside, Darfur is very complicated, Rwanda wasn’t. ”

    Perhaps the key isn’t to put boots on the ground to put weapons in the hands of people being slaughtered and give them the opportunity to fight. And if they choose not to, well then at least they’ve had the choice. That’s how I’d approach Darfur.

    But I’d never agree to American soldiers on the ground there. The US has spent hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of lives trying to save muslims and look at the grief we’ve gotten for it. America tends to swing between the opposing poles of isolation and intervention and that America is tending towards the former now.

    Pretty soon the world is going to experience what life is like when Americans are truly good and sick of the whole lot of them and ready to tell them to go **** themselves.

  48. […] Ever again James Taranto (and others) got exercised last week over the fact that Barack Obama won’t get exercised over […] […]

  49. kess said

    Faith in the UN? Get real!

    When has europe much less the UN stood firm and fought anything together in a solidly effective way?

    Europe stand together?! You have got to be joking the only time they have ever worked together is when they are allied and slaughtering each other before WW1 with Kings and Queens.

    They cant work together any more than Columbia can form a republic or Africans stop killing each other. Its too much of a habit by now.

  50. Fill it up!

    Yes, it has been a tad quiet here, so much so that I feel obligated to actually write some filler so the page will move down a little, relying on my famous wit and my excellent typing skills. Plus, …

  51. For links to supporting/relevant background info see:


    In a commentary (“It Didn’t Happen”) and this video (“Iraq’s Vulnerabilities Overlooked”) OpinionJournal’s James Taranto decries Barack Obama’s comments on the possibility of genocide in Iraq and John Kerry’s contention on C-SPAN’s “Washington Journal” that genocide did not engulf the region after the U.S. left Vietnam:

    “Senator Obama gave an interview last week to The Associated Press, and made a comment, that in my view really ought to shock the conscience. He said that preventing genocide is not a good enough reason to leave American troops in Iraq. … [I]t’s OK to allow the genocide of Arabs and Muslims … I think that’s absolutely shocking. … The Democrats seem to have become the party … of denial or countenancing of the worst crimes against humanity.”

    Taranto is himself a genocide denier as regards the near-annihilation of Armenians in Ottoman Turkey during 1915-1917 and privately admits, “this is a topic about which I have only a glancing interest.”

    The Stiletto is shocked that Taranto cannot understand that as an Armenian Genocide denier he lacks the moral authority to condemn someone else for having only a glancing interest in what happens to the Iraqis after the U.S. pulls out. But then, Taranto has repeatedly proven himself to be morally blind and hypocritical. Since he doesn’t appear to have a conscience, The Stiletto is cynical about Taranto being “shocked” by Obama. And don’t even get her started on The Wall Street Journal’s shocking record on anti-Armenian bias and Armenian Genocide denial.


    For several hours on Friday morning, the above item was cross-posted on PoliticalMavens. James Taranto took exception at being called out as an Armenian Genocide denier:

    The only thing I have written on the subject is that I “have no opinion on whether the events of 1915 constitute genocide or not,” which is neither an affirmation nor a denial.”

    Taranto pressured the site’s editor – who recently suffered a grievous personal loss and is still in a fragile emotional state – to remove the post, thus squelching The Stiletto’s free speech rights.

    But then, Taranto has never called upon Turkey to repeal Article 301, which criminalizes affirmation of the Armenian Genocide, but he roundly condemned a similar law France was considering last year to criminalize speech denying the Armenian Genocide (the same column from which he quotes above).

    If no one can write or talk about the Armenian Genocide, then it didn’t happen, right, Taranto?

    Well Taranto has no leverage with The Stiletto, so she reiterates that he is guilty of everything he wants to hang on Obama in his commentary.

    Taranto accuses Obama of “engaging in sophistry,” adding:

    By his logic, if America lacks the capacity to intervene everywhere there is ethnic killing, it has no obligation to intervene anywhere – and perhaps an obligation to intervene nowhere. His reasoning elevates consistency into the cardinal virtue, making the perfect the enemy of the good.

    In claiming that he neither affirmed nor denied the Armenian Genocide when he wrote that he had “no opinion on whether the events of 1915 constitute genocide or not,” Taranto is engaging in sophistry. His reasoning elevates willful ignorance into the cardinal virtue, making the noncommittal the enemy of the truthful.

    To have “no opinion,” Taranto must be, and remain, willfully ignorant of the facts – and of the voluminous eyewitness accounts by journalists, missionaries, diplomats and survivors, and of the numerous books based on these records. Remarkable that someone in his profession would be so incurious.

    Like the five stages of grief, there are also stages of genocide denial:

    While the arguments made by a genocide denier vary depending on which genocide is being denied, most arguments have a common basis. The accusations of a Genocide denier usually include conspiracies, stating that the targeted ethnic group conspired against the accused state with its enemies, that death tolls have been exaggerated in order to create undeserved sympathy, that the victims provoked the actions against themselves, through either armed insurrection or exploitation of the majority, and that the evidence supporting a genocide thesis was largely fabricated.

    Thus the second part of Taranto’s denier-denial “whether the events of 1915 constitute genocide or not” is in fact a denial, as it subtly invokes all of the tactics used by Genocide and Holocaust deniers in one shot. Though morally challenged and hypocritical, no one can accuse Taranto of not being clever.

  52. […] more chilling, of course, is the point I made before — even if we’d known, too — known that well — it wouldn’t have made a […]

  53. […] Top Posts Kennedy ‘Eating Ice Cream’ After Surgery On ArteryThe whole world is a narrow bridgeStopping the bulldozerHolocaust Denial – It’s the New BlackHot Air keeps gunning for RudyChurchill was right about the JewsI just wanted to buy a bookOh, Mickey, you’re so fineObama quits raceEver again […]

  54. […] by Ron Coleman on December 27, 2007 This “best of” item from July was the number-one all-time most popular posting on Likelihood of Success since I started it in […]

  55. […] Best Day Ever: 7,794 — Tuesday, July 24, 2007 […]

  56. […] Posted by Ron Coleman on November 29, 2008 I made a point in a previous post that appears to have gotten obscured, and while I reiterated it in the comments earlier this evening, I subsequently saw another item (again via Instapundit) that seemed, in perhaps a somewhat roundabout way — to confirm it. Here’s what I said: The terrorists “leveraged” Western victims in Mumbai. I use that term because 100 300 dead Westerners will have more impact in the West than probably many more hundreds of dead Indians. That is not how it ought to be, but look at what goes on in Africa, to the shock and horror of just about no one in America. Usually our thoughts are, if we notice such stories at all, “Well, those people are always killing each other over there.” It may be a less than ideal reaction, morally speaking, but I believe I am accurately describing the human condition, as I wrote last year when considering the “never again” myth. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: