Let's get this straight: It is a GOOD thing that (if, these things turn out to be ephemeral...) the Libyan government-people are currently "relatively friendly" toward the totally Zionist-dominated, Israel First United States government and (markedly submissive) people?
After nearly eight years of occupation in Iraq the US cannot prevent attacks on government buildings by the resilient insurgency which kill at least 56 people.
No, if one reads the "Surge" criteria for success, it did not work.
One might believe a certain shame might prevent another Mideast invasion while the first produced longterm extant anarchy. But then one then wouldn't be familiar with... overweening... Empires of the past and present.
The prof's use of "resurgent Khaddafi" parallels the neocons and their fellow traveler's ex post wmd facto (nonfacto) "resurgent Saddam" hypotheticals. No go. Kucinich (and both Pauls) are right.
"It matters greatly because we are comparing it to our country. A better example would be someone claiming that there is a civil war during the 20s becuase of all the mob fighting and crime."
I suppose the Mafia represented militant Latin Catholicism?
I wonder if Spork was among the majority of polled US troops in Iraq who believed we were primarily there to get even for Saddam's help doing 9/11/2001.
IMO his general attitude comes from an "imperial hubris"failure to see the truth about the surge failing.
Spork, comparing the war to a football game, US troops in effect fell behind early in the first quarter about 24-0. By the early fourth quarter (let us hope) it was 41-10. The surge itself lessened the US/insurgency score to 48-28. But you are still well behind squashing it i.e. evening the score.
All this apart from levels of skill or bravery possessed by US troops.
Juan should stick to criticism of Israel's politics and US alliance with it--which 20% of the Tea Party agree with him about!
Cole can quote no anti-Hispanic sentiment from Laughner though he's in the middle of the hotbed of the dispute.
If anything, Loughner's writings in sum indicate he leans to an idiosyncratic ultra-personalized anarchism which has little chance of coexistence with small government authoritarian rightism.
Gen. Hugh Shelton was on Charlie Rose the other nite, unchallenged by the PBS elitist when Shelton lied that all US intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. In fact, the SD's own intelligence branch denied it. Shame on imperialist
militarists.
You could seperate the real left from the phonies, including not a few Move ons, when Obama appointed Petraeus w/o opposition. On financials, however, you could
separate them according to those who remained silent when he approved the banker's bailout with Bush, pre-election.
Weiss says let's talk about Weiss' claim. A thorough discussion might compare Jewish rates of near-poverty in NY cited by Prof Cole with that of other minorities. Context. An even more thorough discussion about "oppressed" minorities might cite the black equivalent to the Zionist Lobby which pushed the US into saving the Tutsis, for example.
A researcher with a microscope might also find the small-town equivalent of evangelical "right-wing" dispensationalists who alleviate any rural and semi-rural provincial negative attitudes toward blacks with a "Chosen People" mythification.
Seth Edelbaum, above, says "the gentic links are strong" --but he might want to research the broader truth in context.
Rabbinical Jews CHANGED the original --patrilineal-- defintion of Jewish identity, which itself existed for many millenia, even as they developed the post-Christian talmud. Indeed the Karaites, who reject the Talmud, who were themselves
declared "heretics" and who numbered greatly over the centuries, retained the original
patrilineal definition and use it, among other demarcations, to this day, to demonstrate they are the real descendants of Ancient Israelites in a spiritual sense.
But as for the "legitimacy" of Zionism the Jewish Forward recently published a piece
on "Jewish genetics" which though itself seemingly slanted to a pro-Zionist view,
referred to a study which in my view does nothing to bolster and even undermines Zionist claims.
That is, the study mentioned that Diaspora European Jews, though supposedly having more in common with Middle Eastern Jews than Sand would admit, also have more in common genetically with their respective Gentile hosts than they do with "Middle East Jews" who never strayed away from that part of the world.
I believe Reform rabbis now say the Israeli rabbinate should accept an individual with a Jewish father and a gentile mother as a Jew w/o conversion if he or she so self-defines as a Jew.
The Bible account could be literally true and modern Jews would still be disqualified from deserving the land on traditional Christian (and Jewish at present) theological grounds. That is to say, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant
theology always held the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional on Jewish obedience to God, which obedience necessitated conversion to Christianity after the Resurrection.
McCain is of course egregious, but ever since Harry Reid's "the war is lost,"
assertion, (which he himself might have later equivocated) hasn't the Democratic elite strategized "pretend the war is won and get out? "
There are "Buchananite" traditional conservatives, Prof. Cole, whom however do not qualify as 'libertarians," who do not hold the "twin premises" you depict above.
As a matter of fact, when one subtracts the neocons and overt neocon fellow travelers, I'm not sure the traditional conservatives (some call themselves paleocons) who are not the majority of actual conservatives, even though relatively powerless at this time.
Yes, Rand Paul has backtracked from his own past and his father's positions a little. But Prof Cole hasn't castigated the progressives for going easy on Obama on the Afghan war and other adopted accourterments of the Cheney regieme. Now, Glen Greenwood has done so, yet Greenwood has also has kinder things to say about wings of the tea party. Perhaps Prof Cole has less right to be harsh in light of his own failure to come out foursquare against Bush's invasion of Iraq-as the libertarian and Buchananite wings of the tea party did before the inception of the war.
Let's get this straight: It is a GOOD thing that (if, these things turn out to be ephemeral...) the Libyan government-people are currently "relatively friendly" toward the totally Zionist-dominated, Israel First United States government and (markedly submissive) people?
A job unfinished.
After nearly eight years of occupation in Iraq the US cannot prevent attacks on government buildings by the resilient insurgency which kill at least 56 people.
No, if one reads the "Surge" criteria for success, it did not work.
One might believe a certain shame might prevent another Mideast invasion while the first produced longterm extant anarchy. But then one then wouldn't be familiar with... overweening... Empires of the past and present.
The prof's use of "resurgent Khaddafi" parallels the neocons and their fellow traveler's ex post wmd facto (nonfacto) "resurgent Saddam" hypotheticals. No go. Kucinich (and both Pauls) are right.
Spork says
"It matters greatly because we are comparing it to our country. A better example would be someone claiming that there is a civil war during the 20s becuase of all the mob fighting and crime."
I suppose the Mafia represented militant Latin Catholicism?
I wonder if Spork was among the majority of polled US troops in Iraq who believed we were primarily there to get even for Saddam's help doing 9/11/2001.
IMO his general attitude comes from an "imperial hubris"failure to see the truth about the surge failing.
Spork, comparing the war to a football game, US troops in effect fell behind early in the first quarter about 24-0. By the early fourth quarter (let us hope) it was 41-10. The surge itself lessened the US/insurgency score to 48-28. But you are still well behind squashing it i.e. evening the score.
All this apart from levels of skill or bravery possessed by US troops.
But let us hope the whistle has all but sounded.
Juan should stick to criticism of Israel's politics and US alliance with it--which 20% of the Tea Party agree with him about!
Cole can quote no anti-Hispanic sentiment from Laughner though he's in the middle of the hotbed of the dispute.
If anything, Loughner's writings in sum indicate he leans to an idiosyncratic ultra-personalized anarchism which has little chance of coexistence with small government authoritarian rightism.
Gen. Hugh Shelton was on Charlie Rose the other nite, unchallenged by the PBS elitist when Shelton lied that all US intelligence agencies said Saddam had WMDs. In fact, the SD's own intelligence branch denied it. Shame on imperialist
militarists.
You could seperate the real left from the phonies, including not a few Move ons, when Obama appointed Petraeus w/o opposition. On financials, however, you could
separate them according to those who remained silent when he approved the banker's bailout with Bush, pre-election.
It's posted on window on Eurasia today that Russia is going to monoethnic
military units.
link to windowoneurasia.blogspot.com
Could the Netanyahu Government Fall over New Settlements?
Don't tell Juan. In a pinch he'll blame Hamas.
link to mondoweiss.net
Weiss says let's talk about Weiss' claim. A thorough discussion might compare Jewish rates of near-poverty in NY cited by Prof Cole with that of other minorities. Context. An even more thorough discussion about "oppressed" minorities might cite the black equivalent to the Zionist Lobby which pushed the US into saving the Tutsis, for example.
A researcher with a microscope might also find the small-town equivalent of evangelical "right-wing" dispensationalists who alleviate any rural and semi-rural provincial negative attitudes toward blacks with a "Chosen People" mythification.
Doug Feith didn't do the lie-purveying to open up the oil.
link to amconmag.com
Ray McGovern perhaps said it best. The war was fought for oil, Israel and Empire in approximately equal parts.
Seth Edelbaum, above, says "the gentic links are strong" --but he might want to research the broader truth in context.
Rabbinical Jews CHANGED the original --patrilineal-- defintion of Jewish identity, which itself existed for many millenia, even as they developed the post-Christian talmud. Indeed the Karaites, who reject the Talmud, who were themselves
declared "heretics" and who numbered greatly over the centuries, retained the original
patrilineal definition and use it, among other demarcations, to this day, to demonstrate they are the real descendants of Ancient Israelites in a spiritual sense.
But as for the "legitimacy" of Zionism the Jewish Forward recently published a piece
on "Jewish genetics" which though itself seemingly slanted to a pro-Zionist view,
referred to a study which in my view does nothing to bolster and even undermines Zionist claims.
That is, the study mentioned that Diaspora European Jews, though supposedly having more in common with Middle Eastern Jews than Sand would admit, also have more in common genetically with their respective Gentile hosts than they do with "Middle East Jews" who never strayed away from that part of the world.
I believe Reform rabbis now say the Israeli rabbinate should accept an individual with a Jewish father and a gentile mother as a Jew w/o conversion if he or she so self-defines as a Jew.
The Bible account could be literally true and modern Jews would still be disqualified from deserving the land on traditional Christian (and Jewish at present) theological grounds. That is to say, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox and mainline Protestant
theology always held the Abrahamic Covenant was conditional on Jewish obedience to God, which obedience necessitated conversion to Christianity after the Resurrection.
http://www.jewsagainstzionism.com provides the disqualification (until the Messiah comes)
from the traditional Jewish viewpoint.
Constitutional Crisis Unfolds
McCain is of course egregious, but ever since Harry Reid's "the war is lost,"
assertion, (which he himself might have later equivocated) hasn't the Democratic elite strategized "pretend the war is won and get out? "
There are "Buchananite" traditional conservatives, Prof. Cole, whom however do not qualify as 'libertarians," who do not hold the "twin premises" you depict above.
As a matter of fact, when one subtracts the neocons and overt neocon fellow travelers, I'm not sure the traditional conservatives (some call themselves paleocons) who are not the majority of actual conservatives, even though relatively powerless at this time.
Yes, Rand Paul has backtracked from his own past and his father's positions a little. But Prof Cole hasn't castigated the progressives for going easy on Obama on the Afghan war and other adopted accourterments of the Cheney regieme. Now, Glen Greenwood has done so, yet Greenwood has also has kinder things to say about wings of the tea party. Perhaps Prof Cole has less right to be harsh in light of his own failure to come out foursquare against Bush's invasion of Iraq-as the libertarian and Buchananite wings of the tea party did before the inception of the war.
link to thenation.com
On balance Scheer's take is kinder and gentler.