Friday, May 09, 2008

Gratuitous Offensiveness Friday

I've been meaning to write about Oliver Kamm's geopolitical lunacy ever since I had the misfortune to read that particular post. I blame Chris Bertram. I know that makes this look like Kick-Oliver-Kamm week. It's not. Every week is Kick-Oliver-Kamm week. We are at your service all year round (holidays permitting).

(A brief taster of what I may get around to writing. As far as I know, Israel has never asked for US military intervention. It prides itself on fighting its own wars. [Yes, I will have to research this properly; that's why I haven't posted.] Senator Clinton hasn't even promised a negotiated pact with Israel; she's talking of intervening on their behalf without even asking. Very democratic. No, really, Iran does not - according to the best intelligence estimates - possess nuclear weapons. It is developing a nuclear program; and it does possess rocket technology. Weaponised (god, I hate that word) fissile material is still a sine qua non for a nuclear device. And they haven't got it. Iran trades with China and Russia, both of whom have ICBM technology. Does Senator Clinton really want to start this?)

But now it probably doesn't matter anyway.

Via IOZ whose previous post hits the mark - that is the current Senator of New York and the one-time Senator for Boeing - Oliver being a fan of the second. He seems to have gone off Clinton after reading Christopher Hitchens in the Mirror. Hitchens hates Bill Clinton! Hold the front page! That sounds like objective journalism to me.[1]

[1] This is sarcasm.


Blogger ejh said...

Also see (and any number of others)

5/09/2008 06:30:00 PM  
Blogger Alex said...

This isn't actually utterly crazy. US extended deterrence did wonders for certain insecure and well equipped powers with nasty neighbours only 200 or so miles due east of our good selves.

Obviously, it's being said to appeal to the cuntiest of cunts, though.

5/10/2008 10:45:00 PM  
Blogger Chardonnay Chap said...

Alex, are you talking about NATO? Because I was thinking of that: that was a pact. Hillary Clinton seems to be declaring defence of Israel without any agreement with Israel - and against a total straw man threat. I could have gone on about this at length. She promised to protect Israel against nuclear attack from Iran. That's incredibly narrow. After all, US extended deterrence could be used against any state which threatens nuclear attack. She could have offered Israel aid against 'conventional' threats (which are a lot more real). She didn't, so I think it's a 'dog whistle' message and one in bad faith (see I talk the talk about Israel, and I'll never have to do anything about it, but I can always quote myself in future). And it appealed to Oliver Kamm, so enough said there.

5/11/2008 08:42:00 AM  
Blogger Alex said...

Yes, I am, although the point is good for Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea. I would be quite supportive of a formal US-Israel alliance, as it would a) provide yet more reassurance and b) create obligations on Israel's part that would give them a strong incentive to behave.

5/11/2008 04:24:00 PM  
Blogger ejh said...

Fucked if I'm going back to that CT thread, by the way. Life's far too short. Anybody wants to tell me what happened, in the unlikely event that the preterite tense is appropriate, be my guest.

5/11/2008 09:08:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home