Monday, January 26, 2009

Same Actions, Expecting Different Results...

It occurred to me that I shouold have posted about this before - but somehow I never let it get beyond the 'conversation' stage.

Earlier this month, I tapped out a post about the (then) shooting-war in Israel.

I pointed out that everything was happening as it has happened before, complete with the standard, anti-Israel responses and "coverage" from the Left-wing Media.

Ben Shapiro wrote on the same matter, from the Israeli perspective - explaining Why Israel Will Lose...Again (essentially, because they continue to insist on playing this the same way every time)

So here we are, right back where we've been:

- Israel stops defending itself to "negotiate",

- The former Egyptians/Jordanians declare victory,
(because they weren't all slaughtered - which must demonstrate Israel's weakness, after all)

- An "Uneasy Cease-fire" begins

- During which we're supposed to believe that the former Egyptians/Jordanians are "negotiating" in good faith...


...and everything old becomes new again...

U.S. Navy intercepts Iranian arms vessel

"...carrying weapons to rearm Hamas in the Gaza Strip..."

I understand that the Arabs/Muslims hate the Israelis because they have to - they are born and bred into it, and the Jews are the only thing further down their ladder-of-evil (tm) than Americans - but why do the Israelis insist on running through the same cycle that has failed so many times in the past?

Why do they insist on trying to 'negotiate' with people who only seem to even procreate so they can send more bomb-carriers against Israel - with people whose only intention is to carry-water for any country that would see Israel wiped off the face of the earth?

How many times will this particular Kabuki theater be played out before someone finally wakes up and says "enough"?

(seriously, jump in here and lend some insight - I'm at a loss)

- MuscleDaddy

3 comments:

  1. Paules says,

    I'm actually glad that an American capitalist has found a way to fleece the Obamatrons. If the book had been published by the Government Printing Office, I would have cause for worry.

    Any comparison between Obama and Mao falls apart (at least so far) for a number of reasons. It's really a study in contrasts. Mao barely learned to read and write, but he understood the potential power of China's vast underclass (aka peasant farmers) because he was one of them. Obama attended America's best universities, but he hasn't a clue about how average Americans live.

    Mao actually earned his stripes by leading a remnant of the Chinese Communist Army on the Long March to a sanctuary in northern China. Obama is an affirmative action hire with nothing substantial to his credit.

    Mao was a brilliant organizer and a genuine leader when the very existence of his movement hung in the balance. Obama walked away from his organizing efforts in South Chicago as soon as it was politically expedient.

    If Obama is only half as politically savvy as Mao was in his time, I would worry. Mao was eventually retired by the communist party because his economic policies were a disaster. He engineered a comeback by outflanking his own party. Absolutely brilliant! He created an entirely new constituency from the young and educated. "Hold on there, Paules!" you say. Yes, I know what you're thinking.

    But Mao's Revolutionary Guards were not spoiled wastrels living off dad's money while pursuing an education in indiscriminate fornication and dope smoking. Good luck, Mr. Obama, with that raw material.

    "Dude, I just got so abused by some old codger carrying a gun, and all I did was ask for a signature."

    "Oh, man, you look like totally strung out. Have a hit of this."

    "Thanks, bro, I'm feeling better already. Let's like blow off this stupid gig and head on out. Party!"

    "Now you're talking, duuuuuuude."

    I'll do the Blue Book one better. Free pack of rolling papers glued to the back cover.

    I gave one of my seniors today the ultimate Paules compliment. While discussing the bail-out, I called her a laissez-faire, capitalist, bitch. My comment was greeted by nodding heads and general mirth all around. True story.

    Teaching is not a bad way to fill one's time between drinks. I swear by it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. You're gonna get your ass fired someday, Paules.
    But at least you'll go out with a bang and not a whimper

    ReplyDelete
  3. Oops! I think Paules was commenting on the "Blue Book" post.

    To answer your question, MD. There is only one way to wage war against an enemy that holds sacred, as their basic tenant, your extinction.
    If I may quote...
    "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentation of the women."
    Until Israel is willing to go Conan, there will be no peace.

    ReplyDelete

We reserve the right to delete comments, but the failure to delete any particular comment should not be interpreted as an endorsement thereof.

In general, we expect comments to be relevant to the story, or to a prior comment that is relevant; and we expect some minimal level of civility. Defining that line is inherently subjective, so try to stay clear of insulting remarks. If you respond to a comment that is later deleted, we may take your response with it. Deleting your comment isn't a personal knock on you, so don't take it as such.

We allow a variety of ways for commenters to identify themselves; those who choose not to do so should take extra care. Absent any prior context in which they may be understood, ironic comments may be misinterpreted. Once you've earned a reputation for contributing to a conversation, we are likely to be more tolerant in those gray areas, as we'll understand where you're coming from.