It is nice to run across a sensible voice when it comes to discussion on the Middle East. Iran, for all it's internal flaws as you say, has done more for Iraqis -- whose government tried to invade Iran decades earlier, at the behest of the US and UK -- in the last few years than a full decade of Western intervention did for them. Never mind what the West did to Iraqis BEFORE the occupation. And I'm not talking about just the Bush administration, there's Madeline Albright's attitude toward the suffering of Iraqi children to ponder too.
Trump is the "populist" and "straight-talking" politician, while Cameron is the "sophisticated" and "serious" politician. But in many respects, if you disregard image and focus on policy, they really are two sides of the same coin.
Surprise! Liberal blogs don't, as a rule, disseminate information that is suspect, tainted and possibly utter fabrication.
Good thing we have right wingers like to give us a spirited defense of torture and mass murder and all of that stuff we used to be against, as a modernized society, supposedly.
I think that's the real problem that needs to be addressed. It's not that Trump is persuading people with his positions...
...he's telling people what they want to hear from someone they'd vote for. At the end of the day, Trump has been, and always will be, a con man. It's his supporters that are the real crisis point. Even if trump doesn't get the candidacy, or the White House, they're still going to be here and they're going to continue to vote for the same thing (until, I expect, they finally feel the consequences of voting for lawlessness and evil, and by then it will be too late.)
...And when the Bush Administration says one thing for its reasons, and something completely different and out of control happens, you still believe them?
And it's hardly fair to describe our relationship to Syria as "non-intervention." How many weeks has it been since we had to refresh the counter on the "X weeks since the last US supply drop was seized by Daesh!"
The situation in Syria exists BECAUSE the US and ostensibly the rest of the West created the situation that now exists in Iraq. Everywhere the West intervenes, mindless slaughter and destruction are pretty much guaranteed to follow. The Ukrainians are finding that out the hard way, too so this is hardly a feature of the Middle East alone.
Brilliant move on Putin's part. He diplomatically lifts a US ally, while luring Israel to start yet another war with a neighbor. US foreign policy will fall apart if our "special friend" starts World War 3. Our relationship with Israel is already tearing the stability of US politics asunder as it is.
You know what's funny to me? All these points that you and Professor Cole are making point to the fact that this attack is the EXACT opposite of what Muslims want, certainly as far as self interest goes if nothing else.
Meanwhile, Israel and its cadre of Islamophobic supporters? They benefited immensely from this act. Netanyahu couldn't wait to leap onto TV and try to galvanize this into anti-Palestinian sentiment. Nothing but profit for them... Funny, that.
Kindly stop making excuses for the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah isn't "jihadist," it exists specifically BECAUSE Israel can't keep its mitts off of other people's land. If there had been no occupation and bombing of Lebanon, there would be no Hezbollah today.
I have a hard time putting much credence, or feeling sorry for this woman. She's feeling guilt because she made her own child a participant in a military occupation on the West Bank, and now she reaps the whirlwind. We have to keep that in mind -- Israeli citizens on the West Bank are part of a MILITARY occupation. Her government treats the children of Hamas participants as valid targets in combat. So why shouldn't we hold HER and her family to the SAME standards as she holds others?
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
That's the real elephant in the room, isn't it? It's legal, by international law, for the Russians to be there.
That isn't so much the case for NATO.
It is nice to run across a sensible voice when it comes to discussion on the Middle East. Iran, for all it's internal flaws as you say, has done more for Iraqis -- whose government tried to invade Iran decades earlier, at the behest of the US and UK -- in the last few years than a full decade of Western intervention did for them. Never mind what the West did to Iraqis BEFORE the occupation. And I'm not talking about just the Bush administration, there's Madeline Albright's attitude toward the suffering of Iraqi children to ponder too.
Trump is the "populist" and "straight-talking" politician, while Cameron is the "sophisticated" and "serious" politician. But in many respects, if you disregard image and focus on policy, they really are two sides of the same coin.
Surprise! Liberal blogs don't, as a rule, disseminate information that is suspect, tainted and possibly utter fabrication.
Good thing we have right wingers like to give us a spirited defense of torture and mass murder and all of that stuff we used to be against, as a modernized society, supposedly.
I think that's the real problem that needs to be addressed. It's not that Trump is persuading people with his positions...
...he's telling people what they want to hear from someone they'd vote for. At the end of the day, Trump has been, and always will be, a con man. It's his supporters that are the real crisis point. Even if trump doesn't get the candidacy, or the White House, they're still going to be here and they're going to continue to vote for the same thing (until, I expect, they finally feel the consequences of voting for lawlessness and evil, and by then it will be too late.)
To quote a lyric from one of Laurie Anderson's songs, "Ah... America. And this would be America."
...And when the Bush Administration says one thing for its reasons, and something completely different and out of control happens, you still believe them?
And it's hardly fair to describe our relationship to Syria as "non-intervention." How many weeks has it been since we had to refresh the counter on the "X weeks since the last US supply drop was seized by Daesh!"
The situation in Syria exists BECAUSE the US and ostensibly the rest of the West created the situation that now exists in Iraq. Everywhere the West intervenes, mindless slaughter and destruction are pretty much guaranteed to follow. The Ukrainians are finding that out the hard way, too so this is hardly a feature of the Middle East alone.
I'm curious. Do you honestly think the media would have treated it the same way if the victims were Jewish?
Brilliant move on Putin's part. He diplomatically lifts a US ally, while luring Israel to start yet another war with a neighbor. US foreign policy will fall apart if our "special friend" starts World War 3. Our relationship with Israel is already tearing the stability of US politics asunder as it is.
And supposing time reverses the trend, and fewer Congressmen boycott Netanyahu's speech than promised to as of today?
The Israel Lobby has forced a game of chicken on the Democratic Party. You're all counting on the Democratic Party to not back down, ultimately.
I wouldn't put money on that, personally.
Nailed it!
You know what's funny to me? All these points that you and Professor Cole are making point to the fact that this attack is the EXACT opposite of what Muslims want, certainly as far as self interest goes if nothing else.
Meanwhile, Israel and its cadre of Islamophobic supporters? They benefited immensely from this act. Netanyahu couldn't wait to leap onto TV and try to galvanize this into anti-Palestinian sentiment. Nothing but profit for them... Funny, that.
Kindly stop making excuses for the Israeli invasion and occupation of Lebanon. Hezbollah isn't "jihadist," it exists specifically BECAUSE Israel can't keep its mitts off of other people's land. If there had been no occupation and bombing of Lebanon, there would be no Hezbollah today.
Define "non combatant" with respects to armed settlers that are active participants in a military occupation.
I have a hard time putting much credence, or feeling sorry for this woman. She's feeling guilt because she made her own child a participant in a military occupation on the West Bank, and now she reaps the whirlwind. We have to keep that in mind -- Israeli citizens on the West Bank are part of a MILITARY occupation. Her government treats the children of Hamas participants as valid targets in combat. So why shouldn't we hold HER and her family to the SAME standards as she holds others?