Speaking of spoiled children in Europe, now the EU is whining that Israel had better not kill the terrorist Arafat, because he's an elected leader."

What a crock. Even leaving aside the illegitimacy of his "election," would they have said in 1943 that we shouldn't have assassinated Hitler, because he was "an elected leader"?

Sadly, many of them probably would. And for those who say that assassinations are a bad idea because they may result in retaliatory assassinations, phooey. You have to consider the asymmetry of the situation.

Hitler's brutal Germany (and Saddam's Iraq--he was "elected" too, with almost a hundred percent of the vote) were those people personified. Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime. On the other hand, in a true constitutional republic, a state consisting of laws rather than men, killing the head of state would simply result in a smooth transition to his replacement, and the war would continue with renewed ferocity.

Now arguably, unlike the Nazi Party, the PA might survive Arafat's demise, but that's no reason not to remove him. He is the murderous enemy of the state of Israel just as surely as bin Laden is ours, and he makes himself a legitimate target by his continued actions.

I suspect that what the EU is really worried about is that, with Arafat's death, as with Saddam's downfall, a lot of dirty laundry may come out in terms of the depths of the corruption of their dealings with him. Old Yasser reputedly has a some pretty sizable European bank accounts. How much of his thievery has he been kicking back to the Eurocrats?

[Update at 1 PM PST]

With whitewashes like this, we probably won't find out as long as Arafat, or someone like him, continues to run the Palestinian Authority. Iraq was hardly the only swamp that needs to be drained over there.

She said: "This form of assistance has been subject to more scrutiny than any other area...No one has proven a direct link, it is as simple as that".

Pointing to the lack of convictions of the people who money is suspected of being transferred to, she added that no link has been found between them and terrorist organisations.

However, Parliamentarians remain divided over whether this legalistic definition of evidence accurately reflects the situation.

> I suspect that what the EU is really worried
> about is that, with Arafat's death, as with
> Saddam's downfall, a lot of dirty laundry may
> come out in terms of the depths of the
> corruption of their dealings with him. Old
> Yasser reputedly has a some pretty sizable
> European bank accounts. How much of his
> thievery has he been kicking back to the
> Eurocrats?

So you "suspect" this is the case... Where is the evidence? Why always suspect the darkest of motives when discussing something that (quite frankly) isn't perceived as a very important issue over here?

Really, Rand, it's sad to see how a previously level-headed intelligent guy like you keep firing one dumb anti-European tirade after another. Why do you keep undermining your credibility like this? Why not simply stick to (commercial-) space policy? You make so much more sense talking about that.

MARCU$

Rand,

I know I shouldn't take your bait on non-space related posts, but I have to ask a question. From your statements in this post, it appears that you believe that the key problems with both Palestine and Iraq were their leaders--as you put it "Kill Hitler or Saddam, and you kill the regime."

So the thing that makes we wonder is that you were (IIRC) opposed to the idea of a duel between Bush and Saddam that was proposed back in the months before the war. Now, if defeating the leader in these cases would really make those people in both countries that much more free, how can real square that with opposing the idea of a duel?

Pretty much all the other reasons than "Saddam==Evil" for the Iraq war have been shown to be a load of rot. Had Bush accepted the duel proposal (including Saddam, both his Sons, and a few other high level leaders), and won fair and square (which from all the hype I hear from his fan-club would have been very easy), the regime would have ended as you put it. But in this case, nearly 600 Americans, and tens of thousands of Iraqis would still be alive.

But that's water under the bridge now. What I'd like to know is that with all of this information, would you support a duel between Arafat and Sharon to settle this dispute? I think the fight would be pretty even (both are old guys), and if administered by a neutral third party, I don't think anyone could call the fight unfair. And that way you would risk killing or maiming any innocent third parties, and if Arafat lost what
could the Palestinians complain about?

Reality says neither side would take the offer, because as a rule most leaders throughout the world are cowards that would rather risk other peoples' lives to further their causes than ever chance risking their own.

~Jon

Jon
"Reality says neither side would take the offer, because as a rule most leaders throughout the world are cowards that would rather risk other peoples' lives to further their causes than ever chance risking their own"

Interesting that you would attempt to link 'reality' to a far out concept, and then castigate their character because 'they woudn't take the offer'.

As for being a coward (or not) - many political leaders have served in positions where their own ass was at risk. But just as you wouldn't send General Eisenhower in with the first wave at D-Day .. what you expect a Prime Minister to go shagging around a combat zone in a helo? How would a leader demonstarte his cojones to your satisfaction?

Jonathan, I already said that the situation isn't symmetric. Killing an American president doesn't end the American "regime." Unlike Saddam's Iraq, we are a nation of laws, not men.

And in fact all of the justifications for the war before it remain today. The only thing missing is the stockpiles of WMD, so that's, of course, what war opponents focus on now (even though most of them believed before the war that they probably existed).

Where is the evidence?

Apparently hidden in intelligence reports that weren't allowed to be considered.

Why always suspect the darkest of motives when discussing something that (quite frankly) isn't perceived as a very important issue over here?

It is the tragedy of Europe that potential corruption of both a terrorist leader and its own leadership isn't "perceived to be a very important issue" over there.

What most people do not know is the personality and the personality cult these so-called leaders of the "terror organizations" develop in their countries of occupation. They are "power" raised to the 19th degree. They are depraved, vicious, unethical, immoral and on and on and on.
These are not the people that you would meet at a democratic/republican convention.
You would never get to meet them, nor would you be able to influence them in any manner.
Sharon (PM of Israel) is correct in his way of handling them. A person has to be as tough as they and never let up on vigilence at any time.
Do not think they are human, they are human only in appearance.

Rand,

I want to apologize for my tone in my earlier post. It should be quite possible to disagree without being disagreeable. My only point was that if there is an elective, offensive war (ie not a war defending against an invasion), that it would be better if the leaders of nations resolved disputes between themselves, not sending a bunch of innocent third parties to their premature graves. I'm not Catholic, and so the "Just War Docterine" as it is commonly understood isn't gospel truth to me, but I have to agree with a lot of its premises. If there really was an alternative to a war that would've prevented the deaths of innocent third parties, and it isn't taken, then I have a hard time justifying the war.

In Iraq, the case was very clear. The main remaining justification for the Iraq war was that Saddam was an evil leader. The fact that he offered a solution that would've spared third parties (ie a duel) means that there was a realistic non-war alternative. I have to side with the judges at Nuremberg here when it comes to offensive wars of any flavor, especially when they could've been avoided.

~Jon