It is interesting and curious to me that you think anything could be a "crackpot" theory in this day and age in this place. And erroneous one? Sure....but nothing would surprise me. And particularly not the possibility that some 'bright boy' on the so called rebel side, got an idea in his head that given the fact the UN--on that very day in question--landed in Syria, it might be a good plan to 'give them something to talk about'.
Why should I believe either Morsi or Obama? Do either of them know the 'truth' anymore? Are interested in it? A grown man, Obama, stands in front of TV cameras in Tanzania, and tells us, in so many words, that he does not need to bug embassies and NGO buildings and their communications, to "find out what" the leaders of Europe are "thinking"? He just has to "call them" to find out??! And he says it with a straight face? And apparently the media took it with a straight face....and we are to believe him? Or Morsi? Pathetic.
But they have so many foundations.....and they, both of them, charge under 500k for a 'speech'. And I'm sure Chelsea will be signing up at the recruiter's office....now that the Great One has found chemicals in the air. Maybe his daughters too...if this lasts long enough.
Could you please, Mr Wilson, direct me to any direct evidence of your assertion? That the UK armed the people (child) who you say carried out this war crime?
I think the video is pure sophistry. We, the West, are at war with a particular 'brand' of Islam. Regrettably.
Thank you for that pedantic lecture....now, moving back to my question, do you think we can ask, politely, that people stop exploding bombs in front of religious buildings in Iraq? As at least a start? ANd if they reject this counsel/suggestion we, at a minimum, place responsibility on those who do such actions? Just ask them? You got a lot of questions to ask of Americans? Fine, I'm all for that too.
Does there ever come a point, however distant into the future, where someone stands up and says, 'whatever the crimes of Bush and the US people, and they are many, whatever the stupidities of them, whatever the malevolence of them, perhaps it is time that we Iraqis stopped setting off bombs in front of our own places of religious worship. Just a start fellows'?
"There seems little doubt that the Obama administration took a big step back from the brink in Moscow this week, and that rumors of an American push to arm the rebels are, in the light of this diplomacy, overblown."
Good. We can do no good in Syria. Period. We are too ignorant of the dynamics on the ground. Stay out. Bring the focus back to where it is most urgently needed. Crumbling America.
"trade benefits"? More jobs sent overseas, or cheap junk sent here....so we can get them to allow us to intervene where we don't belong in the first place? Yup...sounds like that last 40 years of US foreign policy.
Me, I'm against going to any part of the Middle East, period. For any reasons. But I'm curious Prof, lets say you could peer into the future and find that the stance of the China and Russia re UN 'resolutions' of any type, has not changed. But the attacks on civilians keeps up. What might be your position?
Starting a war, or, even contemplating starting one, Pakistan is sheer madness (though certainly in spirit with the mad times in the US right now).
The problem is, or, my problem is, it is ALSO sheer madness to even dream the US can have a "Partner" in the Pak Govt. So....we do not have a "prayer" of success in Afghanistan. So why are we there?
Prof Cole wrote: "But the problem of equal treatment under the law is the one that needs to be addressed most urgently." Maybe so, from the safe zone where you reside. I suspect the people in the middle of the conflagration think stopping the violence and the looting what needs to be addressed "most urgently".
Well, I can say one thing for sure. The President did not disappoint me. He's done exactly what you spell out he's done. And I thought he would. Worse is yet to come. Wait till they figure out a way to allow states to declare bankruptcy. And void all contracts with retirees and such.
Yeah, but wait minute Prof....that is easy for you to write, but tell us, WHO IS DESIGNING Kate Middleton's wedding dress? Inquiring minds want to know.
If I spent a 1000 years trying to top this, I could think of no single act that would secure Bush's reputation in the US, than if he were arrested in Europe. It would ensure his popularity for 200 years. And almost guarantee that Jeb would be President. In fact, if I were in the leadership of the GOP I would be on my knees begging him to go. And to publicize why he is going. To call their bluff. Loud, Texas style. Like John Wayne strolling through town. And Jeb would be in the front row of the beggars.
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I hate the guy and think he is worthy of a war crimes investigation. But arrest him? Man, this would high Hollywood Farce material. But boy could Rove spin it. Fox News? Fox News would run with it for days. Weeks. Like Ted Koppel and the Hostages.
My personal take on this is no nation, least of all the US, is ever "sensitive" enough for the alleged tender feelings of Pakistanis. If Obama came, they would lament he stayed longer in India. If he stayed longer in Pakistan they would say he spent more money in India than he did in Pakistan. I don't really blame them. Playing colonial guilt (often well earned guilt) has worked fairly well now for some time since the Post WWII period. There was, after all, much to be guilty about. But its utility has diminished. And some entities have a hard time reconciling themselves to this.
In my opinion, much of the mess the Pakistani govt finds itself in is of its own making. That is always a painful thing to admit. The US is proof of that. I would argue.
These guys are very good, Media executives I mean, are very good, or, think they are very good, at being one of the first to grasp 'which way the wind is blowing'. And the truth of the matter is, the long knives have been out for Keith's scalp for some time now. They got it.
Look, this is a guy who picked picked Summers and Geitner to head up his economic team. And to devise his economic program. This is a guy who kept Gates on. Thereby proving if you stay around Washington DC long enough, despite a fairly bad track record, and you are a White Guy in a suit, who graduated from a decent college, and perhaps, repeat, perhaps, served in the military, the media will come to like you.
This is a guy who picked McChrystal's plan over Eikenberry's suggestions. This is a guy who continues to spend over a 100 billion a year in a rat hole. (metaphorically speaking). To say nothing of blood. This is a guy who wanted, and wants, to look 'forward' away from the possible crimes and violations of the past. This is a guy who wanted to close down Gitmo. This is a guy who opposes allowing gays to legally marry.
This is a guy who failed to appoint anyone at or above the level of Undersecretary at State or Defense, or at the NSA, or NSC, who was on record opposing the Iraq War. True, many people appointed CAME to oppose it. After it went bad.
This is a guy who failed to appoint one person, I repeat, one person, to economic team that was on record opposing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. This is a guy who failed to appoint one person at the DOJ who had ever talked favorably, never mind been on record, as CONSIDERING conducting any investigation in the 'excesses' of the past Admin.
And so on and so on and so on. And this is the man you expect, to the extent you do expect it, to "galvanize"? This man's job, and he is very good at this, I believe, is not to add a protective additive to steel. This is a man who is good at adding a soft, dream-like, and child like, seductive pleasantness, and pseudo-idealism to the oligarchy America has become.
I'm sorry Prof, but I don't share your opinion that there is a "hysteria" about this issue in America. Other, that is, than with the media covering and fanning the story. My guess is most Americans are mildly indifferent to this story. Aware of it.....and that's about it. It is the media, and few nuts like the nut in Florida, that care about this the most. Oh, and a few preening, moralizing people on the left, whom, while I tend to side with, can't seem to help but be preachy to people. IOW Prof....personally, I don't see this as a big issue. The economy is not simply a big issue. It is THEE issue.
Prof, your anger is justified, in my eyes. I think we are in Afghanistan for one main reason. The Dems are terrified that if they get out some attack may take place in the US. And such attack will be, wrongly, perceived as having originated in Afghanistan. And then there will be a flood of commercials in the American media, and endless accusations on Cable TV that the Dems can't protect the US. That is the reason we are there. In my opinion. This is all about domestic politics....the 21st century version of the 'who lost China' nonsense.
Oh forget all that stuff Prof. It is a great speech you write. But at this point it reads like a very long note from a unwanted, and uninvited, house guest that overstayed their limited welcome weeks ago. 'screw the note...just go'
The old USA?....I would have liked to hear, and expected to here, the kind of the speech you wrote. Sense of history and all that. Now? I would just like to see him say we are out. We're sorry we came, and we're sorry we overstayed our qualified welcome. Good by. All, I repeat, ALL military personal (including civilian contractors hired by the US) out of Iraq now. We can offer them over the horizon protection if they, a duly elected Iraq govt wants it, otherwise we are out of there.
There are always dozens of reasons, many of them superficially sound and often moral sounding, to avoid going 'cold turkey' on some habit of the past. And there are plenty of said "reasons" why we should stay 'involved' in Iraq.
However, I sincerely believe that at a certain point we, the citizens of the US, are going to have to come face to face with some very unpleasant conundrums. Two overall paths will present themselves: maintain (or, try to, is perhaps more like it) the status quo of the post WWII period. Or, fundamentally alter our behavior and strategy.
In the mean time we will keep discovering numerous reasons, and numerous textual gymnastics, to describe why maintaining the status quo is not really maintaining the status quo.
Sorry Professor, I gotta disagree with you. I would have preferred all 'troops' out. I don't see this as an overly ambitious, and somewhat naive, desire. I see it as a hard headed message that Obama could have sent to the US nation. Pulling ALL the 'troops' out would have been meaningful change. This basically is, same ole, same ole. The Empire sets down new roots in a relatively new place.
"apologist"???? Nonsense.
It is interesting and curious to me that you think anything could be a "crackpot" theory in this day and age in this place. And erroneous one? Sure....but nothing would surprise me. And particularly not the possibility that some 'bright boy' on the so called rebel side, got an idea in his head that given the fact the UN--on that very day in question--landed in Syria, it might be a good plan to 'give them something to talk about'.
Didn't see our present "Sun King'[s]name anywhere in the column. Must have been an oversight on your part.
Why should I believe either Morsi or Obama? Do either of them know the 'truth' anymore? Are interested in it? A grown man, Obama, stands in front of TV cameras in Tanzania, and tells us, in so many words, that he does not need to bug embassies and NGO buildings and their communications, to "find out what" the leaders of Europe are "thinking"? He just has to "call them" to find out??! And he says it with a straight face? And apparently the media took it with a straight face....and we are to believe him? Or Morsi? Pathetic.
But they have so many foundations.....and they, both of them, charge under 500k for a 'speech'. And I'm sure Chelsea will be signing up at the recruiter's office....now that the Great One has found chemicals in the air. Maybe his daughters too...if this lasts long enough.
Could you please, Mr Wilson, direct me to any direct evidence of your assertion? That the UK armed the people (child) who you say carried out this war crime?
I think the video is pure sophistry. We, the West, are at war with a particular 'brand' of Islam. Regrettably.
Thank you for that pedantic lecture....now, moving back to my question, do you think we can ask, politely, that people stop exploding bombs in front of religious buildings in Iraq? As at least a start? ANd if they reject this counsel/suggestion we, at a minimum, place responsibility on those who do such actions? Just ask them? You got a lot of questions to ask of Americans? Fine, I'm all for that too.
Does there ever come a point, however distant into the future, where someone stands up and says, 'whatever the crimes of Bush and the US people, and they are many, whatever the stupidities of them, whatever the malevolence of them, perhaps it is time that we Iraqis stopped setting off bombs in front of our own places of religious worship. Just a start fellows'?
"There seems little doubt that the Obama administration took a big step back from the brink in Moscow this week, and that rumors of an American push to arm the rebels are, in the light of this diplomacy, overblown."
Good. We can do no good in Syria. Period. We are too ignorant of the dynamics on the ground. Stay out. Bring the focus back to where it is most urgently needed. Crumbling America.
"trade benefits"? More jobs sent overseas, or cheap junk sent here....so we can get them to allow us to intervene where we don't belong in the first place? Yup...sounds like that last 40 years of US foreign policy.
Me, I'm against going to any part of the Middle East, period. For any reasons. But I'm curious Prof, lets say you could peer into the future and find that the stance of the China and Russia re UN 'resolutions' of any type, has not changed. But the attacks on civilians keeps up. What might be your position?
sadly, logic has little to do with gun control.
Interesting, the words "suicide bombing" and "terrorist" do not appear here. Not even as speculation.
Starting a war, or, even contemplating starting one, Pakistan is sheer madness (though certainly in spirit with the mad times in the US right now).
The problem is, or, my problem is, it is ALSO sheer madness to even dream the US can have a "Partner" in the Pak Govt. So....we do not have a "prayer" of success in Afghanistan. So why are we there?
Prof Cole wrote: "But the problem of equal treatment under the law is the one that needs to be addressed most urgently." Maybe so, from the safe zone where you reside. I suspect the people in the middle of the conflagration think stopping the violence and the looting what needs to be addressed "most urgently".
Prof Cole wrote: "Misrata’s besieged people need to be rescued." How do you propose that could be done?
no personal offense intended Prof, but it is not you I would want there. Though I have no doubts that mean what you write.
No....I want the Chelsea Clinton's of the world there. I know that kind excursion does not go well with 15 Million Dollar wedding, but what the hell.
Well, I can say one thing for sure. The President did not disappoint me. He's done exactly what you spell out he's done. And I thought he would. Worse is yet to come. Wait till they figure out a way to allow states to declare bankruptcy. And void all contracts with retirees and such.
Yeah, but wait minute Prof....that is easy for you to write, but tell us, WHO IS DESIGNING Kate Middleton's wedding dress? Inquiring minds want to know.
Well Prof, this is your area of expertize...but my vote would be on "sectarian hatred".
If I spent a 1000 years trying to top this, I could think of no single act that would secure Bush's reputation in the US, than if he were arrested in Europe. It would ensure his popularity for 200 years. And almost guarantee that Jeb would be President. In fact, if I were in the leadership of the GOP I would be on my knees begging him to go. And to publicize why he is going. To call their bluff. Loud, Texas style. Like John Wayne strolling through town. And Jeb would be in the front row of the beggars.
Don't get me wrong. Personally, I hate the guy and think he is worthy of a war crimes investigation. But arrest him? Man, this would high Hollywood Farce material. But boy could Rove spin it. Fox News? Fox News would run with it for days. Weeks. Like Ted Koppel and the Hostages.
My personal take on this is no nation, least of all the US, is ever "sensitive" enough for the alleged tender feelings of Pakistanis. If Obama came, they would lament he stayed longer in India. If he stayed longer in Pakistan they would say he spent more money in India than he did in Pakistan. I don't really blame them. Playing colonial guilt (often well earned guilt) has worked fairly well now for some time since the Post WWII period. There was, after all, much to be guilty about. But its utility has diminished. And some entities have a hard time reconciling themselves to this.
In my opinion, much of the mess the Pakistani govt finds itself in is of its own making. That is always a painful thing to admit. The US is proof of that. I would argue.
These guys are very good, Media executives I mean, are very good, or, think they are very good, at being one of the first to grasp 'which way the wind is blowing'. And the truth of the matter is, the long knives have been out for Keith's scalp for some time now. They got it.
Look, this is a guy who picked picked Summers and Geitner to head up his economic team. And to devise his economic program. This is a guy who kept Gates on. Thereby proving if you stay around Washington DC long enough, despite a fairly bad track record, and you are a White Guy in a suit, who graduated from a decent college, and perhaps, repeat, perhaps, served in the military, the media will come to like you.
This is a guy who picked McChrystal's plan over Eikenberry's suggestions. This is a guy who continues to spend over a 100 billion a year in a rat hole. (metaphorically speaking). To say nothing of blood. This is a guy who wanted, and wants, to look 'forward' away from the possible crimes and violations of the past. This is a guy who wanted to close down Gitmo. This is a guy who opposes allowing gays to legally marry.
This is a guy who failed to appoint anyone at or above the level of Undersecretary at State or Defense, or at the NSA, or NSC, who was on record opposing the Iraq War. True, many people appointed CAME to oppose it. After it went bad.
This is a guy who failed to appoint one person, I repeat, one person, to economic team that was on record opposing the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. This is a guy who failed to appoint one person at the DOJ who had ever talked favorably, never mind been on record, as CONSIDERING conducting any investigation in the 'excesses' of the past Admin.
And so on and so on and so on. And this is the man you expect, to the extent you do expect it, to "galvanize"? This man's job, and he is very good at this, I believe, is not to add a protective additive to steel. This is a man who is good at adding a soft, dream-like, and child like, seductive pleasantness, and pseudo-idealism to the oligarchy America has become.
I'm sorry Prof, but I don't share your opinion that there is a "hysteria" about this issue in America. Other, that is, than with the media covering and fanning the story. My guess is most Americans are mildly indifferent to this story. Aware of it.....and that's about it. It is the media, and few nuts like the nut in Florida, that care about this the most. Oh, and a few preening, moralizing people on the left, whom, while I tend to side with, can't seem to help but be preachy to people. IOW Prof....personally, I don't see this as a big issue. The economy is not simply a big issue. It is THEE issue.
Prof, your anger is justified, in my eyes. I think we are in Afghanistan for one main reason. The Dems are terrified that if they get out some attack may take place in the US. And such attack will be, wrongly, perceived as having originated in Afghanistan. And then there will be a flood of commercials in the American media, and endless accusations on Cable TV that the Dems can't protect the US. That is the reason we are there. In my opinion. This is all about domestic politics....the 21st century version of the 'who lost China' nonsense.
Oh forget all that stuff Prof. It is a great speech you write. But at this point it reads like a very long note from a unwanted, and uninvited, house guest that overstayed their limited welcome weeks ago. 'screw the note...just go'
The old USA?....I would have liked to hear, and expected to here, the kind of the speech you wrote. Sense of history and all that. Now? I would just like to see him say we are out. We're sorry we came, and we're sorry we overstayed our qualified welcome. Good by. All, I repeat, ALL military personal (including civilian contractors hired by the US) out of Iraq now. We can offer them over the horizon protection if they, a duly elected Iraq govt wants it, otherwise we are out of there.
There are always dozens of reasons, many of them superficially sound and often moral sounding, to avoid going 'cold turkey' on some habit of the past. And there are plenty of said "reasons" why we should stay 'involved' in Iraq.
However, I sincerely believe that at a certain point we, the citizens of the US, are going to have to come face to face with some very unpleasant conundrums. Two overall paths will present themselves: maintain (or, try to, is perhaps more like it) the status quo of the post WWII period. Or, fundamentally alter our behavior and strategy.
In the mean time we will keep discovering numerous reasons, and numerous textual gymnastics, to describe why maintaining the status quo is not really maintaining the status quo.
Sorry Professor, I gotta disagree with you. I would have preferred all 'troops' out. I don't see this as an overly ambitious, and somewhat naive, desire. I see it as a hard headed message that Obama could have sent to the US nation. Pulling ALL the 'troops' out would have been meaningful change. This basically is, same ole, same ole. The Empire sets down new roots in a relatively new place.
This vicious, dehumanizing, statement will draw as much attention in the MSM as a leaf falling in New England, in October, draws.