Someone want to remind me again what this is all about? I thought it was the opinion of every Western intelligence agency that Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons.
You are right about him recycling old talking points (re: only one refinery and vulnerable to sabotage). I distinctly remember hearing him using that talking point ~4 years ago or so.
While not all of them are as loopy on Iran as Gingrich, all of them (save Paul) were promising to ratchet up tensions in some form or other. Romney promised "crippling sanctions."
I'm going to ask a really stupid question (I know it's stupid you, don't have to tell me): How have I not heard of that Netanyahu video before now? That is some pretty damning stuff. I mean, we all knew it's content is true, actions speak louder than words, but to hear him be so candid about it is amazing.
It's interesting that you make that claim as I saw 60 Minutes as one of the few news outlets not spewing propaganda. Go to youtube and look up their "Is Peace Out of Reach?" story about how the settlements are intended to destroy the peace process. It also touched on the other humiliations of the occupation (being forced to use separate roads in their own land, submitting to searches, having their homes occupied as outposts, etc) You'd never see a report like this on CNN.
Typo? The article you linked to says 100,000 came out to the union protest in Washington D.C. last year, not 10,000. ("A labor rally in Washington last October drew more than 100,000 people, with little news media coverage.")
I failed to clearly make the point I wanted to make (I was, perhaps, stunned that Joe glibly dismissed Bahrain's opening fire on its unarmed citizens.) Hypothetically, if the rebellion in Bahrain had not been immediately crushed, and instead lasted several months, would the regime not be willing to kill as many as Qaddafi did (relative to population size) to maintain power? I think the Bahrainian government proved it would, which is why I'm cynical that we intervened for humanitarian reasons in Libya, given that we're not even pulling our troops out of Bahrain.
During the same time period as the Libyan war, we indicated we'll be extending our defense pact with Bahrain (which had its own shockingly brutal crackdown.)
Sort of. It's clearly correct on the wars front, but Obama did have the gall to suggest (iirc) that the 1967 borders should be the basis for a future peace deal - something I never realized was remotely controversial. I'm always surprised there isn't more skepticism about our relationship with Israel.
"And, what makes the Libertarians think that if there were no governments or only weak governments, the corporations would not just wage the wars themselves?"
Corporations would be less likely to commit acts of war due to the negative publicity it would bring to them. Besides, I don't know any serious libertarian who doesn't think that government should restrain people from violent acts against other's and/or their property. They view that as the main function of government.
"Ron Paul’s “peace through trade” approach to geopolitics and skepticism of overbearing imperialism does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the foreign policy of the United States."
Again, with all due respect: America is rapidly collapsing, what makes you *so sure* that majorities won't begin to question the policies that have brought us here? It won't happen next week, but there are growing signs that this could indeed come to pass.
Polls confirm a majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan/Iraq, the public also was more skeptical of involvement in Libya than it was in Iraq, and I've seen polls showing a plurality of Americans would rather cut military than medicare or social security (Glenn Greenwald posted one but I can't find it.) Heck, MITT ROMNEY of all people just said in a debate that "we can't fight other people's wars of independence."
© 2025 All Rights Reserved
Someone want to remind me again what this is all about? I thought it was the opinion of every Western intelligence agency that Iran wasn't pursuing nuclear weapons.
You are right about him recycling old talking points (re: only one refinery and vulnerable to sabotage). I distinctly remember hearing him using that talking point ~4 years ago or so.
While not all of them are as loopy on Iran as Gingrich, all of them (save Paul) were promising to ratchet up tensions in some form or other. Romney promised "crippling sanctions."
Professor Cole, I think this is what you are looking for:
link to en.wikipedia.org
Let me know if you need an invite, it's still in very early stages and a bit buggy.
I'm going to ask a really stupid question (I know it's stupid you, don't have to tell me): How have I not heard of that Netanyahu video before now? That is some pretty damning stuff. I mean, we all knew it's content is true, actions speak louder than words, but to hear him be so candid about it is amazing.
It's interesting that you make that claim as I saw 60 Minutes as one of the few news outlets not spewing propaganda. Go to youtube and look up their "Is Peace Out of Reach?" story about how the settlements are intended to destroy the peace process. It also touched on the other humiliations of the occupation (being forced to use separate roads in their own land, submitting to searches, having their homes occupied as outposts, etc) You'd never see a report like this on CNN.
Typo? The article you linked to says 100,000 came out to the union protest in Washington D.C. last year, not 10,000. ("A labor rally in Washington last October drew more than 100,000 people, with little news media coverage.")
I failed to clearly make the point I wanted to make (I was, perhaps, stunned that Joe glibly dismissed Bahrain's opening fire on its unarmed citizens.) Hypothetically, if the rebellion in Bahrain had not been immediately crushed, and instead lasted several months, would the regime not be willing to kill as many as Qaddafi did (relative to population size) to maintain power? I think the Bahrainian government proved it would, which is why I'm cynical that we intervened for humanitarian reasons in Libya, given that we're not even pulling our troops out of Bahrain.
And I'm curious what that death toll (per capita) would be after a 5 month war in which NATO flew tens of thousands of sorties.
During the same time period as the Libyan war, we indicated we'll be extending our defense pact with Bahrain (which had its own shockingly brutal crackdown.)
Sort of. It's clearly correct on the wars front, but Obama did have the gall to suggest (iirc) that the 1967 borders should be the basis for a future peace deal - something I never realized was remotely controversial. I'm always surprised there isn't more skepticism about our relationship with Israel.
"And, what makes the Libertarians think that if there were no governments or only weak governments, the corporations would not just wage the wars themselves?"
Corporations would be less likely to commit acts of war due to the negative publicity it would bring to them. Besides, I don't know any serious libertarian who doesn't think that government should restrain people from violent acts against other's and/or their property. They view that as the main function of government.
"Ron Paul’s “peace through trade” approach to geopolitics and skepticism of overbearing imperialism does not have a snowball’s chance in hell of becoming the foreign policy of the United States."
Again, with all due respect: America is rapidly collapsing, what makes you *so sure* that majorities won't begin to question the policies that have brought us here? It won't happen next week, but there are growing signs that this could indeed come to pass.
Polls confirm a majority of Americans want out of Afghanistan/Iraq, the public also was more skeptical of involvement in Libya than it was in Iraq, and I've seen polls showing a plurality of Americans would rather cut military than medicare or social security (Glenn Greenwald posted one but I can't find it.) Heck, MITT ROMNEY of all people just said in a debate that "we can't fight other people's wars of independence."