The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Team Hillary to End Evil Worldwide
America the inexorable
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Hillary flags

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I had the misfortune of watching a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. For those who are not familiar with the show, it is an HBO weekly one hour long feeding frenzy consisting of a series of rapid fire overwhelmingly progressive half-truths cheered relentlessly by a select audience that is constantly engaged in hooting and jeering while giving the pollice verso to any designated victim who finds himself targeted by a smug Maher. The episode I saw was filmed on July 29th, shortly after the conclusion of the Democratic convention. Guests included Matt Welch of Reason magazine, Alex Wagner of The Atlantic, Professor Cornel West and former Congressman from Massachusetts gay activist Barney Frank. The episode can be seen on HBO on demand for those who have that service and bits of it are also available on YouTube.

Openly expressed hatred of Donald Trump by a mainstream media that has de facto become part of the Hillary Clinton campaign is one of the more interesting aspects of the current electoral cycle. One might therefore have expected that the Real Time ridiculing of Trump would be a constant, driven mostly by Maher himself but also picked up on with some alacrity by the others. Even though I knew in advance that the show would be blood sport targeting Trump, I had tuned into the program because I have a great deal of respect for Cornel West who, to me, maintains some of the best traditions of the old and now nearly dead type of liberalism that was such a powerful force in America in the 1950s and 1960s. West is genuinely anti-war and pro-people and not afraid to stick by his guns when confronted by the powerful, metaphorically speaking. He recently went to bat for the Palestinians while serving on the Democratic platform committee and on the Maher program dared to mention the repression taking place on the West Bank, which produced a stone faced response from the progressive-except-for-Israel Maher.

To his credit West, when asked his opinion of Hillary Clinton, opined that she had vast experience in government but is completely lacking in integrity, an assessment that was poorly received by Maher, who had spent the early part of the show eulogizing the Democratic candidate. So to hear what else West had to say I put up with Frank’s blathering and Maher’s invective as well as the occasional interjections by Welch and Wagner, who played secondary roles in the proceedings.

Inured to hearing a load of old codswallop I was nevertheless really blown away by Barney and Maher’s launch into an explanation of something that had occurred at the Democratic National Convention. For those who have not seen it, the July 28th prime time speech by Hillary national security adviser General John Allen is positively Strangelovean, pledging to rid the world of “evil” and declaring that “America is great because America is good.” Reportedly intended to bolster the Dems national security credentials and possibly to welcome into the fold disenchanted neocons, it is as red blooded, American-exceptionalism-laden a presentation as anyone is likely to witness anywhere, replete with a backdrop consisting of a stage full of American flags. It is available online and is highly recommended to anyone who doubts that Hillary and her entourage are as nutty as fruitcakes in their own way, more than eager to assume the mantle of American global military dominance without any hesitation or reservations.

When Welch and Wagner expressed surprise at the Democrats embracing such a chauvinistic display, Frank explained emphatically though somewhat oddly that the speech by Allen and the rhythmic chanting of U-S-A U-S-A by the audience that accompanied it were all due to Donald Trump, who has embraced that vicious thug and “one of the worst men in the world” Vladimir Putin. The highly charged nationalistic Democratic crowd reaction was per Franks both a warning about Trump and a direct challenge to Putin to keep his hands off those wonderful little democracies springing up everywhere in Eastern Europe. Trump’s “encouragement” of Putin, per Franks, has made the United States complicit in Putin’s “brutality” and the Democrats were responding to that challenge.

When Cornel West attempted to object to the militarism implicit in the Allen speech and interject the failed project represented by Libya into the discussion Maher and Frank made sure that everyone understood that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was also a “horrible dictator” and thug who fully deserved to be overthrown and subsequently killed by having a bayonet inserted in his anus. If Hillary Clinton had been present she might have added with a laugh, “We came, we saw, he died.”

So this is what passes for progressive thought on war and peace as seen by the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barney Frank and Bill Maher. I would prefer to describe it as Democratic Party Derangement Syndrome. And, of course, there is a back story to it all that Maher chose to avoid. The chanting of U-S-A was apparently organized by Hillary’s team on the Democratic National Committee, which clearly connived at rigging the nomination process in favor of Clinton before focusing on marginalizing and silencing Bernie Sanders’ supporters at the convention. That the “Bernies” would stage a significant and disruptive demonstration on the convention floor was particularly feared. There were white noise speakers placed inside the hall to make incomprehensible unauthorized chanting while Bernie supporters had their signs taken away from them before entering the venue. It has also been reported that many Bernie delegates coming back to the convention hall on the second day found that their seats had disappeared, being replaced by blocked off reserved seating where no one was actually allowed to sit.

When Allen got well into his speech and his message became clear, Bernie supporters began to chant “No More War.” The technicians running the light and sound for the event immediately followed their instructions and killed the lights and microphones in the area where the chanting was coming from so that the media present around the floor would be unable to film the disruption. Meanwhile Clinton’s team converged and surrounded the Bernie supporters, holding up previously distributed USA signs to block the protesters from camera view while themselves chanting “U-S-A” to drown the dissidents out. By some accounts, Hillary’s people in the hall were supplemented by an organized group of counter-demonstrators who were in this case responding to instructions on what to do if anyone attempted to disrupt the proceedings. If all of that is true it was a shameful episode, reminiscent of what was done to Ron Paul at the 2012 Republican Convention in Tampa.

And there is also a bit of a back story on retired Marine Corps General John Allen. Allen, one recalls, became mired in the same security investigation regarding the mishandling of classified information that brought down philandering CIA Director and former General David Petraeus. And, ironically, Allen’s own path to an early retirement was the result of an email problem, curiously reminiscent of the issues that have plagued the woman he has so enthusiastically endorsed for President of the United States of America.

Allen reportedly became heavily involved with someone else’s wife, in this case Tampa socialite Jill Kelley. Kelley, an “honorary ambassador” to U.S. Central Command, hosted numerous parties at her waterside mansion for the CENTCOM and U.S. Special Operations Command senior officers, including both Allen and Petraeus. While subsequently serving in Afghanistan as commander in chief, Allen’s many hundreds of “inappropriate emails” to Kelley cost him both his job and his expected nomination to become the commander of U.S. military forces in Europe (EUCOM).

The investigation of Allen’s email contact with Kelley did not result in any formal charges by the military but he was forced to resign his commission in February 2013. Obama subsequently rewarded the feckless Allen with an appointment as Special President Envoy for the Global Coalition to Counter the Islamic State of Iraq and Levant in 2014, a position he held until October 2015. He was largely unsuccessful in that role, witnessing on his watch the conquest of much of Syria and Iraq by ISIS. He now has a sinecure position at the Brookings Institution in its Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence, and apparently came to Hillary’s attention when he rounded up a group of military retreads who were willing to support her for president.

Bill Maher’s Real Time is certainly real, but it is symptomatic of everything that is wrong with the American media. It has plenty of one-liner joking, laughter and mugging for the camera but is astonishingly light on content and heavy on pretense. In the episode I watched, it largely consisted of saying Donald Trump followed by either a laugh line or an expression of disgust. Serious discussion regarding what Trump is saying about out of control immigration, endless wars in the Middle East and why a reset of relations with Russia is imperative appear to be of no interest.

The Donald Trump candidacy might well be regarded as a joke by many of the punditry but Hillary Clinton is arguably worse in that while The Donald has undeniably said terrible things she has actually been the driving force behind some horrific policies, most notably regarding Libya and Syria. And then there is her persistent dishonesty and readiness to lie to conceal her mendacity. She continues to dissimulate about her emails, saying in a recent interview that “Director Comey said my answers were truthful, and what I’ve said is consistent with what I have told the American people, that there were decisions discussed and made to classify retroactively certain of the emails.” That is a lie from top to bottom and one has to wonder why Real Time with Bill Maher doesn’t seem interested in giving a little equal time to that story if only as a brief respite from his incessant pillorying of Donald Trump.

 
Hide 170 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Accusing Trump of fascism is a sort of projection by the harpy’s entourage; as this shows, the real fascists are in her corner masquerading as “progressives.” The “USA” chants reveal the true nature of the situation. Cornel West, of course, is a decent man and it is for that reason he has come out for Stein, and recognizes the corrupt militaristic nature of the Clinton state. Her regime is a threat to the survival of civilization. Survival trumps political correctness.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Olorin
    The accusations of fascism aren't misdirection.

    They are dogwhistles reminding everyone in the know what happened the last time a robust majority-European-population nation closed its borders to international banking and globalist manipulation, and decided to make its nation for its people, and reclaim what the globalizers and imperialists had stolen.

    They are reminders of the 20th century elites' absolute war on any nation maintaining its sovereignty and keeping the fruit of its labors for its people (except You Know Who, whose newly extorted nation can have absolutely closed borders and absolute population control).

    They are warnings to those who support Trump, or more accurately whose sense of the world and of history is echoed by some of the things Trump has said, that our positions, and more importantly we, will not be tolerated by those who view themselves in charge of history and the present and the future.

    They are reminding us of their methods: incendiary bombs, mass starvation, cash crash, megadeaths, and a hundred years of vile slander and propaganda.

    They call Trump and his followers "fascist." (Just like they called Trump Hitler with the same dog-whistling intent.)

    This curious invocation of a 20th century political dichotomy presents its unspoken oppositional facet: "We're internationalists, globalists, universalists, communists/bolsheviks...and our Long March is still underway."

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/team-hillary-to-end-evil-worldwide/#comment-1531234
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Kiza says:

    When I started watching the US version of the House of Cards I was quite disappointed and completed only about six episodes because:
    1) I have watched the British original before, and
    2) I have followed the body count of the Clinton crime family, compared to which Underwood is just a funny little pussycat.

    My wish is also to compile a compendium of the Clintonite propaganda techniques. Recently, they have unleashed a troll army (not a brigade, it is a whole army) even onto websites such as The American Conservative magazine (funny that they seem to ignore this more important one, at least for now). The three authors that this site/magazine employs are already anti-Trump (RATs), and only the external contributors such as Mr Giraldi are worth reading.

    Finally, I am really interested in independent voter polls which appear to show numbers not in any relation to the MSM and establishment polling, with numbers such as 67% Trump and 19% Clinton. Are we going to see another Brexit style situation? 67:19 is just too much to steal with voting machines and so on. Ultimately, putting aside policies of both candidates, it will be a big surprise if the US people do show resistance to establishment’s media manipulations and elect Trump. Then the whole science of manipulating people through media may require a rethink.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Heymrguda
    You're quite right kiza. The folks at amconmag had better realize that we don't have to go there to read Trump hit pieces, we can read them anywhere -- that is unless they want the mag to slide further into irrelevancy. Larison and Scott McConnell are good, but you can read their material elsewhere -- likewise Giraldi and PJB.
    , @Bill Jones
    The original "House of Cards" was so much superior.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Seraphim says:

    It looks that the ‘Two minutes hate’ seances evolve towards ‘hate weeks’. There is no dearth of Emmanuel Goldsteins. The Fiction Department of the Minitrue works overtime. “Eurasia has always been our enemy; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia”. And with Eastasia, for that matter.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Idiotland
    The latest example of how the establishment and it's media presstitutes are using "1984" as an instruction manual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Rehmat says:

    The more appropriate heading of the article would have been: “Team Hillary to spread more Evil worldwide.”

    It has already proved that by murdering Jew Seth Rich, the Muslim cleric and his assistant to start the so-called ‘Clash of Civilization’.

    Bill Maher, a Zionist born to a Hungarian Jewish mother – made name by calling US Army fighting Taliban COWARD in 2001.

    Last year, Maher condemned the kosher Pope Francis over latter’s criticism of Rothschild-owned French filth, Charlie Hebdo magazine over republishing Flemming Ross’ (Ukrainian Jew) anti-Islam Danish cartoon.

    “I was starting to really like this Pope. He is dead to me now. Oh, yea, F*ck the Pope. Look George Bush said it: You are either with us or against us. Apparently Pope is not with us,” said Maher.

    Bill Maher is known for his religious bigotry particularly Islam. In an October 2014 segment he called “the only religion that acts like mafia.” Contrary to Maher’s belief – FBI claims that the Judeo-Russian Mafia is behind most of crimes in the United States followed by Italian Christian Mafia.

    “Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will never do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews,” wrote Glenn Greenwald (Jewish), journalist and author on January 9, 2015….

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/01/18/jewish-comedian-fck-the-pope/

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Isn't it interesting how Bill Maher, who climbed the mountain of fame and fortune Bashing the entire Neocon-ed Bush White house during the heyday of the "heroic" Iraq war, has now become the leading spokesman for the Neocon's perpetual war making apparatus ?

    Bill Maher, (not unlike the Donald at the outset of his presidential run) vaulted to star status by pillorying the stupid Bush (neocon) wars. His refreshing candor and witty insights drew top ratings and and a huge viewer base.

    During the bush years one felt you could go to Bill as a comedian who would pull back the curtain on all the bullshit and tell it like it is.

    Lines like "[Bush] will bring democracy to Iraq even if he has to kill every last Iraqi to do it"...brought the house down and truly hit the nail on the head.

    For a span of a couple of years he was the man of the hour.

    Now he is just a big bullshitter, a stumping bogus shill for the Neocon agenda.

    Just one more talented guy turned Media tool for stupid, never ending wars.

    , @dahoit
    Wasn't it Mahers calling the 9-11 actors brave that got the MSM on his case and had his show ended?
    And he must have got on his knees and said,"I'm sorry,so sorry,I'll never do it again."
    Which got him his new show.
    Atheist devil worship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. The Muttface Maher show is a good example of why I don’t have cable. As far as the noted waste of blubber (old blubber) known as Hillary Klinton, she will promptly self destruct if/when elected and I will chuckle at seeing this country get what it deserves.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. alexander says:
    @Rehmat
    The more appropriate heading of the article would have been: "Team Hillary to spread more Evil worldwide."

    It has already proved that by murdering Jew Seth Rich, the Muslim cleric and his assistant to start the so-called 'Clash of Civilization'.

    Bill Maher, a Zionist born to a Hungarian Jewish mother - made name by calling US Army fighting Taliban COWARD in 2001.

    Last year, Maher condemned the kosher Pope Francis over latter's criticism of Rothschild-owned French filth, Charlie Hebdo magazine over republishing Flemming Ross' (Ukrainian Jew) anti-Islam Danish cartoon.

    “I was starting to really like this Pope. He is dead to me now. Oh, yea, F*ck the Pope. Look George Bush said it: You are either with us or against us. Apparently Pope is not with us,” said Maher.

    Bill Maher is known for his religious bigotry particularly Islam. In an October 2014 segment he called “the only religion that acts like mafia.” Contrary to Maher’s belief – FBI claims that the Judeo-Russian Mafia is behind most of crimes in the United States followed by Italian Christian Mafia.

    “Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will never do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews,” wrote Glenn Greenwald (Jewish), journalist and author on January 9, 2015....

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/01/18/jewish-comedian-fck-the-pope/

    Isn’t it interesting how Bill Maher, who climbed the mountain of fame and fortune Bashing the entire Neocon-ed Bush White house during the heyday of the “heroic” Iraq war, has now become the leading spokesman for the Neocon’s perpetual war making apparatus ?

    Bill Maher, (not unlike the Donald at the outset of his presidential run) vaulted to star status by pillorying the stupid Bush (neocon) wars. His refreshing candor and witty insights drew top ratings and and a huge viewer base.

    During the bush years one felt you could go to Bill as a comedian who would pull back the curtain on all the bullshit and tell it like it is.

    Lines like “[Bush] will bring democracy to Iraq even if he has to kill every last Iraqi to do it”…brought the house down and truly hit the nail on the head.

    For a span of a couple of years he was the man of the hour.

    Now he is just a big bullshitter, a stumping bogus shill for the Neocon agenda.

    Just one more talented guy turned Media tool for stupid, never ending wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @ISmellBagels
    "Isn’t it interesting how Bill Maher, who climbed the mountain of fame and fortune Bashing the entire Neocon-ed Bush White house during the heyday of the “heroic” Iraq war, has now become the leading spokesman for the Neocon’s perpetual war making apparatus ?"

    Not surprising at all considering he is a Jew, and with his own TV show.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. @alexander
    Isn't it interesting how Bill Maher, who climbed the mountain of fame and fortune Bashing the entire Neocon-ed Bush White house during the heyday of the "heroic" Iraq war, has now become the leading spokesman for the Neocon's perpetual war making apparatus ?

    Bill Maher, (not unlike the Donald at the outset of his presidential run) vaulted to star status by pillorying the stupid Bush (neocon) wars. His refreshing candor and witty insights drew top ratings and and a huge viewer base.

    During the bush years one felt you could go to Bill as a comedian who would pull back the curtain on all the bullshit and tell it like it is.

    Lines like "[Bush] will bring democracy to Iraq even if he has to kill every last Iraqi to do it"...brought the house down and truly hit the nail on the head.

    For a span of a couple of years he was the man of the hour.

    Now he is just a big bullshitter, a stumping bogus shill for the Neocon agenda.

    Just one more talented guy turned Media tool for stupid, never ending wars.

    “Isn’t it interesting how Bill Maher, who climbed the mountain of fame and fortune Bashing the entire Neocon-ed Bush White house during the heyday of the “heroic” Iraq war, has now become the leading spokesman for the Neocon’s perpetual war making apparatus ?”

    Not surprising at all considering he is a Jew, and with his own TV show.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. She’s going to rid the world of evil? So, when is she committing suicide?

    C’mon, even Calypso Louie Farakhan says she’s a wicked woman. It’s one of the few things he’s right about.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Louis Farrakhan is always right when it comes to American foreign policy and America's political jerks taking dictation from the Zionist regime.

    Farrakhan is not the only American leader who called Hillary what she is.

    In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy aid, Samantha Power (currently America’ ambassador at United Nations and married to an American Jew academic) called Sen. Hillary Clinton MONSTER.

    Hillary Clinton has boasted that when it comes to foreign policy, her mentor is former US Jewish secretary of state Henry Kissinger. The man that Christopher Hitchens said should be tried for war crime in his book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

    Farrakhan who visited Iran in February 2016, to attend country’s 37th anniversary of Islamic Revolution, praised the country as a role model for other Muslim countries to follow.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/02/farrakhan-hillary-is-a-wicked-woman/
    , @mr. meener
    louie is also right about most of the slave ships were owned by jews
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. iffen says:

    Openly expressed hatred of Donald Trump by a mainstream media that has de facto become part of the Hillary Clinton campaign is one of the more interesting aspects of the current electoral cycle.

    I find that articles and opinion pieces are starting to appear here and there that offer an apologia for the media. Their excuse is that Trump is different. Trump is evil incarnate so any moral person would not let some crazy idea like objective journalism stand in the way of trying to destroy him. Some of the more thoughtful seem to have realized what has been wrought and are trying to reclaim the totem of objective journalism, seeming not to understand that once the sacred relics have been thrown to the floor, it can be quite difficult to keep the peasants from noticing the damaged idol.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    The corporate media failed to prevent The Donald's nomination. If they fail to prevent his election they will have to apply to air conditioning and refrigeration school. The aforementioned "openly expressed hatred" is aimed not only at Trump but also his supporters. Demonizing millions of Americans has the effect of hardening the opposition. Thus the media strategy is counter productive. But it's the only thing they know. Did you notice that Ariana has left the Huffington Post? A very wise and timely move.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Heymrguda says:
    @Kiza
    When I started watching the US version of the House of Cards I was quite disappointed and completed only about six episodes because:
    1) I have watched the British original before, and
    2) I have followed the body count of the Clinton crime family, compared to which Underwood is just a funny little pussycat.

    My wish is also to compile a compendium of the Clintonite propaganda techniques. Recently, they have unleashed a troll army (not a brigade, it is a whole army) even onto websites such as The American Conservative magazine (funny that they seem to ignore this more important one, at least for now). The three authors that this site/magazine employs are already anti-Trump (RATs), and only the external contributors such as Mr Giraldi are worth reading.

    Finally, I am really interested in independent voter polls which appear to show numbers not in any relation to the MSM and establishment polling, with numbers such as 67% Trump and 19% Clinton. Are we going to see another Brexit style situation? 67:19 is just too much to steal with voting machines and so on. Ultimately, putting aside policies of both candidates, it will be a big surprise if the US people do show resistance to establishment's media manipulations and elect Trump. Then the whole science of manipulating people through media may require a rethink.

    You’re quite right kiza. The folks at amconmag had better realize that we don’t have to go there to read Trump hit pieces, we can read them anywhere — that is unless they want the mag to slide further into irrelevancy. Larison and Scott McConnell are good, but you can read their material elsewhere — likewise Giraldi and PJB.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    "The American Conservative" was founded by one Patrick Buchanan. I wonder if he can un-found it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Wish I could write like this. Excellent piece! I’m no Trump fan but on the “danger scale” Hillary Clinton is far more dangerous.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Team Hillary to End Evil Worldwide

    Damn! And all along I’ve been telling the true believers that Hillary is NOT the messiah but rather Beelzebub. ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. annamaria says:

    Clinton’s email of November, 2015: “The best way to help Israel deal with Iran’s growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad.”
    This is a war crime, lady, to incite a civil war and violate the sovereignty of Syria.
    The email is of course the Exhibit One for explaining the rationale for the US bloody wars in the Middle East.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Is it a war crime to provide aid to opponents of a government who are seeking to overthrow it by force? What is your authority for that as counsel would be asked in my very provincial superior court?

    BTW Clinton's quoted words sound very much as if she was saying "You say you want to help Israel.... Well the best way to help Israel is...." rather than demonstrating an interest in putting Israel's interests at or near the top for Americans. Is that wrong?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Avery says:

    {…, lady,…}

    She is no lady: please don’t insult real ladies by calling this female humanoid ‘lady’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. @iffen
    Openly expressed hatred of Donald Trump by a mainstream media that has de facto become part of the Hillary Clinton campaign is one of the more interesting aspects of the current electoral cycle.

    I find that articles and opinion pieces are starting to appear here and there that offer an apologia for the media. Their excuse is that Trump is different. Trump is evil incarnate so any moral person would not let some crazy idea like objective journalism stand in the way of trying to destroy him. Some of the more thoughtful seem to have realized what has been wrought and are trying to reclaim the totem of objective journalism, seeming not to understand that once the sacred relics have been thrown to the floor, it can be quite difficult to keep the peasants from noticing the damaged idol.

    The corporate media failed to prevent The Donald’s nomination. If they fail to prevent his election they will have to apply to air conditioning and refrigeration school. The aforementioned “openly expressed hatred” is aimed not only at Trump but also his supporters. Demonizing millions of Americans has the effect of hardening the opposition. Thus the media strategy is counter productive. But it’s the only thing they know. Did you notice that Ariana has left the Huffington Post? A very wise and timely move.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The corporate media failed to prevent ... aimed not only at Trump but also his supporters. Demonizing millions of Americans has the effect of hardening the opposition. Thus the media strategy is counter productive.

    You seem to have a problem with understanding what failure means.

    They won, you (we) lost.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @Heymrguda
    You're quite right kiza. The folks at amconmag had better realize that we don't have to go there to read Trump hit pieces, we can read them anywhere -- that is unless they want the mag to slide further into irrelevancy. Larison and Scott McConnell are good, but you can read their material elsewhere -- likewise Giraldi and PJB.

    “The American Conservative” was founded by one Patrick Buchanan. I wonder if he can un-found it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Immigrant from former USSR
    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354893/american-conservative-unfused-betsy-woodruff

    A conflict at The American Conservative has led its publisher, Ron Unz, to claim he’s being “purged” from the magazine. And in an e-mail obtained by National Review Online, the magazine’s editor said he would resign if the board “would prefer that Ron Unz decide what we publish.”
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. Incitatus says:

    “We came, we saw, he died.”
    -HRC

    Said with a smilie and a smirk, Hillary easily surpassed Madame Defarge. It alone should disqualify her from any public office, let alone the presidency. But there’s more. Foundation cronyism and corruption. Security negligence. Dishonesty. And shrill militaristic interventionism akin to Strangelove’s General Ripper. When will she mention bodily fluids and the chlorination conspiracy?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Bill says:

    So this is what passes for progressive thought on war and peace as seen by the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barney Franks and Bill Maher.

    In a way, this is a good thing. The Democratic party has now evolved to the point at which it is unambiguously most evil on practically every issue of importance. It embraces crony capitalism, war, and cultural marxism. It pursues these strategies via a rhetoric which is equal parts incitement to riot and pseudo-intellectual up is downism. It is the Platonic ideal of an evil faction. Hopefully, Trump can transform the GOP into the antithesis of the Dems. It’s hard to be optimistic on this score, though.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I could not agree more. The US really needs somebody who could create a contrasting opposite to the Demoncrats, not just a softer version of the Belzebbub's Party. But this person would have to crush the resistance of the devil worshippers inside GOP first, not a small task on its own. Not sure that Trump is that agent of change.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. iffen says:
    @WorkingClass
    The corporate media failed to prevent The Donald's nomination. If they fail to prevent his election they will have to apply to air conditioning and refrigeration school. The aforementioned "openly expressed hatred" is aimed not only at Trump but also his supporters. Demonizing millions of Americans has the effect of hardening the opposition. Thus the media strategy is counter productive. But it's the only thing they know. Did you notice that Ariana has left the Huffington Post? A very wise and timely move.

    The corporate media failed to prevent … aimed not only at Trump but also his supporters. Demonizing millions of Americans has the effect of hardening the opposition. Thus the media strategy is counter productive.

    You seem to have a problem with understanding what failure means.

    They won, you (we) lost.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. General Allen indeed. A look at his resume ( In the military worn on the left chest) would signal a few things to the initiated. The general looks to have never had a combat command, much less served in combat himself. Aside from the navy jump wings, a gimmie for a fast moving officer, all of that “fruit salad” shows a history aligned with Col David Hackworth’s famous statement regarding a “Dimestore Marine.” There are no personal combat decorations, not even the coveted CAR (Combat Action Ribbon).

    Either the general spent decades in the 2-shop (intel) or he is what most ‘snuffies’ (junior enlisted) would derisively call a pogue. Like too many before him Gen Allen, most likely, was(is)a master politician, a true ‘Perfumed Prince of the Potomac.’

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    "Allen"-- with an "e", is typically a Jewish surname. He's probably got as much combat experience as Meyer Lansky.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. DaveE says:
    @Sparrowhawk6
    General Allen indeed. A look at his resume ( In the military worn on the left chest) would signal a few things to the initiated. The general looks to have never had a combat command, much less served in combat himself. Aside from the navy jump wings, a gimmie for a fast moving officer, all of that "fruit salad" shows a history aligned with Col David Hackworth's famous statement regarding a "Dimestore Marine." There are no personal combat decorations, not even the coveted CAR (Combat Action Ribbon).

    Either the general spent decades in the 2-shop (intel) or he is what most 'snuffies' (junior enlisted) would derisively call a pogue. Like too many before him Gen Allen, most likely, was(is)a master politician, a true 'Perfumed Prince of the Potomac.'

    “Allen”– with an “e”, is typically a Jewish surname. He’s probably got as much combat experience as Meyer Lansky.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Allen with an "e" is an old and common English surname with a slightly greater bias toward "Allan" in Scotland. Sure Woody Allen uses the version with an "e" in his replacement for Konigsberg but I can find no evidence for your assertion. Is there any?

    I didn't find General Allen funny enough to be Jewish although the performance (and the filming) was risible.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. annamaria says:

    The new wave is coming:

    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/tyler-durden/sjw-german-prez-booed-attacked/

    German President Booed, Attacked; Claims “The People Are The Problem, Not The Elites”

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    More: "German People chases Minister of Justice Heiko Maas to his Armored Mercedes"
    http://www.ambrosekane.com/2016/05/03/german-people-chase-minister-of-justice-heiko-maas-to-his-protective-mercedes-get-out-traitor/
    When they, the German people, will at last turn their attentions to NATO?
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/as-in-libya-so-in-syria-the-folly-of-us-nato-interventionism/5400074
    If there were no NATO bombings of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there would have been no "invasions" of the desperate refugees from these countries.
    , @Jacques Sheete
    Ha! Ya beat me to it, dang it, but nice job.

    That quote should be etched in stone and put in more public places than "holocaust" memorials and museums.

    In fact, it's always been the attitude of the self anointed special classes, even to the point that certain Zionists collaborated with Nazis and thought nothing of sacrificing their own to obtain their goals.

    Remember the Patria! (And a few other such things as well.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. annamaria says:
    @annamaria
    The new wave is coming:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/tyler-durden/sjw-german-prez-booed-attacked/
    German President Booed, Attacked; Claims "The People Are The Problem, Not The Elites"

    More: “German People chases Minister of Justice Heiko Maas to his Armored Mercedes”

    http://www.ambrosekane.com/2016/05/03/german-people-chase-minister-of-justice-heiko-maas-to-his-protective-mercedes-get-out-traitor/

    When they, the German people, will at last turn their attentions to NATO?

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/as-in-libya-so-in-syria-the-folly-of-us-nato-interventionism/5400074

    If there were no NATO bombings of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there would have been no “invasions” of the desperate refugees from these countries.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Merkel is maddening on the necessity of welcoming "refugees." It's just a given in this world that there are refugees (and that they must cared for at great expense far from their homes).

    The thought of not participating in the devastation in Syria or questioning the spurious reason for it (AMG) just must never occur to this woman. No. One and only one option - import the enemies of your civilization.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi’s fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary’s subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution." - It was also Sarkozy's war. But most of all it was Israel's war.

    "The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible." - nobody believed in this outcome. Don't be naive. The goal was to turn Libya like Iraq into a non-viable state. The goal was accomplished.

    The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate managed to maintain the status of deniability and detachment that he did not want this war and so on, that it was not him...
    , @iffen
    The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    I don't know why you would write this. It is obvious that most of the war mongers actually believe such.

    Hillary’s subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    She's very serious. As you state she is disgusting and has no qualms about using American power to kill people.
    , @Olorin
    An insecure, mediocre female who is absolutely devoted to securing and exercising power will, guess what?, secure and exercise power at every opportunity.

    Looking for civilization or statesmanship in Hillary Rodham is like seeking it in the bibulous son of the sluttish daughter of Brooklynite financier Leonard Jerome.

    My concern is that it is bound to lead to similar global geopolitical outcomes.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Yes, the evil deeds of Qaddafi extended to his people having the highest standard of living in all of Africa, including universal healthcare and education. His evil also extended to him subsidising basic needs for the poor such as food and electricity. His vast irrigation scheme was truly monumental in scope and offered greater future prosperity and independence to the nation.

    "When that the people hath cried, Caesar hath wept".

    The US people might actually be better off with a leader of such national pride and vision as Muammar al-Qaddafi. How long has it been since they had such a leader?
    , @Johnny F. Ive
    The victors should be above murdering someone in cold blood without due process and in such a savage manner. He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn't mean he shouldn't have been put to death at some point. It reflects poorly on them and their psychopathic queen who gloated about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. the former senator from massachusetts is named barney frank – not franks. under either name, he was just another tiresome politician living off the fat of the land.
    i’ve never seen real time, because i don’t buy hbo. but maher used to be on some other channel and i have seen his act. he fancies himself an intellectual, yet is really just a main stream talking head, op for the democratic party. he is the anti dennis miller. miller was bush shill, fox news contributor, a cheerleader for the republican party, and also considers himself an intellectual.
    i find both annoying.
    no one critical of orthodoxy would ever land a tv gig. ‘it’s hard to get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.’ watch msnbc, cnn, fox news, or even comedy central. what do you get? hosts and guests who stay within the excepted parameters of corporatized opinion. the elevation of personality over substance, manufactured outrage, and a bevy of vetted, so-called experts are paraded across the tv landscape ad nauseum. bland repetition as infotainment. mix in a little government propaganda, fear-mongering, idol worship, and a 21st century dumbocracy is born.
    tell me how this ends?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Frank, of course, was the Senator who was too dumb to know when he was living in a whorehouse.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-one-thing-no-one-is-mentioning-in-their-barney-frank-tributes-the-prostitutes-2011-11
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. alexander says:

    Dear Phil,

    What a title….. ” TEAM HILLARY TO END EVIL WORLDWIDE “.

    Perhaps you have an inside source ….someone in the know,….. who quite expects Queen Hillary to strap on a ” micro-nuke suicide vest” at the next annual AIPAC convention ?

    Countering the infamous “SAMSON OPTION” with her own “DELILAH OPTION” ?

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. dahoit says:
    @Rehmat
    The more appropriate heading of the article would have been: "Team Hillary to spread more Evil worldwide."

    It has already proved that by murdering Jew Seth Rich, the Muslim cleric and his assistant to start the so-called 'Clash of Civilization'.

    Bill Maher, a Zionist born to a Hungarian Jewish mother - made name by calling US Army fighting Taliban COWARD in 2001.

    Last year, Maher condemned the kosher Pope Francis over latter's criticism of Rothschild-owned French filth, Charlie Hebdo magazine over republishing Flemming Ross' (Ukrainian Jew) anti-Islam Danish cartoon.

    “I was starting to really like this Pope. He is dead to me now. Oh, yea, F*ck the Pope. Look George Bush said it: You are either with us or against us. Apparently Pope is not with us,” said Maher.

    Bill Maher is known for his religious bigotry particularly Islam. In an October 2014 segment he called “the only religion that acts like mafia.” Contrary to Maher’s belief – FBI claims that the Judeo-Russian Mafia is behind most of crimes in the United States followed by Italian Christian Mafia.

    “Like Bill Maher, Sam Harris and other anti-Islam obsessives, mocking Judaism, Jews and/or Israel is something they will never do. If forced, they can point to rare and isolated cases where they uttered some criticism of Judaism or Jews, but the vast bulk of their attacks are reserved for Islam and Muslims, not Judaism and Jews,” wrote Glenn Greenwald (Jewish), journalist and author on January 9, 2015....

    https://rehmat1.com/2015/01/18/jewish-comedian-fck-the-pope/

    Wasn’t it Mahers calling the 9-11 actors brave that got the MSM on his case and had his show ended?
    And he must have got on his knees and said,”I’m sorry,so sorry,I’ll never do it again.”
    Which got him his new show.
    Atheist devil worship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Mahers was right on 9/11. But when his got fired - he realized that only way to stay in show-bizz is to follow ADL narrative of 9/11.

    Canadian professor Tony Hall in his latest 7-part research article, "Noam Chomsky and Zionism" has claimed that Dr. Noam Chomsky is an Israel ‘Gatekeeper’ for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/08/02/911-how-noam-chomsky-shielded-israel/
    , @Delinquent Snail
    You can't be an athiest AND a devil worshipper. Atheist's don't believe in a god or a devil.

    Other then that, I agree with him probably having to beg and apologise. But hey, he's a gew so i'm sure it wasn't too hard for him.......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Immigrant from former USSR [AKA "Florida Resident"] says:
    @WorkingClass
    "The American Conservative" was founded by one Patrick Buchanan. I wonder if he can un-found it?

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354893/american-conservative-unfused-betsy-woodruff

    A conflict at The American Conservative has led its publisher, Ron Unz, to claim he’s being “purged” from the magazine. And in an e-mail obtained by National Review Online, the magazine’s editor said he would resign if the board “would prefer that Ron Unz decide what we publish.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. utu says:
    @random observer
    Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi's fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary's subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    “the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution.” – It was also Sarkozy’s war. But most of all it was Israel’s war.

    “The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.” – nobody believed in this outcome. Don’t be naive. The goal was to turn Libya like Iraq into a non-viable state. The goal was accomplished.

    The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate managed to maintain the status of deniability and detachment that he did not want this war and so on, that it was not him…

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    OK, but how does turning Libya into a non-viable state serve any particular set of interests?

    Iraq, I can see. It served Iranian interests very well. Don't know how much benefit it has for Israel. I suppose it depends on whether, longer term, they thought Iran or Iraq the more significant enemy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Caterina says:

    How can Hillary remove evil from the world, when SHE is the Evil?!
    This is clearly demonstrated by her crimes over the years.
    If we had an DOJ with integrity, she and Bill would be in prison long ago.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. iffen says:
    @random observer
    Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi's fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary's subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    I don’t know why you would write this. It is obvious that most of the war mongers actually believe such.

    Hillary’s subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    She’s very serious. As you state she is disgusting and has no qualms about using American power to kill people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Olorin says:
    @Exiled off mainstreet
    Accusing Trump of fascism is a sort of projection by the harpy's entourage; as this shows, the real fascists are in her corner masquerading as "progressives." The "USA" chants reveal the true nature of the situation. Cornel West, of course, is a decent man and it is for that reason he has come out for Stein, and recognizes the corrupt militaristic nature of the Clinton state. Her regime is a threat to the survival of civilization. Survival trumps political correctness.

    The accusations of fascism aren’t misdirection.

    They are dogwhistles reminding everyone in the know what happened the last time a robust majority-European-population nation closed its borders to international banking and globalist manipulation, and decided to make its nation for its people, and reclaim what the globalizers and imperialists had stolen.

    They are reminders of the 20th century elites’ absolute war on any nation maintaining its sovereignty and keeping the fruit of its labors for its people (except You Know Who, whose newly extorted nation can have absolutely closed borders and absolute population control).

    They are warnings to those who support Trump, or more accurately whose sense of the world and of history is echoed by some of the things Trump has said, that our positions, and more importantly we, will not be tolerated by those who view themselves in charge of history and the present and the future.

    They are reminding us of their methods: incendiary bombs, mass starvation, cash crash, megadeaths, and a hundred years of vile slander and propaganda.

    They call Trump and his followers “fascist.” (Just like they called Trump Hitler with the same dog-whistling intent.)

    This curious invocation of a 20th century political dichotomy presents its unspoken oppositional facet: “We’re internationalists, globalists, universalists, communists/bolsheviks…and our Long March is still underway.”

    Read More
    • Agree: Jacques Sheete, Ace
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Rehmat says:
    @Quartermaster
    She's going to rid the world of evil? So, when is she committing suicide?

    C'mon, even Calypso Louie Farakhan says she's a wicked woman. It's one of the few things he's right about.

    Louis Farrakhan is always right when it comes to American foreign policy and America’s political jerks taking dictation from the Zionist regime.

    Farrakhan is not the only American leader who called Hillary what she is.

    In 2008, Sen. Barack Obama’s senior foreign policy aid, Samantha Power (currently America’ ambassador at United Nations and married to an American Jew academic) called Sen. Hillary Clinton MONSTER.

    Hillary Clinton has boasted that when it comes to foreign policy, her mentor is former US Jewish secretary of state Henry Kissinger. The man that Christopher Hitchens said should be tried for war crime in his book, The Trial of Henry Kissinger.

    Farrakhan who visited Iran in February 2016, to attend country’s 37th anniversary of Islamic Revolution, praised the country as a role model for other Muslim countries to follow.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/03/02/farrakhan-hillary-is-a-wicked-woman/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Rehmat says:
    @dahoit
    Wasn't it Mahers calling the 9-11 actors brave that got the MSM on his case and had his show ended?
    And he must have got on his knees and said,"I'm sorry,so sorry,I'll never do it again."
    Which got him his new show.
    Atheist devil worship.

    Mahers was right on 9/11. But when his got fired – he realized that only way to stay in show-bizz is to follow ADL narrative of 9/11.

    Canadian professor Tony Hall in his latest 7-part research article, “Noam Chomsky and Zionism” has claimed that Dr. Noam Chomsky is an Israel ‘Gatekeeper’ for September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/08/02/911-how-noam-chomsky-shielded-israel/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Olorin says:
    @random observer
    Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi's fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary's subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    An insecure, mediocre female who is absolutely devoted to securing and exercising power will, guess what?, secure and exercise power at every opportunity.

    Looking for civilization or statesmanship in Hillary Rodham is like seeking it in the bibulous son of the sluttish daughter of Brooklynite financier Leonard Jerome.

    My concern is that it is bound to lead to similar global geopolitical outcomes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. TheJester says:

    The MSM have become sensationalized tabloids. Bill Maher and the chanting … well, where we live we call that “trailer park” TV. Makes sense. Hillary IS trying to glue together a coalition of the fringes … self-declared, marginalized minorities oppressed by WASP males.

    In any case, the HRC candidacy for President demarcates the end of the MSM as journalism — CNN, Washington Post, NBC, NY Times, Atlantic Monthly, etc. Moving forward, it’s the alternative media for sustaining the best in classical journalism. Nothing else is left.

    The blogs look for explanations. One commentator suggested that the Cultural Marxist professors who have taken over a goodly number of universities are the cause. The claim is that they have serially damaged a generation of university students in general and journalism majors in particular with their globalized, PC look at the world as interpreted by the cultural elite … who just happen to live in New York and its surroundings and who are coextensive with the economic elite currently looting the country. Others suggest it is the corporate-owned media. Same context; same players:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  37. Art says:

    “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest”

    Hilary is Nurse Ratched dispensing feel good pills to the political brainstemers.

    If you are a put upon group – Nurse Hillary has something for You! Numb out little ones.

    Promise promise – double promise.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. @annamaria
    The new wave is coming:
    https://www.lewrockwell.com/2016/08/tyler-durden/sjw-german-prez-booed-attacked/
    German President Booed, Attacked; Claims "The People Are The Problem, Not The Elites"

    Ha! Ya beat me to it, dang it, but nice job.

    That quote should be etched in stone and put in more public places than “holocaust” memorials and museums.

    In fact, it’s always been the attitude of the self anointed special classes, even to the point that certain Zionists collaborated with Nazis and thought nothing of sacrificing their own to obtain their goals.

    Remember the Patria! (And a few other such things as well.)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. ”TEAM HILLARY TO END EVIL WORLDWIDE “

    So, is this election the opening of the Seven Seals or have we skipped ahead to the Third Woe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. annamaria says:

    “Beginning in 1996 all federal agencies were mandated by law to conduct regular financial audits. However, the Pentagon has NEVER complied with that federal law. In 20 years, it has never accounted for the trillions of dollars in taxpayer funds it has spent…
    While the Department of Defense can’t account for $6.5 trillion dollars of taxpayer funds, in 2014 there were 47 million people, including over 15 million children, living in poverty in the U.S. – %15 of the U.S. population, which is the largest total number in poverty since records began being kept 52 years ago.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-cannot-account-for-6-5-trillion-dollars/5541244

    What about court-martialing the bureaucratic brass?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Brother Nathaniel already covered the General Allen speech a couple weeks ago. It was definitely a weird, trying-too-hard speech. Like Bill Kristol’s pool boy had just seen the Crispin Day speech from Henry V and said, “Hey, I bet I could do something like that.”

    What’s funny is that throughout the entire speech, I was distracted by Haji, with his turban, standing behind and to the side of the General the whole time. I wanted to ask him where I could find Dr. Quest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Kiza says:
    @Bill

    So this is what passes for progressive thought on war and peace as seen by the Democratic Party of Hillary Clinton, Barney Franks and Bill Maher.
     
    In a way, this is a good thing. The Democratic party has now evolved to the point at which it is unambiguously most evil on practically every issue of importance. It embraces crony capitalism, war, and cultural marxism. It pursues these strategies via a rhetoric which is equal parts incitement to riot and pseudo-intellectual up is downism. It is the Platonic ideal of an evil faction. Hopefully, Trump can transform the GOP into the antithesis of the Dems. It's hard to be optimistic on this score, though.

    I could not agree more. The US really needs somebody who could create a contrasting opposite to the Demoncrats, not just a softer version of the Belzebbub’s Party. But this person would have to crush the resistance of the devil worshippers inside GOP first, not a small task on its own. Not sure that Trump is that agent of change.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. What is nauseatingly disingenuous in light of Maher’s views about Muslims is that he goes to great lengths on a regular schedule to remind his audience that he was “raised Catholic”.

    He owes his audience the caveat emptor that his mother, Julie Berman Maher, is a New York Jew. If he so desired he could have citizenship as soon as he got off the plane in Tel Aviv.

    I’m in total agreement with Phil regarding Maher…but I wouldn’t trust Trump any more than Clinton given the statements he’s made about Israel and the Palestinians and the obvious influence of ne0con Jews in his campaign as well as his civilian business Trump Organizations…

    People with common sense don’t have a candidate this election cycle..At least one that can win. Jill Stein’s choice of AJAMU BARAKA (!!!) as her VP just shot the legs out from under her campaign. What is she thinking?

    Hey…if you hated Barack Hussein Obama…you’re gonna love AJAMU BARAKA!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Ajamu and his new partner are both committed to The Struggle. Jill's most favoritest person is MLK.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. tim says:

    Good article. A little wordy, but I agree with your premise. I’m no fan of General Allen’s, but he actually came away from that email “scandal” looking pretty good. It was clear that his and Ms. Kelley’s conversations were beyond anything people married to other people should be saying, they were not sexting, or explicitly provocative. More importantly, General Allen kept his pants on, which is more than Petraeus did.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. @Kiza
    When I started watching the US version of the House of Cards I was quite disappointed and completed only about six episodes because:
    1) I have watched the British original before, and
    2) I have followed the body count of the Clinton crime family, compared to which Underwood is just a funny little pussycat.

    My wish is also to compile a compendium of the Clintonite propaganda techniques. Recently, they have unleashed a troll army (not a brigade, it is a whole army) even onto websites such as The American Conservative magazine (funny that they seem to ignore this more important one, at least for now). The three authors that this site/magazine employs are already anti-Trump (RATs), and only the external contributors such as Mr Giraldi are worth reading.

    Finally, I am really interested in independent voter polls which appear to show numbers not in any relation to the MSM and establishment polling, with numbers such as 67% Trump and 19% Clinton. Are we going to see another Brexit style situation? 67:19 is just too much to steal with voting machines and so on. Ultimately, putting aside policies of both candidates, it will be a big surprise if the US people do show resistance to establishment's media manipulations and elect Trump. Then the whole science of manipulating people through media may require a rethink.

    The original “House of Cards” was so much superior.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivy
    Agreed. While Spacey and Wright are superb, the English version was hard to top. We could use someone giving a bit of stick to Congress.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Lawrence Fitton
    the former senator from massachusetts is named barney frank - not franks. under either name, he was just another tiresome politician living off the fat of the land.
    i've never seen real time, because i don't buy hbo. but maher used to be on some other channel and i have seen his act. he fancies himself an intellectual, yet is really just a main stream talking head, op for the democratic party. he is the anti dennis miller. miller was bush shill, fox news contributor, a cheerleader for the republican party, and also considers himself an intellectual.
    i find both annoying.
    no one critical of orthodoxy would ever land a tv gig. 'it's hard to get a man to understand something his salary depends on him not understanding.' watch msnbc, cnn, fox news, or even comedy central. what do you get? hosts and guests who stay within the excepted parameters of corporatized opinion. the elevation of personality over substance, manufactured outrage, and a bevy of vetted, so-called experts are paraded across the tv landscape ad nauseum. bland repetition as infotainment. mix in a little government propaganda, fear-mongering, idol worship, and a 21st century dumbocracy is born.
    tell me how this ends?

    Frank, of course, was the Senator who was too dumb to know when he was living in a whorehouse.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/the-one-thing-no-one-is-mentioning-in-their-barney-frank-tributes-the-prostitutes-2011-11

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. DaveE says:

    This election (and the survival of Gentiles as free beings) boils down to ONE issue (explained in three parts):

    1.) Jews say Syria belongs to THEM and THEM ALONE, given to them by Yhwy itself. Assad doesn’t seem crazy about the idea, which really pisses off Jewry.

    2.) Putin told them, “Nah, I don’t think so”. Which really, really pisses off Jewry.

    3.) Trump threatens to get along with Putin. Which REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pisses off Jewry.

    Keep your powder dry.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    Did you hear Trump's recent anti-radical-Muslim-terrorism speech?

    It's so full of crap.

    I like the part about how Obama and Hillary's policies led to the spread of ISIS and other terrorists.
    But the rest of the speech is pure caca.

    Trump says Israel is an essential ally against terror in the Middle East? What? Did he ever hear of Irgun? Israel was founded on terror. Also, Israel has used terrorism and assassination against Iran and other nations. Iranian scientists were bombed to death by Mossad in Iran. If Iran did that to an Israeli scientist, there would be hell to pay. But when Israel does stuff like that, NYT calls it 'terror' in quotes. And Israel still occupies West Bank, and it won't give Golan Heights back to Syria.

    Israel and Neocons were the ones behind much of US foreign policy under Bush and Obama. It was the Israel Lobby that played a key role in pushing US more to wars in Middle East.
    Andrew Bacevich says that prior to the 80s, almost no soldier died in Middle East. But since end of Cold War, virtually all US casualties were in Middle East. Who drove this foreign policy? Israel Lobby. But Trump mentions only the puppets but not the puppet masters.

    Trump also says Iran is the #1 sponsor of radical Islam. Where does he get this BS? Iran has hardly been the aggressor in anything. It wasn't Iran that invaded Afghanistan. USSR did. It wasn't Iran that funded the Mujahadeen who would turn into Taliban. US did. It wasn't Iran that attacked Iraq. Iraq attacked first, and US aided Iraq that even used poison gas.
    Iran didn't invade Kuwait. Iraq, armed and aided by US, did. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudis provided most funds and men for that operation. Iran didn't invade Iraq. US did that in 2003. Iran didn't wreck Libya. US did that. Iran didn't fund and arm the crazies in Syria. US and its allies Saudis and Turks armed Al Nusra front and indirectly even elements of ISIS.
    If anything, Iran has been working with Russia to defend Assad's regime from crazies.
    BUT, Trump says Iran is the #1 supporter of radical Islamic terror. Total slimeball crap.
    If anything, Israel had committed more acts of terror than Iran in the past 20 yrs. Also, Israel has 200 illegal nukes. Iran has zero, but it got hit with sanctions.
    I hope Iran does get nukes. It would prevent more US wars. If Hussein and Gaddafi had nukes, there would have been no Iraq War, no Libya War, and etc. Nukes are insurance against US aggression. Any nation threatened by US should be GIVEN nukes.

    Trump attacks honor killings in the Muslim world, and yes, they are awful. But what about Pride Killings in the US? American culture is Rap, which is about blacks saying they will kill anyone who be dissing their pride. This culture of macho pride leads to 1000s of murders in America every year. US shouldn't be one to preach to other nations about culture of violence. US music industry promote rap thug culture of macho pride of murderous psychopathy.
    And consider all the dead white people from suicide, meth, alcohol, and etc. US may not have many Honor Killings, but it has lots of Shame Deaths. Lifestyles of excess, decadence, wantonness, and etc that lead to shame and dementia. White Death in the US is shameful.
    And is it really so great to raise women like Emma Sulkowicz and Lena Dunham and hold them forth as ideals? That is a culture of health and freedom? If anything, they sort of make one feel that maybe Muslims aren't entirely wrong with their honor killings. I mean how can any self-respecting father allow his daughter to end up like Emma or Lena? Or Brian Williams daughter who gets a rimjob in a TV show? That is what Americans are so proud about? That is Western values? That and the Kardashians and Bruce Jenner as a woman? Or associating marriage with men who do fecal penetration?

    Trump, like Hillary, says US is an exceptional nation with best values, and that newcomers should assimilate. Assimilate to what? Mindless worship of homos? Trannies?
    Trump attacks radical Islam as religious bigotry but he overlooks how homomania has become the new fundie religion of the West. Homomania goes after heretics. It destroys businesses that won't make homo wedding cakes. It vows to destroy any state that allows moral freedom and dignity of those who won't cave to homo demands. Didn't Mozilla CEO lose his job because he's for true marriage? Homomania uses the threat of violence. If you won't bake a 'gay wedding cake', the state will fine you and shut your business down. If you try to open your store and refuse to pay fine, men with guns will come after you to lock you up. If you resist, you will be shot and killed. Homomania is a thug ideology and pseudo-spirituality. But Trump is sucking homo cock.

    Trump is bitching about Sharia of all things. It's Gayria that is ruining the West. Also, homos have spread a culture of death. Their debauchery in the 80s led to mass deaths via HIV epidemic. Homo excesses murdered homos, but homos only play victim to 'Reagan's indifference'.
    What else should immigrants assimilate to? Rap culture of Pride Killing and macho pathologies? Or Disney encouraging little girls to dress like hookers? Or how about full-grown men taking stuff like BATMAN movies seriously(instead of worthier stuff like The Godfather)?

    Trump bitches about bigotry and hate, and of course, he's answering back the critics who accuse him of 'bigotry' and 'hate'. Trump is playing a cynical game. He is making himself out to be the 'progressive' defender of angelic darling homos from bigoted and hateful Muslims.
    But it was homos who supported the Zionist and Obama/Hillary plan to wreck the Middle East. Washington DC is 10% homo, and fruitkins are crawling all over government. The are in NSA, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and etc. and they've been key players in the US empire. Homos did far more damage to the Muslim world than vice versa.

    Speaking of hatred and bigotry, what comes closest to Nuremberg rallies in the US are AIPAC conferences where all politicians salute undying loyalty to Israel. Hess said, "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler." Trump, Hillary, Obama, and Romney say "Israel is US, US is Israel." If bigotry and hate are about favoring one people over all others in a spirit of supremacist devotion, then there is nothing more bigoted in US politics than AIPAC.
    But neither the media nor Trump point to this fact. The biggest Bigotry and Hatred in the US is the supremacist devotion to Israel and Jewish interests.

    What I find really hilarious is that the media is silent about Trump's huge baloney like "Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism." It is such a blatant lie. The media are committed to making Trump look like a fool by exposing his falsehoods and gaffes. But they don't bother to correct Trump's HUG BS on Iran. That is the one fat lie that the media endorse since the media are controlled by Zionists. So, Trump is attacked for telling lies only when it goes against the narrative. Indeed, he is attacked for telling truths if they go against the Narrative. But since the lie about Iran fits the Globo-Zio Narrative, there is no complaint about Trump's BS.

    Trump could have given a truly great and brave speech. It was good of him to connect the dots between US foreign policy and rise of terror all over the Middle East. War on Terror became War for Terror.

    Instead, he turned it into a cheap diatribe about Iran. He also turned GOP into a bitch of homomania. Just like Romney posed as defender of Israel and Jews against Obama(despite the fact that most Jews were totally with Obama), Trump poses as defender of homos when most homos detest him and side with Hillary. And indeed, Homos have been working in Pentagon and State Department to further the aims of US imperialism all over the world.

    And of course, nothing about black crime and black thuggery, especially in a year in which tons of blacks call for murder of police and white people. Trump acts tough but is a total coward on Jews, blacks, and homos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Ivy says:
    @Bill Jones
    The original "House of Cards" was so much superior.

    Agreed. While Spacey and Wright are superb, the English version was hard to top. We could use someone giving a bit of stick to Congress.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. […] “Team Hillary to End Evil Worldwide”  “The dangerous alliance between Hillary Clinton’s Democrats and neocons: Fear of Trump is cementing a strange relationship”  “Former DIA Head Joins Anti-Muslim Hate Group” […]

    Read More
  50. Priss Factor [AKA "Anonymny"] says: • Website
    @DaveE
    This election (and the survival of Gentiles as free beings) boils down to ONE issue (explained in three parts):

    1.) Jews say Syria belongs to THEM and THEM ALONE, given to them by Yhwy itself. Assad doesn't seem crazy about the idea, which really pisses off Jewry.

    2.) Putin told them, "Nah, I don't think so". Which really, really pisses off Jewry.

    3.) Trump threatens to get along with Putin. Which REALLY, REALLY, REALLY pisses off Jewry.

    Keep your powder dry.

    Did you hear Trump’s recent anti-radical-Muslim-terrorism speech?

    It’s so full of crap.

    I like the part about how Obama and Hillary’s policies led to the spread of ISIS and other terrorists.
    But the rest of the speech is pure caca.

    Trump says Israel is an essential ally against terror in the Middle East? What? Did he ever hear of Irgun? Israel was founded on terror. Also, Israel has used terrorism and assassination against Iran and other nations. Iranian scientists were bombed to death by Mossad in Iran. If Iran did that to an Israeli scientist, there would be hell to pay. But when Israel does stuff like that, NYT calls it ‘terror’ in quotes. And Israel still occupies West Bank, and it won’t give Golan Heights back to Syria.

    Israel and Neocons were the ones behind much of US foreign policy under Bush and Obama. It was the Israel Lobby that played a key role in pushing US more to wars in Middle East.
    Andrew Bacevich says that prior to the 80s, almost no soldier died in Middle East. But since end of Cold War, virtually all US casualties were in Middle East. Who drove this foreign policy? Israel Lobby. But Trump mentions only the puppets but not the puppet masters.

    Trump also says Iran is the #1 sponsor of radical Islam. Where does he get this BS? Iran has hardly been the aggressor in anything. It wasn’t Iran that invaded Afghanistan. USSR did. It wasn’t Iran that funded the Mujahadeen who would turn into Taliban. US did. It wasn’t Iran that attacked Iraq. Iraq attacked first, and US aided Iraq that even used poison gas.
    Iran didn’t invade Kuwait. Iraq, armed and aided by US, did. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudis provided most funds and men for that operation. Iran didn’t invade Iraq. US did that in 2003. Iran didn’t wreck Libya. US did that. Iran didn’t fund and arm the crazies in Syria. US and its allies Saudis and Turks armed Al Nusra front and indirectly even elements of ISIS.
    If anything, Iran has been working with Russia to defend Assad’s regime from crazies.
    BUT, Trump says Iran is the #1 supporter of radical Islamic terror. Total slimeball crap.
    If anything, Israel had committed more acts of terror than Iran in the past 20 yrs. Also, Israel has 200 illegal nukes. Iran has zero, but it got hit with sanctions.
    I hope Iran does get nukes. It would prevent more US wars. If Hussein and Gaddafi had nukes, there would have been no Iraq War, no Libya War, and etc. Nukes are insurance against US aggression. Any nation threatened by US should be GIVEN nukes.

    Trump attacks honor killings in the Muslim world, and yes, they are awful. But what about Pride Killings in the US? American culture is Rap, which is about blacks saying they will kill anyone who be dissing their pride. This culture of macho pride leads to 1000s of murders in America every year. US shouldn’t be one to preach to other nations about culture of violence. US music industry promote rap thug culture of macho pride of murderous psychopathy.
    And consider all the dead white people from suicide, meth, alcohol, and etc. US may not have many Honor Killings, but it has lots of Shame Deaths. Lifestyles of excess, decadence, wantonness, and etc that lead to shame and dementia. White Death in the US is shameful.
    And is it really so great to raise women like Emma Sulkowicz and Lena Dunham and hold them forth as ideals? That is a culture of health and freedom? If anything, they sort of make one feel that maybe Muslims aren’t entirely wrong with their honor killings. I mean how can any self-respecting father allow his daughter to end up like Emma or Lena? Or Brian Williams daughter who gets a rimjob in a TV show? That is what Americans are so proud about? That is Western values? That and the Kardashians and Bruce Jenner as a woman? Or associating marriage with men who do fecal penetration?

    Trump, like Hillary, says US is an exceptional nation with best values, and that newcomers should assimilate. Assimilate to what? Mindless worship of homos? Trannies?
    Trump attacks radical Islam as religious bigotry but he overlooks how homomania has become the new fundie religion of the West. Homomania goes after heretics. It destroys businesses that won’t make homo wedding cakes. It vows to destroy any state that allows moral freedom and dignity of those who won’t cave to homo demands. Didn’t Mozilla CEO lose his job because he’s for true marriage? Homomania uses the threat of violence. If you won’t bake a ‘gay wedding cake’, the state will fine you and shut your business down. If you try to open your store and refuse to pay fine, men with guns will come after you to lock you up. If you resist, you will be shot and killed. Homomania is a thug ideology and pseudo-spirituality. But Trump is sucking homo cock.

    Trump is bitching about Sharia of all things. It’s Gayria that is ruining the West. Also, homos have spread a culture of death. Their debauchery in the 80s led to mass deaths via HIV epidemic. Homo excesses murdered homos, but homos only play victim to ‘Reagan’s indifference’.
    What else should immigrants assimilate to? Rap culture of Pride Killing and macho pathologies? Or Disney encouraging little girls to dress like hookers? Or how about full-grown men taking stuff like BATMAN movies seriously(instead of worthier stuff like The Godfather)?

    Trump bitches about bigotry and hate, and of course, he’s answering back the critics who accuse him of ‘bigotry’ and ‘hate’. Trump is playing a cynical game. He is making himself out to be the ‘progressive’ defender of angelic darling homos from bigoted and hateful Muslims.
    But it was homos who supported the Zionist and Obama/Hillary plan to wreck the Middle East. Washington DC is 10% homo, and fruitkins are crawling all over government. The are in NSA, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and etc. and they’ve been key players in the US empire. Homos did far more damage to the Muslim world than vice versa.

    Speaking of hatred and bigotry, what comes closest to Nuremberg rallies in the US are AIPAC conferences where all politicians salute undying loyalty to Israel. Hess said, “Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler.” Trump, Hillary, Obama, and Romney say “Israel is US, US is Israel.” If bigotry and hate are about favoring one people over all others in a spirit of supremacist devotion, then there is nothing more bigoted in US politics than AIPAC.
    But neither the media nor Trump point to this fact. The biggest Bigotry and Hatred in the US is the supremacist devotion to Israel and Jewish interests.

    What I find really hilarious is that the media is silent about Trump’s huge baloney like “Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism.” It is such a blatant lie. The media are committed to making Trump look like a fool by exposing his falsehoods and gaffes. But they don’t bother to correct Trump’s HUG BS on Iran. That is the one fat lie that the media endorse since the media are controlled by Zionists. So, Trump is attacked for telling lies only when it goes against the narrative. Indeed, he is attacked for telling truths if they go against the Narrative. But since the lie about Iran fits the Globo-Zio Narrative, there is no complaint about Trump’s BS.

    Trump could have given a truly great and brave speech. It was good of him to connect the dots between US foreign policy and rise of terror all over the Middle East. War on Terror became War for Terror.

    Instead, he turned it into a cheap diatribe about Iran. He also turned GOP into a bitch of homomania. Just like Romney posed as defender of Israel and Jews against Obama(despite the fact that most Jews were totally with Obama), Trump poses as defender of homos when most homos detest him and side with Hillary. And indeed, Homos have been working in Pentagon and State Department to further the aims of US imperialism all over the world.

    And of course, nothing about black crime and black thuggery, especially in a year in which tons of blacks call for murder of police and white people. Trump acts tough but is a total coward on Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    Yeah, I agree, Trump is getting just a little too redneck for me to take for more than two minutes.

    BUT, one needs to remember that this IS America and he IS a Republican. He's gotta get elected. I doubt there's anyone who knows much more about focus-groups and marketing studies than Trump.

    Whether he's a redneck or just playing one on TV, war with Russia is a much bigger concern and on this issue, Trump is the only reasonable choice.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @annamaria
    Clinton's email of November, 2015: "The best way to help Israel deal with Iran's growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad."
    This is a war crime, lady, to incite a civil war and violate the sovereignty of Syria.
    The email is of course the Exhibit One for explaining the rationale for the US bloody wars in the Middle East.

    Is it a war crime to provide aid to opponents of a government who are seeking to overthrow it by force? What is your authority for that as counsel would be asked in my very provincial superior court?

    BTW Clinton’s quoted words sound very much as if she was saying “You say you want to help Israel…. Well the best way to help Israel is….” rather than demonstrating an interest in putting Israel’s interests at or near the top for Americans. Is that wrong?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Ask yourself how you would feel if Indonesia were supplying arms and training to rebel groups of indigenous Australians along with inserting foreign mercenaries to add additional military muscle resulting in thousands of dead Australian settlers and country towns reduced to rubble.

    Your great mind never ceases to amaze me and not in a good way
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. @DaveE
    "Allen"-- with an "e", is typically a Jewish surname. He's probably got as much combat experience as Meyer Lansky.

    Allen with an “e” is an old and common English surname with a slightly greater bias toward “Allan” in Scotland. Sure Woody Allen uses the version with an “e” in his replacement for Konigsberg but I can find no evidence for your assertion. Is there any?

    I didn’t find General Allen funny enough to be Jewish although the performance (and the filming) was risible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    No hard evidence, just a causal summary of the "Allen's" I've known over the years.

    I've known three that I can recall, two were Jews, not sure about the third.

    Take this as you choose.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. @random observer
    Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi's fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary's subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    Yes, the evil deeds of Qaddafi extended to his people having the highest standard of living in all of Africa, including universal healthcare and education. His evil also extended to him subsidising basic needs for the poor such as food and electricity. His vast irrigation scheme was truly monumental in scope and offered greater future prosperity and independence to the nation.

    “When that the people hath cried, Caesar hath wept”.

    The US people might actually be better off with a leader of such national pride and vision as Muammar al-Qaddafi. How long has it been since they had such a leader?

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Those are all excellent contributions to Libya by Qaddafi. They may even have been adequate justification for his rule and for a more positive reputation in history.

    None of it changes the manner of his accession or the amount of cruelty and violence he also exercised on his people, and permitted his sons to exercise on them. Digging a well does not automatically justify torture, rapine and murder.

    Ultimately, my point was simpler and clearer than that. It doesn't matter how much good he did in power. He set the terms on which power could be gained [violent usurpation], how enemies could be handled [torture and murder], and how political viability was to be judged [ability to stay on top]. He set the rules and ruled by them 42 years. Then he weakened in the crunch. His enemies handled him as he would have handled them, and as he had handled many others. That was justice.

    Hillary cackling about it like some dope addled video gamer who just killed the big bad was something else. That was disgusting. But the people who actually killed Qaddafi had the right.

    It's a pity we have reached the point at which any side in western societies might seek a Caesar. But I sympathize. If I thought such a one would endorse ideas similar to mine or which I could agree with on balance, would turn things in a direction I thought positive, I might be tempted. It is late in the day and options are few. Even the left, in its triumph, seeks a Caesar to take their project across the finish line.

    It's still a pity. A leader who had a vision would be great, one I agree with greater still. One with national pride greater yet. Still I don't want a Caesar who weeps for me in my troubles. It is beneath the dignity of free men to want a leader who weeps for us. The head of the state is not in loco parentis to the citizen. The notion that we should want or admire that quality is sickening and contemptible.

    That always struck me as the deeper irony of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Given the role the Roman emperors played in the deep ideology of medieval and renaissance monarchy, it is understandable that recognition of their dictatorial progenitor as a divinely ordained ruler, paternalistic along monarchical lines, would play a role and would guide the presentation of Caesar in Shakespeare, and in turn guide the presentation of Cassius, Brutus and the rest as betrayers of Caesar's 'rightful' status and perhaps of a personal bond of loyalty as his protégées. Yet Caesar was not a king in a state that believed in such things, he was a statesman who usurped authority not rightfully his by law, custom, tradition or indeed religion, with the backing of the mob. Knives were the proper response to him.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. @dahoit
    Wasn't it Mahers calling the 9-11 actors brave that got the MSM on his case and had his show ended?
    And he must have got on his knees and said,"I'm sorry,so sorry,I'll never do it again."
    Which got him his new show.
    Atheist devil worship.

    You can’t be an athiest AND a devil worshipper. Atheist’s don’t believe in a god or a devil.

    Other then that, I agree with him probably having to beg and apologise. But hey, he’s a gew so i’m sure it wasn’t too hard for him…….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It"s quibbling time. Atheists traditionally rejected a theistic god of the Abrahamic variety which logically might be extended to a collection of gods which added up to the eternal omnipotent Abrahamic deity. So you could say that you didn't have one of those before or after your Big Bang but did have a demonic spirit capable of incarnations playing hell with human lives. That would explain quite a lot wouldn't it, even if scientists were made to look a bit puzzled?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Wizard of Oz
    Is it a war crime to provide aid to opponents of a government who are seeking to overthrow it by force? What is your authority for that as counsel would be asked in my very provincial superior court?

    BTW Clinton's quoted words sound very much as if she was saying "You say you want to help Israel.... Well the best way to help Israel is...." rather than demonstrating an interest in putting Israel's interests at or near the top for Americans. Is that wrong?

    Ask yourself how you would feel if Indonesia were supplying arms and training to rebel groups of indigenous Australians along with inserting foreign mercenaries to add additional military muscle resulting in thousands of dead Australian settlers and country towns reduced to rubble.

    Your great mind never ceases to amaze me and not in a good way

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why do commenters, such as you, write as if deadly conflicts among nations and groups, along with subterfuge and various scheming fell from the sky yesterday, and only because of the existence of Israel.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I don't expect to be invited to respond only to comments written with the precise literacy of a competent legal opinion but it is rather itritating to be confronted with a question that the questioner doesn't seem to understand has nothing to do with one's own comment or question.

    My question and my interest were and are confined to the question of law and has nothing to do with my or anyone's feelings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. iffen says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Ask yourself how you would feel if Indonesia were supplying arms and training to rebel groups of indigenous Australians along with inserting foreign mercenaries to add additional military muscle resulting in thousands of dead Australian settlers and country towns reduced to rubble.

    Your great mind never ceases to amaze me and not in a good way

    Why do commenters, such as you, write as if deadly conflicts among nations and groups, along with subterfuge and various scheming fell from the sky yesterday, and only because of the existence of Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Because in this particular case - the criminal destruction of Syria and incitement of civil war in Syria in order to remove a lawful president of the sovereign state - Clinton has been rooting for Israel.
    By the way, Yinon plan has nothing to do with "Elders of Sion."

    "Syria will fall apart... This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today." Oded Yinon

    Tell us, NosytheDuke, whose peace and security is desired by Yinon project for the expense of the lives of Syrian people?
    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.
    And here is the most important one: Mrs. Clinton is Ok with betraying the interests of the US citizenry in order to satisfy the US/UK ziocons. The evidences are overwhelming. You are welcome to refute them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. @NoseytheDuke
    Ask yourself how you would feel if Indonesia were supplying arms and training to rebel groups of indigenous Australians along with inserting foreign mercenaries to add additional military muscle resulting in thousands of dead Australian settlers and country towns reduced to rubble.

    Your great mind never ceases to amaze me and not in a good way

    I don’t expect to be invited to respond only to comments written with the precise literacy of a competent legal opinion but it is rather itritating to be confronted with a question that the questioner doesn’t seem to understand has nothing to do with one’s own comment or question.

    My question and my interest were and are confined to the question of law and has nothing to do with my or anyone’s feelings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @Delinquent Snail
    You can't be an athiest AND a devil worshipper. Atheist's don't believe in a god or a devil.

    Other then that, I agree with him probably having to beg and apologise. But hey, he's a gew so i'm sure it wasn't too hard for him.......

    It”s quibbling time. Atheists traditionally rejected a theistic god of the Abrahamic variety which logically might be extended to a collection of gods which added up to the eternal omnipotent Abrahamic deity. So you could say that you didn’t have one of those before or after your Big Bang but did have a demonic spirit capable of incarnations playing hell with human lives. That would explain quite a lot wouldn’t it, even if scientists were made to look a bit puzzled?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Delinquent Snail
    What? No. Athiesm is the lack of belief for ALL gods. Not just the major ones of our day. Zues, odin, horus, God (because christians are unimaginative)..... They are all works of fiction used to controll the ignorant masses. As for the demon manifestation " playing hell with human lives ", thats just cop out. Humans are vain, petty animals that lust for power. We caused all the bad. Not some extradimensional boogy man. Its counter productive to blame a fake thing for the real problems written in our dna.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @utu
    "the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution." - It was also Sarkozy's war. But most of all it was Israel's war.

    "The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible." - nobody believed in this outcome. Don't be naive. The goal was to turn Libya like Iraq into a non-viable state. The goal was accomplished.

    The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate managed to maintain the status of deniability and detachment that he did not want this war and so on, that it was not him...

    OK, but how does turning Libya into a non-viable state serve any particular set of interests?

    Iraq, I can see. It served Iranian interests very well. Don’t know how much benefit it has for Israel. I suppose it depends on whether, longer term, they thought Iran or Iraq the more significant enemy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Calm clear thinking has no place in this club Sir once a member has raised American politics and Jews or Israel have been mentioned. (See sub-rule 200.zzz about Anglo-Zionist schemes to addle members'brains).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. I’m not voting for either of them. However, I think people should remember that Hillary is a psychopathic puppet. She has her oligarchs and their marching orders: http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/hillarys-sheldon-adelson/

    One can elect one oligarch, or the whore of Babylon owned by a cabal of oligarchs. I think more attention should be given to the ventriloquist and what they say.

    I always thought Maher came off as kind of shady and attention seeking. The only political show like his that I liked was the McLaughlin Group.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  61. @random observer
    Sound criticism but I am always fascinated by the issue of Qaddafi's fate and how it is presented in this context.

    Realists have a fine case that Qaddafi, a strategic pest for the US and a backer of terrorists in the 1980s, had become a useful if not indeed vital US client in more recent years, and arguably no more distasteful than his Islamist enemies. On those grounds, the Libyan war of Hillary was epically stupid in both conception and execution. The assumption that it would have a liberal outcome was incredible.

    Hillary's subsequent posturing on the matter was disgusting from a civilized person and alleged stateswoman, befitting her fundamental unseriousness.

    On the other hand, why so much moral outrage about how Qaddafi died? He seized power by usurpation and murder, and held it most of his life by torture and more murder. He was a player in a game whose rules he knew and had indeed largely written. Losing the game at last, he received the treatment that was always coming to him and which any of his domestic enemies who captured him was fully entitled to administer.

    The victors should be above murdering someone in cold blood without due process and in such a savage manner. He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been put to death at some point. It reflects poorly on them and their psychopathic queen who gloated about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been put to death at some point.
     
    With all due respect, but the list of those deserving the death penalty for crimes deserving of the death penalty is long and Qaddafi was certainly not among the top ten of that list.

    Sure, to some autodidact scholars of international laws, the number one on that list must be Dim Son and his Junker Cheney. The collective guilt of having exterminated large groups of human beings due to political goals - aka some wet dream new world order - makes Qaddafi appear like an altar boy of the roman catholic church.

    Of course I am always eager to be corrected when 'wrong'. But the sheer number of casualties and so called 'collateral damage' wrought on Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the utter destruction of life preserving infra structure, counts in my book as a crime equal to that committed by the National Socialists in Germany. Of which only a selected few scapegoats were executed.

    Also on the list is Obama for the continuation/expansion of the so called 'Kill-List' worthy to be compared to the atrocities perpetrated by Pinochet et al. While there are enough grounds to have B. Clinton and George join the party, the list is limited to the 21st Century alone. The number of U.S. citizens on that list is staggering though. Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel belong as well before an international tribunal for war crimes.

    No war crimes tribunal with death penalty - no reconciliation. And yes, one may add Erdogan, too for the crimes he already committed and those who will follow after the coup attempt.

    Okay, forget the arbitrary number '10'. The 21st century already has a longer list of war criminals than that.

    As always only an insignificant opinion.
    , @random observer
    I entirely agree about Hillary and any Americans who made comments like that. If they wanted to be quietly satisfied because they were alive in the 1980s, that would have been fine. If they had focused on American interests and thought, on the whole, Qaddafi 2.0 was better for those interests than Qaddafi 1.0 had been or than his enemies were, that would have been even better.

    As for the Libyans, I must agree to disagree with you. It would have been laudable for them to hold him over for trial, but I can't condemn them for preferring a more gruesome revenge. I'm mainly making a 'live by the sword, die by the sword' argument. Qaddafi ruled in the way he preferred. That stores up a lot of vengeance and makes it ever more difficult to die peacefully in bed. He knew the price of losing his grip and was paid back what he had earned. Whether there was any need for them to do that to him is immaterial. They had earned the right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @NoseytheDuke
    Yes, the evil deeds of Qaddafi extended to his people having the highest standard of living in all of Africa, including universal healthcare and education. His evil also extended to him subsidising basic needs for the poor such as food and electricity. His vast irrigation scheme was truly monumental in scope and offered greater future prosperity and independence to the nation.

    "When that the people hath cried, Caesar hath wept".

    The US people might actually be better off with a leader of such national pride and vision as Muammar al-Qaddafi. How long has it been since they had such a leader?

    Those are all excellent contributions to Libya by Qaddafi. They may even have been adequate justification for his rule and for a more positive reputation in history.

    None of it changes the manner of his accession or the amount of cruelty and violence he also exercised on his people, and permitted his sons to exercise on them. Digging a well does not automatically justify torture, rapine and murder.

    Ultimately, my point was simpler and clearer than that. It doesn’t matter how much good he did in power. He set the terms on which power could be gained [violent usurpation], how enemies could be handled [torture and murder], and how political viability was to be judged [ability to stay on top]. He set the rules and ruled by them 42 years. Then he weakened in the crunch. His enemies handled him as he would have handled them, and as he had handled many others. That was justice.

    Hillary cackling about it like some dope addled video gamer who just killed the big bad was something else. That was disgusting. But the people who actually killed Qaddafi had the right.

    It’s a pity we have reached the point at which any side in western societies might seek a Caesar. But I sympathize. If I thought such a one would endorse ideas similar to mine or which I could agree with on balance, would turn things in a direction I thought positive, I might be tempted. It is late in the day and options are few. Even the left, in its triumph, seeks a Caesar to take their project across the finish line.

    It’s still a pity. A leader who had a vision would be great, one I agree with greater still. One with national pride greater yet. Still I don’t want a Caesar who weeps for me in my troubles. It is beneath the dignity of free men to want a leader who weeps for us. The head of the state is not in loco parentis to the citizen. The notion that we should want or admire that quality is sickening and contemptible.

    That always struck me as the deeper irony of Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. Given the role the Roman emperors played in the deep ideology of medieval and renaissance monarchy, it is understandable that recognition of their dictatorial progenitor as a divinely ordained ruler, paternalistic along monarchical lines, would play a role and would guide the presentation of Caesar in Shakespeare, and in turn guide the presentation of Cassius, Brutus and the rest as betrayers of Caesar’s ‘rightful’ status and perhaps of a personal bond of loyalty as his protégées. Yet Caesar was not a king in a state that believed in such things, he was a statesman who usurped authority not rightfully his by law, custom, tradition or indeed religion, with the backing of the mob. Knives were the proper response to him.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Disagree: Kiza
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Knives were the proper response to him."
    Here comes the twilight of civilization.

    A minor question: Would you advertise the same kind of "response" towards the US president? Just asking.
    PS: Some estimates tell that the Middle Eastern wars resulted in 3.000.000 violent deaths.

    "Qaddafi's threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background." -–– You see, it is the Empire of Federal Reserve, again.

    "US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, "the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as 'thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,' and 'kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant'."

    Are you still sure that "Knives were the proper response to him?"
    , @annamaria
    The Libyan tragedy: http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/35222-exposing-the-libyan-agenda-a-closer-look-at-hillary-s-emails
    The bloody Yinon plan: http://www.voltairenet.org/article186019.html
    , @NoseytheDuke
    You appear to have failed to include the consequences of colonialism in your assessment of Qaddafi's ascension to power but in any event, he went on to do more for his people, including the poorest of them, than most leaders do however they came to power.

    My understanding of Shakespeare's quote where Caesar wept was not to brand him as weak but rather to demonstrate his empathy for his people's plight and a factor of SPQR. The point of it all was that Caesar didn't seek to be a dictator (Remember, he was thrice presented with a Kingly crown which he did thrice refuse) but Cassius, Brutus and the rest believed that he did because that's what they would have become given the same circumstances.

    To say that the people who murdered Qaddafi had the right to do so is also to say that they had the right to destroy their own nation and reduce the standard of living there to poverty and chaotic anarchy. Good job you aren't in charge of anything although I would grant you license to ride a moped, out of pity.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. DaveE says:
    @Priss Factor
    Did you hear Trump's recent anti-radical-Muslim-terrorism speech?

    It's so full of crap.

    I like the part about how Obama and Hillary's policies led to the spread of ISIS and other terrorists.
    But the rest of the speech is pure caca.

    Trump says Israel is an essential ally against terror in the Middle East? What? Did he ever hear of Irgun? Israel was founded on terror. Also, Israel has used terrorism and assassination against Iran and other nations. Iranian scientists were bombed to death by Mossad in Iran. If Iran did that to an Israeli scientist, there would be hell to pay. But when Israel does stuff like that, NYT calls it 'terror' in quotes. And Israel still occupies West Bank, and it won't give Golan Heights back to Syria.

    Israel and Neocons were the ones behind much of US foreign policy under Bush and Obama. It was the Israel Lobby that played a key role in pushing US more to wars in Middle East.
    Andrew Bacevich says that prior to the 80s, almost no soldier died in Middle East. But since end of Cold War, virtually all US casualties were in Middle East. Who drove this foreign policy? Israel Lobby. But Trump mentions only the puppets but not the puppet masters.

    Trump also says Iran is the #1 sponsor of radical Islam. Where does he get this BS? Iran has hardly been the aggressor in anything. It wasn't Iran that invaded Afghanistan. USSR did. It wasn't Iran that funded the Mujahadeen who would turn into Taliban. US did. It wasn't Iran that attacked Iraq. Iraq attacked first, and US aided Iraq that even used poison gas.
    Iran didn't invade Kuwait. Iraq, armed and aided by US, did. Iran had nothing to do with 9/11. Saudis provided most funds and men for that operation. Iran didn't invade Iraq. US did that in 2003. Iran didn't wreck Libya. US did that. Iran didn't fund and arm the crazies in Syria. US and its allies Saudis and Turks armed Al Nusra front and indirectly even elements of ISIS.
    If anything, Iran has been working with Russia to defend Assad's regime from crazies.
    BUT, Trump says Iran is the #1 supporter of radical Islamic terror. Total slimeball crap.
    If anything, Israel had committed more acts of terror than Iran in the past 20 yrs. Also, Israel has 200 illegal nukes. Iran has zero, but it got hit with sanctions.
    I hope Iran does get nukes. It would prevent more US wars. If Hussein and Gaddafi had nukes, there would have been no Iraq War, no Libya War, and etc. Nukes are insurance against US aggression. Any nation threatened by US should be GIVEN nukes.

    Trump attacks honor killings in the Muslim world, and yes, they are awful. But what about Pride Killings in the US? American culture is Rap, which is about blacks saying they will kill anyone who be dissing their pride. This culture of macho pride leads to 1000s of murders in America every year. US shouldn't be one to preach to other nations about culture of violence. US music industry promote rap thug culture of macho pride of murderous psychopathy.
    And consider all the dead white people from suicide, meth, alcohol, and etc. US may not have many Honor Killings, but it has lots of Shame Deaths. Lifestyles of excess, decadence, wantonness, and etc that lead to shame and dementia. White Death in the US is shameful.
    And is it really so great to raise women like Emma Sulkowicz and Lena Dunham and hold them forth as ideals? That is a culture of health and freedom? If anything, they sort of make one feel that maybe Muslims aren't entirely wrong with their honor killings. I mean how can any self-respecting father allow his daughter to end up like Emma or Lena? Or Brian Williams daughter who gets a rimjob in a TV show? That is what Americans are so proud about? That is Western values? That and the Kardashians and Bruce Jenner as a woman? Or associating marriage with men who do fecal penetration?

    Trump, like Hillary, says US is an exceptional nation with best values, and that newcomers should assimilate. Assimilate to what? Mindless worship of homos? Trannies?
    Trump attacks radical Islam as religious bigotry but he overlooks how homomania has become the new fundie religion of the West. Homomania goes after heretics. It destroys businesses that won't make homo wedding cakes. It vows to destroy any state that allows moral freedom and dignity of those who won't cave to homo demands. Didn't Mozilla CEO lose his job because he's for true marriage? Homomania uses the threat of violence. If you won't bake a 'gay wedding cake', the state will fine you and shut your business down. If you try to open your store and refuse to pay fine, men with guns will come after you to lock you up. If you resist, you will be shot and killed. Homomania is a thug ideology and pseudo-spirituality. But Trump is sucking homo cock.

    Trump is bitching about Sharia of all things. It's Gayria that is ruining the West. Also, homos have spread a culture of death. Their debauchery in the 80s led to mass deaths via HIV epidemic. Homo excesses murdered homos, but homos only play victim to 'Reagan's indifference'.
    What else should immigrants assimilate to? Rap culture of Pride Killing and macho pathologies? Or Disney encouraging little girls to dress like hookers? Or how about full-grown men taking stuff like BATMAN movies seriously(instead of worthier stuff like The Godfather)?

    Trump bitches about bigotry and hate, and of course, he's answering back the critics who accuse him of 'bigotry' and 'hate'. Trump is playing a cynical game. He is making himself out to be the 'progressive' defender of angelic darling homos from bigoted and hateful Muslims.
    But it was homos who supported the Zionist and Obama/Hillary plan to wreck the Middle East. Washington DC is 10% homo, and fruitkins are crawling all over government. The are in NSA, Pentagon, CIA, FBI, and etc. and they've been key players in the US empire. Homos did far more damage to the Muslim world than vice versa.

    Speaking of hatred and bigotry, what comes closest to Nuremberg rallies in the US are AIPAC conferences where all politicians salute undying loyalty to Israel. Hess said, "Hitler is Germany, Germany is Hitler." Trump, Hillary, Obama, and Romney say "Israel is US, US is Israel." If bigotry and hate are about favoring one people over all others in a spirit of supremacist devotion, then there is nothing more bigoted in US politics than AIPAC.
    But neither the media nor Trump point to this fact. The biggest Bigotry and Hatred in the US is the supremacist devotion to Israel and Jewish interests.

    What I find really hilarious is that the media is silent about Trump's huge baloney like "Iran is the number 1 sponsor of terrorism." It is such a blatant lie. The media are committed to making Trump look like a fool by exposing his falsehoods and gaffes. But they don't bother to correct Trump's HUG BS on Iran. That is the one fat lie that the media endorse since the media are controlled by Zionists. So, Trump is attacked for telling lies only when it goes against the narrative. Indeed, he is attacked for telling truths if they go against the Narrative. But since the lie about Iran fits the Globo-Zio Narrative, there is no complaint about Trump's BS.

    Trump could have given a truly great and brave speech. It was good of him to connect the dots between US foreign policy and rise of terror all over the Middle East. War on Terror became War for Terror.

    Instead, he turned it into a cheap diatribe about Iran. He also turned GOP into a bitch of homomania. Just like Romney posed as defender of Israel and Jews against Obama(despite the fact that most Jews were totally with Obama), Trump poses as defender of homos when most homos detest him and side with Hillary. And indeed, Homos have been working in Pentagon and State Department to further the aims of US imperialism all over the world.

    And of course, nothing about black crime and black thuggery, especially in a year in which tons of blacks call for murder of police and white people. Trump acts tough but is a total coward on Jews, blacks, and homos.

    Yeah, I agree, Trump is getting just a little too redneck for me to take for more than two minutes.

    BUT, one needs to remember that this IS America and he IS a Republican. He’s gotta get elected. I doubt there’s anyone who knows much more about focus-groups and marketing studies than Trump.

    Whether he’s a redneck or just playing one on TV, war with Russia is a much bigger concern and on this issue, Trump is the only reasonable choice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. DaveE says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Allen with an "e" is an old and common English surname with a slightly greater bias toward "Allan" in Scotland. Sure Woody Allen uses the version with an "e" in his replacement for Konigsberg but I can find no evidence for your assertion. Is there any?

    I didn't find General Allen funny enough to be Jewish although the performance (and the filming) was risible.

    No hard evidence, just a causal summary of the “Allen’s” I’ve known over the years.

    I’ve known three that I can recall, two were Jews, not sure about the third.

    Take this as you choose.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Wizard of Oz
    It"s quibbling time. Atheists traditionally rejected a theistic god of the Abrahamic variety which logically might be extended to a collection of gods which added up to the eternal omnipotent Abrahamic deity. So you could say that you didn't have one of those before or after your Big Bang but did have a demonic spirit capable of incarnations playing hell with human lives. That would explain quite a lot wouldn't it, even if scientists were made to look a bit puzzled?

    What? No. Athiesm is the lack of belief for ALL gods. Not just the major ones of our day. Zues, odin, horus, God (because christians are unimaginative)….. They are all works of fiction used to controll the ignorant masses. As for the demon manifestation ” playing hell with human lives “, thats just cop out. Humans are vain, petty animals that lust for power. We caused all the bad. Not some extradimensional boogy man. Its counter productive to blame a fake thing for the real problems written in our dna.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    IIRC, "God" is used by Christians as a title of office, so to speak. Their God has a name.

    In normal practice, one only has to refer to or address gods by name when one assumes there is more than one of them.

    Otherwise, agreed.
    , @Ace
    I dunno. You look at Soros and you gotta think that there's a pentagram somewhere in his basement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. annamaria says:
    @iffen
    Why do commenters, such as you, write as if deadly conflicts among nations and groups, along with subterfuge and various scheming fell from the sky yesterday, and only because of the existence of Israel.

    Because in this particular case – the criminal destruction of Syria and incitement of civil war in Syria in order to remove a lawful president of the sovereign state – Clinton has been rooting for Israel.
    By the way, Yinon plan has nothing to do with “Elders of Sion.”

    “Syria will fall apart… This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today.” Oded Yinon

    Tell us, NosytheDuke, whose peace and security is desired by Yinon project for the expense of the lives of Syrian people?
    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.
    And here is the most important one: Mrs. Clinton is Ok with betraying the interests of the US citizenry in order to satisfy the US/UK ziocons. The evidences are overwhelming. You are welcome to refute them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You haven’t explained how our participation in the Syrian conflict differs from our participation in the Ukraine, Somalia, the Balkans, Yemen, Panama, Viet Nam, etc.

    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.

    There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. annamaria says:
    @random observer
    Those are all excellent contributions to Libya by Qaddafi. They may even have been adequate justification for his rule and for a more positive reputation in history.

    None of it changes the manner of his accession or the amount of cruelty and violence he also exercised on his people, and permitted his sons to exercise on them. Digging a well does not automatically justify torture, rapine and murder.

    Ultimately, my point was simpler and clearer than that. It doesn't matter how much good he did in power. He set the terms on which power could be gained [violent usurpation], how enemies could be handled [torture and murder], and how political viability was to be judged [ability to stay on top]. He set the rules and ruled by them 42 years. Then he weakened in the crunch. His enemies handled him as he would have handled them, and as he had handled many others. That was justice.

    Hillary cackling about it like some dope addled video gamer who just killed the big bad was something else. That was disgusting. But the people who actually killed Qaddafi had the right.

    It's a pity we have reached the point at which any side in western societies might seek a Caesar. But I sympathize. If I thought such a one would endorse ideas similar to mine or which I could agree with on balance, would turn things in a direction I thought positive, I might be tempted. It is late in the day and options are few. Even the left, in its triumph, seeks a Caesar to take their project across the finish line.

    It's still a pity. A leader who had a vision would be great, one I agree with greater still. One with national pride greater yet. Still I don't want a Caesar who weeps for me in my troubles. It is beneath the dignity of free men to want a leader who weeps for us. The head of the state is not in loco parentis to the citizen. The notion that we should want or admire that quality is sickening and contemptible.

    That always struck me as the deeper irony of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Given the role the Roman emperors played in the deep ideology of medieval and renaissance monarchy, it is understandable that recognition of their dictatorial progenitor as a divinely ordained ruler, paternalistic along monarchical lines, would play a role and would guide the presentation of Caesar in Shakespeare, and in turn guide the presentation of Cassius, Brutus and the rest as betrayers of Caesar's 'rightful' status and perhaps of a personal bond of loyalty as his protégées. Yet Caesar was not a king in a state that believed in such things, he was a statesman who usurped authority not rightfully his by law, custom, tradition or indeed religion, with the backing of the mob. Knives were the proper response to him.

    “Knives were the proper response to him.”
    Here comes the twilight of civilization.

    A minor question: Would you advertise the same kind of “response” towards the US president? Just asking.
    PS: Some estimates tell that the Middle Eastern wars resulted in 3.000.000 violent deaths.

    “Qaddafi’s threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background.” -–– You see, it is the Empire of Federal Reserve, again.

    “US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, “the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as ‘thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,’ and ‘kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant’.”

    Are you still sure that “Knives were the proper response to him?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    There are plenty of signs that could be taken for the twilight of civilization in any culture. With more or less accuracy.

    Assassination of one leader is actually a pretty weak one- Rome survived countless such before it reached twilight, and the same would be true for almost any premodern society. Such events have implications that vary tremendously depending on context- who was the victim, what his office, who killed him and why, what were the truth or falsehood of their claims or his, to what extent did institutions fail or succeed to weather the event, and so on.

    In Caesar's case much depends on perspective- class, ideology, emphasis for populism versus law, and which laws were most important. Most of us would probably have been on the dole in Rome and considered Caesar our champion, so there's that. On the other hand it certainly seems like most here and now have class perspectives that sound vaguely middle class or upper working class, and as far as America goes a fairly strong dedication to established ideas of nationhood, law and institutions, republicanism, and so on. Those who are against the wars and usurpations often exceed other in proclaimed desire to defend such things as institutions, separation of powers, checks and balances, and traditional forms of power and limits. So the arguments of Caesar's assassins I would expect to find considerable support here, as much as the arguments for Caesar if not more so.

    ]Given the latter set of assumptions, and even assuming that Caesar genuinely didn't seek the office and title of king, he sought just such a set of powers and had almost accomplished them, by subverting at every turn the laws of the republic. Granted, he wasn't the first by any means. Marius and Sulla have root causes to answer for, and both those ultimately enemies had been allies to Caesar at one time or another. But Caesar was the man in place in 44 BC. That he was a great leader, politician, commander is not in dispute. A patriot, perhaps, inasmuch as he loved Rome and saw his destiny attached to it in a way that many Greek statesmen did not see themselves so attached to their country [compare Alcibiades or Xenophon]. Popular, to be sure. And perhaps he returned that love to his soldiers, and perhaps even the people. I start to have doubts on that latter. The people were an instrument, more likely. Still and all he was the usurper of the state, a tyrant in the original sense of the term. He was plenty willing to put rivals and enemies in the ground by what even Rome considered extrajudicial methods.

    Caesar's rule and death came at and was the chief sign and driver of the end of the republic, which had been set in motion over decades if not nearly a century before. It also resulted in the imposition of a tyranny much like his but on a more durable basis. The success of Augustus' system rather demonstrates that the republic had indeed become a failure and unsalvageable, and his state worked rather well for centuries more. So there's that in favour of Caesarism in its time. On the other hand, that very success kind of showed that killing Caesar neither killed the republic [it was rather a last gasp of already dying republicanism] nor took Roman civilization into twilight [civilization, if not republicanism, actually thrived for some time before anything like real twilight hit; albeit the Augustan system concentrated power more and allowed its wielders more room for excess].

    SO the assassins stood for the defence of their state as they knew it and its laws, and they set in motion events that perhaps could never have resulted in its restoration and instead resulted in the very tyranny they opposed. Given that the imposition of such a tyranny was already under way, why should they not have made even a doomed attempt?

    Caesar ruled by the power of the legions, the proscription list, the armed mob, the knife and the silken cord. His foes disposed of him by like means.

    Note that neither I today nor any Roman at the time claimed that he was a usurper or tyrant or had to die because of his war crimes against the Gauls. We could have that discussion, but I'd probably not be able to get beyond the idea that his practices were within period moral norms practiced by all, sanctioned as treatment for enemies by most contemporary non-universalist moral systems, and there were no international conventions to violate.

    More pertinently, I add that only because that would have to be the discussion if we are comparing the case of Caesar to that of any recent US President. I say, and the assassins said, Caesar could legitimately be killed because of the scale and consequence of his usurpations of Roman law and the state, and that no recourse within the state remained because of the success of those same usurpations. I do not say that Caesar had to die because of how he handled foreign enemies, or how and why he treated the Gauls as foreign enemies.

    So with Obama, or for that matter Bush. Both achieved the highest offices of the state by the normal means [though I suspect America is at least at the Gracchan phase of dissolution by now; Marius and Sulla are waiting]. Whatever one thinks of the constitutional consensus or level of fidelity to it of the past 60 or more years, both Bush and Obama governed within norms recognizable to their predecessors back to Kennedy at least. [Even the use of the IRS against enemies is weak stuff by the standards of republican collapse or usurpation or Caesarism; give them time]. Neither has extended his term of office beyond its limits. Neither has taken US troops into his personal patronage and used them against the state. Neither has used armed men to intimidate the Congress, nor used proscription lists, nor so far as I am aware used murder in the night against their opponents or private citizens. Neither has exiled their opponents or used false charges to seize all their wealth for himself.

    So I say that Caesar had to die and should have died because of what he did to Rome and Roman laws, not how or why he handled foreign opponents. Similarly, until a US President can justifiably be compared to Caesar as to his handling of American law and the American state and his American opponents, no he cannot be handled as Caesar was handled.

    If you want to make a case for war crimes or illegal war, there are quite distinct issues. The closest I can think of to a usurpation of war power in the American state would be the Kosovo war and Libyan war insofar as those [IIRC] did not have congressional resolutions. The Roman senate would have had words about stuff like that too, as pertaining to their own war powers and the case of Gaul, but it was more a usurpation of military and command authority in the provinces than a usurpation of the state at Rome itself. That is to say, Caesar at the time he decided to conquer transalpine Gaul was perhaps exceeding his orders in the war MacArthur has been accused of doing. He wasn't even the chief executive of the state then. Clinton and Obama were chief exectuives, and arguably exceeded their war powers [I would so argue] but it was for Congress to make that case. Their acquiescence was not accomplished by either president surrounding the hill with troops or, so far as I can tell, by murder or threat or murder.

    Bush cannot be accused of such a usurpation, since he secured congressional support for his wars. In the best classical tradition. If his administration's handling of them was in violation of US law, then that may be pursued, as could Obama's. But it's still not Caesarism.

    As it happens, I don't object to states' pursuing their foreign policy interests. I may disagree with how they are determined, even with how they are carried on. I may or may not care whether foreigners are killed as a result. I will care less when the foreigners are killed mainly by their own nationals. If they have grievances that cannot be settled peacefully and these are let loose by western policy, too bad. They had the choice to settle their grievances some other way and decided they could not. They also have the right of all peoples to settle their grievances by war if they so choose. Even with the dissolution of the Baath party and the Iraqi military, it was for IRaqis to decide the way forward. They went for sectarian war. If that was a choice, it was theirs to make. If it was baked in the cake of IRaqi society once the lid was off, then it was their nature to work through or to resist. Ditto for Libya.

    But, again, even if one wishes to attribute all the responsibility for these events to the US Presidents of the day and ignore any form of agency or legitimacy to local interests, it still wouldn't be Caesarism nor earn those presidents Caesar's fate. To be Caesar, one must destroy the Roman Republic, not just pillage Gaul.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. annamaria says:
    @random observer
    Those are all excellent contributions to Libya by Qaddafi. They may even have been adequate justification for his rule and for a more positive reputation in history.

    None of it changes the manner of his accession or the amount of cruelty and violence he also exercised on his people, and permitted his sons to exercise on them. Digging a well does not automatically justify torture, rapine and murder.

    Ultimately, my point was simpler and clearer than that. It doesn't matter how much good he did in power. He set the terms on which power could be gained [violent usurpation], how enemies could be handled [torture and murder], and how political viability was to be judged [ability to stay on top]. He set the rules and ruled by them 42 years. Then he weakened in the crunch. His enemies handled him as he would have handled them, and as he had handled many others. That was justice.

    Hillary cackling about it like some dope addled video gamer who just killed the big bad was something else. That was disgusting. But the people who actually killed Qaddafi had the right.

    It's a pity we have reached the point at which any side in western societies might seek a Caesar. But I sympathize. If I thought such a one would endorse ideas similar to mine or which I could agree with on balance, would turn things in a direction I thought positive, I might be tempted. It is late in the day and options are few. Even the left, in its triumph, seeks a Caesar to take their project across the finish line.

    It's still a pity. A leader who had a vision would be great, one I agree with greater still. One with national pride greater yet. Still I don't want a Caesar who weeps for me in my troubles. It is beneath the dignity of free men to want a leader who weeps for us. The head of the state is not in loco parentis to the citizen. The notion that we should want or admire that quality is sickening and contemptible.

    That always struck me as the deeper irony of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Given the role the Roman emperors played in the deep ideology of medieval and renaissance monarchy, it is understandable that recognition of their dictatorial progenitor as a divinely ordained ruler, paternalistic along monarchical lines, would play a role and would guide the presentation of Caesar in Shakespeare, and in turn guide the presentation of Cassius, Brutus and the rest as betrayers of Caesar's 'rightful' status and perhaps of a personal bond of loyalty as his protégées. Yet Caesar was not a king in a state that believed in such things, he was a statesman who usurped authority not rightfully his by law, custom, tradition or indeed religion, with the backing of the mob. Knives were the proper response to him.
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. hbm says:

    Bill Maher: hypocrite, pseudo-intellectual, personally nasty ethno-ideological slanderer and propagandist masquerading as host of a comedy show that masquerades as a political chat show. The actual news media is the same thing minus the pretense of comedy.

    American public discourse is driven Left-to-Right by Jewish narratives serving Jewish interests. Social, economic, ethnic and, finally, national destruction is the agenda. The script is always the same: the goyim will stop knowing Joseph for reasons unknown; Egypt burns and Phaorah’s army drowns.

    Jews are eager to start a major war with Russia in order to satisfy an ethnomythological obsession with vengeance upon perceived persecutors, as they do against any goy who ever stood up to their rapine and thirst for power; and, as always, they project their own transgressions into that boogeyman, and package their demand as an appeal to our taste for heroism and abstractions and moral universals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  70. iffen says:
    @annamaria
    Because in this particular case - the criminal destruction of Syria and incitement of civil war in Syria in order to remove a lawful president of the sovereign state - Clinton has been rooting for Israel.
    By the way, Yinon plan has nothing to do with "Elders of Sion."

    "Syria will fall apart... This state of affairs will be the guarantee for peace and security in the area in the long run, and that aim is already within our reach today." Oded Yinon

    Tell us, NosytheDuke, whose peace and security is desired by Yinon project for the expense of the lives of Syrian people?
    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.
    And here is the most important one: Mrs. Clinton is Ok with betraying the interests of the US citizenry in order to satisfy the US/UK ziocons. The evidences are overwhelming. You are welcome to refute them.

    You haven’t explained how our participation in the Syrian conflict differs from our participation in the Ukraine, Somalia, the Balkans, Yemen, Panama, Viet Nam, etc.

    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.

    There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mr. Anon
    "There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?"

    There are many people who don't care about Israel, which is a foreign country, and want the U.S. Government to pursue our interests - that is to say, the real interests of America and its people. Aren't they entitled to see their preferences supported by "what is supposed to be a democratic government"? The answer - to people like you - always seems to be "No".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Team Hillary to End Evil Worldwide

    PLEEZ don’t post a headline like that unless you mean it.

    For a second I thought Hillary had plans to bomb Israel.

    sigh

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  72. annamaria says:

    “You haven’t explained how our participation in the Syrian conflict differs from our participation in the Ukraine, Somalia, the Balkans, Yemen, Panama, Viet Nam, etc.”

    You have missed a disclaimer:
    “Because in this particular case – the criminal destruction of Syria and incitement of civil war in Syria in order to remove a lawful president of the sovereign state – Clinton has been rooting for Israel. By the way, Yinon plan has nothing to do with “Elders of Sion.”

    “Your” participation in Vietnam had happened how many years ago?
    The putsch in Kiev has happened of course very recently. But look who was in charge – the Kagans’ clan!

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/03/20/a-family-business-of-perpetual-war/

    Here is a new prime minister of Ukraine, Groysman: “His appointment, coupled with the election of EuroMaidan Revolution hero Andriy Parubiy as speaker of the Verkhovna Rada, would further sink the already low popularity of the president and the government almost instantly.”

    http://www.kyivpost.com/article/opinion/op-ed/brian-bonner-groysman-as-ukraines-prime-minister-would-sink-reform-drive-further-sap-public-support-410526.html

    Groysman “was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family.” (At present, about 360,000–400,000 Jews live in Ukraine; the overall population of Ukraine is about 42.5 million)
    Parubiy “founded in 1991 the Social-National Party of Ukraine… The name Social-National Party was chosen as a fully intentional allusion to Adolf Hitler’s Nazi party called National Socialist Party.”
    Fantastic combination.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/13/the-mess-that-nuland-made/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  73. @random observer
    OK, but how does turning Libya into a non-viable state serve any particular set of interests?

    Iraq, I can see. It served Iranian interests very well. Don't know how much benefit it has for Israel. I suppose it depends on whether, longer term, they thought Iran or Iraq the more significant enemy.

    Calm clear thinking has no place in this club Sir once a member has raised American politics and Jews or Israel have been mentioned. (See sub-rule 200.zzz about Anglo-Zionist schemes to addle members’brains).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And while I have your attention Sir I seem to be under the influence for a critical moment of non-iatrogenic idiopathic acute Philosemitism or maybe its sinister iatrogenic equivalent that can result from travel on ME airlines (cf. Doctors Plots - Miscellaneous in any good old Russian medical textbook). I need your advice. My niece has asked for me to help with the provision of dowries so her daughters may further the project of upgrading the extended family gene pool with brothers Dwayne and Leroy Einstein, who sound very promising, and a rather mysterious Mr. U. Shayne Bault who is variously said to have had a contributed to clearing drugs from the human body quickly and brought about unprecedentedly fast shutter speeds in Japanese knock off Leica cameras. Help and advice needed. Thank you Sir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. @Wizard of Oz
    Calm clear thinking has no place in this club Sir once a member has raised American politics and Jews or Israel have been mentioned. (See sub-rule 200.zzz about Anglo-Zionist schemes to addle members'brains).

    And while I have your attention Sir I seem to be under the influence for a critical moment of non-iatrogenic idiopathic acute Philosemitism or maybe its sinister iatrogenic equivalent that can result from travel on ME airlines (cf. Doctors Plots – Miscellaneous in any good old Russian medical textbook). I need your advice. My niece has asked for me to help with the provision of dowries so her daughters may further the project of upgrading the extended family gene pool with brothers Dwayne and Leroy Einstein, who sound very promising, and a rather mysterious Mr. U. Shayne Bault who is variously said to have had a contributed to clearing drugs from the human body quickly and brought about unprecedentedly fast shutter speeds in Japanese knock off Leica cameras. Help and advice needed. Thank you Sir.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. @random observer
    Those are all excellent contributions to Libya by Qaddafi. They may even have been adequate justification for his rule and for a more positive reputation in history.

    None of it changes the manner of his accession or the amount of cruelty and violence he also exercised on his people, and permitted his sons to exercise on them. Digging a well does not automatically justify torture, rapine and murder.

    Ultimately, my point was simpler and clearer than that. It doesn't matter how much good he did in power. He set the terms on which power could be gained [violent usurpation], how enemies could be handled [torture and murder], and how political viability was to be judged [ability to stay on top]. He set the rules and ruled by them 42 years. Then he weakened in the crunch. His enemies handled him as he would have handled them, and as he had handled many others. That was justice.

    Hillary cackling about it like some dope addled video gamer who just killed the big bad was something else. That was disgusting. But the people who actually killed Qaddafi had the right.

    It's a pity we have reached the point at which any side in western societies might seek a Caesar. But I sympathize. If I thought such a one would endorse ideas similar to mine or which I could agree with on balance, would turn things in a direction I thought positive, I might be tempted. It is late in the day and options are few. Even the left, in its triumph, seeks a Caesar to take their project across the finish line.

    It's still a pity. A leader who had a vision would be great, one I agree with greater still. One with national pride greater yet. Still I don't want a Caesar who weeps for me in my troubles. It is beneath the dignity of free men to want a leader who weeps for us. The head of the state is not in loco parentis to the citizen. The notion that we should want or admire that quality is sickening and contemptible.

    That always struck me as the deeper irony of Shakespeare's Julius Caesar. Given the role the Roman emperors played in the deep ideology of medieval and renaissance monarchy, it is understandable that recognition of their dictatorial progenitor as a divinely ordained ruler, paternalistic along monarchical lines, would play a role and would guide the presentation of Caesar in Shakespeare, and in turn guide the presentation of Cassius, Brutus and the rest as betrayers of Caesar's 'rightful' status and perhaps of a personal bond of loyalty as his protégées. Yet Caesar was not a king in a state that believed in such things, he was a statesman who usurped authority not rightfully his by law, custom, tradition or indeed religion, with the backing of the mob. Knives were the proper response to him.

    You appear to have failed to include the consequences of colonialism in your assessment of Qaddafi’s ascension to power but in any event, he went on to do more for his people, including the poorest of them, than most leaders do however they came to power.

    My understanding of Shakespeare’s quote where Caesar wept was not to brand him as weak but rather to demonstrate his empathy for his people’s plight and a factor of SPQR. The point of it all was that Caesar didn’t seek to be a dictator (Remember, he was thrice presented with a Kingly crown which he did thrice refuse) but Cassius, Brutus and the rest believed that he did because that’s what they would have become given the same circumstances.

    To say that the people who murdered Qaddafi had the right to do so is also to say that they had the right to destroy their own nation and reduce the standard of living there to poverty and chaotic anarchy. Good job you aren’t in charge of anything although I would grant you license to ride a moped, out of pity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    The consequences of colonialism can occasionally explain events, it's less clear that anything that nebulous can justify anything. Qaddafi might be said to have represented a certain 60s nationalist chic/young officer cult in its Libyan form, but can as easily be said that he represented the outcome of tribal politics married to a certain revolutionary modernist style.

    But in the end, so what? These explanations are of much value to the historian and the social scientist. He was still an officer in the army who decided to overthrown his king, breach his oath, and seize power for himself, and then to retain this by terror and murder. These charges remain valid even when one might have a deeper understanding of the forces behind them and the competing factions of power in Libyan society. And they remain whether or not his rule also did good.

    That his rule may be said to have done all the good you say may speak well for him in any afterlife and in the historical record. I have no objection nor did I offer one above.

    I only argue, and reiterate, that he set the terms on which power was to be gained and wielded in Libya, or rather added elements to traditional terms and then set the blender to "extreme", namely violent usurpation, personal domination, familial corruption, tribal patronage, enforced by terror, torture and murder. In doing so he made allies, created enemies, and elevated some tribes over others. Then he let the grip slip after a good long run.

    The consequences of that slippage were as baked in the cake of Libyan politics circa 2011 as any consequences of colonialism were in 1969, just as the consequences of making tribal patronage and charisma politics orders or magnitude more extreme, violent and desperate than they had been under the Senussi monarchy were so baked.

    In the end, I neither argue nor need to argue for or against Qaddafi, his rule, or its benefits or losses for Libya. I only argued, on the particular point of his fate, that he was paid in his own coin and by his own methods. Which he was.

    The ultimate outcome of overthrowing Qaddafi is not identical with the question of what to do with the man himself when he is caught in flight or what decision on the latter would be just.

    Neither is the question of whether overthrowing him is a good idea identical with whether the people of Libya have the right to do so. Or whether the people overthrowing him actually represent the people of Libya, for that matter. Or even whether those rebels have or ever had a reasonable prospect of establishing a more consensual system or avoiding civil war. Some may wish to argue whether or not there is a right of 'the people' to revolt against tyrants, and how or when they may exercise this, and how any particular subset of the people get to make the claim this is what they are doing.

    For my part, I would merely go back to my original point and expand that I don't care. If political legitimacy is the matter at question, then Qaddafi was overthrown by rebellious force in the name of factional and tribal interests who claimed they better represented the Libyan people than he did. This is entirely identical with a description of his own coup. His claim to power rested on force and usurpation and representing particular interests no less than his enemies'. If he and his backers had the right to take and wield power by such means, then so did his enemies. Neither one had any claim to legitimacy other than force.

    It's hard to argue your last point, although in the end by the same token it's hard to argue a people doesn't have that right. It's their country. If they can't get their shit together to be governed in any other way, then they will alternate between tyranny and anarchy. Any tyrant will fall as soon as his grip slips. He may or may not be quickly succeeded by another, with more or less violence. Not unrelated to my point to Anna, above. Every people has the right to settle grievances by force if they can find no other. If there is such a thing as a 'natural right', that must be the only one. We made up the rest. I like them very much, but they aren't part of the laws of physics, chemistry or biology. And a corollary of that right is that if a people does not think of itself as a people, but rather as other identities first and foremost, and to a degree exclusive of cooperation, then they will fight rather than cooperate.
    , @random observer
    I don't think for a second that highlighting Caesar's weeping was meant to show him as weak. It was meant to elevate his moral stature in Shakespeare's own time and context, to suggest he bears comparison with the later time's idealized notion of paternal and benevolent kingship, an ideal that for better or worse was an amalgam of Christianity, Germanic chieftainship, and ann idea of Roman emperors that was rooted in the idea that these had been benevolent and divinely sanctioned rulers of the world and that Christian monarchs in latter days exercised some portion of the imperial authority whether as deputies of the Holy Roman Emperor or as notional imperial successors in their own realms. [One of Henry VIII's laws, which although not intended explicitly as such amounted to a definitive statement that as a king he owed no theoretical precedence to the HR Emperor, stated that "this realm of England is an empire"]. But I digress.

    It was definitely meant to suggest empathy for the people on Caesar's part. Whether this was true of the actual Caesar is a different question. Could be. He was an aristocrat and a player like his enemies, if a better player. He had seen how the people could be used. On the other hand perhaps he really did see himself as a father figure. My contention is more that it is good to do things for the people, but dangerous if doing so makes one start to think of oneself as a parental figure to them. Worse, to openly act as such. At that point, it is already not a republic and they have ceased to be citizens.

    Similarly, he did refuse a crow, in Shakespeare as classical accounts. It was politics. He was already a Dictator, and had already extended that office not only beyond its constitutional definition but beyond what Sulla had made of it, and indeed had gone beyond Sulla in making it an office for life. He had, like his tyrannical teachers, used his troops to invade Italy and overawe the state, proscribed and murdered enemies. He was already everything that his enemies accused him of being.

    The accusation implied against Cassius and Brutus and the rest could be true. But in the event they weren't the ones who actually set up as dictator, and we cannot be certain that would have been the result if they had won the ensuing civil war. Could be. But Caesar had already done all these things that they in turn might have done.

    I'm not insensible to either side of the conflict between pragmatism and intellectualism/ideology, nor am I unaware that dogmatic adherence to liberty, constitutionalism, legitimacy of law or indeed heredity or other older concepts, can be considered impractical or unjust in moments of need. There may be times when a strongman is needed and he takes practical, beneficial steps, and may even need to use darker methods. On the general theme, I recommend at a distance of 30 years "Marius" by Poul Anderson. My memory of it is vague, but it may be appropriate. It appeared in the original "There will be war" anthology edited by Pournelle and now reissued by Castalia House publishing.

    But even taking all that into account, if anything I would say my original comment was actually less from the perspective of dogmatism about legitimacy versus usurpation or the proper forms of power and more about the most practical maxim of all politics- if you lose, you can expect reward equal to how you ruled. At best.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. When a progressive refers to proselytizing democracy, they are referring to their specific totalitarian democracy scheme.

    The victim cult scheme empowers a organized majority that advertises itself publicly as a professional victim cult.

    Both Israel and the US implement a totalitarian democracy with endless entitlements for their professional victim cult schemers.

    The designated enemy of victim cult schemers is a minority of people combining all the attributes of the designated oppressor class, often demonized as a white supremacist or a Nazi.

    The 2-party system supports the victim cult scheme, where the only difference in parties is one of emphasis of which victim sub-cult is the top dog.
    ….

    [MORE]

    Women are entitled because of Male oppression
    Jewish are entitled because of Gentile oppression
    Queers are entitled because of Straight oppression
    Muslims are entitled because of Christian oppression
    Disabled are entitled because of Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are entitled because of White oppression
    Latinos are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Military Veteran are entitled because of Militia oppression
    2-party System Dependents are entitled because of Independent oppression
    Aboriginals are entitled because of Paleface oppression
    Asians are entitled because of Occidental oppression
    National Socialist are entitled because of local-state Government oppression
    Crony Capitalist are entitled because of honest Businessmen oppression
    Ex-convicts are entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
    Zionist are entitled because of anti-Fascist oppression

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    I believe, and I'm sure I'll be correted if wrong, that entitlements are the legacy of Amartya Sen.

    Rights have the Right on the Run.

    Responsibilities are for Suckers who play Fair.

    Who's right and who will be left?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Johnny F. Ive
    The victors should be above murdering someone in cold blood without due process and in such a savage manner. He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn't mean he shouldn't have been put to death at some point. It reflects poorly on them and their psychopathic queen who gloated about it.

    He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been put to death at some point.

    With all due respect, but the list of those deserving the death penalty for crimes deserving of the death penalty is long and Qaddafi was certainly not among the top ten of that list.

    Sure, to some autodidact scholars of international laws, the number one on that list must be Dim Son and his Junker Cheney. The collective guilt of having exterminated large groups of human beings due to political goals – aka some wet dream new world order – makes Qaddafi appear like an altar boy of the roman catholic church.

    Of course I am always eager to be corrected when ‘wrong’. But the sheer number of casualties and so called ‘collateral damage’ wrought on Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the utter destruction of life preserving infra structure, counts in my book as a crime equal to that committed by the National Socialists in Germany. Of which only a selected few scapegoats were executed.

    Also on the list is Obama for the continuation/expansion of the so called ‘Kill-List’ worthy to be compared to the atrocities perpetrated by Pinochet et al. While there are enough grounds to have B. Clinton and George join the party, the list is limited to the 21st Century alone. The number of U.S. citizens on that list is staggering though. Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel belong as well before an international tribunal for war crimes.

    No war crimes tribunal with death penalty – no reconciliation. And yes, one may add Erdogan, too for the crimes he already committed and those who will follow after the coup attempt.

    Okay, forget the arbitrary number ’10′. The 21st century already has a longer list of war criminals than that.

    As always only an insignificant opinion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ace
    Pinochet is reviled by the left for having survived the Cuban-inspired attempt to assassinate him and pursuing commies with a vengeance. They hate it when people fight back.

    I don't know about the "atrocities" you speak of. My working hypothesis is that if they took place they forestalled greater and more grisly ones.

    Pinochet fought the war the left was so passionate about and beat them soundly. In the process he delivered his country from communist oppression and economic disaster. The left despises him for it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. helena says:
    @Joe Franklin
    When a progressive refers to proselytizing democracy, they are referring to their specific totalitarian democracy scheme.

    The victim cult scheme empowers a organized majority that advertises itself publicly as a professional victim cult.

    Both Israel and the US implement a totalitarian democracy with endless entitlements for their professional victim cult schemers.


    The designated enemy of victim cult schemers is a minority of people combining all the attributes of the designated oppressor class, often demonized as a white supremacist or a Nazi.

    The 2-party system supports the victim cult scheme, where the only difference in parties is one of emphasis of which victim sub-cult is the top dog.
    ....


    Women are entitled because of Male oppression
    Jewish are entitled because of Gentile oppression
    Queers are entitled because of Straight oppression
    Muslims are entitled because of Christian oppression
    Disabled are entitled because of Healthy oppression
    Afro-blacks are entitled because of White oppression
    Latinos are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Hispanics are entitled because of Gringo oppression
    Military Veteran are entitled because of Militia oppression
    2-party System Dependents are entitled because of Independent oppression
    Aboriginals are entitled because of Paleface oppression
    Asians are entitled because of Occidental oppression
    National Socialist are entitled because of local-state Government oppression
    Crony Capitalist are entitled because of honest Businessmen oppression
    Ex-convicts are entitled because of Law-Abiding people oppression
    Zionist are entitled because of anti-Fascist oppression

    I believe, and I’m sure I’ll be correted if wrong, that entitlements are the legacy of Amartya Sen.

    Rights have the Right on the Run.

    Responsibilities are for Suckers who play Fair.

    Who’s right and who will be left?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Ace says:
    @annamaria
    More: "German People chases Minister of Justice Heiko Maas to his Armored Mercedes"
    http://www.ambrosekane.com/2016/05/03/german-people-chase-minister-of-justice-heiko-maas-to-his-protective-mercedes-get-out-traitor/
    When they, the German people, will at last turn their attentions to NATO?
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/as-in-libya-so-in-syria-the-folly-of-us-nato-interventionism/5400074
    If there were no NATO bombings of Iraq, Libya, and Syria, there would have been no "invasions" of the desperate refugees from these countries.

    Merkel is maddening on the necessity of welcoming “refugees.” It’s just a given in this world that there are refugees (and that they must cared for at great expense far from their homes).

    The thought of not participating in the devastation in Syria or questioning the spurious reason for it (AMG) just must never occur to this woman. No. One and only one option – import the enemies of your civilization.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    She is not stupid and she did have great ideas for her beloved Germany. But Merkel could not imagine, even in her worst dreams, the cynicism and bloodthirstiness of the Empire of Federal Reserve. Merkel is a tragic figure. The latter cannot be said about Hillary Clinton, the US-made politician and war criminal. Clinton has no conscience. She is a US-made reptiloid.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. Mr. Anon says:

    I noticed this from Allen’s Wikipedia biography:

    “Allen then attended the Postgraduate Intelligence Program of the Defense Intelligence College, where he was the Distinguished Graduate. He subsequently served as the Marine Corps Fellow to the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). He was the first Marine Corps officer inducted as a Term Member of the Council on Foreign Relations.”

    A CFR member……….but of course.

    Also this:

    “He holds a Master of Arts degree in National Security Studies from Georgetown University, a Master of Science degree in Strategic Intelligence from the National Defense Intelligence College, and a Master of Science degree in National Security Strategy from the National War College.”

    Which all sound like the kind of bullshit degrees that government bureaucrats get to burnish thier resumes. Those degree programs also serve as an echo-chamber and conditioning training, so that they can get their mind right for their job as a deep-state government official.

    Allen sounds like the kind of political officer that the Pentagon nor routinely grooms and seems to favor.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Mr. Anon says:
    @iffen
    You haven’t explained how our participation in the Syrian conflict differs from our participation in the Ukraine, Somalia, the Balkans, Yemen, Panama, Viet Nam, etc.

    Another important point: Mrs. Clinton relies politically on Israel-firsters.

    There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?

    “There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?”

    There are many people who don’t care about Israel, which is a foreign country, and want the U.S. Government to pursue our interests – that is to say, the real interests of America and its people. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by “what is supposed to be a democratic government”? The answer – to people like you – always seems to be “No”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    that is to say, the real interests of America and its people

    Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the "real interests" are recorded? If so, can you shoot me a copy?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. Ace says:
    @Anonymous

    He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn’t mean he shouldn’t have been put to death at some point.
     
    With all due respect, but the list of those deserving the death penalty for crimes deserving of the death penalty is long and Qaddafi was certainly not among the top ten of that list.

    Sure, to some autodidact scholars of international laws, the number one on that list must be Dim Son and his Junker Cheney. The collective guilt of having exterminated large groups of human beings due to political goals - aka some wet dream new world order - makes Qaddafi appear like an altar boy of the roman catholic church.

    Of course I am always eager to be corrected when 'wrong'. But the sheer number of casualties and so called 'collateral damage' wrought on Iraq and Afghanistan, together with the utter destruction of life preserving infra structure, counts in my book as a crime equal to that committed by the National Socialists in Germany. Of which only a selected few scapegoats were executed.

    Also on the list is Obama for the continuation/expansion of the so called 'Kill-List' worthy to be compared to the atrocities perpetrated by Pinochet et al. While there are enough grounds to have B. Clinton and George join the party, the list is limited to the 21st Century alone. The number of U.S. citizens on that list is staggering though. Blair, Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel belong as well before an international tribunal for war crimes.

    No war crimes tribunal with death penalty - no reconciliation. And yes, one may add Erdogan, too for the crimes he already committed and those who will follow after the coup attempt.

    Okay, forget the arbitrary number '10'. The 21st century already has a longer list of war criminals than that.

    As always only an insignificant opinion.

    Pinochet is reviled by the left for having survived the Cuban-inspired attempt to assassinate him and pursuing commies with a vengeance. They hate it when people fight back.

    I don’t know about the “atrocities” you speak of. My working hypothesis is that if they took place they forestalled greater and more grisly ones.

    Pinochet fought the war the left was so passionate about and beat them soundly. In the process he delivered his country from communist oppression and economic disaster. The left despises him for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. iffen says:
    @Mr. Anon
    "There are many ardent Israel supporters in the U. S. Aren’t they entitled to see their preferences supported by what is supposed to be a democratic government?"

    There are many people who don't care about Israel, which is a foreign country, and want the U.S. Government to pursue our interests - that is to say, the real interests of America and its people. Aren't they entitled to see their preferences supported by "what is supposed to be a democratic government"? The answer - to people like you - always seems to be "No".

    that is to say, the real interests of America and its people

    Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the “real interests” are recorded? If so, can you shoot me a copy?

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    It's a valid criticism, as the original reference is rather vague, and your point about the number of Americans who support Israel and want America to support Israel is especially well taken. If that position wins in an election, even in the sense that the politicians elected for a range of reasons happen also to represent a pro-Israel tendency, fair enough. People can support what they want.

    On the general principle of your question, though, I trust you would entertain some notions:

    - there is never a complete overlap between the foreign policy interests of one state and those of another. Any overlap is usually quite small.

    - there is some considerable overlap, more than typical, possible between Israeli and US interests, though the definition of the latter is what is under dispute in the US

    - it is not always easy to articulate that overlap at any given time

    - it is clear what Israel gains from its alliance with the US, even if the US periodically shivs them diplomatically

    - it is much less clear what the US gains from its alliance with Israel; diplomatically, it must be a net loss, since it has involved the US in insoluble disputes which it need not have been involved in, at least not so closely or so closely identified with one side, and it has hamstrung US policy with the Arabs more than once; militarily, I don't know the US wants or needs Israeli help or would benefit from it or want the diplomatic risk associated with it; economically (?); so I'm assuming we are mainly talking intel, covert ops, or technology here, all areas in which Israel is a leader but even so the US probably gives more than it gets;

    - So, at least as far as public information is concerned, it seems like Israel is a net liability to the US.

    SO with all that in mind, it seems to me that the alliance with Israel, or degree of it at least, is a net loss to the US national interest. All of its policies, right or wrong, as chosen by US officials, seem to be more complicated and its policy options made more constrained by the alliance with Israel.

    It seems ultimately to rely for its rationale on the domestic political support in the US you cite. As I said, as far as domestic politics goes, there is no argument. On the whole, though, I am troubled by the idea that it should be normal for huge constituencies in the US to take it as given that the US has obligations to permanently support another state's interests or identify with that state in addition to the US.
    , @Mr. Anon
    "Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the “real interests” are recorded?"

    It's not hard to discern where my interests lie, or those of millions of other people like me. Your attempt to deflect my point is obviously nothing but sophism. But a good starting point for what are real American interests would not be...........whatever the interests of some foreign country are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. annamaria says:
    @Ace
    Merkel is maddening on the necessity of welcoming "refugees." It's just a given in this world that there are refugees (and that they must cared for at great expense far from their homes).

    The thought of not participating in the devastation in Syria or questioning the spurious reason for it (AMG) just must never occur to this woman. No. One and only one option - import the enemies of your civilization.

    She is not stupid and she did have great ideas for her beloved Germany. But Merkel could not imagine, even in her worst dreams, the cynicism and bloodthirstiness of the Empire of Federal Reserve. Merkel is a tragic figure. The latter cannot be said about Hillary Clinton, the US-made politician and war criminal. Clinton has no conscience. She is a US-made reptiloid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Ace says:
    @Reality Check
    What is nauseatingly disingenuous in light of Maher's views about Muslims is that he goes to great lengths on a regular schedule to remind his audience that he was "raised Catholic".

    He owes his audience the caveat emptor that his mother, Julie Berman Maher, is a New York Jew. If he so desired he could have citizenship as soon as he got off the plane in Tel Aviv.

    I'm in total agreement with Phil regarding Maher...but I wouldn't trust Trump any more than Clinton given the statements he's made about Israel and the Palestinians and the obvious influence of ne0con Jews in his campaign as well as his civilian business Trump Organizations...

    People with common sense don't have a candidate this election cycle..At least one that can win. Jill Stein's choice of AJAMU BARAKA (!!!) as her VP just shot the legs out from under her campaign. What is she thinking?

    Hey...if you hated Barack Hussein Obama...you're gonna love AJAMU BARAKA!

    Ajamu and his new partner are both committed to The Struggle. Jill’s most favoritest person is MLK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Johnny F. Ive
    The victors should be above murdering someone in cold blood without due process and in such a savage manner. He was captured there was no need to do that. It doesn't mean he shouldn't have been put to death at some point. It reflects poorly on them and their psychopathic queen who gloated about it.

    I entirely agree about Hillary and any Americans who made comments like that. If they wanted to be quietly satisfied because they were alive in the 1980s, that would have been fine. If they had focused on American interests and thought, on the whole, Qaddafi 2.0 was better for those interests than Qaddafi 1.0 had been or than his enemies were, that would have been even better.

    As for the Libyans, I must agree to disagree with you. It would have been laudable for them to hold him over for trial, but I can’t condemn them for preferring a more gruesome revenge. I’m mainly making a ‘live by the sword, die by the sword’ argument. Qaddafi ruled in the way he preferred. That stores up a lot of vengeance and makes it ever more difficult to die peacefully in bed. He knew the price of losing his grip and was paid back what he had earned. Whether there was any need for them to do that to him is immaterial. They had earned the right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. @Delinquent Snail
    What? No. Athiesm is the lack of belief for ALL gods. Not just the major ones of our day. Zues, odin, horus, God (because christians are unimaginative)..... They are all works of fiction used to controll the ignorant masses. As for the demon manifestation " playing hell with human lives ", thats just cop out. Humans are vain, petty animals that lust for power. We caused all the bad. Not some extradimensional boogy man. Its counter productive to blame a fake thing for the real problems written in our dna.

    IIRC, “God” is used by Christians as a title of office, so to speak. Their God has a name.

    In normal practice, one only has to refer to or address gods by name when one assumes there is more than one of them.

    Otherwise, agreed.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. Ace says:
    @Delinquent Snail
    What? No. Athiesm is the lack of belief for ALL gods. Not just the major ones of our day. Zues, odin, horus, God (because christians are unimaginative)..... They are all works of fiction used to controll the ignorant masses. As for the demon manifestation " playing hell with human lives ", thats just cop out. Humans are vain, petty animals that lust for power. We caused all the bad. Not some extradimensional boogy man. Its counter productive to blame a fake thing for the real problems written in our dna.

    I dunno. You look at Soros and you gotta think that there’s a pentagram somewhere in his basement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @annamaria
    "Knives were the proper response to him."
    Here comes the twilight of civilization.

    A minor question: Would you advertise the same kind of "response" towards the US president? Just asking.
    PS: Some estimates tell that the Middle Eastern wars resulted in 3.000.000 violent deaths.

    "Qaddafi's threatened attempt to establish an independent African currency was not taken lightly by Western interests. In 2011, Sarkozy reportedly called the Libyan leader a threat to the financial security of the world. How could this tiny country of six million people pose such a threat? First some background." -–– You see, it is the Empire of Federal Reserve, again.

    "US-NATO intervention was allegedly undertaken on humanitarian grounds, after reports of mass atrocities; but human rights organizations questioned the claims after finding a lack of evidence. Today, however, verifiable atrocities are occurring. As Dan Kovalik wrote in the Huffington Post, "the human rights situation in Libya is a disaster, as 'thousands of detainees [including children] languish in prisons without proper judicial review,' and 'kidnappings and targeted killings are rampant'."

    Are you still sure that "Knives were the proper response to him?"

    There are plenty of signs that could be taken for the twilight of civilization in any culture. With more or less accuracy.

    Assassination of one leader is actually a pretty weak one- Rome survived countless such before it reached twilight, and the same would be true for almost any premodern society. Such events have implications that vary tremendously depending on context- who was the victim, what his office, who killed him and why, what were the truth or falsehood of their claims or his, to what extent did institutions fail or succeed to weather the event, and so on.

    In Caesar’s case much depends on perspective- class, ideology, emphasis for populism versus law, and which laws were most important. Most of us would probably have been on the dole in Rome and considered Caesar our champion, so there’s that. On the other hand it certainly seems like most here and now have class perspectives that sound vaguely middle class or upper working class, and as far as America goes a fairly strong dedication to established ideas of nationhood, law and institutions, republicanism, and so on. Those who are against the wars and usurpations often exceed other in proclaimed desire to defend such things as institutions, separation of powers, checks and balances, and traditional forms of power and limits. So the arguments of Caesar’s assassins I would expect to find considerable support here, as much as the arguments for Caesar if not more so.

    ]Given the latter set of assumptions, and even assuming that Caesar genuinely didn’t seek the office and title of king, he sought just such a set of powers and had almost accomplished them, by subverting at every turn the laws of the republic. Granted, he wasn’t the first by any means. Marius and Sulla have root causes to answer for, and both those ultimately enemies had been allies to Caesar at one time or another. But Caesar was the man in place in 44 BC. That he was a great leader, politician, commander is not in dispute. A patriot, perhaps, inasmuch as he loved Rome and saw his destiny attached to it in a way that many Greek statesmen did not see themselves so attached to their country [compare Alcibiades or Xenophon]. Popular, to be sure. And perhaps he returned that love to his soldiers, and perhaps even the people. I start to have doubts on that latter. The people were an instrument, more likely. Still and all he was the usurper of the state, a tyrant in the original sense of the term. He was plenty willing to put rivals and enemies in the ground by what even Rome considered extrajudicial methods.

    Caesar’s rule and death came at and was the chief sign and driver of the end of the republic, which had been set in motion over decades if not nearly a century before. It also resulted in the imposition of a tyranny much like his but on a more durable basis. The success of Augustus’ system rather demonstrates that the republic had indeed become a failure and unsalvageable, and his state worked rather well for centuries more. So there’s that in favour of Caesarism in its time. On the other hand, that very success kind of showed that killing Caesar neither killed the republic [it was rather a last gasp of already dying republicanism] nor took Roman civilization into twilight [civilization, if not republicanism, actually thrived for some time before anything like real twilight hit; albeit the Augustan system concentrated power more and allowed its wielders more room for excess].

    SO the assassins stood for the defence of their state as they knew it and its laws, and they set in motion events that perhaps could never have resulted in its restoration and instead resulted in the very tyranny they opposed. Given that the imposition of such a tyranny was already under way, why should they not have made even a doomed attempt?

    Caesar ruled by the power of the legions, the proscription list, the armed mob, the knife and the silken cord. His foes disposed of him by like means.

    Note that neither I today nor any Roman at the time claimed that he was a usurper or tyrant or had to die because of his war crimes against the Gauls. We could have that discussion, but I’d probably not be able to get beyond the idea that his practices were within period moral norms practiced by all, sanctioned as treatment for enemies by most contemporary non-universalist moral systems, and there were no international conventions to violate.

    More pertinently, I add that only because that would have to be the discussion if we are comparing the case of Caesar to that of any recent US President. I say, and the assassins said, Caesar could legitimately be killed because of the scale and consequence of his usurpations of Roman law and the state, and that no recourse within the state remained because of the success of those same usurpations. I do not say that Caesar had to die because of how he handled foreign enemies, or how and why he treated the Gauls as foreign enemies.

    So with Obama, or for that matter Bush. Both achieved the highest offices of the state by the normal means [though I suspect America is at least at the Gracchan phase of dissolution by now; Marius and Sulla are waiting]. Whatever one thinks of the constitutional consensus or level of fidelity to it of the past 60 or more years, both Bush and Obama governed within norms recognizable to their predecessors back to Kennedy at least. [Even the use of the IRS against enemies is weak stuff by the standards of republican collapse or usurpation or Caesarism; give them time]. Neither has extended his term of office beyond its limits. Neither has taken US troops into his personal patronage and used them against the state. Neither has used armed men to intimidate the Congress, nor used proscription lists, nor so far as I am aware used murder in the night against their opponents or private citizens. Neither has exiled their opponents or used false charges to seize all their wealth for himself.

    So I say that Caesar had to die and should have died because of what he did to Rome and Roman laws, not how or why he handled foreign opponents. Similarly, until a US President can justifiably be compared to Caesar as to his handling of American law and the American state and his American opponents, no he cannot be handled as Caesar was handled.

    If you want to make a case for war crimes or illegal war, there are quite distinct issues. The closest I can think of to a usurpation of war power in the American state would be the Kosovo war and Libyan war insofar as those [IIRC] did not have congressional resolutions. The Roman senate would have had words about stuff like that too, as pertaining to their own war powers and the case of Gaul, but it was more a usurpation of military and command authority in the provinces than a usurpation of the state at Rome itself. That is to say, Caesar at the time he decided to conquer transalpine Gaul was perhaps exceeding his orders in the war MacArthur has been accused of doing. He wasn’t even the chief executive of the state then. Clinton and Obama were chief exectuives, and arguably exceeded their war powers [I would so argue] but it was for Congress to make that case. Their acquiescence was not accomplished by either president surrounding the hill with troops or, so far as I can tell, by murder or threat or murder.

    Bush cannot be accused of such a usurpation, since he secured congressional support for his wars. In the best classical tradition. If his administration’s handling of them was in violation of US law, then that may be pursued, as could Obama’s. But it’s still not Caesarism.

    As it happens, I don’t object to states’ pursuing their foreign policy interests. I may disagree with how they are determined, even with how they are carried on. I may or may not care whether foreigners are killed as a result. I will care less when the foreigners are killed mainly by their own nationals. If they have grievances that cannot be settled peacefully and these are let loose by western policy, too bad. They had the choice to settle their grievances some other way and decided they could not. They also have the right of all peoples to settle their grievances by war if they so choose. Even with the dissolution of the Baath party and the Iraqi military, it was for IRaqis to decide the way forward. They went for sectarian war. If that was a choice, it was theirs to make. If it was baked in the cake of IRaqi society once the lid was off, then it was their nature to work through or to resist. Ditto for Libya.

    But, again, even if one wishes to attribute all the responsibility for these events to the US Presidents of the day and ignore any form of agency or legitimacy to local interests, it still wouldn’t be Caesarism nor earn those presidents Caesar’s fate. To be Caesar, one must destroy the Roman Republic, not just pillage Gaul.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    the Kosovo war

    What is your opinion, on balance, of the NATO and US interventions in the modern Balkan wars? Without having informed myself in detail, I tend to think in positive terms as to our separation of the various ethnic and religious groups and ending the killing, for now.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. @NoseytheDuke
    You appear to have failed to include the consequences of colonialism in your assessment of Qaddafi's ascension to power but in any event, he went on to do more for his people, including the poorest of them, than most leaders do however they came to power.

    My understanding of Shakespeare's quote where Caesar wept was not to brand him as weak but rather to demonstrate his empathy for his people's plight and a factor of SPQR. The point of it all was that Caesar didn't seek to be a dictator (Remember, he was thrice presented with a Kingly crown which he did thrice refuse) but Cassius, Brutus and the rest believed that he did because that's what they would have become given the same circumstances.

    To say that the people who murdered Qaddafi had the right to do so is also to say that they had the right to destroy their own nation and reduce the standard of living there to poverty and chaotic anarchy. Good job you aren't in charge of anything although I would grant you license to ride a moped, out of pity.

    The consequences of colonialism can occasionally explain events, it’s less clear that anything that nebulous can justify anything. Qaddafi might be said to have represented a certain 60s nationalist chic/young officer cult in its Libyan form, but can as easily be said that he represented the outcome of tribal politics married to a certain revolutionary modernist style.

    But in the end, so what? These explanations are of much value to the historian and the social scientist. He was still an officer in the army who decided to overthrown his king, breach his oath, and seize power for himself, and then to retain this by terror and murder. These charges remain valid even when one might have a deeper understanding of the forces behind them and the competing factions of power in Libyan society. And they remain whether or not his rule also did good.

    That his rule may be said to have done all the good you say may speak well for him in any afterlife and in the historical record. I have no objection nor did I offer one above.

    I only argue, and reiterate, that he set the terms on which power was to be gained and wielded in Libya, or rather added elements to traditional terms and then set the blender to “extreme”, namely violent usurpation, personal domination, familial corruption, tribal patronage, enforced by terror, torture and murder. In doing so he made allies, created enemies, and elevated some tribes over others. Then he let the grip slip after a good long run.

    The consequences of that slippage were as baked in the cake of Libyan politics circa 2011 as any consequences of colonialism were in 1969, just as the consequences of making tribal patronage and charisma politics orders or magnitude more extreme, violent and desperate than they had been under the Senussi monarchy were so baked.

    In the end, I neither argue nor need to argue for or against Qaddafi, his rule, or its benefits or losses for Libya. I only argued, on the particular point of his fate, that he was paid in his own coin and by his own methods. Which he was.

    The ultimate outcome of overthrowing Qaddafi is not identical with the question of what to do with the man himself when he is caught in flight or what decision on the latter would be just.

    Neither is the question of whether overthrowing him is a good idea identical with whether the people of Libya have the right to do so. Or whether the people overthrowing him actually represent the people of Libya, for that matter. Or even whether those rebels have or ever had a reasonable prospect of establishing a more consensual system or avoiding civil war. Some may wish to argue whether or not there is a right of ‘the people’ to revolt against tyrants, and how or when they may exercise this, and how any particular subset of the people get to make the claim this is what they are doing.

    For my part, I would merely go back to my original point and expand that I don’t care. If political legitimacy is the matter at question, then Qaddafi was overthrown by rebellious force in the name of factional and tribal interests who claimed they better represented the Libyan people than he did. This is entirely identical with a description of his own coup. His claim to power rested on force and usurpation and representing particular interests no less than his enemies’. If he and his backers had the right to take and wield power by such means, then so did his enemies. Neither one had any claim to legitimacy other than force.

    It’s hard to argue your last point, although in the end by the same token it’s hard to argue a people doesn’t have that right. It’s their country. If they can’t get their shit together to be governed in any other way, then they will alternate between tyranny and anarchy. Any tyrant will fall as soon as his grip slips. He may or may not be quickly succeeded by another, with more or less violence. Not unrelated to my point to Anna, above. Every people has the right to settle grievances by force if they can find no other. If there is such a thing as a ‘natural right’, that must be the only one. We made up the rest. I like them very much, but they aren’t part of the laws of physics, chemistry or biology. And a corollary of that right is that if a people does not think of itself as a people, but rather as other identities first and foremost, and to a degree exclusive of cooperation, then they will fight rather than cooperate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. iffen says:
    @random observer
    There are plenty of signs that could be taken for the twilight of civilization in any culture. With more or less accuracy.

    Assassination of one leader is actually a pretty weak one- Rome survived countless such before it reached twilight, and the same would be true for almost any premodern society. Such events have implications that vary tremendously depending on context- who was the victim, what his office, who killed him and why, what were the truth or falsehood of their claims or his, to what extent did institutions fail or succeed to weather the event, and so on.

    In Caesar's case much depends on perspective- class, ideology, emphasis for populism versus law, and which laws were most important. Most of us would probably have been on the dole in Rome and considered Caesar our champion, so there's that. On the other hand it certainly seems like most here and now have class perspectives that sound vaguely middle class or upper working class, and as far as America goes a fairly strong dedication to established ideas of nationhood, law and institutions, republicanism, and so on. Those who are against the wars and usurpations often exceed other in proclaimed desire to defend such things as institutions, separation of powers, checks and balances, and traditional forms of power and limits. So the arguments of Caesar's assassins I would expect to find considerable support here, as much as the arguments for Caesar if not more so.

    ]Given the latter set of assumptions, and even assuming that Caesar genuinely didn't seek the office and title of king, he sought just such a set of powers and had almost accomplished them, by subverting at every turn the laws of the republic. Granted, he wasn't the first by any means. Marius and Sulla have root causes to answer for, and both those ultimately enemies had been allies to Caesar at one time or another. But Caesar was the man in place in 44 BC. That he was a great leader, politician, commander is not in dispute. A patriot, perhaps, inasmuch as he loved Rome and saw his destiny attached to it in a way that many Greek statesmen did not see themselves so attached to their country [compare Alcibiades or Xenophon]. Popular, to be sure. And perhaps he returned that love to his soldiers, and perhaps even the people. I start to have doubts on that latter. The people were an instrument, more likely. Still and all he was the usurper of the state, a tyrant in the original sense of the term. He was plenty willing to put rivals and enemies in the ground by what even Rome considered extrajudicial methods.

    Caesar's rule and death came at and was the chief sign and driver of the end of the republic, which had been set in motion over decades if not nearly a century before. It also resulted in the imposition of a tyranny much like his but on a more durable basis. The success of Augustus' system rather demonstrates that the republic had indeed become a failure and unsalvageable, and his state worked rather well for centuries more. So there's that in favour of Caesarism in its time. On the other hand, that very success kind of showed that killing Caesar neither killed the republic [it was rather a last gasp of already dying republicanism] nor took Roman civilization into twilight [civilization, if not republicanism, actually thrived for some time before anything like real twilight hit; albeit the Augustan system concentrated power more and allowed its wielders more room for excess].

    SO the assassins stood for the defence of their state as they knew it and its laws, and they set in motion events that perhaps could never have resulted in its restoration and instead resulted in the very tyranny they opposed. Given that the imposition of such a tyranny was already under way, why should they not have made even a doomed attempt?

    Caesar ruled by the power of the legions, the proscription list, the armed mob, the knife and the silken cord. His foes disposed of him by like means.

    Note that neither I today nor any Roman at the time claimed that he was a usurper or tyrant or had to die because of his war crimes against the Gauls. We could have that discussion, but I'd probably not be able to get beyond the idea that his practices were within period moral norms practiced by all, sanctioned as treatment for enemies by most contemporary non-universalist moral systems, and there were no international conventions to violate.

    More pertinently, I add that only because that would have to be the discussion if we are comparing the case of Caesar to that of any recent US President. I say, and the assassins said, Caesar could legitimately be killed because of the scale and consequence of his usurpations of Roman law and the state, and that no recourse within the state remained because of the success of those same usurpations. I do not say that Caesar had to die because of how he handled foreign enemies, or how and why he treated the Gauls as foreign enemies.

    So with Obama, or for that matter Bush. Both achieved the highest offices of the state by the normal means [though I suspect America is at least at the Gracchan phase of dissolution by now; Marius and Sulla are waiting]. Whatever one thinks of the constitutional consensus or level of fidelity to it of the past 60 or more years, both Bush and Obama governed within norms recognizable to their predecessors back to Kennedy at least. [Even the use of the IRS against enemies is weak stuff by the standards of republican collapse or usurpation or Caesarism; give them time]. Neither has extended his term of office beyond its limits. Neither has taken US troops into his personal patronage and used them against the state. Neither has used armed men to intimidate the Congress, nor used proscription lists, nor so far as I am aware used murder in the night against their opponents or private citizens. Neither has exiled their opponents or used false charges to seize all their wealth for himself.

    So I say that Caesar had to die and should have died because of what he did to Rome and Roman laws, not how or why he handled foreign opponents. Similarly, until a US President can justifiably be compared to Caesar as to his handling of American law and the American state and his American opponents, no he cannot be handled as Caesar was handled.

    If you want to make a case for war crimes or illegal war, there are quite distinct issues. The closest I can think of to a usurpation of war power in the American state would be the Kosovo war and Libyan war insofar as those [IIRC] did not have congressional resolutions. The Roman senate would have had words about stuff like that too, as pertaining to their own war powers and the case of Gaul, but it was more a usurpation of military and command authority in the provinces than a usurpation of the state at Rome itself. That is to say, Caesar at the time he decided to conquer transalpine Gaul was perhaps exceeding his orders in the war MacArthur has been accused of doing. He wasn't even the chief executive of the state then. Clinton and Obama were chief exectuives, and arguably exceeded their war powers [I would so argue] but it was for Congress to make that case. Their acquiescence was not accomplished by either president surrounding the hill with troops or, so far as I can tell, by murder or threat or murder.

    Bush cannot be accused of such a usurpation, since he secured congressional support for his wars. In the best classical tradition. If his administration's handling of them was in violation of US law, then that may be pursued, as could Obama's. But it's still not Caesarism.

    As it happens, I don't object to states' pursuing their foreign policy interests. I may disagree with how they are determined, even with how they are carried on. I may or may not care whether foreigners are killed as a result. I will care less when the foreigners are killed mainly by their own nationals. If they have grievances that cannot be settled peacefully and these are let loose by western policy, too bad. They had the choice to settle their grievances some other way and decided they could not. They also have the right of all peoples to settle their grievances by war if they so choose. Even with the dissolution of the Baath party and the Iraqi military, it was for IRaqis to decide the way forward. They went for sectarian war. If that was a choice, it was theirs to make. If it was baked in the cake of IRaqi society once the lid was off, then it was their nature to work through or to resist. Ditto for Libya.

    But, again, even if one wishes to attribute all the responsibility for these events to the US Presidents of the day and ignore any form of agency or legitimacy to local interests, it still wouldn't be Caesarism nor earn those presidents Caesar's fate. To be Caesar, one must destroy the Roman Republic, not just pillage Gaul.

    the Kosovo war

    What is your opinion, on balance, of the NATO and US interventions in the modern Balkan wars? Without having informed myself in detail, I tend to think in positive terms as to our separation of the various ethnic and religious groups and ending the killing, for now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    I'm torn.

    They certainly demonstrated the superior effectiveness of the US, militarily and diplomatically, at least in that era, over the EU members' ineffectual posturing. Although, to be fair, the EU states were divided over when or if to let even the major Yugoslav states become independent. It was surprising how quickly the Germans of that day lined up for their old Croatian allies. It was certainly a time when theoretical questions about stability/order/liberty/sovereignty and nationalism were all in play, and so were matters of justice and interest. They kept realigning differently, too.

    I have larger, and what might be variously considered cynical or outright vile, views concerning whether or not it was the business of the US to separate the factions and end the killing, or where and how it was the interest of the US to do this. I meant it when I said above that ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    It is common now, right or left, to think it on some level wrong to intervene in one's own interest, right to do so for altruistic reasons. I am not immune to this. I would often nonetheless argue against it on the grounds that states pursue interests ultimately the product of their own advantage and long-term viability, and that these are valid goals because they extend the prosperity and lifespan of their own political community. They are not moral agents to each other, and to the extent they have moral accountabilities it is to how well they defend their own citizens, not other citizens. But it isn't just a realist argument for me, all the time. There are moral principles involved as well. A state that intervenes in its interests has skin in the game, a stake to defend, and a just claim to act. A state that acts purely for altruism is meddling other peoples' business. And considering it could and often does thereby expand the conflict and make things worse, or freeze it and make it worse later, it may well do wrong to intervene on such terms and have weaker case for doing so. And of course there is the additional question of whether or not the citizens of other countries, unable or unwilling to organize themselves peacefully, have claims on the help and lives of another country's soldiers who may be placed at risk with no clear gain to the country they serve.

    Having said all that, both BH and Kosovo met some tests. The wars in BH posed a challenge to European security, an interest of the US. They destabilized a region of interst to the US. It's less clear that Kosovo in particular served a US interest given the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a guerrilla army and a nationalist party, and it is not clear that the US gained anything by Kosovo independence. ANd there is a moral question- the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war. But I'd be open to both interest and moral arguments on Kosovo.

    On BH, the Us interests were stronger. And the military demands and costs for the US quite low, even compared to Kosovo. And although the moral status of the Bosniak leadership was questionable on many grounds including early-stage Islamism against their own minorities [no inherent criticism from me- just that they too were pursuing their interests and ambitions and weren't just a bunch of hapless Sesame street denizens suddenly raided by red-toothed Serbs out of nowhere], in the end I don't deny they could claim nationhood. Just not so clear they were entitled to take the Serbian parts of Bosnia with them.

    The moral calculus in Bosnia was made worse in that the ultimately weaker side, the Bosniaks, had been made even more weak by the western arms embargo, which mainly affected them because the Serbs had all the arms they could ever need already. The Bosniaks inability to fight their quarrel with success as was their right under my philosophy, was partly caused by the west. We put them in that position. So when we all intervened, we were partly cleaning up our own mess. So there's that. Fair's fair.

    As to outcomes, they ultimately were actually pretty good. The conflict has been long frozen in such a way as to minimize recurrence. Serbia now probably cares a lot less. Still hurt by the events and losses, and by the somewhat dishonest elements in allied propaganda, to be sure. But a different country with more economic and social goals in mind for itself. The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away completely, but to an outside it too looks as though its various peoples are less likely to have war on their minds whatever the end state. Kosovo seems to be something of a gangster state and terrorist entrepot, but not obviously worse than places like Moldova.

    Perhaps it all came right in the end. For me that doesn't eliminate the questions, but it wasn't a catastrophic screw-up in the end like Iraq is or Libya might become. Bosnia lasted five years and has had 20 years to recover a bit, Kosovo all phases just a year or so and has now had 17 years to stew. Serbia was actually getting richer for a time, although I don't know what impact the crash had on them. Iraq, on the other hand, has been getting more or less worse for 13 years now. Libya has been in conflict now longer than Bosnia was and not as close to an end at the five year mark.

    But really my reference to Kosovo, alongside Libya, was just a throwaway line in the context of the debate on Caesarism in the US presidency and whether or how foreign and military policy bears on it. I argued that whatever presidents have done in usurping war powers abroad, they have not done what Caesar did to usurp the state itself, alter their offices, or establish tyranny at home. But Kosovo and Libya are examples of them exceeding their power abroad.

    The significance of Kosovo and Libya is that they are, to my knowledge, standout examples of the US president using military force abroad on his own authority, without either attack on the US, attack on American forces or facilities, of threat of any of these things, nor peril to US citizens. W received Congressional endorsement for his wars, though there are international law issues wrt Iraq he was on solid US constitutional ground. Obama also enjoys them for the wars he inherited although I have dim recall of moves to get the resolutions changed/replaced/and made narrower and broader in different areas. Still.

    In Kosovo, Clinton acted as part of NATO under a NATO council recolution,which was IIRC legal in international law because there was a backing UN resolution empowering NATO to act as a UN agent under Chapter VII of the Charter [the Charter contemplates this role for regional security alliances and always has]. So Clinton had solid support for the US to act as a state, with allies, in this international sphere in accordance with international law, doing what otherwise would be the waging of an aggressive war against another state. The US, in acting, was covered by international law in a way it was not in Iraq. I, and other, contend Clinton had no constitutional authority to employ US forces in this international action, which he did solely on his unclear authority by using the US' extraordinarily nebulous powers for the president to declare an emergency. In this case, that the Serbs posed a threat to "US national security and foreign policy". The former is bogus and the latter weak tea for launching a war.

    In Libya, similarly, the international law cover for the US and allies to act was all good. But no constitutional authority to use US forces in this international action was sought.

    So I call those usurpations by the president of the United States against the constitution and congress, even though they were not also usurpations of international law by the US against other countries. That makes them mirror images of Iraq.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @NoseytheDuke
    You appear to have failed to include the consequences of colonialism in your assessment of Qaddafi's ascension to power but in any event, he went on to do more for his people, including the poorest of them, than most leaders do however they came to power.

    My understanding of Shakespeare's quote where Caesar wept was not to brand him as weak but rather to demonstrate his empathy for his people's plight and a factor of SPQR. The point of it all was that Caesar didn't seek to be a dictator (Remember, he was thrice presented with a Kingly crown which he did thrice refuse) but Cassius, Brutus and the rest believed that he did because that's what they would have become given the same circumstances.

    To say that the people who murdered Qaddafi had the right to do so is also to say that they had the right to destroy their own nation and reduce the standard of living there to poverty and chaotic anarchy. Good job you aren't in charge of anything although I would grant you license to ride a moped, out of pity.

    I don’t think for a second that highlighting Caesar’s weeping was meant to show him as weak. It was meant to elevate his moral stature in Shakespeare’s own time and context, to suggest he bears comparison with the later time’s idealized notion of paternal and benevolent kingship, an ideal that for better or worse was an amalgam of Christianity, Germanic chieftainship, and ann idea of Roman emperors that was rooted in the idea that these had been benevolent and divinely sanctioned rulers of the world and that Christian monarchs in latter days exercised some portion of the imperial authority whether as deputies of the Holy Roman Emperor or as notional imperial successors in their own realms. [One of Henry VIII's laws, which although not intended explicitly as such amounted to a definitive statement that as a king he owed no theoretical precedence to the HR Emperor, stated that "this realm of England is an empire"]. But I digress.

    It was definitely meant to suggest empathy for the people on Caesar’s part. Whether this was true of the actual Caesar is a different question. Could be. He was an aristocrat and a player like his enemies, if a better player. He had seen how the people could be used. On the other hand perhaps he really did see himself as a father figure. My contention is more that it is good to do things for the people, but dangerous if doing so makes one start to think of oneself as a parental figure to them. Worse, to openly act as such. At that point, it is already not a republic and they have ceased to be citizens.

    Similarly, he did refuse a crow, in Shakespeare as classical accounts. It was politics. He was already a Dictator, and had already extended that office not only beyond its constitutional definition but beyond what Sulla had made of it, and indeed had gone beyond Sulla in making it an office for life. He had, like his tyrannical teachers, used his troops to invade Italy and overawe the state, proscribed and murdered enemies. He was already everything that his enemies accused him of being.

    The accusation implied against Cassius and Brutus and the rest could be true. But in the event they weren’t the ones who actually set up as dictator, and we cannot be certain that would have been the result if they had won the ensuing civil war. Could be. But Caesar had already done all these things that they in turn might have done.

    I’m not insensible to either side of the conflict between pragmatism and intellectualism/ideology, nor am I unaware that dogmatic adherence to liberty, constitutionalism, legitimacy of law or indeed heredity or other older concepts, can be considered impractical or unjust in moments of need. There may be times when a strongman is needed and he takes practical, beneficial steps, and may even need to use darker methods. On the general theme, I recommend at a distance of 30 years “Marius” by Poul Anderson. My memory of it is vague, but it may be appropriate. It appeared in the original “There will be war” anthology edited by Pournelle and now reissued by Castalia House publishing.

    But even taking all that into account, if anything I would say my original comment was actually less from the perspective of dogmatism about legitimacy versus usurpation or the proper forms of power and more about the most practical maxim of all politics- if you lose, you can expect reward equal to how you ruled. At best.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Sorry, "refuse a crown". Can't imagine a Roman refusing a crow. Not if sautéed in a little honey sauce.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for taking the time and care in giving me a lengthy and well informed response. You can have your full license back ;0).

    I would quibble the fact that without the no fly zone imposed by the west the opposition would not have had even close to the support to deposing him. In the final assessment things are worse there now than before and surely new and long lasting grudges have been created.

    I'm constantly amazed by how many Americans conflate what is good for the MIC is good for them also.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. @random observer
    I don't think for a second that highlighting Caesar's weeping was meant to show him as weak. It was meant to elevate his moral stature in Shakespeare's own time and context, to suggest he bears comparison with the later time's idealized notion of paternal and benevolent kingship, an ideal that for better or worse was an amalgam of Christianity, Germanic chieftainship, and ann idea of Roman emperors that was rooted in the idea that these had been benevolent and divinely sanctioned rulers of the world and that Christian monarchs in latter days exercised some portion of the imperial authority whether as deputies of the Holy Roman Emperor or as notional imperial successors in their own realms. [One of Henry VIII's laws, which although not intended explicitly as such amounted to a definitive statement that as a king he owed no theoretical precedence to the HR Emperor, stated that "this realm of England is an empire"]. But I digress.

    It was definitely meant to suggest empathy for the people on Caesar's part. Whether this was true of the actual Caesar is a different question. Could be. He was an aristocrat and a player like his enemies, if a better player. He had seen how the people could be used. On the other hand perhaps he really did see himself as a father figure. My contention is more that it is good to do things for the people, but dangerous if doing so makes one start to think of oneself as a parental figure to them. Worse, to openly act as such. At that point, it is already not a republic and they have ceased to be citizens.

    Similarly, he did refuse a crow, in Shakespeare as classical accounts. It was politics. He was already a Dictator, and had already extended that office not only beyond its constitutional definition but beyond what Sulla had made of it, and indeed had gone beyond Sulla in making it an office for life. He had, like his tyrannical teachers, used his troops to invade Italy and overawe the state, proscribed and murdered enemies. He was already everything that his enemies accused him of being.

    The accusation implied against Cassius and Brutus and the rest could be true. But in the event they weren't the ones who actually set up as dictator, and we cannot be certain that would have been the result if they had won the ensuing civil war. Could be. But Caesar had already done all these things that they in turn might have done.

    I'm not insensible to either side of the conflict between pragmatism and intellectualism/ideology, nor am I unaware that dogmatic adherence to liberty, constitutionalism, legitimacy of law or indeed heredity or other older concepts, can be considered impractical or unjust in moments of need. There may be times when a strongman is needed and he takes practical, beneficial steps, and may even need to use darker methods. On the general theme, I recommend at a distance of 30 years "Marius" by Poul Anderson. My memory of it is vague, but it may be appropriate. It appeared in the original "There will be war" anthology edited by Pournelle and now reissued by Castalia House publishing.

    But even taking all that into account, if anything I would say my original comment was actually less from the perspective of dogmatism about legitimacy versus usurpation or the proper forms of power and more about the most practical maxim of all politics- if you lose, you can expect reward equal to how you ruled. At best.

    Sorry, “refuse a crown”. Can’t imagine a Roman refusing a crow. Not if sautéed in a little honey sauce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @iffen
    that is to say, the real interests of America and its people

    Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the "real interests" are recorded? If so, can you shoot me a copy?

    It’s a valid criticism, as the original reference is rather vague, and your point about the number of Americans who support Israel and want America to support Israel is especially well taken. If that position wins in an election, even in the sense that the politicians elected for a range of reasons happen also to represent a pro-Israel tendency, fair enough. People can support what they want.

    On the general principle of your question, though, I trust you would entertain some notions:

    - there is never a complete overlap between the foreign policy interests of one state and those of another. Any overlap is usually quite small.

    - there is some considerable overlap, more than typical, possible between Israeli and US interests, though the definition of the latter is what is under dispute in the US

    - it is not always easy to articulate that overlap at any given time

    - it is clear what Israel gains from its alliance with the US, even if the US periodically shivs them diplomatically

    - it is much less clear what the US gains from its alliance with Israel; diplomatically, it must be a net loss, since it has involved the US in insoluble disputes which it need not have been involved in, at least not so closely or so closely identified with one side, and it has hamstrung US policy with the Arabs more than once; militarily, I don’t know the US wants or needs Israeli help or would benefit from it or want the diplomatic risk associated with it; economically (?); so I’m assuming we are mainly talking intel, covert ops, or technology here, all areas in which Israel is a leader but even so the US probably gives more than it gets;

    - So, at least as far as public information is concerned, it seems like Israel is a net liability to the US.

    SO with all that in mind, it seems to me that the alliance with Israel, or degree of it at least, is a net loss to the US national interest. All of its policies, right or wrong, as chosen by US officials, seem to be more complicated and its policy options made more constrained by the alliance with Israel.

    It seems ultimately to rely for its rationale on the domestic political support in the US you cite. As I said, as far as domestic politics goes, there is no argument. On the whole, though, I am troubled by the idea that it should be normal for huge constituencies in the US to take it as given that the US has obligations to permanently support another state’s interests or identify with that state in addition to the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    even in the sense that the politicians elected for a range of reasons happen also to represent a pro-Israel tendency, fair enough. People can support what they want.

    People don't actually have a choice. There are very few politicians who advocate for even-handedness with regards to Israel. There are no votes or money in it. OTOH, there are many votes and a lot of money to be lost by seeming to go against our BBF, Israel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. @iffen
    the Kosovo war

    What is your opinion, on balance, of the NATO and US interventions in the modern Balkan wars? Without having informed myself in detail, I tend to think in positive terms as to our separation of the various ethnic and religious groups and ending the killing, for now.

    I’m torn.

    They certainly demonstrated the superior effectiveness of the US, militarily and diplomatically, at least in that era, over the EU members’ ineffectual posturing. Although, to be fair, the EU states were divided over when or if to let even the major Yugoslav states become independent. It was surprising how quickly the Germans of that day lined up for their old Croatian allies. It was certainly a time when theoretical questions about stability/order/liberty/sovereignty and nationalism were all in play, and so were matters of justice and interest. They kept realigning differently, too.

    I have larger, and what might be variously considered cynical or outright vile, views concerning whether or not it was the business of the US to separate the factions and end the killing, or where and how it was the interest of the US to do this. I meant it when I said above that ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    It is common now, right or left, to think it on some level wrong to intervene in one’s own interest, right to do so for altruistic reasons. I am not immune to this. I would often nonetheless argue against it on the grounds that states pursue interests ultimately the product of their own advantage and long-term viability, and that these are valid goals because they extend the prosperity and lifespan of their own political community. They are not moral agents to each other, and to the extent they have moral accountabilities it is to how well they defend their own citizens, not other citizens. But it isn’t just a realist argument for me, all the time. There are moral principles involved as well. A state that intervenes in its interests has skin in the game, a stake to defend, and a just claim to act. A state that acts purely for altruism is meddling other peoples’ business. And considering it could and often does thereby expand the conflict and make things worse, or freeze it and make it worse later, it may well do wrong to intervene on such terms and have weaker case for doing so. And of course there is the additional question of whether or not the citizens of other countries, unable or unwilling to organize themselves peacefully, have claims on the help and lives of another country’s soldiers who may be placed at risk with no clear gain to the country they serve.

    Having said all that, both BH and Kosovo met some tests. The wars in BH posed a challenge to European security, an interest of the US. They destabilized a region of interst to the US. It’s less clear that Kosovo in particular served a US interest given the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a guerrilla army and a nationalist party, and it is not clear that the US gained anything by Kosovo independence. ANd there is a moral question- the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war. But I’d be open to both interest and moral arguments on Kosovo.

    On BH, the Us interests were stronger. And the military demands and costs for the US quite low, even compared to Kosovo. And although the moral status of the Bosniak leadership was questionable on many grounds including early-stage Islamism against their own minorities [no inherent criticism from me- just that they too were pursuing their interests and ambitions and weren't just a bunch of hapless Sesame street denizens suddenly raided by red-toothed Serbs out of nowhere], in the end I don’t deny they could claim nationhood. Just not so clear they were entitled to take the Serbian parts of Bosnia with them.

    The moral calculus in Bosnia was made worse in that the ultimately weaker side, the Bosniaks, had been made even more weak by the western arms embargo, which mainly affected them because the Serbs had all the arms they could ever need already. The Bosniaks inability to fight their quarrel with success as was their right under my philosophy, was partly caused by the west. We put them in that position. So when we all intervened, we were partly cleaning up our own mess. So there’s that. Fair’s fair.

    As to outcomes, they ultimately were actually pretty good. The conflict has been long frozen in such a way as to minimize recurrence. Serbia now probably cares a lot less. Still hurt by the events and losses, and by the somewhat dishonest elements in allied propaganda, to be sure. But a different country with more economic and social goals in mind for itself. The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away completely, but to an outside it too looks as though its various peoples are less likely to have war on their minds whatever the end state. Kosovo seems to be something of a gangster state and terrorist entrepot, but not obviously worse than places like Moldova.

    Perhaps it all came right in the end. For me that doesn’t eliminate the questions, but it wasn’t a catastrophic screw-up in the end like Iraq is or Libya might become. Bosnia lasted five years and has had 20 years to recover a bit, Kosovo all phases just a year or so and has now had 17 years to stew. Serbia was actually getting richer for a time, although I don’t know what impact the crash had on them. Iraq, on the other hand, has been getting more or less worse for 13 years now. Libya has been in conflict now longer than Bosnia was and not as close to an end at the five year mark.

    But really my reference to Kosovo, alongside Libya, was just a throwaway line in the context of the debate on Caesarism in the US presidency and whether or how foreign and military policy bears on it. I argued that whatever presidents have done in usurping war powers abroad, they have not done what Caesar did to usurp the state itself, alter their offices, or establish tyranny at home. But Kosovo and Libya are examples of them exceeding their power abroad.

    The significance of Kosovo and Libya is that they are, to my knowledge, standout examples of the US president using military force abroad on his own authority, without either attack on the US, attack on American forces or facilities, of threat of any of these things, nor peril to US citizens. W received Congressional endorsement for his wars, though there are international law issues wrt Iraq he was on solid US constitutional ground. Obama also enjoys them for the wars he inherited although I have dim recall of moves to get the resolutions changed/replaced/and made narrower and broader in different areas. Still.

    In Kosovo, Clinton acted as part of NATO under a NATO council recolution,which was IIRC legal in international law because there was a backing UN resolution empowering NATO to act as a UN agent under Chapter VII of the Charter [the Charter contemplates this role for regional security alliances and always has]. So Clinton had solid support for the US to act as a state, with allies, in this international sphere in accordance with international law, doing what otherwise would be the waging of an aggressive war against another state. The US, in acting, was covered by international law in a way it was not in Iraq. I, and other, contend Clinton had no constitutional authority to employ US forces in this international action, which he did solely on his unclear authority by using the US’ extraordinarily nebulous powers for the president to declare an emergency. In this case, that the Serbs posed a threat to “US national security and foreign policy”. The former is bogus and the latter weak tea for launching a war.

    In Libya, similarly, the international law cover for the US and allies to act was all good. But no constitutional authority to use US forces in this international action was sought.

    So I call those usurpations by the president of the United States against the constitution and congress, even though they were not also usurpations of international law by the US against other countries. That makes them mirror images of Iraq.

    Read More
    • Disagree: Kiza
    • Replies: @iffen
    Thank you for your comments. I want to thank you in particular for expanding my “window” regarding thinking about foreign policy with regard to domestic laws and norms as opposed to international ones.

    I feel a little self-conscious pointing out some problems that I see in your impressive analyses and arguments.

    ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    This only applies in some of the situations. Many times, who is a neighbor and who is a compatriot is at the heart of the conflict so this rule will have limited application.

    the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war

    I am not sure how we can use this. If a group is criminal and terrorist before the conflict how do we interpret its actions during the conflict? Should we have helped Stalin or not?

    The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away


    Except for the U.S. China and Russia, which country cannot be fitted into this category?

    Keep the excellent comments coming, they are greatly appreciated.
    , @Kiza
    Your comment about international legality of bombing Serbia is simply a joke. You must be some kind of US Republican lawyer wizz who interprets things away. There was anbsolutely no legal basis for US bombing of Serbia, which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo. Kosovo never in history belonged to Albabians, but they have taken it over through ethnic rabbit-like Muskim multiplication and through the Albania-friendly decisions of the Communist dictator Tito (settlement of economic immigrants from Albabia proper). Since when is changing international borders lawful? When US does it is, says the legal "expert"!

    Comparing this violent separation of a part of territory of a country by US, with a totally peaceful ascension of Crimea back into Russia is telling.

    Kosovo now has no border with Albania now, which it never was a part of Albania. The bombing of Serbia by US has emboldened Albanian nationalist and a pressure cooker is building up around Kosovo, where Albanian nationalist now want parts of all neighbouring states as well: Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece and further parts of Southern Serbia. The US has surpressed these tendencies for now, but you can rest assured that if US loses focus or engages in a big and difficult intervention elsewhere (say SCS), the Albanian territorial grab will continue. The Germans will not stop them, because like Croatians, the Albanians are their old allies.

    Finally, the only real similarity between Kosovo and Crimea is that two communist leaders gave them to minorities to appease them, which worked only temporarily and opened appetites. Crimea as was given to Ukrainians by Khrushchev, Kosovo was given to Albanians by Tito.

    He US showed an interesting inclination to enforce the country-internal boundaries established by communist authorities in one case and completely disregard them in the other. Legal consistency of your kind.

    Naturally, the conclusion is that you are just another self-confident US person who talks/writes even when he knows very little about the subject.
    , @Kiza
    There has never been any UN resolution which authorised Clinton's bombing of Serbia on Albanian behalf. This is your lie equivalent to Obama's lie that there has been a referendum in Kosovo, which he uttered when Crimean referendum happened.

    There was a UN resolution about Kosovo, but it authorised US bombing of Serbia as much as the UN resolution about Lybia authorised the US bombing of Lybia. The UN resolution would say: "there is a problem in this country, all sides in the internal conflict should show restraint". The US lawyers such as you would interpret this as a US right to bomb the country, go figure.

    As I explained, the peace around Kosovo is only temporary, whilst Lybia is a total, utter, complete, horrible and deadly mess. Lands around Kosovo could turn into Lybia in a blink of an eye when Albabian expansionism boils over. Bosnia is a highly unstable creation, but no major expansionism is involved: it could fall apart, but no major war is as likely.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. iffen says:

    I am troubled by the idea that it should be normal for huge constituencies in the US to take it as given that the US has obligations to permanently support another state’s interests or identify with that state in addition to the US.

    Would this apply to Ireland, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, etc. , not to mention our English speaking “cousins” in Australia and NZ?

    What will this mean for our foreign policy as regards Mexico and other Latin American countries in the future? What’s up with Cuba? Do we “need” Cuban?

    Very sound and well constructed arguments on your part and I cannot disagree with your reasoning regarding the unequal benefits of supporting Israel. At the same time, significant numbers of people and nations have decided that because we are Israel’s ally then we are their enemy. That said, if they want to be our enemy, disregarding whether we have given them cause, that is their choice and I would give it right back to them. I don’t let people tell me whom my friends are and I want my country to do the same.

    Consider my Balkan question.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Well, that depends on a variety of factors.

    One would be the degree to which the allied nation is in some particular moment of crisis, whether or not that crisis is presumed to be going on at the same level of intensity forever and a day, the degree to which helping it benefits US interests, and the degree to which helping it undermines US interests.

    It is worth noting in this context that the last time there was an existential threat to Britain, there was rather robust and angry debate in the United States about whether or not to help them. And if helping Britain for charitable reasons had been the only issue, that would have been quite fair. in the end, the US did not intervene just to help Britain anyway. Nothing the US did in the war can be separate from US interests.

    Britain as theoretical top dog had never had the primacy the US enjoys now, it was always first among others. It was never a challenge to the US after 1815 and indeed had facilitated US commerce and kept Europe out of Latin America politically with high degree of success, long before the US was able to do it. That all worked for the US. With that no longer possible by the 1940s, the options for the US in 1939-41 were: a) face an eventual contest for world leadership against a united Europe under Germany, plus worry about the Pacific, or b) assume Europe would eventually fall to communism through some combination of a Soviet victory or revolutions, or c) help Britain and slip in behind Britain to take its position both on the global stage and in propping up a liberal western European order.

    FDR was not an idiot. Entry to WW2 in Europe, with the outcome it had, saved Britain at the expense of Britain finally being unable to maintain its empire, a price Britain had little choice but to pay. In the middle of the war the US made itself the primary patron of Australia, cemented its diplomatic position over Canada and began the establishment of continental defence relations that have continued, based military forces in India to fight Japan and began to process of influencing Indian nationalist leaders [that one went awry postwar but it is paying off in the end], and established bases and financial and political influence in British [and to a lesser extent French] Africa it had not had before. The Us also enhanced its position in the Caribbean at British expense, relatively trivial though that was.

    The US was more charitable than in the first war, inventing the idea of lend-lease rather than just repeating the immortal phrase from the 1920s, 'they hired the money, didn't they?'. On the other hand this was done AFTER the British had already paid as much cash as they had and cashed out their investments, not before. And it was done in furtherance of a British war effort that suited the above US interests.

    The US demonstrated the interest-driven component of its relationship with the UK many times after the war up to today. Though Britain had played the original leading role in the science and much of the uranium came from Canada, the US made sure to exclude Britain from major development in the Manhattan project and did not support the acquisition of a British deterrent until the 1950s. Making sure ever since that it relies on proprietary US technology. When the UK [and France] pulled their expeditionary stunt at Suez in 1956, it frustrated US policy toward Nasser [not likely a smart or feasible policy in the end anyway, but still] and Eisenhower pulled the plug on them quickly with major financial threats. That's fair- it was the US interest. But it certainly demonstrated the US was not an unqualified backer of British policy, and was willing the pull the rug out spectacularly and publicly. [It probably was not necessary to additionally have so much American comment focus on the "colonialism" of the British in this context, as though the intervention was the kind of thing America would never do. Since it was already doing stuff like that for itself. But I applaud the cynicism]. The US even only barely broke in favour of supporting the UK in 1982, seriously considering the side of its Argentine military allies first. That's also fair policy, but it certainly was no evidence of intrinsic pro-Britain bias. In a conflict between Israel and any of its Arab allies, does the US hem and haw that much before backing Israel? And this is a scenario that has occurred far more often and caused more trouble for the US than Britain ever has. the UK is practically a vassal state.

    But the larger issue is this. There is plenty of scope for criticism of whether they have been right, as on this site, but no US Administration since 1940 has been doing anything in Europe or the Pacific except in what it believes to be AMERICAN interests. None of it has been done as charity and it still is not being. And the argument is credible- the shape Europe and the Pacific have taken has served US interests well, and more than any other shape they might have taken.

    Whether that is still the case in either region is a valid question. If it is not, changes would be valid. Note that this does not imply replacing current arrangements with hostility. The idea that current arrangements are gospel or laws of physics and to end or alter them is a violation of the natural order or a breach of friendship or civilization are overwrought. I wonder at times if statesmen, let alone publics, are quite emotionally stable on this point. Even Trump is only asking Europeans to pick up the slack to a level already agreed, and to which their vast wealth permits them.

    I don't see the degree to which supporting Israel has advanced US interests to such degrees or even any [is US influence in that region enhanced by the alliance?], and think the US has supported Israel in policy choices it would never have tolerated from its US or Asian allies. Israel gains more, sacrifices less of its interest, has a longer leash from the US and tighter leash on it, and commands vocal public support in the US I doubt could be rallied quickly for Europe at this point.

    On the more generic form of the question, I would say this:

    It is largely unavoidable in a democracy for people to have formed opinions about the world, sentimental attachments to ancestral homes, or countries visited or lived in. It is valid to articulate these and have them taken into account. It is even valid to argue that, on some level, a country can have "friends" [quotes never to be omitted] based on long ties of culture, language, civilization, past cooperation in the crunch, whatever]. Though one doesn't want to let the number get too unwieldy or the selection be too uncritical.

    But it is not valid for a citizen to be more attached to another country than one's own, which seems to me at least to be the case when the assumption is that one's own country should support another under any and all circumstances, right or wrong, even if not existential for the second country [and perhaps even if]. It mitigates this a bit if there is a case to be made that the second country is a "friend' to one's own country as a whole, with interests in common.

    It's not really a resolvable debate and I don't need to be a pure realist myself, let alone ask anyone else to be. I'm just troubled by the idea that any citizen of country x should put country y's interests ahead of country x's uncritically and/or all the time, and not be open to the twin ideas that x's interests might clash with y's and, that being the case, as xians they should prefer the interests of x.

    No, it doesn't mean the US should let Arabs dictate who its "friends" are. But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend's behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. The same neocon/libs who constantly and hypocritically rebuke Trump for his ill-advised anti-Moslem rantings, Hillary among them, are the same cynical folks who hide the fact that they not only originally scripted, systematically introduced and normalized egregiously invidious anti-M0slem rhetoric into the public conversation, but promoted or supported the launching of a series of unnecessary American wars that resulted in the maiming and slaughter of millions of Moslem people and destruction of entire Moslem societies .

    An especially galling example of the neocon/lib knack for hypocrisy aired awhile back on Hillary supporter Bill Maher’s TV show. Maher’s special guest was evolutionist Richard Dawkins, infamously tiresome pitchman for intellectual bigotry, who cut an incredibly squalid figure as anti-Moslem stand-up comic. Aside from his monotonous ambiguities of secular indignation was his smirking ritual of utter disdain, replete with anti-Moslem bigotry of the most vicious kind: essentially veiled racism.

    Avidly sharing reflections of Dawkin’s stark anti-Moslem bigotry and waspish, scholarly spitefulness, super vulgarian Bill Maher, typically more foul and cynical, schmoozed and bragged with Dawkins on their shared superiority. The two elitist bigots, in one harmonious voice absolved themselves and their obsequious audience ( essentially ordinary folks turned snarling, laughing hyenas) from the most common and basic standards of human decency by viciously demeaning the entire vast Moslem world, its cultures and diverse peoples. It was classic neocon/lib “normalization of deviance” in an extreme form

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The same neocon/libs ..."
    They are not liberals in any sense - they are neoliberals/ziocons.

    "Obama and Hillary DID Found ISIS. This 2012 US Government Memo Proves It." By Jim Jatras
    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45298.htm
    "The DIA report said, in essence, that if we (the U.S. and our local cronies) keep aiding al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other such sterling democrats, something really nasty would arise in eastern Syria. Several months later, it did, when ISIS declared itself a state straddling the Syria-Iraq border."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. iffen says:
    @random observer
    I'm torn.

    They certainly demonstrated the superior effectiveness of the US, militarily and diplomatically, at least in that era, over the EU members' ineffectual posturing. Although, to be fair, the EU states were divided over when or if to let even the major Yugoslav states become independent. It was surprising how quickly the Germans of that day lined up for their old Croatian allies. It was certainly a time when theoretical questions about stability/order/liberty/sovereignty and nationalism were all in play, and so were matters of justice and interest. They kept realigning differently, too.

    I have larger, and what might be variously considered cynical or outright vile, views concerning whether or not it was the business of the US to separate the factions and end the killing, or where and how it was the interest of the US to do this. I meant it when I said above that ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    It is common now, right or left, to think it on some level wrong to intervene in one's own interest, right to do so for altruistic reasons. I am not immune to this. I would often nonetheless argue against it on the grounds that states pursue interests ultimately the product of their own advantage and long-term viability, and that these are valid goals because they extend the prosperity and lifespan of their own political community. They are not moral agents to each other, and to the extent they have moral accountabilities it is to how well they defend their own citizens, not other citizens. But it isn't just a realist argument for me, all the time. There are moral principles involved as well. A state that intervenes in its interests has skin in the game, a stake to defend, and a just claim to act. A state that acts purely for altruism is meddling other peoples' business. And considering it could and often does thereby expand the conflict and make things worse, or freeze it and make it worse later, it may well do wrong to intervene on such terms and have weaker case for doing so. And of course there is the additional question of whether or not the citizens of other countries, unable or unwilling to organize themselves peacefully, have claims on the help and lives of another country's soldiers who may be placed at risk with no clear gain to the country they serve.

    Having said all that, both BH and Kosovo met some tests. The wars in BH posed a challenge to European security, an interest of the US. They destabilized a region of interst to the US. It's less clear that Kosovo in particular served a US interest given the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a guerrilla army and a nationalist party, and it is not clear that the US gained anything by Kosovo independence. ANd there is a moral question- the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war. But I'd be open to both interest and moral arguments on Kosovo.

    On BH, the Us interests were stronger. And the military demands and costs for the US quite low, even compared to Kosovo. And although the moral status of the Bosniak leadership was questionable on many grounds including early-stage Islamism against their own minorities [no inherent criticism from me- just that they too were pursuing their interests and ambitions and weren't just a bunch of hapless Sesame street denizens suddenly raided by red-toothed Serbs out of nowhere], in the end I don't deny they could claim nationhood. Just not so clear they were entitled to take the Serbian parts of Bosnia with them.

    The moral calculus in Bosnia was made worse in that the ultimately weaker side, the Bosniaks, had been made even more weak by the western arms embargo, which mainly affected them because the Serbs had all the arms they could ever need already. The Bosniaks inability to fight their quarrel with success as was their right under my philosophy, was partly caused by the west. We put them in that position. So when we all intervened, we were partly cleaning up our own mess. So there's that. Fair's fair.

    As to outcomes, they ultimately were actually pretty good. The conflict has been long frozen in such a way as to minimize recurrence. Serbia now probably cares a lot less. Still hurt by the events and losses, and by the somewhat dishonest elements in allied propaganda, to be sure. But a different country with more economic and social goals in mind for itself. The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away completely, but to an outside it too looks as though its various peoples are less likely to have war on their minds whatever the end state. Kosovo seems to be something of a gangster state and terrorist entrepot, but not obviously worse than places like Moldova.

    Perhaps it all came right in the end. For me that doesn't eliminate the questions, but it wasn't a catastrophic screw-up in the end like Iraq is or Libya might become. Bosnia lasted five years and has had 20 years to recover a bit, Kosovo all phases just a year or so and has now had 17 years to stew. Serbia was actually getting richer for a time, although I don't know what impact the crash had on them. Iraq, on the other hand, has been getting more or less worse for 13 years now. Libya has been in conflict now longer than Bosnia was and not as close to an end at the five year mark.

    But really my reference to Kosovo, alongside Libya, was just a throwaway line in the context of the debate on Caesarism in the US presidency and whether or how foreign and military policy bears on it. I argued that whatever presidents have done in usurping war powers abroad, they have not done what Caesar did to usurp the state itself, alter their offices, or establish tyranny at home. But Kosovo and Libya are examples of them exceeding their power abroad.

    The significance of Kosovo and Libya is that they are, to my knowledge, standout examples of the US president using military force abroad on his own authority, without either attack on the US, attack on American forces or facilities, of threat of any of these things, nor peril to US citizens. W received Congressional endorsement for his wars, though there are international law issues wrt Iraq he was on solid US constitutional ground. Obama also enjoys them for the wars he inherited although I have dim recall of moves to get the resolutions changed/replaced/and made narrower and broader in different areas. Still.

    In Kosovo, Clinton acted as part of NATO under a NATO council recolution,which was IIRC legal in international law because there was a backing UN resolution empowering NATO to act as a UN agent under Chapter VII of the Charter [the Charter contemplates this role for regional security alliances and always has]. So Clinton had solid support for the US to act as a state, with allies, in this international sphere in accordance with international law, doing what otherwise would be the waging of an aggressive war against another state. The US, in acting, was covered by international law in a way it was not in Iraq. I, and other, contend Clinton had no constitutional authority to employ US forces in this international action, which he did solely on his unclear authority by using the US' extraordinarily nebulous powers for the president to declare an emergency. In this case, that the Serbs posed a threat to "US national security and foreign policy". The former is bogus and the latter weak tea for launching a war.

    In Libya, similarly, the international law cover for the US and allies to act was all good. But no constitutional authority to use US forces in this international action was sought.

    So I call those usurpations by the president of the United States against the constitution and congress, even though they were not also usurpations of international law by the US against other countries. That makes them mirror images of Iraq.

    Thank you for your comments. I want to thank you in particular for expanding my “window” regarding thinking about foreign policy with regard to domestic laws and norms as opposed to international ones.

    I feel a little self-conscious pointing out some problems that I see in your impressive analyses and arguments.

    ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    This only applies in some of the situations. Many times, who is a neighbor and who is a compatriot is at the heart of the conflict so this rule will have limited application.

    the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war

    I am not sure how we can use this. If a group is criminal and terrorist before the conflict how do we interpret its actions during the conflict? Should we have helped Stalin or not?

    The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away

    Except for the U.S. China and Russia, which country cannot be fitted into this category?

    Keep the excellent comments coming, they are greatly appreciated.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    I still struggle with the 'domestic vs international norms'. I had to think a bit during Libya 2011 on this.

    I find the debate muddled by both sides in America, by progressive internationalists who assume a UN resolution is a substitute for congressional resolution in allowing the President to deploy forces [Libya], and conservative republicans who assumed a congressional resolution is enough for the US to invade a country [Iraq].

    An UN resolution is the normal requirement of international law, in the absence of prior attack or very urgent threat, to permit one country or group of countries to attack another country. The securing of one would make it permissible for the US to attack another country without being in violation of international law. The key issue here is that it is determining the legitimacy of the actions of the United States, the state as a whole, in the international arena. It has nothing to say to the question of whether the president has the constitutional right to use US forces in this way.

    This norm is of course dating from 1945. Prior to that, there was plenty of customary and some treaty law [Hague and Geneva] about legal casus belli, and there was a track record of states being called to account diplomatically if they had waged aggressive war without cooking up a convincing one. The UN resolution requirement tightened this up considerably and most countries consider it a mandatory requirement of the Charter, binding on members. It has of course been violated. The Russians are lying to preserve the fiction they did not violate it. The US violated it openly in 2003, though under older international law the pervasive Iraqi violations of the 1991 ceasefire would alone have justified the invasion at any time.

    Plenty of Americans assume this is unnecessary, and I sympathize as something of an old school realist and ideological nationalist and broadly supportive of many US goals in the past. But there would be a massive price to pay if every country went back to the pre-UN world in this way, and the US has generally not only not permitted it, but has gone into full Wilsonian high dudgeon at the very idea. Only the US is permitted among nations to break the rules, being the obvious implication. I entirely endorse the contempt this level of American self-indulgence and hypocrisy generates in other countries.

    The congressional resolution is the requirement of the US constitution for the president to deploy forces. I am not an expert on the war powers issue, and frankly the scope of those powers probably should be a bit vague. But the constitutional requirement of a threat to or attack on the US can only be stretched too far. Insofar as US worldwide deployments have been sanctioned by congress, I can see any threat of attack on them as valid. But the idea that a 'threat to US foreign policy' is enough strikes me as bogus in the extreme, especially when months pass as a crisis develops [Kosovo].

    Some countries do not have restrictions on executive use of force abroad, short of dlecaring war. [Strictly, in Britian and Canada the executive can even declare war, and has done. The nature of parliamentary government allows for the legislature to be consulted in practice.] Some countries, esp with post 1945 constitutions, do require their legislature to consent.

    For the US, it seems to me that both conditions need to be met. Congress must act, to endorse or deny, for the president to commit US forces short of direct threat. A UN resolution must be had for the US as a state to use force in the world, again, short of direct threat. That's two distinct levels and it does little credit to either party that they so often ignore one or the other.

    On the original debate I entered, it's the absence of congressional support to the executive that makes the executive a Caesar and a threat to the state. The absence of international law backing just makes the state as a whole a lawless aggressor. The Romans were actually quite legalistic, but they only had to satisfy themselves and their own posterity of their causes, and they didn't require other nations always love them and consider them moral exemplars, as the US does.
    , @random observer
    Your distinction between neighbours and compatriots, inter state and civil wars, is a valid one and one that has many and persistent implications for policy and law alike.

    But on a philosophical level I am assuming 'peoples' have that right regardless. If anything, it's interstate wars that pose the most threat to the international order and should more likely demand international action. Civil wars can do so if they have major spillover effects, which is often the case.

    But I agree that in practice my 'rules' need to be looked at with cases in mind. It's true of all the rules. I wish interventionists took a more case by case approach instead of assuming my country has a "responsibility to protect" [that slogan is big here in Canada].

    Ditto with your question about the KLA. We helped Stalin because it was in the western allies interest that his country sacrifice millions of men and kill millions of Germans, taking casualties orders of magnitude greater than we could or would sustain and killing more Germans than we had the manpower in Europe to so. The things we conceded him were the price. Whether it was too much is a valid question, but the price was not paid for any reason other than FDR and cven Churchill thought Russia necessary and knew perfectly well they couldn't put that many men into Europe. For the KLA, I mainly cite its character to suggest that the conflict was not a straight-up moral choice between the Kosovars and Serbs. They were as bad when it comes to western ethics. If it had been in our interest to back the KLA and defeat the Serbs, anyway, then your Stalin analogy would hold. I just don't see the interest in picking the Kosovars over the Serbs.

    I mean BH actually has had a sort of UN/EU quasi administration laid over it, in country, for most of the past 20 years and I don't think it quite exercises full sovereignty yet. I'm not keeping watch closely- the rules have been relaxed a lot to be sure.. I don't consider that equivalent to the relationships most countries maintain with their allies and international membership organizations. There is not a truce supervisory administration or any other kind by external powers in Paris, London, Berlin [since 1990], Ottawa or Canberra, nor Tokyo, Delhi, Islamabad, or really most other places. I can make snark about the EU, sure, but its members are actually members of it, supply its civil servants, and the member states governments have always been the ones approving things. Brexiteer though I would be, many have understated the voluntary nature of British membership and the power of the national governments within it. BH was ruled by people from outside to keep it from falling into civil war.

    Also, in that way BH was different from most of the other post Yugo states which may have had to fight, but then got away free and clear without such arrangements.
    , @Sam Shama
    Hello Iffen,
    Ladies and Gentlemen, rejoining from the Cape, MA during a self-imposed break from the online world, I am delighted to find this top quality exchange which I read through rapidly. 'random observer' has furnished an outstanding synthesis of historical norms, political thought and indeed the role of morality, as generally as one can hope to apply to world affairs, and as specifically as we find ourselves negotiating the European and Middle Eastern theatres. His comments with those of Incitatus' and Iffen's, just prior to the start of my hols, now form the kernel of what I expect will provide the firmer contours of my own political positions - somewhat unsteady, up to this my almost four decades on planet earth.

    In my many croakings on this site, having struggled on many of these questions, I have often remarked I found myself a realist, attempting to apply logic in situations that defy such, morality mostly a loss [a personal choice amongst individuals perhaps, and at a wider level subsumed by the greater interests of the state of which I am a citizen]. None of which precludes the worthy available struggles of the individual against a state's particular dictates; that is our prerogative in a democracy; that is also finally, the outcome of a process we have acknowledged and set stock in, viz., majoritarianism.

    So, to start the conversation on a narrower issue, that of U.S. policy towards Israel, I'll simply throw this in the ring: What are the U.S. interests? At a superficial level, we might conclude that there is precious little there and all the indulgence is solely on account of the extraordinary influence of the Jewish lobby. If this is indeed the case, then it's validity must be argued for with a clear voice which successfully proves the exclusive benefit of Israel. All the arguments I see bandied around, from pharaonic Egypt to Persia of antiquity all the way to Washington, endows Jews with a supernatural, shared ancestral memory and a plan which renders Oded Yinon's apparent magnum opus small potatoes by comparison. Still, were it the case in the end, are we not beholding the outcome of a majoritarian process?

    So what are the greater reasons; are they related to Israel's pivotal position, geographically even, in the game being played by the existing and evolving great powers of the globe in that region?

    I see the role of the U.S. as the power which finds no equal competitor, but requires an ongoing partnership with the Anglosphere commonwealth nations and their currencies [GBP, CAD, AUD, NZD, INR], Europe [EUR], Japan [JPY] and S.Korea [KRW] and indeed Russia [RUB].

    This is the manifest policy of the United States in protecting the interests of its citizenry and the attendant benefits to its partners as well. Waving it away as so much 'neocon' talk only self-indulgently reduces the burden of proof on the critic. Show me a better construct.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. annamaria says:
    @Alex Contis
    The same neocon/libs who constantly and hypocritically rebuke Trump for his ill-advised anti-Moslem rantings, Hillary among them, are the same cynical folks who hide the fact that they not only originally scripted, systematically introduced and normalized egregiously invidious anti-M0slem rhetoric into the public conversation, but promoted or supported the launching of a series of unnecessary American wars that resulted in the maiming and slaughter of millions of Moslem people and destruction of entire Moslem societies .

    An especially galling example of the neocon/lib knack for hypocrisy aired awhile back on Hillary supporter Bill Maher's TV show. Maher's special guest was evolutionist Richard Dawkins, infamously tiresome pitchman for intellectual bigotry, who cut an incredibly squalid figure as anti-Moslem stand-up comic. Aside from his monotonous ambiguities of secular indignation was his smirking ritual of utter disdain, replete with anti-Moslem bigotry of the most vicious kind: essentially veiled racism.

    Avidly sharing reflections of Dawkin's stark anti-Moslem bigotry and waspish, scholarly spitefulness, super vulgarian Bill Maher, typically more foul and cynical, schmoozed and bragged with Dawkins on their shared superiority. The two elitist bigots, in one harmonious voice absolved themselves and their obsequious audience ( essentially ordinary folks turned snarling, laughing hyenas) from the most common and basic standards of human decency by viciously demeaning the entire vast Moslem world, its cultures and diverse peoples. It was classic neocon/lib "normalization of deviance" in an extreme form

    “The same neocon/libs …”
    They are not liberals in any sense – they are neoliberals/ziocons.

    “Obama and Hillary DID Found ISIS. This 2012 US Government Memo Proves It.” By Jim Jatras

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article45298.htm

    “The DIA report said, in essence, that if we (the U.S. and our local cronies) keep aiding al-Qaeda, the Muslim Brotherhood, and other such sterling democrats, something really nasty would arise in eastern Syria. Several months later, it did, when ISIS declared itself a state straddling the Syria-Iraq border.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. @random observer
    I don't think for a second that highlighting Caesar's weeping was meant to show him as weak. It was meant to elevate his moral stature in Shakespeare's own time and context, to suggest he bears comparison with the later time's idealized notion of paternal and benevolent kingship, an ideal that for better or worse was an amalgam of Christianity, Germanic chieftainship, and ann idea of Roman emperors that was rooted in the idea that these had been benevolent and divinely sanctioned rulers of the world and that Christian monarchs in latter days exercised some portion of the imperial authority whether as deputies of the Holy Roman Emperor or as notional imperial successors in their own realms. [One of Henry VIII's laws, which although not intended explicitly as such amounted to a definitive statement that as a king he owed no theoretical precedence to the HR Emperor, stated that "this realm of England is an empire"]. But I digress.

    It was definitely meant to suggest empathy for the people on Caesar's part. Whether this was true of the actual Caesar is a different question. Could be. He was an aristocrat and a player like his enemies, if a better player. He had seen how the people could be used. On the other hand perhaps he really did see himself as a father figure. My contention is more that it is good to do things for the people, but dangerous if doing so makes one start to think of oneself as a parental figure to them. Worse, to openly act as such. At that point, it is already not a republic and they have ceased to be citizens.

    Similarly, he did refuse a crow, in Shakespeare as classical accounts. It was politics. He was already a Dictator, and had already extended that office not only beyond its constitutional definition but beyond what Sulla had made of it, and indeed had gone beyond Sulla in making it an office for life. He had, like his tyrannical teachers, used his troops to invade Italy and overawe the state, proscribed and murdered enemies. He was already everything that his enemies accused him of being.

    The accusation implied against Cassius and Brutus and the rest could be true. But in the event they weren't the ones who actually set up as dictator, and we cannot be certain that would have been the result if they had won the ensuing civil war. Could be. But Caesar had already done all these things that they in turn might have done.

    I'm not insensible to either side of the conflict between pragmatism and intellectualism/ideology, nor am I unaware that dogmatic adherence to liberty, constitutionalism, legitimacy of law or indeed heredity or other older concepts, can be considered impractical or unjust in moments of need. There may be times when a strongman is needed and he takes practical, beneficial steps, and may even need to use darker methods. On the general theme, I recommend at a distance of 30 years "Marius" by Poul Anderson. My memory of it is vague, but it may be appropriate. It appeared in the original "There will be war" anthology edited by Pournelle and now reissued by Castalia House publishing.

    But even taking all that into account, if anything I would say my original comment was actually less from the perspective of dogmatism about legitimacy versus usurpation or the proper forms of power and more about the most practical maxim of all politics- if you lose, you can expect reward equal to how you ruled. At best.

    Thanks for taking the time and care in giving me a lengthy and well informed response. You can have your full license back ;0).

    I would quibble the fact that without the no fly zone imposed by the west the opposition would not have had even close to the support to deposing him. In the final assessment things are worse there now than before and surely new and long lasting grudges have been created.

    I’m constantly amazed by how many Americans conflate what is good for the MIC is good for them also.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Some of the most fun I've had around here. Rare to be able to combine Caesarism, Rome, monarchy, Shakespeare, Libya, Iraq and US presidential power in one conversation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Kiza says:
    @random observer
    I'm torn.

    They certainly demonstrated the superior effectiveness of the US, militarily and diplomatically, at least in that era, over the EU members' ineffectual posturing. Although, to be fair, the EU states were divided over when or if to let even the major Yugoslav states become independent. It was surprising how quickly the Germans of that day lined up for their old Croatian allies. It was certainly a time when theoretical questions about stability/order/liberty/sovereignty and nationalism were all in play, and so were matters of justice and interest. They kept realigning differently, too.

    I have larger, and what might be variously considered cynical or outright vile, views concerning whether or not it was the business of the US to separate the factions and end the killing, or where and how it was the interest of the US to do this. I meant it when I said above that ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    It is common now, right or left, to think it on some level wrong to intervene in one's own interest, right to do so for altruistic reasons. I am not immune to this. I would often nonetheless argue against it on the grounds that states pursue interests ultimately the product of their own advantage and long-term viability, and that these are valid goals because they extend the prosperity and lifespan of their own political community. They are not moral agents to each other, and to the extent they have moral accountabilities it is to how well they defend their own citizens, not other citizens. But it isn't just a realist argument for me, all the time. There are moral principles involved as well. A state that intervenes in its interests has skin in the game, a stake to defend, and a just claim to act. A state that acts purely for altruism is meddling other peoples' business. And considering it could and often does thereby expand the conflict and make things worse, or freeze it and make it worse later, it may well do wrong to intervene on such terms and have weaker case for doing so. And of course there is the additional question of whether or not the citizens of other countries, unable or unwilling to organize themselves peacefully, have claims on the help and lives of another country's soldiers who may be placed at risk with no clear gain to the country they serve.

    Having said all that, both BH and Kosovo met some tests. The wars in BH posed a challenge to European security, an interest of the US. They destabilized a region of interst to the US. It's less clear that Kosovo in particular served a US interest given the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a guerrilla army and a nationalist party, and it is not clear that the US gained anything by Kosovo independence. ANd there is a moral question- the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war. But I'd be open to both interest and moral arguments on Kosovo.

    On BH, the Us interests were stronger. And the military demands and costs for the US quite low, even compared to Kosovo. And although the moral status of the Bosniak leadership was questionable on many grounds including early-stage Islamism against their own minorities [no inherent criticism from me- just that they too were pursuing their interests and ambitions and weren't just a bunch of hapless Sesame street denizens suddenly raided by red-toothed Serbs out of nowhere], in the end I don't deny they could claim nationhood. Just not so clear they were entitled to take the Serbian parts of Bosnia with them.

    The moral calculus in Bosnia was made worse in that the ultimately weaker side, the Bosniaks, had been made even more weak by the western arms embargo, which mainly affected them because the Serbs had all the arms they could ever need already. The Bosniaks inability to fight their quarrel with success as was their right under my philosophy, was partly caused by the west. We put them in that position. So when we all intervened, we were partly cleaning up our own mess. So there's that. Fair's fair.

    As to outcomes, they ultimately were actually pretty good. The conflict has been long frozen in such a way as to minimize recurrence. Serbia now probably cares a lot less. Still hurt by the events and losses, and by the somewhat dishonest elements in allied propaganda, to be sure. But a different country with more economic and social goals in mind for itself. The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away completely, but to an outside it too looks as though its various peoples are less likely to have war on their minds whatever the end state. Kosovo seems to be something of a gangster state and terrorist entrepot, but not obviously worse than places like Moldova.

    Perhaps it all came right in the end. For me that doesn't eliminate the questions, but it wasn't a catastrophic screw-up in the end like Iraq is or Libya might become. Bosnia lasted five years and has had 20 years to recover a bit, Kosovo all phases just a year or so and has now had 17 years to stew. Serbia was actually getting richer for a time, although I don't know what impact the crash had on them. Iraq, on the other hand, has been getting more or less worse for 13 years now. Libya has been in conflict now longer than Bosnia was and not as close to an end at the five year mark.

    But really my reference to Kosovo, alongside Libya, was just a throwaway line in the context of the debate on Caesarism in the US presidency and whether or how foreign and military policy bears on it. I argued that whatever presidents have done in usurping war powers abroad, they have not done what Caesar did to usurp the state itself, alter their offices, or establish tyranny at home. But Kosovo and Libya are examples of them exceeding their power abroad.

    The significance of Kosovo and Libya is that they are, to my knowledge, standout examples of the US president using military force abroad on his own authority, without either attack on the US, attack on American forces or facilities, of threat of any of these things, nor peril to US citizens. W received Congressional endorsement for his wars, though there are international law issues wrt Iraq he was on solid US constitutional ground. Obama also enjoys them for the wars he inherited although I have dim recall of moves to get the resolutions changed/replaced/and made narrower and broader in different areas. Still.

    In Kosovo, Clinton acted as part of NATO under a NATO council recolution,which was IIRC legal in international law because there was a backing UN resolution empowering NATO to act as a UN agent under Chapter VII of the Charter [the Charter contemplates this role for regional security alliances and always has]. So Clinton had solid support for the US to act as a state, with allies, in this international sphere in accordance with international law, doing what otherwise would be the waging of an aggressive war against another state. The US, in acting, was covered by international law in a way it was not in Iraq. I, and other, contend Clinton had no constitutional authority to employ US forces in this international action, which he did solely on his unclear authority by using the US' extraordinarily nebulous powers for the president to declare an emergency. In this case, that the Serbs posed a threat to "US national security and foreign policy". The former is bogus and the latter weak tea for launching a war.

    In Libya, similarly, the international law cover for the US and allies to act was all good. But no constitutional authority to use US forces in this international action was sought.

    So I call those usurpations by the president of the United States against the constitution and congress, even though they were not also usurpations of international law by the US against other countries. That makes them mirror images of Iraq.

    Your comment about international legality of bombing Serbia is simply a joke. You must be some kind of US Republican lawyer wizz who interprets things away. There was anbsolutely no legal basis for US bombing of Serbia, which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo. Kosovo never in history belonged to Albabians, but they have taken it over through ethnic rabbit-like Muskim multiplication and through the Albania-friendly decisions of the Communist dictator Tito (settlement of economic immigrants from Albabia proper). Since when is changing international borders lawful? When US does it is, says the legal “expert”!

    Comparing this violent separation of a part of territory of a country by US, with a totally peaceful ascension of Crimea back into Russia is telling.

    Kosovo now has no border with Albania now, which it never was a part of Albania. The bombing of Serbia by US has emboldened Albanian nationalist and a pressure cooker is building up around Kosovo, where Albanian nationalist now want parts of all neighbouring states as well: Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece and further parts of Southern Serbia. The US has surpressed these tendencies for now, but you can rest assured that if US loses focus or engages in a big and difficult intervention elsewhere (say SCS), the Albanian territorial grab will continue. The Germans will not stop them, because like Croatians, the Albanians are their old allies.

    Finally, the only real similarity between Kosovo and Crimea is that two communist leaders gave them to minorities to appease them, which worked only temporarily and opened appetites. Crimea as was given to Ukrainians by Khrushchev, Kosovo was given to Albanians by Tito.

    He US showed an interesting inclination to enforce the country-internal boundaries established by communist authorities in one case and completely disregard them in the other. Legal consistency of your kind.

    Naturally, the conclusion is that you are just another self-confident US person who talks/writes even when he knows very little about the subject.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo.

    This is an excellent example of the difficulty that I have in trying to decide the "legality" or "moral correctness" of the various interventions by my government (the US). That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans), whether that turns out to be only temporary, as you suggest, remains to be seen.
    , @random observer
    Don't call me a Republican lawyer! Or a Democratic lawyer. Ralph. I'm a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I'm not a lawyer.

    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel with the complaint of taxation without representation or some other grievances. That the taxes themselves were excessive, or that the requirement the colonists defray cost of the late war won by British regular forces at great expense and to the colonies benefit was an unjust requirement, that anything done constituted "tyranny", or that the Boston "massacre" was anything other than a stitch up, I deny. Also, that how Britain administered newly-won lands inhabited by its Indian allies, or the Province of Quebec, was any business of the 13 colonies or that governing these according to the inhabitants wishes was a grievance for said colonies. But I digress].

    You're right on the UN and Kosovo. Resolution 1199 doesn't go nearly as far as endorsing military action. All subsequent UN support seems to have gone through the Secretary General only. Ironically, that casts the SG in the same role vis a vis the UN Security Council as President Clinton was in to Congress. Both seemed to think informality and executive decision were enough. Yech.

    So that moves Kosovo into the column of being both unlawful for the US President to use troops [he justified it by invoking the state of emergency and an imminent threat to US national security and foreign policy, which are respectively fraudulent and unjustifiable causes] and unlawful for the US and its allies to act under international law. That actually makes it, legally, speaking, worse than both Iraq and Libya, each of which had one or the other.

    Strictly speaking, Albanians are a Thraco-Illyrian people and their presence in the region predates the arrival of any Slavs. But I'm assuming you aren't aiming to race Iron Age pre-migrations history and I am willing for these purposes to concede your argument of Serbian claims on Kosovo. I am somewhat aware of them and include in that that the region was actually part of the ethnogenesis of the Serb national identity, which makes it part of their deep history homeland indeed.

    On that, please re read by earlier and note that I was engaging in a debate over whether the use of force was valid for the US president in the context of a debate on caesarism, originally stressing in that context that the question of US congressional support was more important for that issue than international support, and why, and on the separate matter of the role of interest versus idealism and moralizing in making choices to intervene. In point of fact I have been arguing against both the assumption that the US president can act without congress in most cases, that the US can act alone in the international arena in most cases, and that it is valid to alter the borders of states by force, especially for what to me are trite idealist motives. If it is in the overriding interest of the United States, then fine. Others need not like that and it cannot be defended in legal or moral terms. Also, please note I indicated opposition to the Kosovo intervention, made many of the same criticisms of the KLA, and challenged the idea that it was either moral for the US to intervene, or even in its interest to do so.

    I also did not at any time say it was lawful for the US to change national borders. Or Russia to do so.

    You mean "totally peaceful" like the German occupation of Denmark in 1940? Also, the separation of Crimea changed national borders.

    I actually quite agree on the historical claims matters. The Ukrainians are every bit as much successors to Rus as muscovite Great Russia and the RF are. Indeed, they are the heirs of the Rus core principalities as Moscow is of a fringe one. By that light, I say the Ukrainians are entitled to a separate state and territory whether or not Russia likes it. Ideally, that would not include any part of Novorossiya, the Wild Fields or Crimea that were never part of the pre-Mongol Rus state, never part of Lithuania or the Commonwealth. These were essentially Slavified only by Russia and only in the 18th century.

    For Crimea, if it is not to be a Tatar state, which their numbers no longer justify, and they did surrender after all, then that probably means the Russian claim is best. For the Wild Fields and Novorossiya, with the same Tatar caveat [I believe they would be long long gone or assimilated], the Russian claim would also be better than the Ukrainian. Although given the Cossack role in early settlement, the claims of the RUssian state have gaps. If the Slavs there wanted to call themselves Ukrainian, they should have the right on both democratic and first settlement grounds.

    The problem with all of that is that the borders of Ukraine at independence were agreed by Russia. That makes Russian actions a violation of borders to which they had agreed.

    That puts it on the same level as Kosovo. Please note that at no point had I ever said otherwise about the legality of Kosovo's border or Serbia's. We were only discussing questions of intercvention and use of force, not the legality of the goal of changing borders.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Kiza says:
    @random observer
    I'm torn.

    They certainly demonstrated the superior effectiveness of the US, militarily and diplomatically, at least in that era, over the EU members' ineffectual posturing. Although, to be fair, the EU states were divided over when or if to let even the major Yugoslav states become independent. It was surprising how quickly the Germans of that day lined up for their old Croatian allies. It was certainly a time when theoretical questions about stability/order/liberty/sovereignty and nationalism were all in play, and so were matters of justice and interest. They kept realigning differently, too.

    I have larger, and what might be variously considered cynical or outright vile, views concerning whether or not it was the business of the US to separate the factions and end the killing, or where and how it was the interest of the US to do this. I meant it when I said above that ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    It is common now, right or left, to think it on some level wrong to intervene in one's own interest, right to do so for altruistic reasons. I am not immune to this. I would often nonetheless argue against it on the grounds that states pursue interests ultimately the product of their own advantage and long-term viability, and that these are valid goals because they extend the prosperity and lifespan of their own political community. They are not moral agents to each other, and to the extent they have moral accountabilities it is to how well they defend their own citizens, not other citizens. But it isn't just a realist argument for me, all the time. There are moral principles involved as well. A state that intervenes in its interests has skin in the game, a stake to defend, and a just claim to act. A state that acts purely for altruism is meddling other peoples' business. And considering it could and often does thereby expand the conflict and make things worse, or freeze it and make it worse later, it may well do wrong to intervene on such terms and have weaker case for doing so. And of course there is the additional question of whether or not the citizens of other countries, unable or unwilling to organize themselves peacefully, have claims on the help and lives of another country's soldiers who may be placed at risk with no clear gain to the country they serve.

    Having said all that, both BH and Kosovo met some tests. The wars in BH posed a challenge to European security, an interest of the US. They destabilized a region of interst to the US. It's less clear that Kosovo in particular served a US interest given the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a guerrilla army and a nationalist party, and it is not clear that the US gained anything by Kosovo independence. ANd there is a moral question- the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war. But I'd be open to both interest and moral arguments on Kosovo.

    On BH, the Us interests were stronger. And the military demands and costs for the US quite low, even compared to Kosovo. And although the moral status of the Bosniak leadership was questionable on many grounds including early-stage Islamism against their own minorities [no inherent criticism from me- just that they too were pursuing their interests and ambitions and weren't just a bunch of hapless Sesame street denizens suddenly raided by red-toothed Serbs out of nowhere], in the end I don't deny they could claim nationhood. Just not so clear they were entitled to take the Serbian parts of Bosnia with them.

    The moral calculus in Bosnia was made worse in that the ultimately weaker side, the Bosniaks, had been made even more weak by the western arms embargo, which mainly affected them because the Serbs had all the arms they could ever need already. The Bosniaks inability to fight their quarrel with success as was their right under my philosophy, was partly caused by the west. We put them in that position. So when we all intervened, we were partly cleaning up our own mess. So there's that. Fair's fair.

    As to outcomes, they ultimately were actually pretty good. The conflict has been long frozen in such a way as to minimize recurrence. Serbia now probably cares a lot less. Still hurt by the events and losses, and by the somewhat dishonest elements in allied propaganda, to be sure. But a different country with more economic and social goals in mind for itself. The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away completely, but to an outside it too looks as though its various peoples are less likely to have war on their minds whatever the end state. Kosovo seems to be something of a gangster state and terrorist entrepot, but not obviously worse than places like Moldova.

    Perhaps it all came right in the end. For me that doesn't eliminate the questions, but it wasn't a catastrophic screw-up in the end like Iraq is or Libya might become. Bosnia lasted five years and has had 20 years to recover a bit, Kosovo all phases just a year or so and has now had 17 years to stew. Serbia was actually getting richer for a time, although I don't know what impact the crash had on them. Iraq, on the other hand, has been getting more or less worse for 13 years now. Libya has been in conflict now longer than Bosnia was and not as close to an end at the five year mark.

    But really my reference to Kosovo, alongside Libya, was just a throwaway line in the context of the debate on Caesarism in the US presidency and whether or how foreign and military policy bears on it. I argued that whatever presidents have done in usurping war powers abroad, they have not done what Caesar did to usurp the state itself, alter their offices, or establish tyranny at home. But Kosovo and Libya are examples of them exceeding their power abroad.

    The significance of Kosovo and Libya is that they are, to my knowledge, standout examples of the US president using military force abroad on his own authority, without either attack on the US, attack on American forces or facilities, of threat of any of these things, nor peril to US citizens. W received Congressional endorsement for his wars, though there are international law issues wrt Iraq he was on solid US constitutional ground. Obama also enjoys them for the wars he inherited although I have dim recall of moves to get the resolutions changed/replaced/and made narrower and broader in different areas. Still.

    In Kosovo, Clinton acted as part of NATO under a NATO council recolution,which was IIRC legal in international law because there was a backing UN resolution empowering NATO to act as a UN agent under Chapter VII of the Charter [the Charter contemplates this role for regional security alliances and always has]. So Clinton had solid support for the US to act as a state, with allies, in this international sphere in accordance with international law, doing what otherwise would be the waging of an aggressive war against another state. The US, in acting, was covered by international law in a way it was not in Iraq. I, and other, contend Clinton had no constitutional authority to employ US forces in this international action, which he did solely on his unclear authority by using the US' extraordinarily nebulous powers for the president to declare an emergency. In this case, that the Serbs posed a threat to "US national security and foreign policy". The former is bogus and the latter weak tea for launching a war.

    In Libya, similarly, the international law cover for the US and allies to act was all good. But no constitutional authority to use US forces in this international action was sought.

    So I call those usurpations by the president of the United States against the constitution and congress, even though they were not also usurpations of international law by the US against other countries. That makes them mirror images of Iraq.

    There has never been any UN resolution which authorised Clinton’s bombing of Serbia on Albanian behalf. This is your lie equivalent to Obama’s lie that there has been a referendum in Kosovo, which he uttered when Crimean referendum happened.

    There was a UN resolution about Kosovo, but it authorised US bombing of Serbia as much as the UN resolution about Lybia authorised the US bombing of Lybia. The UN resolution would say: “there is a problem in this country, all sides in the internal conflict should show restraint”. The US lawyers such as you would interpret this as a US right to bomb the country, go figure.

    As I explained, the peace around Kosovo is only temporary, whilst Lybia is a total, utter, complete, horrible and deadly mess. Lands around Kosovo could turn into Lybia in a blink of an eye when Albabian expansionism boils over. Bosnia is a highly unstable creation, but no major expansionism is involved: it could fall apart, but no major war is as likely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    Agreed, see above. Again, not American and not a lawyer.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. @Quartermaster
    She's going to rid the world of evil? So, when is she committing suicide?

    C'mon, even Calypso Louie Farakhan says she's a wicked woman. It's one of the few things he's right about.

    louie is also right about most of the slave ships were owned by jews

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. iffen says:
    @Kiza
    Your comment about international legality of bombing Serbia is simply a joke. You must be some kind of US Republican lawyer wizz who interprets things away. There was anbsolutely no legal basis for US bombing of Serbia, which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo. Kosovo never in history belonged to Albabians, but they have taken it over through ethnic rabbit-like Muskim multiplication and through the Albania-friendly decisions of the Communist dictator Tito (settlement of economic immigrants from Albabia proper). Since when is changing international borders lawful? When US does it is, says the legal "expert"!

    Comparing this violent separation of a part of territory of a country by US, with a totally peaceful ascension of Crimea back into Russia is telling.

    Kosovo now has no border with Albania now, which it never was a part of Albania. The bombing of Serbia by US has emboldened Albanian nationalist and a pressure cooker is building up around Kosovo, where Albanian nationalist now want parts of all neighbouring states as well: Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece and further parts of Southern Serbia. The US has surpressed these tendencies for now, but you can rest assured that if US loses focus or engages in a big and difficult intervention elsewhere (say SCS), the Albanian territorial grab will continue. The Germans will not stop them, because like Croatians, the Albanians are their old allies.

    Finally, the only real similarity between Kosovo and Crimea is that two communist leaders gave them to minorities to appease them, which worked only temporarily and opened appetites. Crimea as was given to Ukrainians by Khrushchev, Kosovo was given to Albanians by Tito.

    He US showed an interesting inclination to enforce the country-internal boundaries established by communist authorities in one case and completely disregard them in the other. Legal consistency of your kind.

    Naturally, the conclusion is that you are just another self-confident US person who talks/writes even when he knows very little about the subject.

    which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo.

    This is an excellent example of the difficulty that I have in trying to decide the “legality” or “moral correctness” of the various interventions by my government (the US). That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans), whether that turns out to be only temporary, as you suggest, remains to be seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans),}


    What do you base that on? the news and info you got from MSM?
    And which ethnos was saved from slaughter?
    Are sure the accused were really the bad guys?

    And if US Gov interventions (aka invasions and illegal wars) are to stop slaughter, please explain why the US did not intervene in the Rwandan genocide, when the majority Hutu government organized the genocide of minority Tutsis. The slaughter went on for months, while US and its sycophant "allies" sat on their hands, coming up with one excuse after another as to why they had "no legal right" to intervene.
    And this was a real genocide: 500,000-1,000,000 Tutsi were murdered.
    In the Balkans, despite the hysterical made-up numbers that were being peddled by MSM - "100,000 Bosniacs massacred" - the actual number was less than 8,000. An no mention of MSM of Serbs who were massacred, ethnically cleansed, murdered by Kosovo criminal leaders for their organs.

    US/NATO could have easily stopped the Rwandan genocide.
    Why didn't they?

    , @Kiza
    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds, it is not only that brainwashing changes your perceptions of reality, it also constraints the scope of your thinking. Have you ever asked yourself - why did Obama claim that there was a referendum in Kosovo that never happened? Why did a referendum like in Crimea never happen in Kosovo?

    Because many of the Kosovo Albanians had positive orientation towards Yugoslavia and were not terribly keen to leave it. Most of the KLA were not only terrorists, they were a criminal gang, trading in drugs and women (mostly from the post-Soviet countries). UN unknown percentage of Albanians did not like KLA, but the US did. There were stories about KLA leader's notebook containing the list of names of Western politicians and amounts.

    The never properly investigated initial report by the UN investigator from Switzerland Dick Marty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Marty about human organ trade by KLA has established that organs have been taken from both the Serbian and the Albanian prisoners by KLA. KLA also assassinated many moderately nationalistic Albanians from the Rugova clan and also the Albanians who were pro-Yugoslav. KLA never represented a political force in Kosovo until the US and Germany recognised KLA's potential to distabilize Serbia.

    Just like the Russians now, the Serbians used to wonder - why do Americans hate us, we have never done anything wrong to them. Even during the viscous bombardment of military and civilian targets in Serbia, the Serbians did not kill even one US soldier, even released the captured ones. On their own side, about 2,000 Serbian boy conscripts and civilians died from the NATO bombardment in coordination with KLA ground-force attacks.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. iffen says:
    @random observer
    It's a valid criticism, as the original reference is rather vague, and your point about the number of Americans who support Israel and want America to support Israel is especially well taken. If that position wins in an election, even in the sense that the politicians elected for a range of reasons happen also to represent a pro-Israel tendency, fair enough. People can support what they want.

    On the general principle of your question, though, I trust you would entertain some notions:

    - there is never a complete overlap between the foreign policy interests of one state and those of another. Any overlap is usually quite small.

    - there is some considerable overlap, more than typical, possible between Israeli and US interests, though the definition of the latter is what is under dispute in the US

    - it is not always easy to articulate that overlap at any given time

    - it is clear what Israel gains from its alliance with the US, even if the US periodically shivs them diplomatically

    - it is much less clear what the US gains from its alliance with Israel; diplomatically, it must be a net loss, since it has involved the US in insoluble disputes which it need not have been involved in, at least not so closely or so closely identified with one side, and it has hamstrung US policy with the Arabs more than once; militarily, I don't know the US wants or needs Israeli help or would benefit from it or want the diplomatic risk associated with it; economically (?); so I'm assuming we are mainly talking intel, covert ops, or technology here, all areas in which Israel is a leader but even so the US probably gives more than it gets;

    - So, at least as far as public information is concerned, it seems like Israel is a net liability to the US.

    SO with all that in mind, it seems to me that the alliance with Israel, or degree of it at least, is a net loss to the US national interest. All of its policies, right or wrong, as chosen by US officials, seem to be more complicated and its policy options made more constrained by the alliance with Israel.

    It seems ultimately to rely for its rationale on the domestic political support in the US you cite. As I said, as far as domestic politics goes, there is no argument. On the whole, though, I am troubled by the idea that it should be normal for huge constituencies in the US to take it as given that the US has obligations to permanently support another state's interests or identify with that state in addition to the US.

    even in the sense that the politicians elected for a range of reasons happen also to represent a pro-Israel tendency, fair enough. People can support what they want.

    People don’t actually have a choice. There are very few politicians who advocate for even-handedness with regards to Israel. There are no votes or money in it. OTOH, there are many votes and a lot of money to be lost by seeming to go against our BBF, Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @iffen
    I am troubled by the idea that it should be normal for huge constituencies in the US to take it as given that the US has obligations to permanently support another state’s interests or identify with that state in addition to the US.

    Would this apply to Ireland, Great Britain, Italy, Germany, etc. , not to mention our English speaking "cousins" in Australia and NZ?

    What will this mean for our foreign policy as regards Mexico and other Latin American countries in the future? What's up with Cuba? Do we "need" Cuban?

    Very sound and well constructed arguments on your part and I cannot disagree with your reasoning regarding the unequal benefits of supporting Israel. At the same time, significant numbers of people and nations have decided that because we are Israel's ally then we are their enemy. That said, if they want to be our enemy, disregarding whether we have given them cause, that is their choice and I would give it right back to them. I don't let people tell me whom my friends are and I want my country to do the same.

    Consider my Balkan question.

    Well, that depends on a variety of factors.

    One would be the degree to which the allied nation is in some particular moment of crisis, whether or not that crisis is presumed to be going on at the same level of intensity forever and a day, the degree to which helping it benefits US interests, and the degree to which helping it undermines US interests.

    It is worth noting in this context that the last time there was an existential threat to Britain, there was rather robust and angry debate in the United States about whether or not to help them. And if helping Britain for charitable reasons had been the only issue, that would have been quite fair. in the end, the US did not intervene just to help Britain anyway. Nothing the US did in the war can be separate from US interests.

    Britain as theoretical top dog had never had the primacy the US enjoys now, it was always first among others. It was never a challenge to the US after 1815 and indeed had facilitated US commerce and kept Europe out of Latin America politically with high degree of success, long before the US was able to do it. That all worked for the US. With that no longer possible by the 1940s, the options for the US in 1939-41 were: a) face an eventual contest for world leadership against a united Europe under Germany, plus worry about the Pacific, or b) assume Europe would eventually fall to communism through some combination of a Soviet victory or revolutions, or c) help Britain and slip in behind Britain to take its position both on the global stage and in propping up a liberal western European order.

    FDR was not an idiot. Entry to WW2 in Europe, with the outcome it had, saved Britain at the expense of Britain finally being unable to maintain its empire, a price Britain had little choice but to pay. In the middle of the war the US made itself the primary patron of Australia, cemented its diplomatic position over Canada and began the establishment of continental defence relations that have continued, based military forces in India to fight Japan and began to process of influencing Indian nationalist leaders [that one went awry postwar but it is paying off in the end], and established bases and financial and political influence in British [and to a lesser extent French] Africa it had not had before. The Us also enhanced its position in the Caribbean at British expense, relatively trivial though that was.

    The US was more charitable than in the first war, inventing the idea of lend-lease rather than just repeating the immortal phrase from the 1920s, ‘they hired the money, didn’t they?’. On the other hand this was done AFTER the British had already paid as much cash as they had and cashed out their investments, not before. And it was done in furtherance of a British war effort that suited the above US interests.

    The US demonstrated the interest-driven component of its relationship with the UK many times after the war up to today. Though Britain had played the original leading role in the science and much of the uranium came from Canada, the US made sure to exclude Britain from major development in the Manhattan project and did not support the acquisition of a British deterrent until the 1950s. Making sure ever since that it relies on proprietary US technology. When the UK [and France] pulled their expeditionary stunt at Suez in 1956, it frustrated US policy toward Nasser [not likely a smart or feasible policy in the end anyway, but still] and Eisenhower pulled the plug on them quickly with major financial threats. That’s fair- it was the US interest. But it certainly demonstrated the US was not an unqualified backer of British policy, and was willing the pull the rug out spectacularly and publicly. [It probably was not necessary to additionally have so much American comment focus on the "colonialism" of the British in this context, as though the intervention was the kind of thing America would never do. Since it was already doing stuff like that for itself. But I applaud the cynicism]. The US even only barely broke in favour of supporting the UK in 1982, seriously considering the side of its Argentine military allies first. That’s also fair policy, but it certainly was no evidence of intrinsic pro-Britain bias. In a conflict between Israel and any of its Arab allies, does the US hem and haw that much before backing Israel? And this is a scenario that has occurred far more often and caused more trouble for the US than Britain ever has. the UK is practically a vassal state.

    But the larger issue is this. There is plenty of scope for criticism of whether they have been right, as on this site, but no US Administration since 1940 has been doing anything in Europe or the Pacific except in what it believes to be AMERICAN interests. None of it has been done as charity and it still is not being. And the argument is credible- the shape Europe and the Pacific have taken has served US interests well, and more than any other shape they might have taken.

    Whether that is still the case in either region is a valid question. If it is not, changes would be valid. Note that this does not imply replacing current arrangements with hostility. The idea that current arrangements are gospel or laws of physics and to end or alter them is a violation of the natural order or a breach of friendship or civilization are overwrought. I wonder at times if statesmen, let alone publics, are quite emotionally stable on this point. Even Trump is only asking Europeans to pick up the slack to a level already agreed, and to which their vast wealth permits them.

    I don’t see the degree to which supporting Israel has advanced US interests to such degrees or even any [is US influence in that region enhanced by the alliance?], and think the US has supported Israel in policy choices it would never have tolerated from its US or Asian allies. Israel gains more, sacrifices less of its interest, has a longer leash from the US and tighter leash on it, and commands vocal public support in the US I doubt could be rallied quickly for Europe at this point.

    On the more generic form of the question, I would say this:

    It is largely unavoidable in a democracy for people to have formed opinions about the world, sentimental attachments to ancestral homes, or countries visited or lived in. It is valid to articulate these and have them taken into account. It is even valid to argue that, on some level, a country can have “friends” [quotes never to be omitted] based on long ties of culture, language, civilization, past cooperation in the crunch, whatever]. Though one doesn’t want to let the number get too unwieldy or the selection be too uncritical.

    But it is not valid for a citizen to be more attached to another country than one’s own, which seems to me at least to be the case when the assumption is that one’s own country should support another under any and all circumstances, right or wrong, even if not existential for the second country [and perhaps even if]. It mitigates this a bit if there is a case to be made that the second country is a “friend’ to one’s own country as a whole, with interests in common.

    It’s not really a resolvable debate and I don’t need to be a pure realist myself, let alone ask anyone else to be. I’m just troubled by the idea that any citizen of country x should put country y’s interests ahead of country x’s uncritically and/or all the time, and not be open to the twin ideas that x’s interests might clash with y’s and, that being the case, as xians they should prefer the interests of x.

    No, it doesn’t mean the US should let Arabs dictate who its “friends” are. But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend’s behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann Ricke

    But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend’s behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.
     
    As an ally, Israel gets a pass because (1) all of its wars have to do with quashing cross-border attacks by enemies bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth, and (2) it has never required GI's to fight its wars. A more apt analogy would be a friend targeted for assassination by people who want his property. There may be practical objections to helping him stay alive while remaining on his property, but not moral ones.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @iffen
    Thank you for your comments. I want to thank you in particular for expanding my “window” regarding thinking about foreign policy with regard to domestic laws and norms as opposed to international ones.

    I feel a little self-conscious pointing out some problems that I see in your impressive analyses and arguments.

    ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    This only applies in some of the situations. Many times, who is a neighbor and who is a compatriot is at the heart of the conflict so this rule will have limited application.

    the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war

    I am not sure how we can use this. If a group is criminal and terrorist before the conflict how do we interpret its actions during the conflict? Should we have helped Stalin or not?

    The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away


    Except for the U.S. China and Russia, which country cannot be fitted into this category?

    Keep the excellent comments coming, they are greatly appreciated.

    I still struggle with the ‘domestic vs international norms’. I had to think a bit during Libya 2011 on this.

    I find the debate muddled by both sides in America, by progressive internationalists who assume a UN resolution is a substitute for congressional resolution in allowing the President to deploy forces [Libya], and conservative republicans who assumed a congressional resolution is enough for the US to invade a country [Iraq].

    An UN resolution is the normal requirement of international law, in the absence of prior attack or very urgent threat, to permit one country or group of countries to attack another country. The securing of one would make it permissible for the US to attack another country without being in violation of international law. The key issue here is that it is determining the legitimacy of the actions of the United States, the state as a whole, in the international arena. It has nothing to say to the question of whether the president has the constitutional right to use US forces in this way.

    This norm is of course dating from 1945. Prior to that, there was plenty of customary and some treaty law [Hague and Geneva] about legal casus belli, and there was a track record of states being called to account diplomatically if they had waged aggressive war without cooking up a convincing one. The UN resolution requirement tightened this up considerably and most countries consider it a mandatory requirement of the Charter, binding on members. It has of course been violated. The Russians are lying to preserve the fiction they did not violate it. The US violated it openly in 2003, though under older international law the pervasive Iraqi violations of the 1991 ceasefire would alone have justified the invasion at any time.

    Plenty of Americans assume this is unnecessary, and I sympathize as something of an old school realist and ideological nationalist and broadly supportive of many US goals in the past. But there would be a massive price to pay if every country went back to the pre-UN world in this way, and the US has generally not only not permitted it, but has gone into full Wilsonian high dudgeon at the very idea. Only the US is permitted among nations to break the rules, being the obvious implication. I entirely endorse the contempt this level of American self-indulgence and hypocrisy generates in other countries.

    The congressional resolution is the requirement of the US constitution for the president to deploy forces. I am not an expert on the war powers issue, and frankly the scope of those powers probably should be a bit vague. But the constitutional requirement of a threat to or attack on the US can only be stretched too far. Insofar as US worldwide deployments have been sanctioned by congress, I can see any threat of attack on them as valid. But the idea that a ‘threat to US foreign policy’ is enough strikes me as bogus in the extreme, especially when months pass as a crisis develops [Kosovo].

    Some countries do not have restrictions on executive use of force abroad, short of dlecaring war. [Strictly, in Britian and Canada the executive can even declare war, and has done. The nature of parliamentary government allows for the legislature to be consulted in practice.] Some countries, esp with post 1945 constitutions, do require their legislature to consent.

    For the US, it seems to me that both conditions need to be met. Congress must act, to endorse or deny, for the president to commit US forces short of direct threat. A UN resolution must be had for the US as a state to use force in the world, again, short of direct threat. That’s two distinct levels and it does little credit to either party that they so often ignore one or the other.

    On the original debate I entered, it’s the absence of congressional support to the executive that makes the executive a Caesar and a threat to the state. The absence of international law backing just makes the state as a whole a lawless aggressor. The Romans were actually quite legalistic, but they only had to satisfy themselves and their own posterity of their causes, and they didn’t require other nations always love them and consider them moral exemplars, as the US does.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. @iffen
    Thank you for your comments. I want to thank you in particular for expanding my “window” regarding thinking about foreign policy with regard to domestic laws and norms as opposed to international ones.

    I feel a little self-conscious pointing out some problems that I see in your impressive analyses and arguments.

    ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    This only applies in some of the situations. Many times, who is a neighbor and who is a compatriot is at the heart of the conflict so this rule will have limited application.

    the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war

    I am not sure how we can use this. If a group is criminal and terrorist before the conflict how do we interpret its actions during the conflict? Should we have helped Stalin or not?

    The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away


    Except for the U.S. China and Russia, which country cannot be fitted into this category?

    Keep the excellent comments coming, they are greatly appreciated.

    Your distinction between neighbours and compatriots, inter state and civil wars, is a valid one and one that has many and persistent implications for policy and law alike.

    But on a philosophical level I am assuming ‘peoples’ have that right regardless. If anything, it’s interstate wars that pose the most threat to the international order and should more likely demand international action. Civil wars can do so if they have major spillover effects, which is often the case.

    But I agree that in practice my ‘rules’ need to be looked at with cases in mind. It’s true of all the rules. I wish interventionists took a more case by case approach instead of assuming my country has a “responsibility to protect” [that slogan is big here in Canada].

    Ditto with your question about the KLA. We helped Stalin because it was in the western allies interest that his country sacrifice millions of men and kill millions of Germans, taking casualties orders of magnitude greater than we could or would sustain and killing more Germans than we had the manpower in Europe to so. The things we conceded him were the price. Whether it was too much is a valid question, but the price was not paid for any reason other than FDR and cven Churchill thought Russia necessary and knew perfectly well they couldn’t put that many men into Europe. For the KLA, I mainly cite its character to suggest that the conflict was not a straight-up moral choice between the Kosovars and Serbs. They were as bad when it comes to western ethics. If it had been in our interest to back the KLA and defeat the Serbs, anyway, then your Stalin analogy would hold. I just don’t see the interest in picking the Kosovars over the Serbs.

    I mean BH actually has had a sort of UN/EU quasi administration laid over it, in country, for most of the past 20 years and I don’t think it quite exercises full sovereignty yet. I’m not keeping watch closely- the rules have been relaxed a lot to be sure.. I don’t consider that equivalent to the relationships most countries maintain with their allies and international membership organizations. There is not a truce supervisory administration or any other kind by external powers in Paris, London, Berlin [since 1990], Ottawa or Canberra, nor Tokyo, Delhi, Islamabad, or really most other places. I can make snark about the EU, sure, but its members are actually members of it, supply its civil servants, and the member states governments have always been the ones approving things. Brexiteer though I would be, many have understated the voluntary nature of British membership and the power of the national governments within it. BH was ruled by people from outside to keep it from falling into civil war.

    Also, in that way BH was different from most of the other post Yugo states which may have had to fight, but then got away free and clear without such arrangements.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for taking the time and care in giving me a lengthy and well informed response. You can have your full license back ;0).

    I would quibble the fact that without the no fly zone imposed by the west the opposition would not have had even close to the support to deposing him. In the final assessment things are worse there now than before and surely new and long lasting grudges have been created.

    I'm constantly amazed by how many Americans conflate what is good for the MIC is good for them also.

    Some of the most fun I’ve had around here. Rare to be able to combine Caesarism, Rome, monarchy, Shakespeare, Libya, Iraq and US presidential power in one conversation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    iow slow day at the old folk's home and the green beans are overcooked again.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @random observer
    Some of the most fun I've had around here. Rare to be able to combine Caesarism, Rome, monarchy, Shakespeare, Libya, Iraq and US presidential power in one conversation.

    iow slow day at the old folk’s home and the green beans are overcooked again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @random observer
    With a side of steak they're all right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. @Kiza
    Your comment about international legality of bombing Serbia is simply a joke. You must be some kind of US Republican lawyer wizz who interprets things away. There was anbsolutely no legal basis for US bombing of Serbia, which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo. Kosovo never in history belonged to Albabians, but they have taken it over through ethnic rabbit-like Muskim multiplication and through the Albania-friendly decisions of the Communist dictator Tito (settlement of economic immigrants from Albabia proper). Since when is changing international borders lawful? When US does it is, says the legal "expert"!

    Comparing this violent separation of a part of territory of a country by US, with a totally peaceful ascension of Crimea back into Russia is telling.

    Kosovo now has no border with Albania now, which it never was a part of Albania. The bombing of Serbia by US has emboldened Albanian nationalist and a pressure cooker is building up around Kosovo, where Albanian nationalist now want parts of all neighbouring states as well: Macedonia, Montenegro, Greece and further parts of Southern Serbia. The US has surpressed these tendencies for now, but you can rest assured that if US loses focus or engages in a big and difficult intervention elsewhere (say SCS), the Albanian territorial grab will continue. The Germans will not stop them, because like Croatians, the Albanians are their old allies.

    Finally, the only real similarity between Kosovo and Crimea is that two communist leaders gave them to minorities to appease them, which worked only temporarily and opened appetites. Crimea as was given to Ukrainians by Khrushchev, Kosovo was given to Albanians by Tito.

    He US showed an interesting inclination to enforce the country-internal boundaries established by communist authorities in one case and completely disregard them in the other. Legal consistency of your kind.

    Naturally, the conclusion is that you are just another self-confident US person who talks/writes even when he knows very little about the subject.

    Don’t call me a Republican lawyer! Or a Democratic lawyer. Ralph. I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I’m not a lawyer.

    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel with the complaint of taxation without representation or some other grievances. That the taxes themselves were excessive, or that the requirement the colonists defray cost of the late war won by British regular forces at great expense and to the colonies benefit was an unjust requirement, that anything done constituted "tyranny", or that the Boston "massacre" was anything other than a stitch up, I deny. Also, that how Britain administered newly-won lands inhabited by its Indian allies, or the Province of Quebec, was any business of the 13 colonies or that governing these according to the inhabitants wishes was a grievance for said colonies. But I digress].

    You’re right on the UN and Kosovo. Resolution 1199 doesn’t go nearly as far as endorsing military action. All subsequent UN support seems to have gone through the Secretary General only. Ironically, that casts the SG in the same role vis a vis the UN Security Council as President Clinton was in to Congress. Both seemed to think informality and executive decision were enough. Yech.

    So that moves Kosovo into the column of being both unlawful for the US President to use troops [he justified it by invoking the state of emergency and an imminent threat to US national security and foreign policy, which are respectively fraudulent and unjustifiable causes] and unlawful for the US and its allies to act under international law. That actually makes it, legally, speaking, worse than both Iraq and Libya, each of which had one or the other.

    Strictly speaking, Albanians are a Thraco-Illyrian people and their presence in the region predates the arrival of any Slavs. But I’m assuming you aren’t aiming to race Iron Age pre-migrations history and I am willing for these purposes to concede your argument of Serbian claims on Kosovo. I am somewhat aware of them and include in that that the region was actually part of the ethnogenesis of the Serb national identity, which makes it part of their deep history homeland indeed.

    On that, please re read by earlier and note that I was engaging in a debate over whether the use of force was valid for the US president in the context of a debate on caesarism, originally stressing in that context that the question of US congressional support was more important for that issue than international support, and why, and on the separate matter of the role of interest versus idealism and moralizing in making choices to intervene. In point of fact I have been arguing against both the assumption that the US president can act without congress in most cases, that the US can act alone in the international arena in most cases, and that it is valid to alter the borders of states by force, especially for what to me are trite idealist motives. If it is in the overriding interest of the United States, then fine. Others need not like that and it cannot be defended in legal or moral terms. Also, please note I indicated opposition to the Kosovo intervention, made many of the same criticisms of the KLA, and challenged the idea that it was either moral for the US to intervene, or even in its interest to do so.

    I also did not at any time say it was lawful for the US to change national borders. Or Russia to do so.

    You mean “totally peaceful” like the German occupation of Denmark in 1940? Also, the separation of Crimea changed national borders.

    I actually quite agree on the historical claims matters. The Ukrainians are every bit as much successors to Rus as muscovite Great Russia and the RF are. Indeed, they are the heirs of the Rus core principalities as Moscow is of a fringe one. By that light, I say the Ukrainians are entitled to a separate state and territory whether or not Russia likes it. Ideally, that would not include any part of Novorossiya, the Wild Fields or Crimea that were never part of the pre-Mongol Rus state, never part of Lithuania or the Commonwealth. These were essentially Slavified only by Russia and only in the 18th century.

    For Crimea, if it is not to be a Tatar state, which their numbers no longer justify, and they did surrender after all, then that probably means the Russian claim is best. For the Wild Fields and Novorossiya, with the same Tatar caveat [I believe they would be long long gone or assimilated], the Russian claim would also be better than the Ukrainian. Although given the Cossack role in early settlement, the claims of the RUssian state have gaps. If the Slavs there wanted to call themselves Ukrainian, they should have the right on both democratic and first settlement grounds.

    The problem with all of that is that the borders of Ukraine at independence were agreed by Russia. That makes Russian actions a violation of borders to which they had agreed.

    That puts it on the same level as Kosovo. Please note that at no point had I ever said otherwise about the legality of Kosovo’s border or Serbia’s. We were only discussing questions of intercvention and use of force, not the legality of the goal of changing borders.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    You are just arbitrarily picking a point in time and declaring that the borders at that point are where we start evaluation.
    , @Sam Shama
    [ [...] I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I’m not a lawyer.
    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel ......
    ]. ]

    But for the Canadian citizenship, I should claim that portion an uncanny reflection of my own identity. I wrote of it on this site a few months back, fully aware that a cloud of witnesses will rise up against and precious few in support of what must be a somewhat shocking, anachronistic position for most Americans and their Anglosphere cousins. Save a few brave Canucks!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Kiza
    There has never been any UN resolution which authorised Clinton's bombing of Serbia on Albanian behalf. This is your lie equivalent to Obama's lie that there has been a referendum in Kosovo, which he uttered when Crimean referendum happened.

    There was a UN resolution about Kosovo, but it authorised US bombing of Serbia as much as the UN resolution about Lybia authorised the US bombing of Lybia. The UN resolution would say: "there is a problem in this country, all sides in the internal conflict should show restraint". The US lawyers such as you would interpret this as a US right to bomb the country, go figure.

    As I explained, the peace around Kosovo is only temporary, whilst Lybia is a total, utter, complete, horrible and deadly mess. Lands around Kosovo could turn into Lybia in a blink of an eye when Albabian expansionism boils over. Bosnia is a highly unstable creation, but no major expansionism is involved: it could fall apart, but no major war is as likely.

    Agreed, see above. Again, not American and not a lawyer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    The reason I called you a Republican Lawyer is because you were challenging Clinton's action only on the basis of US Constitution, which is a common US internal squabble. Also, it is quite common for the US people to assume that whatever US does or want, the UN has to go along, who worries about trifles such as laws and rules.

    But your more detailed account above I fully agree with, especially the historic and ethnic considerations, both in the Balkans and in Russia. As you rightly point out, if I understood you correctly, ethnicity and organised state are separate considerations in both Kosovo and in Crimea. The rights of ethnic minorities must be recognised, but neither post-Illyrian Kosovars, nor Turkmen of Crimea have a priory ownership of an area that some of their ancestors may have lived in without an organised state. Similar legal principle applies for example in Australia, where its aboriginal inhabitants got recognised as the original inhabitants (the continent was not Terra Nullis when the British came) but this does not give the aborigines a right to create their own state instead of Australia. They are now part of the organised state.

    Therefore, Albanian claim over Kosovo is not legally valid, it has been established through terrorism and military violence by NATO. An internationally recognised border has been breached by US and in favor of a US client state - Albania. As I mentioned - there is no border between Kosovo and Albania now, but Kosovo needs to be fully recognised as an independent state to be able to legally join Albania. In other words, after an illegal and violent act, the US switches back to "international law" talk.

    Now, you are correct that Russia has recognised Ukraine in the borders including Crimea. But this recognition was part of an agreement whereby US and Russia both agreed not to interfere with Ukraine. When US organised a coup in Ukraine to depose a democratically elected leadership (there is plenty evidence of this on the Internet if not in the US MSM), this international agreement was breached by US. I hope you are not one of those exceptional US people who claims that international agreements and rules of behavior are only useful guides to US not obligations. When such breach happened Russia could have gone to UN to complain, where the US and its satellites would have vetoed and blocked any resolution, whilst the US puppet government of Ukraine would have kicked Russia out of its centuries old and vital defensive naval base in Crimea. In other words, once the agreement and the law were kicked out of Ukraine, they were replaced by what the international polity calls reality-in-the-field. The Russians took advantage of their strategic advantage that they had about 20,000 troops in Crimea and enabled Crimean referendum to join Russia. Please note that Crimea was an autonomous province of Ukraine, whilst Kosovo was not an autonomous province of Serbia at the time of its violent secession (it used to be under communist dictator Tito).

    In summary, it may be hard for you to accept that neither Kosovo nor Crimea should have been separated and international borders changed, but both Kosovo and Crimea are direct results of US meddling into the affairs of other countries. The fact that US has a totally opposite approach to Kosovo and to Crimea just illustrates how US makes the rules according to its needs and covers everything with huge dollops of brainwashing propaganda for the dumb domestics,
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @anonymous
    iow slow day at the old folk's home and the green beans are overcooked again.

    With a side of steak they’re all right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. iffen says:
    @random observer
    Don't call me a Republican lawyer! Or a Democratic lawyer. Ralph. I'm a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I'm not a lawyer.

    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel with the complaint of taxation without representation or some other grievances. That the taxes themselves were excessive, or that the requirement the colonists defray cost of the late war won by British regular forces at great expense and to the colonies benefit was an unjust requirement, that anything done constituted "tyranny", or that the Boston "massacre" was anything other than a stitch up, I deny. Also, that how Britain administered newly-won lands inhabited by its Indian allies, or the Province of Quebec, was any business of the 13 colonies or that governing these according to the inhabitants wishes was a grievance for said colonies. But I digress].

    You're right on the UN and Kosovo. Resolution 1199 doesn't go nearly as far as endorsing military action. All subsequent UN support seems to have gone through the Secretary General only. Ironically, that casts the SG in the same role vis a vis the UN Security Council as President Clinton was in to Congress. Both seemed to think informality and executive decision were enough. Yech.

    So that moves Kosovo into the column of being both unlawful for the US President to use troops [he justified it by invoking the state of emergency and an imminent threat to US national security and foreign policy, which are respectively fraudulent and unjustifiable causes] and unlawful for the US and its allies to act under international law. That actually makes it, legally, speaking, worse than both Iraq and Libya, each of which had one or the other.

    Strictly speaking, Albanians are a Thraco-Illyrian people and their presence in the region predates the arrival of any Slavs. But I'm assuming you aren't aiming to race Iron Age pre-migrations history and I am willing for these purposes to concede your argument of Serbian claims on Kosovo. I am somewhat aware of them and include in that that the region was actually part of the ethnogenesis of the Serb national identity, which makes it part of their deep history homeland indeed.

    On that, please re read by earlier and note that I was engaging in a debate over whether the use of force was valid for the US president in the context of a debate on caesarism, originally stressing in that context that the question of US congressional support was more important for that issue than international support, and why, and on the separate matter of the role of interest versus idealism and moralizing in making choices to intervene. In point of fact I have been arguing against both the assumption that the US president can act without congress in most cases, that the US can act alone in the international arena in most cases, and that it is valid to alter the borders of states by force, especially for what to me are trite idealist motives. If it is in the overriding interest of the United States, then fine. Others need not like that and it cannot be defended in legal or moral terms. Also, please note I indicated opposition to the Kosovo intervention, made many of the same criticisms of the KLA, and challenged the idea that it was either moral for the US to intervene, or even in its interest to do so.

    I also did not at any time say it was lawful for the US to change national borders. Or Russia to do so.

    You mean "totally peaceful" like the German occupation of Denmark in 1940? Also, the separation of Crimea changed national borders.

    I actually quite agree on the historical claims matters. The Ukrainians are every bit as much successors to Rus as muscovite Great Russia and the RF are. Indeed, they are the heirs of the Rus core principalities as Moscow is of a fringe one. By that light, I say the Ukrainians are entitled to a separate state and territory whether or not Russia likes it. Ideally, that would not include any part of Novorossiya, the Wild Fields or Crimea that were never part of the pre-Mongol Rus state, never part of Lithuania or the Commonwealth. These were essentially Slavified only by Russia and only in the 18th century.

    For Crimea, if it is not to be a Tatar state, which their numbers no longer justify, and they did surrender after all, then that probably means the Russian claim is best. For the Wild Fields and Novorossiya, with the same Tatar caveat [I believe they would be long long gone or assimilated], the Russian claim would also be better than the Ukrainian. Although given the Cossack role in early settlement, the claims of the RUssian state have gaps. If the Slavs there wanted to call themselves Ukrainian, they should have the right on both democratic and first settlement grounds.

    The problem with all of that is that the borders of Ukraine at independence were agreed by Russia. That makes Russian actions a violation of borders to which they had agreed.

    That puts it on the same level as Kosovo. Please note that at no point had I ever said otherwise about the legality of Kosovo's border or Serbia's. We were only discussing questions of intercvention and use of force, not the legality of the goal of changing borders.

    You are just arbitrarily picking a point in time and declaring that the borders at that point are where we start evaluation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. “When Cornel West attempted to object to the militarism implicit in the Allen speech and interject the failed project represented by Libya into the discussion Maher and Frank made sure that everyone understood that Colonel Muammar Gaddafi was also a ‘horrible dictator’ and thug who fully deserved to be overthrown and subsequently killed by having a bayonet inserted in his anus. If Hillary Clinton had been present she might have added with a laugh, ‘We came, we saw, he died.’”

    I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Giraldi’s observations and analysis in this piece. But it was mention of West’s reference to Gaddafi’s Libya, and the way West was quickly shut down and his point dismissed, that piqued my interest most.

    A number of organizations have reported on one of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails declassified by the State Department in which Clinton adviser Sidney Blumenthal informed Clinton that, “Gaddafi’s government holds 143 tons of gold, and a similar amount in silver… This gold was accumulated prior to the current rebellion and was intended to be used to establish a pan-African currency based on the Libyan golden Dinar.” The figure $7 billion features in some reports on Gaddafi’s plan to help establish a pan-African currency.

    Exactly what happened to Libya’s tons of gold and silver worth billions after Clinton and NATO presided over the overthrow and grisly murder of the leader of Africa’s most prosperous nation, which is now a failed state, a haven for terrorist activity, a source of weapons sent to Islamist radicals in Syria, and a major departure point for many of the millions of refugees fleeing to and destabilizing Europe, is a question that, somewhat surprisingly, there appears to be little interest. Perhaps someone will ask Hillary Clinton about the Libyan loot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  116. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Thank you for your comments. I want to thank you in particular for expanding my “window” regarding thinking about foreign policy with regard to domestic laws and norms as opposed to international ones.

    I feel a little self-conscious pointing out some problems that I see in your impressive analyses and arguments.

    ultimately I think peoples have the right to settle their quarrels, unless and until they affect their neighbors.

    This only applies in some of the situations. Many times, who is a neighbor and who is a compatriot is at the heart of the conflict so this rule will have limited application.

    the KLA was a criminal and terrorist group as well as a nationalist guerrilla army, and it was not atrocity-free before, during, or after the war

    I am not sure how we can use this. If a group is criminal and terrorist before the conflict how do we interpret its actions during the conflict? Should we have helped Stalin or not?

    The weird ramshackle UN/EU protectorate that is BH may not be durable if its foreign tutelage ever goes away


    Except for the U.S. China and Russia, which country cannot be fitted into this category?

    Keep the excellent comments coming, they are greatly appreciated.

    Hello Iffen,
    Ladies and Gentlemen, rejoining from the Cape, MA during a self-imposed break from the online world, I am delighted to find this top quality exchange which I read through rapidly. ‘random observer’ has furnished an outstanding synthesis of historical norms, political thought and indeed the role of morality, as generally as one can hope to apply to world affairs, and as specifically as we find ourselves negotiating the European and Middle Eastern theatres. His comments with those of Incitatus’ and Iffen’s, just prior to the start of my hols, now form the kernel of what I expect will provide the firmer contours of my own political positions – somewhat unsteady, up to this my almost four decades on planet earth.

    In my many croakings on this site, having struggled on many of these questions, I have often remarked I found myself a realist, attempting to apply logic in situations that defy such, morality mostly a loss [a personal choice amongst individuals perhaps, and at a wider level subsumed by the greater interests of the state of which I am a citizen]. None of which precludes the worthy available struggles of the individual against a state’s particular dictates; that is our prerogative in a democracy; that is also finally, the outcome of a process we have acknowledged and set stock in, viz., majoritarianism.

    So, to start the conversation on a narrower issue, that of U.S. policy towards Israel, I’ll simply throw this in the ring: What are the U.S. interests? At a superficial level, we might conclude that there is precious little there and all the indulgence is solely on account of the extraordinary influence of the Jewish lobby. If this is indeed the case, then it’s validity must be argued for with a clear voice which successfully proves the exclusive benefit of Israel. All the arguments I see bandied around, from pharaonic Egypt to Persia of antiquity all the way to Washington, endows Jews with a supernatural, shared ancestral memory and a plan which renders Oded Yinon’s apparent magnum opus small potatoes by comparison. Still, were it the case in the end, are we not beholding the outcome of a majoritarian process?

    So what are the greater reasons; are they related to Israel’s pivotal position, geographically even, in the game being played by the existing and evolving great powers of the globe in that region?

    I see the role of the U.S. as the power which finds no equal competitor, but requires an ongoing partnership with the Anglosphere commonwealth nations and their currencies [GBP, CAD, AUD, NZD, INR], Europe [EUR], Japan [JPY] and S.Korea [KRW] and indeed Russia [RUB].

    This is the manifest policy of the United States in protecting the interests of its citizenry and the attendant benefits to its partners as well. Waving it away as so much ‘neocon’ talk only self-indulgently reduces the burden of proof on the critic. Show me a better construct.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Welcome back!

    We have excellent commenters here on this subject, RO, Kiza and now you. Maybe Incitatus will find us at some point.

    I wish to go back to my original request for a copy of the document that delineates "America's real national interests." RO acknowledged that I had a right to it, but has not submitted it yet.
    He gave us some good criteria for evaluating those interests, but that is not the same as an agreement as to what those interests are. I am quite certain that Clinton's ideas do not match mine, but hers will be put into place. RO refers to these interests, but does not ask for an agreement on same before using said described interests as a launching point. I say our interests are very subjective. We can posit a premise and evaluate against that premise. For example, I have come around to the idea that "the" main problem or interest for the US is dealing with what appears to be the end stages of the fight to the death of radical Sunnis against the Shia (and other religious sects). If this is "the" problem, I suggest that the best ally in the region for the US is Israel.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Welcome back, Sam. I hope your holiday was restful as well as energizing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Hello Iffen,
    Ladies and Gentlemen, rejoining from the Cape, MA during a self-imposed break from the online world, I am delighted to find this top quality exchange which I read through rapidly. 'random observer' has furnished an outstanding synthesis of historical norms, political thought and indeed the role of morality, as generally as one can hope to apply to world affairs, and as specifically as we find ourselves negotiating the European and Middle Eastern theatres. His comments with those of Incitatus' and Iffen's, just prior to the start of my hols, now form the kernel of what I expect will provide the firmer contours of my own political positions - somewhat unsteady, up to this my almost four decades on planet earth.

    In my many croakings on this site, having struggled on many of these questions, I have often remarked I found myself a realist, attempting to apply logic in situations that defy such, morality mostly a loss [a personal choice amongst individuals perhaps, and at a wider level subsumed by the greater interests of the state of which I am a citizen]. None of which precludes the worthy available struggles of the individual against a state's particular dictates; that is our prerogative in a democracy; that is also finally, the outcome of a process we have acknowledged and set stock in, viz., majoritarianism.

    So, to start the conversation on a narrower issue, that of U.S. policy towards Israel, I'll simply throw this in the ring: What are the U.S. interests? At a superficial level, we might conclude that there is precious little there and all the indulgence is solely on account of the extraordinary influence of the Jewish lobby. If this is indeed the case, then it's validity must be argued for with a clear voice which successfully proves the exclusive benefit of Israel. All the arguments I see bandied around, from pharaonic Egypt to Persia of antiquity all the way to Washington, endows Jews with a supernatural, shared ancestral memory and a plan which renders Oded Yinon's apparent magnum opus small potatoes by comparison. Still, were it the case in the end, are we not beholding the outcome of a majoritarian process?

    So what are the greater reasons; are they related to Israel's pivotal position, geographically even, in the game being played by the existing and evolving great powers of the globe in that region?

    I see the role of the U.S. as the power which finds no equal competitor, but requires an ongoing partnership with the Anglosphere commonwealth nations and their currencies [GBP, CAD, AUD, NZD, INR], Europe [EUR], Japan [JPY] and S.Korea [KRW] and indeed Russia [RUB].

    This is the manifest policy of the United States in protecting the interests of its citizenry and the attendant benefits to its partners as well. Waving it away as so much 'neocon' talk only self-indulgently reduces the burden of proof on the critic. Show me a better construct.

    Welcome back!

    We have excellent commenters here on this subject, RO, Kiza and now you. Maybe Incitatus will find us at some point.

    I wish to go back to my original request for a copy of the document that delineates “America’s real national interests.” RO acknowledged that I had a right to it, but has not submitted it yet.
    He gave us some good criteria for evaluating those interests, but that is not the same as an agreement as to what those interests are. I am quite certain that Clinton’s ideas do not match mine, but hers will be put into place. RO refers to these interests, but does not ask for an agreement on same before using said described interests as a launching point. I say our interests are very subjective. We can posit a premise and evaluate against that premise. For example, I have come around to the idea that “the” main problem or interest for the US is dealing with what appears to be the end stages of the fight to the death of radical Sunnis against the Shia (and other religious sects). If this is “the” problem, I suggest that the best ally in the region for the US is Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. @random observer
    Well, that depends on a variety of factors.

    One would be the degree to which the allied nation is in some particular moment of crisis, whether or not that crisis is presumed to be going on at the same level of intensity forever and a day, the degree to which helping it benefits US interests, and the degree to which helping it undermines US interests.

    It is worth noting in this context that the last time there was an existential threat to Britain, there was rather robust and angry debate in the United States about whether or not to help them. And if helping Britain for charitable reasons had been the only issue, that would have been quite fair. in the end, the US did not intervene just to help Britain anyway. Nothing the US did in the war can be separate from US interests.

    Britain as theoretical top dog had never had the primacy the US enjoys now, it was always first among others. It was never a challenge to the US after 1815 and indeed had facilitated US commerce and kept Europe out of Latin America politically with high degree of success, long before the US was able to do it. That all worked for the US. With that no longer possible by the 1940s, the options for the US in 1939-41 were: a) face an eventual contest for world leadership against a united Europe under Germany, plus worry about the Pacific, or b) assume Europe would eventually fall to communism through some combination of a Soviet victory or revolutions, or c) help Britain and slip in behind Britain to take its position both on the global stage and in propping up a liberal western European order.

    FDR was not an idiot. Entry to WW2 in Europe, with the outcome it had, saved Britain at the expense of Britain finally being unable to maintain its empire, a price Britain had little choice but to pay. In the middle of the war the US made itself the primary patron of Australia, cemented its diplomatic position over Canada and began the establishment of continental defence relations that have continued, based military forces in India to fight Japan and began to process of influencing Indian nationalist leaders [that one went awry postwar but it is paying off in the end], and established bases and financial and political influence in British [and to a lesser extent French] Africa it had not had before. The Us also enhanced its position in the Caribbean at British expense, relatively trivial though that was.

    The US was more charitable than in the first war, inventing the idea of lend-lease rather than just repeating the immortal phrase from the 1920s, 'they hired the money, didn't they?'. On the other hand this was done AFTER the British had already paid as much cash as they had and cashed out their investments, not before. And it was done in furtherance of a British war effort that suited the above US interests.

    The US demonstrated the interest-driven component of its relationship with the UK many times after the war up to today. Though Britain had played the original leading role in the science and much of the uranium came from Canada, the US made sure to exclude Britain from major development in the Manhattan project and did not support the acquisition of a British deterrent until the 1950s. Making sure ever since that it relies on proprietary US technology. When the UK [and France] pulled their expeditionary stunt at Suez in 1956, it frustrated US policy toward Nasser [not likely a smart or feasible policy in the end anyway, but still] and Eisenhower pulled the plug on them quickly with major financial threats. That's fair- it was the US interest. But it certainly demonstrated the US was not an unqualified backer of British policy, and was willing the pull the rug out spectacularly and publicly. [It probably was not necessary to additionally have so much American comment focus on the "colonialism" of the British in this context, as though the intervention was the kind of thing America would never do. Since it was already doing stuff like that for itself. But I applaud the cynicism]. The US even only barely broke in favour of supporting the UK in 1982, seriously considering the side of its Argentine military allies first. That's also fair policy, but it certainly was no evidence of intrinsic pro-Britain bias. In a conflict between Israel and any of its Arab allies, does the US hem and haw that much before backing Israel? And this is a scenario that has occurred far more often and caused more trouble for the US than Britain ever has. the UK is practically a vassal state.

    But the larger issue is this. There is plenty of scope for criticism of whether they have been right, as on this site, but no US Administration since 1940 has been doing anything in Europe or the Pacific except in what it believes to be AMERICAN interests. None of it has been done as charity and it still is not being. And the argument is credible- the shape Europe and the Pacific have taken has served US interests well, and more than any other shape they might have taken.

    Whether that is still the case in either region is a valid question. If it is not, changes would be valid. Note that this does not imply replacing current arrangements with hostility. The idea that current arrangements are gospel or laws of physics and to end or alter them is a violation of the natural order or a breach of friendship or civilization are overwrought. I wonder at times if statesmen, let alone publics, are quite emotionally stable on this point. Even Trump is only asking Europeans to pick up the slack to a level already agreed, and to which their vast wealth permits them.

    I don't see the degree to which supporting Israel has advanced US interests to such degrees or even any [is US influence in that region enhanced by the alliance?], and think the US has supported Israel in policy choices it would never have tolerated from its US or Asian allies. Israel gains more, sacrifices less of its interest, has a longer leash from the US and tighter leash on it, and commands vocal public support in the US I doubt could be rallied quickly for Europe at this point.

    On the more generic form of the question, I would say this:

    It is largely unavoidable in a democracy for people to have formed opinions about the world, sentimental attachments to ancestral homes, or countries visited or lived in. It is valid to articulate these and have them taken into account. It is even valid to argue that, on some level, a country can have "friends" [quotes never to be omitted] based on long ties of culture, language, civilization, past cooperation in the crunch, whatever]. Though one doesn't want to let the number get too unwieldy or the selection be too uncritical.

    But it is not valid for a citizen to be more attached to another country than one's own, which seems to me at least to be the case when the assumption is that one's own country should support another under any and all circumstances, right or wrong, even if not existential for the second country [and perhaps even if]. It mitigates this a bit if there is a case to be made that the second country is a "friend' to one's own country as a whole, with interests in common.

    It's not really a resolvable debate and I don't need to be a pure realist myself, let alone ask anyone else to be. I'm just troubled by the idea that any citizen of country x should put country y's interests ahead of country x's uncritically and/or all the time, and not be open to the twin ideas that x's interests might clash with y's and, that being the case, as xians they should prefer the interests of x.

    No, it doesn't mean the US should let Arabs dictate who its "friends" are. But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend's behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.

    But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend’s behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.

    As an ally, Israel gets a pass because (1) all of its wars have to do with quashing cross-border attacks by enemies bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth, and (2) it has never required GI’s to fight its wars. A more apt analogy would be a friend targeted for assassination by people who want his property. There may be practical objections to helping him stay alive while remaining on his property, but not moral ones.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth

    Post WWII, the US was all in for the creation of the State of Israel.

    Shouldn't we stand by that commitment? Should we just decide (and say), "Forget this, it is more trouble than it's worth"?
    , @Talha
    That is not the moral quandry...

    How was the same friend's property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Sam Shama says:
    @random observer
    Don't call me a Republican lawyer! Or a Democratic lawyer. Ralph. I'm a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I'm not a lawyer.

    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel with the complaint of taxation without representation or some other grievances. That the taxes themselves were excessive, or that the requirement the colonists defray cost of the late war won by British regular forces at great expense and to the colonies benefit was an unjust requirement, that anything done constituted "tyranny", or that the Boston "massacre" was anything other than a stitch up, I deny. Also, that how Britain administered newly-won lands inhabited by its Indian allies, or the Province of Quebec, was any business of the 13 colonies or that governing these according to the inhabitants wishes was a grievance for said colonies. But I digress].

    You're right on the UN and Kosovo. Resolution 1199 doesn't go nearly as far as endorsing military action. All subsequent UN support seems to have gone through the Secretary General only. Ironically, that casts the SG in the same role vis a vis the UN Security Council as President Clinton was in to Congress. Both seemed to think informality and executive decision were enough. Yech.

    So that moves Kosovo into the column of being both unlawful for the US President to use troops [he justified it by invoking the state of emergency and an imminent threat to US national security and foreign policy, which are respectively fraudulent and unjustifiable causes] and unlawful for the US and its allies to act under international law. That actually makes it, legally, speaking, worse than both Iraq and Libya, each of which had one or the other.

    Strictly speaking, Albanians are a Thraco-Illyrian people and their presence in the region predates the arrival of any Slavs. But I'm assuming you aren't aiming to race Iron Age pre-migrations history and I am willing for these purposes to concede your argument of Serbian claims on Kosovo. I am somewhat aware of them and include in that that the region was actually part of the ethnogenesis of the Serb national identity, which makes it part of their deep history homeland indeed.

    On that, please re read by earlier and note that I was engaging in a debate over whether the use of force was valid for the US president in the context of a debate on caesarism, originally stressing in that context that the question of US congressional support was more important for that issue than international support, and why, and on the separate matter of the role of interest versus idealism and moralizing in making choices to intervene. In point of fact I have been arguing against both the assumption that the US president can act without congress in most cases, that the US can act alone in the international arena in most cases, and that it is valid to alter the borders of states by force, especially for what to me are trite idealist motives. If it is in the overriding interest of the United States, then fine. Others need not like that and it cannot be defended in legal or moral terms. Also, please note I indicated opposition to the Kosovo intervention, made many of the same criticisms of the KLA, and challenged the idea that it was either moral for the US to intervene, or even in its interest to do so.

    I also did not at any time say it was lawful for the US to change national borders. Or Russia to do so.

    You mean "totally peaceful" like the German occupation of Denmark in 1940? Also, the separation of Crimea changed national borders.

    I actually quite agree on the historical claims matters. The Ukrainians are every bit as much successors to Rus as muscovite Great Russia and the RF are. Indeed, they are the heirs of the Rus core principalities as Moscow is of a fringe one. By that light, I say the Ukrainians are entitled to a separate state and territory whether or not Russia likes it. Ideally, that would not include any part of Novorossiya, the Wild Fields or Crimea that were never part of the pre-Mongol Rus state, never part of Lithuania or the Commonwealth. These were essentially Slavified only by Russia and only in the 18th century.

    For Crimea, if it is not to be a Tatar state, which their numbers no longer justify, and they did surrender after all, then that probably means the Russian claim is best. For the Wild Fields and Novorossiya, with the same Tatar caveat [I believe they would be long long gone or assimilated], the Russian claim would also be better than the Ukrainian. Although given the Cossack role in early settlement, the claims of the RUssian state have gaps. If the Slavs there wanted to call themselves Ukrainian, they should have the right on both democratic and first settlement grounds.

    The problem with all of that is that the borders of Ukraine at independence were agreed by Russia. That makes Russian actions a violation of borders to which they had agreed.

    That puts it on the same level as Kosovo. Please note that at no point had I ever said otherwise about the legality of Kosovo's border or Serbia's. We were only discussing questions of intercvention and use of force, not the legality of the goal of changing borders.

    [ [...] I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I’m not a lawyer.
    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel ......
    ]. ]

    But for the Canadian citizenship, I should claim that portion an uncanny reflection of my own identity. I wrote of it on this site a few months back, fully aware that a cloud of witnesses will rise up against and precious few in support of what must be a somewhat shocking, anachronistic position for most Americans and their Anglosphere cousins. Save a few brave Canucks!

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist

    I am a class conscious, HBD-woke communitarian. I have tried to be a normal patriot and accepted liberal democracy as the "best" way to go. I am losing my grip on the liberal democracy part. Where is it written that the peasants owe allegiance to the nobility if the nobility has no allegiance to the peasants?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. iffen says:
    @Johann Ricke

    But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend’s behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.
     
    As an ally, Israel gets a pass because (1) all of its wars have to do with quashing cross-border attacks by enemies bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth, and (2) it has never required GI's to fight its wars. A more apt analogy would be a friend targeted for assassination by people who want his property. There may be practical objections to helping him stay alive while remaining on his property, but not moral ones.

    bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth

    Post WWII, the US was all in for the creation of the State of Israel.

    Shouldn’t we stand by that commitment? Should we just decide (and say), “Forget this, it is more trouble than it’s worth”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    There are many angles from which the 1947 behaviors of theUS could be confronted .
    But lets stick the one US openly supported .US supported a non bidding UN gen assembly resolution creating 2 states Israel and Palestine Why did US abandon Palestine?
    When it supported creation of Israel on the basis of UN resolution,it also agreed to the other side of the equation that was the remaing land of the British Mandate would be for Palestine.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    [ [...] I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist with reactionary leanings who considers American secession to have been treason and rebellion, wholly unjustified by the exaggerated and bogus claims made by Thomas Jefferson. And I’m not a lawyer.
    [For the record, I don't consider the conduct of the government pre-1775 to have been in the finest tradition of Englishness, nor necessarily quarrel ......
    ]. ]

    But for the Canadian citizenship, I should claim that portion an uncanny reflection of my own identity. I wrote of it on this site a few months back, fully aware that a cloud of witnesses will rise up against and precious few in support of what must be a somewhat shocking, anachronistic position for most Americans and their Anglosphere cousins. Save a few brave Canucks!

    I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist

    I am a class conscious, HBD-woke communitarian. I have tried to be a normal patriot and accepted liberal democracy as the “best” way to go. I am losing my grip on the liberal democracy part. Where is it written that the peasants owe allegiance to the nobility if the nobility has no allegiance to the peasants?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Well I approach the subject of political organisation as arising from a corollary of economic contracts between various groups. It is possible to be more leisurely and philosophical, but I subscribe to the belief, lest we otherwise make a frightful muddle of things, that at the core of most human struggles there is an essential economic contract. All else follows. So it is between any "nobility" or "elite" and "commoners"; call it noblesse oblige, fair progressive taxation, periodic debt jubilees, whatever; it is in the interest of the upper echelons of society to care for the welfare of the rest. All of us have a part to play, and serious deviations from the script tend to cause operatic chaos. This contractual obligation is far more vulnerable to manipulation in a liberal democracy, where responsibility is far more dispersed.

    It is important to be consistent and to that end a body of laws, written and enforced by a supra-national entity at the international level, a sovereign at the nation-state level and local administrations at local levels etc. ought be the model via which expanding polities are established. The mutual obligations between the elite and commoners whether explicitly encoded or ineluctably observed as tradition are but a special case of the general proposition.
    [btw a slight digression on this theme, I daresay judaism is quite legalistic and prescriptive at the level at which is impacts most adherents; the philosophical stuff comes much, much later; so I suppose this need for an organising body of laws was evident to the old rebbes]
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. Avery says:
    @iffen
    which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo.

    This is an excellent example of the difficulty that I have in trying to decide the "legality" or "moral correctness" of the various interventions by my government (the US). That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans), whether that turns out to be only temporary, as you suggest, remains to be seen.

    {That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans),}

    What do you base that on? the news and info you got from MSM?
    And which ethnos was saved from slaughter?
    Are sure the accused were really the bad guys?

    And if US Gov interventions (aka invasions and illegal wars) are to stop slaughter, please explain why the US did not intervene in the Rwandan genocide, when the majority Hutu government organized the genocide of minority Tutsis. The slaughter went on for months, while US and its sycophant “allies” sat on their hands, coming up with one excuse after another as to why they had “no legal right” to intervene.
    And this was a real genocide: 500,000-1,000,000 Tutsi were murdered.
    In the Balkans, despite the hysterical made-up numbers that were being peddled by MSM – “100,000 Bosniacs massacred” – the actual number was less than 8,000. An no mention of MSM of Serbs who were massacred, ethnically cleansed, murdered by Kosovo criminal leaders for their organs.

    US/NATO could have easily stopped the Rwandan genocide.
    Why didn’t they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    US/NATO could have easily stopped the Rwandan genocide.

    Why didn’t they?


    Racism?

    I don't know, I've seen the question asked before.

    Easily? Not sure about that.

    I am unsure exactly how the people in power make the decision whether to use lethal force or not. I certainly don't take their explanations at face value.

    The US played a major role in the creation of South Sudan. Are the people being massacred there this week better off being killed because of their ethnicity rather than because of their religion?

    Stick around for the hoped for discussion.

    Why do you think the US intervened in the Balkans and not in Rwanda?

    I don't have an opinion on who the bad guys are in the Balkans. I just said that for the time being people don't seem to currently killing each other on an ethnic or religious basis there and I thought maybe that the US was helpful in getting that stopped.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. iffen says:
    @Avery
    {That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans),}


    What do you base that on? the news and info you got from MSM?
    And which ethnos was saved from slaughter?
    Are sure the accused were really the bad guys?

    And if US Gov interventions (aka invasions and illegal wars) are to stop slaughter, please explain why the US did not intervene in the Rwandan genocide, when the majority Hutu government organized the genocide of minority Tutsis. The slaughter went on for months, while US and its sycophant "allies" sat on their hands, coming up with one excuse after another as to why they had "no legal right" to intervene.
    And this was a real genocide: 500,000-1,000,000 Tutsi were murdered.
    In the Balkans, despite the hysterical made-up numbers that were being peddled by MSM - "100,000 Bosniacs massacred" - the actual number was less than 8,000. An no mention of MSM of Serbs who were massacred, ethnically cleansed, murdered by Kosovo criminal leaders for their organs.

    US/NATO could have easily stopped the Rwandan genocide.
    Why didn't they?

    US/NATO could have easily stopped the Rwandan genocide.

    Why didn’t they?

    Racism?

    I don’t know, I’ve seen the question asked before.

    Easily? Not sure about that.

    I am unsure exactly how the people in power make the decision whether to use lethal force or not. I certainly don’t take their explanations at face value.

    The US played a major role in the creation of South Sudan. Are the people being massacred there this week better off being killed because of their ethnicity rather than because of their religion?

    Stick around for the hoped for discussion.

    Why do you think the US intervened in the Balkans and not in Rwanda?

    I don’t have an opinion on who the bad guys are in the Balkans. I just said that for the time being people don’t seem to currently killing each other on an ethnic or religious basis there and I thought maybe that the US was helpful in getting that stopped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Talha says:
    @Johann Ricke

    But even among people, who supports their friends without criticism when they rob banks and get us jammed up with them by the cops, or picks fights with people with whom we hitherto might have had no quarrel? After the fifth time one gets a beating, or is called to administer one on a friend’s behalf, there needs to be at least some thought going on. And countries are not individuals.
     
    As an ally, Israel gets a pass because (1) all of its wars have to do with quashing cross-border attacks by enemies bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth, and (2) it has never required GI's to fight its wars. A more apt analogy would be a friend targeted for assassination by people who want his property. There may be practical objections to helping him stay alive while remaining on his property, but not moral ones.

    That is not the moral quandry…

    How was the same friend’s property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    How was the same friend’s property acquired?

    Same as everywhere else, Talha.

    Nice place here, let's issue deeds.
    , @Johann Ricke

    That is not the moral quandry…

    How was the same friend’s property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.
     
    Arabic isn't spoken across the Middle East today and Islam isn't the religion outside of the Arabian peninsula because Muhammad and his successors held hands with their neighbors and sang kumbaya. Every country on earth is the product of armed conquest. Some are merely more recent than others.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. iffen says:
    @Talha
    That is not the moral quandry...

    How was the same friend's property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.

    How was the same friend’s property acquired?

    Same as everywhere else, Talha.

    Nice place here, let’s issue deeds.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    LOL! No problem, then let's not worry too much about claims to 'existentialist threats'. Those are just some parties interested in issuing new deeds (and reaffirming some old ones). I actually have no problem with Jewish people staying in the area honestly. Many of them have lived there since the second Caliph, Umar (ra), to the chagrin of the local church authorities at the time (well, except for the short period where the Crusaders kicked them out again):
    "Umar fulfilled the hopes of Jews by refusing the church's request to continue the ban against Jewish residence and inviting them back into the city."
    http://www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

    And I don't think it is right to send them packing back to Russia or Germany or wherever they came from - the Muslims should learn how to live with them in the area as local community as before.

    The political abstraction known as the 'state of Israel' - no love from me; a quick death, a slow death? The question is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned - but if the Muslims have signed agreements with them - they should be upheld.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Talha says:
    @iffen
    How was the same friend’s property acquired?

    Same as everywhere else, Talha.

    Nice place here, let's issue deeds.

    LOL! No problem, then let’s not worry too much about claims to ‘existentialist threats’. Those are just some parties interested in issuing new deeds (and reaffirming some old ones). I actually have no problem with Jewish people staying in the area honestly. Many of them have lived there since the second Caliph, Umar (ra), to the chagrin of the local church authorities at the time (well, except for the short period where the Crusaders kicked them out again):
    “Umar fulfilled the hopes of Jews by refusing the church’s request to continue the ban against Jewish residence and inviting them back into the city.”

    http://www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

    And I don’t think it is right to send them packing back to Russia or Germany or wherever they came from – the Muslims should learn how to live with them in the area as local community as before.

    The political abstraction known as the ‘state of Israel’ – no love from me; a quick death, a slow death? The question is irrelevant as far as I’m concerned – but if the Muslims have signed agreements with them – they should be upheld.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    A side note - this is what really, really pisses me off about these Neocon/Israeli-firsters. They know the history, they know that it was because of Muslim blood spilled in the Levant against Byzantine and Roman steel that Jews were allowed in after nearly 500 years. And yet they fund the non-stop Muslims-have-always-killed-Jews machine to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.
    "Second caliph. Omar is credited with laying the groundwork for the Islamic legal system and calendar. Omar, as part of his belief in spreading Islamic rule, conquered Egypt, Eretz Israel, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Despite this, and his later "pact", he was know for his tolerance and is viewed benevolently by Jewish tradition."

    http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=630&endyear=639

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Talha says:
    @Talha
    LOL! No problem, then let's not worry too much about claims to 'existentialist threats'. Those are just some parties interested in issuing new deeds (and reaffirming some old ones). I actually have no problem with Jewish people staying in the area honestly. Many of them have lived there since the second Caliph, Umar (ra), to the chagrin of the local church authorities at the time (well, except for the short period where the Crusaders kicked them out again):
    "Umar fulfilled the hopes of Jews by refusing the church's request to continue the ban against Jewish residence and inviting them back into the city."
    http://www1.american.edu/ted/hpages/jeruselum/muslim.htm

    And I don't think it is right to send them packing back to Russia or Germany or wherever they came from - the Muslims should learn how to live with them in the area as local community as before.

    The political abstraction known as the 'state of Israel' - no love from me; a quick death, a slow death? The question is irrelevant as far as I'm concerned - but if the Muslims have signed agreements with them - they should be upheld.

    Peace.

    A side note – this is what really, really pisses me off about these Neocon/Israeli-firsters. They know the history, they know that it was because of Muslim blood spilled in the Levant against Byzantine and Roman steel that Jews were allowed in after nearly 500 years. And yet they fund the non-stop Muslims-have-always-killed-Jews machine to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.
    “Second caliph. Omar is credited with laying the groundwork for the Islamic legal system and calendar. Omar, as part of his belief in spreading Islamic rule, conquered Egypt, Eretz Israel, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Despite this, and his later “pact”, he was know for his tolerance and is viewed benevolently by Jewish tradition.”

    http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=630&endyear=639

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. iffen says:
    @Talha
    A side note - this is what really, really pisses me off about these Neocon/Israeli-firsters. They know the history, they know that it was because of Muslim blood spilled in the Levant against Byzantine and Roman steel that Jews were allowed in after nearly 500 years. And yet they fund the non-stop Muslims-have-always-killed-Jews machine to the tune of millions and millions of dollars.
    "Second caliph. Omar is credited with laying the groundwork for the Islamic legal system and calendar. Omar, as part of his belief in spreading Islamic rule, conquered Egypt, Eretz Israel, Syria, and Mesopotamia. Despite this, and his later "pact", he was know for his tolerance and is viewed benevolently by Jewish tradition."

    http://www.jewishhistory.org.il/history.php?startyear=630&endyear=639

    Peace.

    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go.}

    Muslim Turk nomad invaders from Uyguristan exterminated all but a few 10s of 1,000s of indigenous Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks of Asia Minor.

    What benign are your talking about?

    Muslims have been murdering non-Muslims since they escaped the confines of the Arabian peninsula.

    What benign are your talking about?

    , @Avery
    Another refutation of the alleged benign Muslim invasion and conquest.


    [The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain]
    https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467678867&sr=8-1&keywords=book+islam+spain

    A scholarly debunking of another IslamoFascist myth.

    btw: Muslims by the millions are desperately trying to reach the safe harbors of Christian EU, instead of rushing to one of the benign Muslim 'paradises' like Kingdom of IslamoFascist Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.

    One wonders why.
    , @Talha
    Hey iffen,

    It sounds like you are likely still in the Rashidun era (in the book), correct? If so, they were solid and very principled. After them, it was really a toss up. Ummayyads, Abbassids, Ottomans, and the lesser-knowns like Ayyubids, Ghaznavids, AlMoravids, etc. all had their ups and downs (Avery is right about the Turko-Mongol ones like the Timurids - very, very sanguinary against any enemy - Muslim, Christian, you name it). The good thing is, from a juristic perspective, we only care about the Rashidun to derive rulings; nobody cares what the Tatars did (other than from a historical sense) because we're not obligated to follow their example.

    Now the reason for my anger is I have read the nonsense that people like Gellar, Spencer, Horowitz and their ilk put out and they are always only presenting the worst cases in our history and deliberately hiding that which contradicts their narrative.

    Peace.
    , @Talha
    As a side note, Imam Tabari (ra) was an amazing man; scholar of the highest levels and a historian. He even had his own school of law (which is extinct now and cannot be relied upon), though his work of exegesis is still made use of. As a historian, he was great, but (as medieval historians tended to be) kind of lax on the veracity of what sources he used (sometimes not even given proper attribution), which is why, I'm sure the author is likely using him as a skeletal framework for the narrative and pulling in more verifiable sources as needed.

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari - I would honestly be shocked!

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Idiotland says:
    @Seraphim
    It looks that the 'Two minutes hate' seances evolve towards 'hate weeks'. There is no dearth of Emmanuel Goldsteins. The Fiction Department of the Minitrue works overtime. "Eurasia has always been our enemy; Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia". And with Eastasia, for that matter.

    The latest example of how the establishment and it’s media presstitutes are using “1984″ as an instruction manual.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. Avery says:
    @iffen
    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”

    { They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go.}

    Muslim Turk nomad invaders from Uyguristan exterminated all but a few 10s of 1,000s of indigenous Christian Armenians, Assyrians, and Pontic Greeks of Asia Minor.

    What benign are your talking about?

    Muslims have been murdering non-Muslims since they escaped the confines of the Arabian peninsula.

    What benign are your talking about?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. […] 19, 2013 “Information Clearing House” – “Unz” –  I had the misfortune of watching a recent episode of Real Time with Bill Maher. […]

    Read More
  132. Avery says:
    @iffen
    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”

    Another refutation of the alleged benign Muslim invasion and conquest.

    [The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain]

    https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467678867&sr=8-1&keywords=book+islam+spain

    A scholarly debunking of another IslamoFascist myth.

    btw: Muslims by the millions are desperately trying to reach the safe harbors of Christian EU, instead of rushing to one of the benign Muslim ‘paradises’ like Kingdom of IslamoFascist Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.

    One wonders why.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Avery,

    The man is indeed a credentialed scholar - but his premise is all wrong. I watched an interview with him regarding his book. I was laughing inside. He makes a fundamental mistake. His premise is basically this; you know, I kept hearing about this wonderful relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews so I did a bunch of research and 'oh my!' - they have this jizyah thing they have to pay and have to wear distinct clothes and can't build their churches higher than mosques, etc. LOL!

    Yeah...so if you actually thought there was a 'paradise' in medieval Spain under the Muslims and compare it to a liberal democracy - you are going to be very, very disappointed my friend - because, I will be first to say, that is truly a myth.

    Look for his interview, it's out there, doubt many people are named similarly as him.

    Uh no...when people claim there was La Convivencia - they mean co-existence and compare it to what happened under the Visigoths (with their on again, off again forced baptisms of Jews https://www.pdx.edu/honors/sites/www.pdx.edu.honors/files/11.%20Phillips%20Essay.pdf) and the Reconquista which included episodes like the Alhambra Decree, Inquisition and Expulsion of Moriscos (irrespective of their faith in Christianity or not - http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain).

    It's all about context.

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”

    Hey iffen,

    It sounds like you are likely still in the Rashidun era (in the book), correct? If so, they were solid and very principled. After them, it was really a toss up. Ummayyads, Abbassids, Ottomans, and the lesser-knowns like Ayyubids, Ghaznavids, AlMoravids, etc. all had their ups and downs (Avery is right about the Turko-Mongol ones like the Timurids – very, very sanguinary against any enemy – Muslim, Christian, you name it). The good thing is, from a juristic perspective, we only care about the Rashidun to derive rulings; nobody cares what the Tatars did (other than from a historical sense) because we’re not obligated to follow their example.

    Now the reason for my anger is I have read the nonsense that people like Gellar, Spencer, Horowitz and their ilk put out and they are always only presenting the worst cases in our history and deliberately hiding that which contradicts their narrative.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Talha says:
    @Avery
    Another refutation of the alleged benign Muslim invasion and conquest.


    [The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise: Muslims, Christians, and Jews under Islamic Rule in Medieval Spain]
    https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Andalusian-Paradise-Christians-Medieval/dp/1610170954/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1467678867&sr=8-1&keywords=book+islam+spain

    A scholarly debunking of another IslamoFascist myth.

    btw: Muslims by the millions are desperately trying to reach the safe harbors of Christian EU, instead of rushing to one of the benign Muslim 'paradises' like Kingdom of IslamoFascist Wahhabist Saudi Arabia.

    One wonders why.

    Hey Avery,

    The man is indeed a credentialed scholar – but his premise is all wrong. I watched an interview with him regarding his book. I was laughing inside. He makes a fundamental mistake. His premise is basically this; you know, I kept hearing about this wonderful relations between Muslims, Christians and Jews so I did a bunch of research and ‘oh my!’ – they have this jizyah thing they have to pay and have to wear distinct clothes and can’t build their churches higher than mosques, etc. LOL!

    Yeah…so if you actually thought there was a ‘paradise’ in medieval Spain under the Muslims and compare it to a liberal democracy – you are going to be very, very disappointed my friend – because, I will be first to say, that is truly a myth.

    Look for his interview, it’s out there, doubt many people are named similarly as him.

    Uh no…when people claim there was La Convivencia – they mean co-existence and compare it to what happened under the Visigoths (with their on again, off again forced baptisms of Jews https://www.pdx.edu/honors/sites/www.pdx.edu.honors/files/11.%20Phillips%20Essay.pdf) and the Reconquista which included episodes like the Alhambra Decree, Inquisition and Expulsion of Moriscos (irrespective of their faith in Christianity or not – http://www.brill.com/products/book/expulsion-moriscos-spain).

    It’s all about context.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. Kiza says:
    @iffen
    which was fighting a terrorist insurgency in Kosovo.

    This is an excellent example of the difficulty that I have in trying to decide the "legality" or "moral correctness" of the various interventions by my government (the US). That said, I tend to think that we helped stop ethnic slaughter there (in the Balkans), whether that turns out to be only temporary, as you suggest, remains to be seen.

    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds, it is not only that brainwashing changes your perceptions of reality, it also constraints the scope of your thinking. Have you ever asked yourself – why did Obama claim that there was a referendum in Kosovo that never happened? Why did a referendum like in Crimea never happen in Kosovo?

    Because many of the Kosovo Albanians had positive orientation towards Yugoslavia and were not terribly keen to leave it. Most of the KLA were not only terrorists, they were a criminal gang, trading in drugs and women (mostly from the post-Soviet countries). UN unknown percentage of Albanians did not like KLA, but the US did. There were stories about KLA leader’s notebook containing the list of names of Western politicians and amounts.

    The never properly investigated initial report by the UN investigator from Switzerland Dick Marty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Marty about human organ trade by KLA has established that organs have been taken from both the Serbian and the Albanian prisoners by KLA. KLA also assassinated many moderately nationalistic Albanians from the Rugova clan and also the Albanians who were pro-Yugoslav. KLA never represented a political force in Kosovo until the US and Germany recognised KLA’s potential to distabilize Serbia.

    Just like the Russians now, the Serbians used to wonder – why do Americans hate us, we have never done anything wrong to them. Even during the viscous bombardment of military and civilian targets in Serbia, the Serbians did not kill even one US soldier, even released the captured ones. On their own side, about 2,000 Serbian boy conscripts and civilians died from the NATO bombardment in coordination with KLA ground-force attacks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds

    How about if I let you worry about your brain and you let me worry about mine?

    You screw up otherwise solid comments with nonsense like this.
    , @iffen
    Didn't Yugoslavia die with Tito?

    Aren't we talking about an attempt to create a "Greater Serbia"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. Talha says:
    @iffen
    Talha,

    I am not sure that I understand your hostility.

    I haven’t finished my book yet. The author relies heavily on Tabari. I am sure you are knowledgeable about his writings.

    It is my understanding that Jews never disappeared from the Holy Land, although in the early AD, the numbers may have been very small.

    However, it is questionable whether those “historic Jews” have descendants in Israel today. In any case I don’t see how that impacts today.

    I know that you want to push back against misinformation and derogatory comments, but as best as I can tell, Muslim conquers don’t need any apologies. They seem to have been rather benign as conquerors go. Gross generalization would be that they were like, “Send in your taxes and everything will be cool.”

    As a side note, Imam Tabari (ra) was an amazing man; scholar of the highest levels and a historian. He even had his own school of law (which is extinct now and cannot be relied upon), though his work of exegesis is still made use of. As a historian, he was great, but (as medieval historians tended to be) kind of lax on the veracity of what sources he used (sometimes not even given proper attribution), which is why, I’m sure the author is likely using him as a skeletal framework for the narrative and pulling in more verifiable sources as needed.

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari – I would honestly be shocked!

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari

    Not at all, he fully explained the context of Tabari's "collection."

    It sounds like you are likely still in the Rashidun era

    Yes, they have just finished off the Sassanids and are now going into Egypt.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    I’m a Canadian Tory monarchist

    I am a class conscious, HBD-woke communitarian. I have tried to be a normal patriot and accepted liberal democracy as the "best" way to go. I am losing my grip on the liberal democracy part. Where is it written that the peasants owe allegiance to the nobility if the nobility has no allegiance to the peasants?

    Well I approach the subject of political organisation as arising from a corollary of economic contracts between various groups. It is possible to be more leisurely and philosophical, but I subscribe to the belief, lest we otherwise make a frightful muddle of things, that at the core of most human struggles there is an essential economic contract. All else follows. So it is between any “nobility” or “elite” and “commoners”; call it noblesse oblige, fair progressive taxation, periodic debt jubilees, whatever; it is in the interest of the upper echelons of society to care for the welfare of the rest. All of us have a part to play, and serious deviations from the script tend to cause operatic chaos. This contractual obligation is far more vulnerable to manipulation in a liberal democracy, where responsibility is far more dispersed.

    It is important to be consistent and to that end a body of laws, written and enforced by a supra-national entity at the international level, a sovereign at the nation-state level and local administrations at local levels etc. ought be the model via which expanding polities are established. The mutual obligations between the elite and commoners whether explicitly encoded or ineluctably observed as tradition are but a special case of the general proposition.
    [btw a slight digression on this theme, I daresay judaism is quite legalistic and prescriptive at the level at which is impacts most adherents; the philosophical stuff comes much, much later; so I suppose this need for an organising body of laws was evident to the old rebbes]

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    So you agree with me that once the "upper echelon" violates "the contract," we, the peons, are free to pursue our own interests without regard to the discarded broken contract?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Kiza says:
    @random observer
    Agreed, see above. Again, not American and not a lawyer.

    The reason I called you a Republican Lawyer is because you were challenging Clinton’s action only on the basis of US Constitution, which is a common US internal squabble. Also, it is quite common for the US people to assume that whatever US does or want, the UN has to go along, who worries about trifles such as laws and rules.

    But your more detailed account above I fully agree with, especially the historic and ethnic considerations, both in the Balkans and in Russia. As you rightly point out, if I understood you correctly, ethnicity and organised state are separate considerations in both Kosovo and in Crimea. The rights of ethnic minorities must be recognised, but neither post-Illyrian Kosovars, nor Turkmen of Crimea have a priory ownership of an area that some of their ancestors may have lived in without an organised state. Similar legal principle applies for example in Australia, where its aboriginal inhabitants got recognised as the original inhabitants (the continent was not Terra Nullis when the British came) but this does not give the aborigines a right to create their own state instead of Australia. They are now part of the organised state.

    Therefore, Albanian claim over Kosovo is not legally valid, it has been established through terrorism and military violence by NATO. An internationally recognised border has been breached by US and in favor of a US client state – Albania. As I mentioned – there is no border between Kosovo and Albania now, but Kosovo needs to be fully recognised as an independent state to be able to legally join Albania. In other words, after an illegal and violent act, the US switches back to “international law” talk.

    Now, you are correct that Russia has recognised Ukraine in the borders including Crimea. But this recognition was part of an agreement whereby US and Russia both agreed not to interfere with Ukraine. When US organised a coup in Ukraine to depose a democratically elected leadership (there is plenty evidence of this on the Internet if not in the US MSM), this international agreement was breached by US. I hope you are not one of those exceptional US people who claims that international agreements and rules of behavior are only useful guides to US not obligations. When such breach happened Russia could have gone to UN to complain, where the US and its satellites would have vetoed and blocked any resolution, whilst the US puppet government of Ukraine would have kicked Russia out of its centuries old and vital defensive naval base in Crimea. In other words, once the agreement and the law were kicked out of Ukraine, they were replaced by what the international polity calls reality-in-the-field. The Russians took advantage of their strategic advantage that they had about 20,000 troops in Crimea and enabled Crimean referendum to join Russia. Please note that Crimea was an autonomous province of Ukraine, whilst Kosovo was not an autonomous province of Serbia at the time of its violent secession (it used to be under communist dictator Tito).

    In summary, it may be hard for you to accept that neither Kosovo nor Crimea should have been separated and international borders changed, but both Kosovo and Crimea are direct results of US meddling into the affairs of other countries. The fact that US has a totally opposite approach to Kosovo and to Crimea just illustrates how US makes the rules according to its needs and covers everything with huge dollops of brainwashing propaganda for the dumb domestics,

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    'The fact that US has a totally opposite approach to Kosovo and to Crimea just illustrates how US makes the rules according to its needs and covers everything with huge dollops of brainwashing propaganda for the dumb domestics"
    Brilliant.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Kiza says:

    I have realised a while ago (I am not young) that this magnificent US Military that Madeleine Albright complained to Colin Powell about (why cannot we use it) is just a rent-an-army which seldom kills for true US national interest then mostly for the interests of various ethnic groups domineering the US. It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    [It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.]

    Don't all nations do that?


    [The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.]

    Agreed; more generally I should think inter-personally, most peoples would prefer to be friends with other peoples. But I wouldn't commit the fallacy of aggregating that to the behaviour of organised nation-states; certainly quite so sincerely cordial I would expect them not to be. Power, ambition, greed, need, angst are all qualities that have characterised all nations.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. iffen says:
    @Kiza
    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds, it is not only that brainwashing changes your perceptions of reality, it also constraints the scope of your thinking. Have you ever asked yourself - why did Obama claim that there was a referendum in Kosovo that never happened? Why did a referendum like in Crimea never happen in Kosovo?

    Because many of the Kosovo Albanians had positive orientation towards Yugoslavia and were not terribly keen to leave it. Most of the KLA were not only terrorists, they were a criminal gang, trading in drugs and women (mostly from the post-Soviet countries). UN unknown percentage of Albanians did not like KLA, but the US did. There were stories about KLA leader's notebook containing the list of names of Western politicians and amounts.

    The never properly investigated initial report by the UN investigator from Switzerland Dick Marty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Marty about human organ trade by KLA has established that organs have been taken from both the Serbian and the Albanian prisoners by KLA. KLA also assassinated many moderately nationalistic Albanians from the Rugova clan and also the Albanians who were pro-Yugoslav. KLA never represented a political force in Kosovo until the US and Germany recognised KLA's potential to distabilize Serbia.

    Just like the Russians now, the Serbians used to wonder - why do Americans hate us, we have never done anything wrong to them. Even during the viscous bombardment of military and civilian targets in Serbia, the Serbians did not kill even one US soldier, even released the captured ones. On their own side, about 2,000 Serbian boy conscripts and civilians died from the NATO bombardment in coordination with KLA ground-force attacks.

    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds

    How about if I let you worry about your brain and you let me worry about mine?

    You screw up otherwise solid comments with nonsense like this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. iffen says:
    @Talha
    As a side note, Imam Tabari (ra) was an amazing man; scholar of the highest levels and a historian. He even had his own school of law (which is extinct now and cannot be relied upon), though his work of exegesis is still made use of. As a historian, he was great, but (as medieval historians tended to be) kind of lax on the veracity of what sources he used (sometimes not even given proper attribution), which is why, I'm sure the author is likely using him as a skeletal framework for the narrative and pulling in more verifiable sources as needed.

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari - I would honestly be shocked!

    Peace.

    The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari

    Not at all, he fully explained the context of Tabari’s “collection.”

    It sounds like you are likely still in the Rashidun era

    Yes, they have just finished off the Sassanids and are now going into Egypt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    OK so Khalid (ra) is still in charge - at least in the East - the story of his demotion brings tears to my eyes - just the sincerity of purpose in both him and his commander.

    And I guess you read about Qadisiyyah - what a test of wills, mettle against mettle.

    Sounds like a great book, let me know once you've finished it. If it's good I'll put it on my reading list and recommend to others.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    Well I approach the subject of political organisation as arising from a corollary of economic contracts between various groups. It is possible to be more leisurely and philosophical, but I subscribe to the belief, lest we otherwise make a frightful muddle of things, that at the core of most human struggles there is an essential economic contract. All else follows. So it is between any "nobility" or "elite" and "commoners"; call it noblesse oblige, fair progressive taxation, periodic debt jubilees, whatever; it is in the interest of the upper echelons of society to care for the welfare of the rest. All of us have a part to play, and serious deviations from the script tend to cause operatic chaos. This contractual obligation is far more vulnerable to manipulation in a liberal democracy, where responsibility is far more dispersed.

    It is important to be consistent and to that end a body of laws, written and enforced by a supra-national entity at the international level, a sovereign at the nation-state level and local administrations at local levels etc. ought be the model via which expanding polities are established. The mutual obligations between the elite and commoners whether explicitly encoded or ineluctably observed as tradition are but a special case of the general proposition.
    [btw a slight digression on this theme, I daresay judaism is quite legalistic and prescriptive at the level at which is impacts most adherents; the philosophical stuff comes much, much later; so I suppose this need for an organising body of laws was evident to the old rebbes]

    So you agree with me that once the “upper echelon” violates “the contract,” we, the peons, are free to pursue our own interests without regard to the discarded broken contract?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. iffen says:
    @Kiza
    See, that is a problem with brainwashed minds, it is not only that brainwashing changes your perceptions of reality, it also constraints the scope of your thinking. Have you ever asked yourself - why did Obama claim that there was a referendum in Kosovo that never happened? Why did a referendum like in Crimea never happen in Kosovo?

    Because many of the Kosovo Albanians had positive orientation towards Yugoslavia and were not terribly keen to leave it. Most of the KLA were not only terrorists, they were a criminal gang, trading in drugs and women (mostly from the post-Soviet countries). UN unknown percentage of Albanians did not like KLA, but the US did. There were stories about KLA leader's notebook containing the list of names of Western politicians and amounts.

    The never properly investigated initial report by the UN investigator from Switzerland Dick Marty https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Marty about human organ trade by KLA has established that organs have been taken from both the Serbian and the Albanian prisoners by KLA. KLA also assassinated many moderately nationalistic Albanians from the Rugova clan and also the Albanians who were pro-Yugoslav. KLA never represented a political force in Kosovo until the US and Germany recognised KLA's potential to distabilize Serbia.

    Just like the Russians now, the Serbians used to wonder - why do Americans hate us, we have never done anything wrong to them. Even during the viscous bombardment of military and civilian targets in Serbia, the Serbians did not kill even one US soldier, even released the captured ones. On their own side, about 2,000 Serbian boy conscripts and civilians died from the NATO bombardment in coordination with KLA ground-force attacks.

    Didn’t Yugoslavia die with Tito?

    Aren’t we talking about an attempt to create a “Greater Serbia”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    How about you worry about your country US terrorising the rest of the world and let me worry about "Greater Serbia". I really have little respect for people who fall for R2P imminent genocide rouse from MSM. All these stories originate from pretty much the same Western factory of lies, a combination of US, British, German and French productions, very often on behalf of Israel. Most of Muslim victims of genocide propaganda about the Balkans was paid by Saudi Arabia, as well as armaments deliveries to Bosnian Muslims

    Once you understand that virtually everything and anything you read or see in the Western MSM are lies, then you and I can discuss some topic. When you free your mind of the brainwashing then you will stop using the phrases you acquired from MSM: genocide, greater this, new Hitler, Russian aggression, annexation, international community and so on and so on.

    The West propagandised the concept of Greater Serbia all the while making Serbia smaller and smaller. Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Albanians from former Yugoslavia were allowed to take lands in which Serbs dominated and thus make them a minority with often reduced rights, whilst Serbia with Kosovo had 1/5 of its territory taken away just because the Albanian minority dominated in that part. Therefore, when the West accuses some ethnic group of wanting to make a greater country, it is an excuse to steal the lands from that particular ethnic group (Serbians, Russians etc). As someone said, if the West had no double standards, it would have no standards at all. But the problem with such solutions, that is victories of ethnic groups, is that they only wet the appetites for more (hot hand principle).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Talha says:
    @iffen
    The Great Arab Conquests by Hugh Kennedy

    If he is relying exclusively on Tarikh at-Tabari

    Not at all, he fully explained the context of Tabari's "collection."

    It sounds like you are likely still in the Rashidun era

    Yes, they have just finished off the Sassanids and are now going into Egypt.

    OK so Khalid (ra) is still in charge – at least in the East – the story of his demotion brings tears to my eyes – just the sincerity of purpose in both him and his commander.

    And I guess you read about Qadisiyyah – what a test of wills, mettle against mettle.

    Sounds like a great book, let me know once you’ve finished it. If it’s good I’ll put it on my reading list and recommend to others.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Kiza says:
    @iffen
    Didn't Yugoslavia die with Tito?

    Aren't we talking about an attempt to create a "Greater Serbia"?

    How about you worry about your country US terrorising the rest of the world and let me worry about “Greater Serbia”. I really have little respect for people who fall for R2P imminent genocide rouse from MSM. All these stories originate from pretty much the same Western factory of lies, a combination of US, British, German and French productions, very often on behalf of Israel. Most of Muslim victims of genocide propaganda about the Balkans was paid by Saudi Arabia, as well as armaments deliveries to Bosnian Muslims

    Once you understand that virtually everything and anything you read or see in the Western MSM are lies, then you and I can discuss some topic. When you free your mind of the brainwashing then you will stop using the phrases you acquired from MSM: genocide, greater this, new Hitler, Russian aggression, annexation, international community and so on and so on.

    The West propagandised the concept of Greater Serbia all the while making Serbia smaller and smaller. Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Albanians from former Yugoslavia were allowed to take lands in which Serbs dominated and thus make them a minority with often reduced rights, whilst Serbia with Kosovo had 1/5 of its territory taken away just because the Albanian minority dominated in that part. Therefore, when the West accuses some ethnic group of wanting to make a greater country, it is an excuse to steal the lands from that particular ethnic group (Serbians, Russians etc). As someone said, if the West had no double standards, it would have no standards at all. But the problem with such solutions, that is victories of ethnic groups, is that they only wet the appetites for more (hot hand principle).

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    if the West had no double standards, it would have no standards at all

    Ouch!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. iffen says:

    OK so Khalid (ra) is still in charge – at least in the East – the story of his demotion brings tears to my eyes

    Yes, The Sword.

    Kennedy is not definitive on the motivation of Umar and the demotion of Khalid.

    He is quite clear that he thinks one of the major advantages of the Arabs in this early period was the loyalty of their leaders. He clearly juxtaposes this loyalty with the rebellions and coups by the Roman and Sassanid commanders and politicians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yeah, they lived very simple lives and didn't abuse their power to accumulate wealth, etc. Umar (ra) was a stern ruler who did not suffer fools well, but he was just and ascetic (to the point it is very shocking - patched clothes, eating enough food just to get by, etc.). Now, admittedly, some of those stories about him and Abu Bakr (ra) and others are from not so solid sources, but they are buttressed by other accounts from much more verifiable sources like al-Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra) and other books. And when it came to fighting, they were in the fray.

    That kind of person inspires incredible loyalty.

    It starts breaking down some when Uthman (ra) comes to power and there are charges of nepotism as he appoints some of his tribe as governors and such.

    By the way, does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    Peace.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. iffen says:
    @Kiza
    How about you worry about your country US terrorising the rest of the world and let me worry about "Greater Serbia". I really have little respect for people who fall for R2P imminent genocide rouse from MSM. All these stories originate from pretty much the same Western factory of lies, a combination of US, British, German and French productions, very often on behalf of Israel. Most of Muslim victims of genocide propaganda about the Balkans was paid by Saudi Arabia, as well as armaments deliveries to Bosnian Muslims

    Once you understand that virtually everything and anything you read or see in the Western MSM are lies, then you and I can discuss some topic. When you free your mind of the brainwashing then you will stop using the phrases you acquired from MSM: genocide, greater this, new Hitler, Russian aggression, annexation, international community and so on and so on.

    The West propagandised the concept of Greater Serbia all the while making Serbia smaller and smaller. Croatians, Muslim Bosnians and Muslim Albanians from former Yugoslavia were allowed to take lands in which Serbs dominated and thus make them a minority with often reduced rights, whilst Serbia with Kosovo had 1/5 of its territory taken away just because the Albanian minority dominated in that part. Therefore, when the West accuses some ethnic group of wanting to make a greater country, it is an excuse to steal the lands from that particular ethnic group (Serbians, Russians etc). As someone said, if the West had no double standards, it would have no standards at all. But the problem with such solutions, that is victories of ethnic groups, is that they only wet the appetites for more (hot hand principle).

    if the West had no double standards, it would have no standards at all

    Ouch!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Kiza says:

    When I went to school the meaning of the word annexation was when an army moved into a foreign country and took it without an expressed consent of the population. For example, annexation was what Austro-Hungary did with Bosnia before WW1. Whilst the Bosnian Croats were very happy, the Bosnian Muslims were half-happy to become part of a Catholic Empire, the Bosnian Serbs were very unhappy about the annexation of Bosnia: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-annexes-bosnia-herzegovina. You will seldom find a Western “historian” who will mention that Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia in 1908 and then the crown prince came to parade provocatively through Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, a few years later, to show that the empire controls its new territory.

    Instead, all “history” of WW1 begins from the point when a Serbian terrorist shot the AH crown prince, right out of the blue (no real reason, just terrorism I suppose).

    The Russian “annexation” of Crimea would not fall under the classical definition of the word. Crimea was a part of Russia before and was given to Ukraine by a communist leader. The Russan military were already in Crimea, they never marched in. Crimea was a separate administrative province within Ukraine (although probably without the right of secession). There was a wide open referendum in which about 96% of the population wanted to join back to Russia (for both ethnic reasons and economic reasons, because before the Western sanctions Russia was doing much better than Ukraine). Without the referendum, the word annexation would probably be legitemate, but after the referendum it just becomes an MSM propaganda term.

    None of the conditions above were present in the case of Kosovo, but it has already been de facto annexed by the US client state Albania, with the US and EU pushing the annexation along. Thus, Kosovo is “the will of the people”, but Crimea is “annexation”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "There was a wide open referendum in which about 96% of the population wanted to join back to Russia (for both ethnic reasons and economic reasons, because before the Western sanctions Russia was doing much better than Ukraine). Without the referendum, the word annexation would probably be legitemate, but after the referendum it just becomes an MSM propaganda term."

    The fact on the ground -- the results of the wide-open referendum that showed that the absolute majority of Crimeans voted for reunification with Russian Federation -- was avoided by the presstituting MSM like the plague.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Talha says:
    @iffen
    OK so Khalid (ra) is still in charge – at least in the East – the story of his demotion brings tears to my eyes

    Yes, The Sword.

    Kennedy is not definitive on the motivation of Umar and the demotion of Khalid.

    He is quite clear that he thinks one of the major advantages of the Arabs in this early period was the loyalty of their leaders. He clearly juxtaposes this loyalty with the rebellions and coups by the Roman and Sassanid commanders and politicians.

    Yeah, they lived very simple lives and didn’t abuse their power to accumulate wealth, etc. Umar (ra) was a stern ruler who did not suffer fools well, but he was just and ascetic (to the point it is very shocking – patched clothes, eating enough food just to get by, etc.). Now, admittedly, some of those stories about him and Abu Bakr (ra) and others are from not so solid sources, but they are buttressed by other accounts from much more verifiable sources like al-Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra) and other books. And when it came to fighting, they were in the fray.

    That kind of person inspires incredible loyalty.

    It starts breaking down some when Uthman (ra) comes to power and there are charges of nepotism as he appoints some of his tribe as governors and such.

    By the way, does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    I can't find this name on search.

    I copied the following where is discussing his sources:

    Knowing your history, being an authority, could lead to an appointment at court. The historian Balādhurī, whose Book of Conquests is one of the main sources on which we rely, seems to have made a living as a nadīm or ‘boon-companion’ at the Abbasid court.

    The result of this critical onslaught was that many historians, even those not convinced by all the revisionist arguments, have been reluctant to take these narratives seriously or to rely on any of the details they contain. I am of a different opinion. There are a number of reasons why we should return to this material and try to use it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The first is that Arabic accounts can sometimes be checked against sources outside the Arabic literary tradition, the Syriac Khuzistān Chronicle, for example, or the Armenian history of Sebeos, both accounts written by Christians within a generation of the events they describe. They are much shorter and less detailed than the Arabic accounts but they tend to support the general outlines of the Arabic history. Many of them can be traced back to compilers in the mid eighth century, men like Sayf b. Umar. Sayf lived in Kūfa in Iraq and died after 786. Beyond that we know nothing of his life, but he is the most important narrative source for the early conquests. Medieval and modern historians have suspected that he fabricated some of his accounts, but the most recent scholarship suggests that he is more reliable than previous authors had imagined. He is certainly responsible for collecting

    Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In (p. 23). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @Sam Shama
    Hello Iffen,
    Ladies and Gentlemen, rejoining from the Cape, MA during a self-imposed break from the online world, I am delighted to find this top quality exchange which I read through rapidly. 'random observer' has furnished an outstanding synthesis of historical norms, political thought and indeed the role of morality, as generally as one can hope to apply to world affairs, and as specifically as we find ourselves negotiating the European and Middle Eastern theatres. His comments with those of Incitatus' and Iffen's, just prior to the start of my hols, now form the kernel of what I expect will provide the firmer contours of my own political positions - somewhat unsteady, up to this my almost four decades on planet earth.

    In my many croakings on this site, having struggled on many of these questions, I have often remarked I found myself a realist, attempting to apply logic in situations that defy such, morality mostly a loss [a personal choice amongst individuals perhaps, and at a wider level subsumed by the greater interests of the state of which I am a citizen]. None of which precludes the worthy available struggles of the individual against a state's particular dictates; that is our prerogative in a democracy; that is also finally, the outcome of a process we have acknowledged and set stock in, viz., majoritarianism.

    So, to start the conversation on a narrower issue, that of U.S. policy towards Israel, I'll simply throw this in the ring: What are the U.S. interests? At a superficial level, we might conclude that there is precious little there and all the indulgence is solely on account of the extraordinary influence of the Jewish lobby. If this is indeed the case, then it's validity must be argued for with a clear voice which successfully proves the exclusive benefit of Israel. All the arguments I see bandied around, from pharaonic Egypt to Persia of antiquity all the way to Washington, endows Jews with a supernatural, shared ancestral memory and a plan which renders Oded Yinon's apparent magnum opus small potatoes by comparison. Still, were it the case in the end, are we not beholding the outcome of a majoritarian process?

    So what are the greater reasons; are they related to Israel's pivotal position, geographically even, in the game being played by the existing and evolving great powers of the globe in that region?

    I see the role of the U.S. as the power which finds no equal competitor, but requires an ongoing partnership with the Anglosphere commonwealth nations and their currencies [GBP, CAD, AUD, NZD, INR], Europe [EUR], Japan [JPY] and S.Korea [KRW] and indeed Russia [RUB].

    This is the manifest policy of the United States in protecting the interests of its citizenry and the attendant benefits to its partners as well. Waving it away as so much 'neocon' talk only self-indulgently reduces the burden of proof on the critic. Show me a better construct.

    Welcome back, Sam. I hope your holiday was restful as well as energizing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Thank you S2C. Still at the Cape, but UR is highly addictive
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Sam Shama says:
    @Kiza
    I have realised a while ago (I am not young) that this magnificent US Military that Madeleine Albright complained to Colin Powell about (why cannot we use it) is just a rent-an-army which seldom kills for true US national interest then mostly for the interests of various ethnic groups domineering the US. It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.

    [It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.]

    Don’t all nations do that?

    [The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.]

    Agreed; more generally I should think inter-personally, most peoples would prefer to be friends with other peoples. But I wouldn’t commit the fallacy of aggregating that to the behaviour of organised nation-states; certainly quite so sincerely cordial I would expect them not to be. Power, ambition, greed, need, angst are all qualities that have characterised all nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on

    This is nonsense and has no factual basis.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US,

    Poles and Ukrainians have zero political influence in the US.
    , @annamaria
    "Don’t all nations do that?" - Not at all. You are free to provide some supporting evidence for your statement.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. iffen says:
    @Talha
    Yeah, they lived very simple lives and didn't abuse their power to accumulate wealth, etc. Umar (ra) was a stern ruler who did not suffer fools well, but he was just and ascetic (to the point it is very shocking - patched clothes, eating enough food just to get by, etc.). Now, admittedly, some of those stories about him and Abu Bakr (ra) and others are from not so solid sources, but they are buttressed by other accounts from much more verifiable sources like al-Mustadrak of Imam Hakim (ra) and other books. And when it came to fighting, they were in the fray.

    That kind of person inspires incredible loyalty.

    It starts breaking down some when Uthman (ra) comes to power and there are charges of nepotism as he appoints some of his tribe as governors and such.

    By the way, does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    Peace.

    does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    I can’t find this name on search.

    I copied the following where is discussing his sources:

    Knowing your history, being an authority, could lead to an appointment at court. The historian Balādhurī, whose Book of Conquests is one of the main sources on which we rely, seems to have made a living as a nadīm or ‘boon-companion’ at the Abbasid court.

    The result of this critical onslaught was that many historians, even those not convinced by all the revisionist arguments, have been reluctant to take these narratives seriously or to rely on any of the details they contain. I am of a different opinion. There are a number of reasons why we should return to this material and try to use it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The first is that Arabic accounts can sometimes be checked against sources outside the Arabic literary tradition, the Syriac Khuzistān Chronicle, for example, or the Armenian history of Sebeos, both accounts written by Christians within a generation of the events they describe. They are much shorter and less detailed than the Arabic accounts but they tend to support the general outlines of the Arabic history. Many of them can be traced back to compilers in the mid eighth century, men like Sayf b. Umar. Sayf lived in Kūfa in Iraq and died after 786. Beyond that we know nothing of his life, but he is the most important narrative source for the early conquests. Medieval and modern historians have suspected that he fabricated some of his accounts, but the most recent scholarship suggests that he is more reliable than previous authors had imagined. He is certainly responsible for collecting

    Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In (p. 23). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    That's OK - al-Baladhuri was his student so his work likely encompasses and revises that of his teacher. Everything else sounds very balanced.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. iffen says:
    @Sam Shama
    [It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.]

    Don't all nations do that?


    [The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.]

    Agreed; more generally I should think inter-personally, most peoples would prefer to be friends with other peoples. But I wouldn't commit the fallacy of aggregating that to the behaviour of organised nation-states; certainly quite so sincerely cordial I would expect them not to be. Power, ambition, greed, need, angst are all qualities that have characterised all nations.

    It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on

    This is nonsense and has no factual basis.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US,

    Poles and Ukrainians have zero political influence in the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    On the contrary, I do think it has factual basis. Trivially perhaps, all nations in one respect or another pursue their animosities on behalf of their internal ethnics.


    Permit me to be blunt here. The trouble [at least in my reckoning] is that the U.S. seems to be sorely lacking a clear vision regarding what it is that constitutes the true interest of it's citizenry. I mean starting with the W-Rice-Feith-Cheney-Bibi convolution, we seem to be tracing a path which only ends with more war. What are the interests of our citizenry? we need to get this very basic objective function correct, otherwise we shall be buried in our own hubris.

    Now, it could be partially owing to the nation's unparalleled strength in economic resources and geographic situation which affords acts without much forethought; iow consequences of it's malfeasance [strong word, but can't think of another that does justice - 'stumbling' let's it off the hook rather too easily] have rarely if ever, been felt by it's citizenry, which is also why of late we've been producing politicians of the very worst variety.

    be right back [off to check my fishing rod :-) ]

    , @annamaria
    "The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US..." -
    Lets try to be more specific about the ethnicity of those emigres from Poland (& Lithuania) and Ukraine, whose children make the most vicious influential Russophobes: Podhoretz, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Kagans ....
    , @annamaria
    http://thesaker.is/ukraine-was-right-why-russia-is-the-biggest-threat-in-the-world/
    "From 1986- 2003 the leader of the OUNb [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] was Slava Stetsko. Stetsko gained the mantle from her husband who died in 1986, Yaroslav Stetsko. He was the right hand to Stepan Bandera. Stetsko is the only Axis WWII leader who can claim eventual victory over the Allies even though this trio were responsible for the first Holocaust of WWII. It was the mass execution of over 30,000 Jews at Babi Yar. They starved 3 million war prisoners to death in Ukraine. They tortured and murdered close to ½ million Ukrainians. And they were never tried in court for these crimes.
    Instead, they financed the radicalization of Ukraine and radical political parties starting before 1989. The biggest influence proved to be bringing back OUNb children groups from the Diaspora. These children groups were still labeled by the CIA as Bandera terrorist groups until the 1980’s. During WWII they planted bombs and murdered civilians that disagreed with Nazi ideology.
    In far-flung Nazi strongholds like New York, Boston, Stamford, Philadelphia, and Geelong, Australia emigre kids are still taught that Stepan Bandera is a saint to be worshiped and a perfect person that they need to model their lives after."

    The reality is bolder than any imagination. Here the interests of Kagans' family converge with the interests of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and - voila - we have new reality in Ukraine, meaning a civil war on the borders with nuclear-armed Russian Federation. Forgotten are the memories of the "first Holocaust of WWII" and other "30,000 Jews at Babi Yar." Not a peep from the Anti-Defamation League. The Wall Street Journal was happy to publish an extended article on a powerful Jewish/Ukrainian oligarch Kolomojsky -- a criminal implicated in financing the neo-Nazi battalion guilty of auto-da-fe in Odessa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M52STMHluOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2xCLqQnnjs
    The humanitarians at the US State Dept. "did not notice" the crime and even arranged Kolomojsky's immigration to the US. "Russian law enforcement agencies accuse Kolomoyskyi of masterminding murders and use of banned ways and methods of warfare. He is suspected of initiating and financing military operations in south-eastern Ukraine, where over 3,000 people have been killed since April, according to the UN human rights office. Kolomoyskyi was put on international wanted list on June 21." http://tass.ru/en/world/752232: http://tass.ru/en/world/752232
    Compare the protection that the US State Dept. provided for this thug with the persecution of Assange. So much for "never again."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. annamaria says:
    @Kiza
    The reason I called you a Republican Lawyer is because you were challenging Clinton's action only on the basis of US Constitution, which is a common US internal squabble. Also, it is quite common for the US people to assume that whatever US does or want, the UN has to go along, who worries about trifles such as laws and rules.

    But your more detailed account above I fully agree with, especially the historic and ethnic considerations, both in the Balkans and in Russia. As you rightly point out, if I understood you correctly, ethnicity and organised state are separate considerations in both Kosovo and in Crimea. The rights of ethnic minorities must be recognised, but neither post-Illyrian Kosovars, nor Turkmen of Crimea have a priory ownership of an area that some of their ancestors may have lived in without an organised state. Similar legal principle applies for example in Australia, where its aboriginal inhabitants got recognised as the original inhabitants (the continent was not Terra Nullis when the British came) but this does not give the aborigines a right to create their own state instead of Australia. They are now part of the organised state.

    Therefore, Albanian claim over Kosovo is not legally valid, it has been established through terrorism and military violence by NATO. An internationally recognised border has been breached by US and in favor of a US client state - Albania. As I mentioned - there is no border between Kosovo and Albania now, but Kosovo needs to be fully recognised as an independent state to be able to legally join Albania. In other words, after an illegal and violent act, the US switches back to "international law" talk.

    Now, you are correct that Russia has recognised Ukraine in the borders including Crimea. But this recognition was part of an agreement whereby US and Russia both agreed not to interfere with Ukraine. When US organised a coup in Ukraine to depose a democratically elected leadership (there is plenty evidence of this on the Internet if not in the US MSM), this international agreement was breached by US. I hope you are not one of those exceptional US people who claims that international agreements and rules of behavior are only useful guides to US not obligations. When such breach happened Russia could have gone to UN to complain, where the US and its satellites would have vetoed and blocked any resolution, whilst the US puppet government of Ukraine would have kicked Russia out of its centuries old and vital defensive naval base in Crimea. In other words, once the agreement and the law were kicked out of Ukraine, they were replaced by what the international polity calls reality-in-the-field. The Russians took advantage of their strategic advantage that they had about 20,000 troops in Crimea and enabled Crimean referendum to join Russia. Please note that Crimea was an autonomous province of Ukraine, whilst Kosovo was not an autonomous province of Serbia at the time of its violent secession (it used to be under communist dictator Tito).

    In summary, it may be hard for you to accept that neither Kosovo nor Crimea should have been separated and international borders changed, but both Kosovo and Crimea are direct results of US meddling into the affairs of other countries. The fact that US has a totally opposite approach to Kosovo and to Crimea just illustrates how US makes the rules according to its needs and covers everything with huge dollops of brainwashing propaganda for the dumb domestics,

    ‘The fact that US has a totally opposite approach to Kosovo and to Crimea just illustrates how US makes the rules according to its needs and covers everything with huge dollops of brainwashing propaganda for the dumb domestics”
    Brilliant.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. annamaria says:
    @Kiza
    When I went to school the meaning of the word annexation was when an army moved into a foreign country and took it without an expressed consent of the population. For example, annexation was what Austro-Hungary did with Bosnia before WW1. Whilst the Bosnian Croats were very happy, the Bosnian Muslims were half-happy to become part of a Catholic Empire, the Bosnian Serbs were very unhappy about the annexation of Bosnia: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/austria-hungary-annexes-bosnia-herzegovina. You will seldom find a Western "historian" who will mention that Austro-Hungarian Empire annexed Bosnia in 1908 and then the crown prince came to parade provocatively through Sarajevo, the capital of Bosnia, a few years later, to show that the empire controls its new territory.

    Instead, all "history" of WW1 begins from the point when a Serbian terrorist shot the AH crown prince, right out of the blue (no real reason, just terrorism I suppose).

    The Russian "annexation" of Crimea would not fall under the classical definition of the word. Crimea was a part of Russia before and was given to Ukraine by a communist leader. The Russan military were already in Crimea, they never marched in. Crimea was a separate administrative province within Ukraine (although probably without the right of secession). There was a wide open referendum in which about 96% of the population wanted to join back to Russia (for both ethnic reasons and economic reasons, because before the Western sanctions Russia was doing much better than Ukraine). Without the referendum, the word annexation would probably be legitemate, but after the referendum it just becomes an MSM propaganda term.

    None of the conditions above were present in the case of Kosovo, but it has already been de facto annexed by the US client state Albania, with the US and EU pushing the annexation along. Thus, Kosovo is "the will of the people", but Crimea is "annexation".

    “There was a wide open referendum in which about 96% of the population wanted to join back to Russia (for both ethnic reasons and economic reasons, because before the Western sanctions Russia was doing much better than Ukraine). Without the referendum, the word annexation would probably be legitemate, but after the referendum it just becomes an MSM propaganda term.”

    The fact on the ground — the results of the wide-open referendum that showed that the absolute majority of Crimeans voted for reunification with Russian Federation — was avoided by the presstituting MSM like the plague.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. annamaria says:
    @Sam Shama
    [It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on. Only on rare occasions the US military kills for ideological-colonial reasons, mainly in Asia.]

    Don't all nations do that?


    [The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US, whilst the Russians would be quite happy to be friends of all US people, I am sure.]

    Agreed; more generally I should think inter-personally, most peoples would prefer to be friends with other peoples. But I wouldn't commit the fallacy of aggregating that to the behaviour of organised nation-states; certainly quite so sincerely cordial I would expect them not to be. Power, ambition, greed, need, angst are all qualities that have characterised all nations.

    “Don’t all nations do that?” – Not at all. You are free to provide some supporting evidence for your statement.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Welcome back, Sam. I hope your holiday was restful as well as energizing.

    Thank you S2C. Still at the Cape, but UR is highly addictive

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Talha says:
    @iffen
    does he reference the Tabaqat of Ibn Saad (ra)?

    I can't find this name on search.

    I copied the following where is discussing his sources:

    Knowing your history, being an authority, could lead to an appointment at court. The historian Balādhurī, whose Book of Conquests is one of the main sources on which we rely, seems to have made a living as a nadīm or ‘boon-companion’ at the Abbasid court.

    The result of this critical onslaught was that many historians, even those not convinced by all the revisionist arguments, have been reluctant to take these narratives seriously or to rely on any of the details they contain. I am of a different opinion. There are a number of reasons why we should return to this material and try to use it rather than dismissing it out of hand. The first is that Arabic accounts can sometimes be checked against sources outside the Arabic literary tradition, the Syriac Khuzistān Chronicle, for example, or the Armenian history of Sebeos, both accounts written by Christians within a generation of the events they describe. They are much shorter and less detailed than the Arabic accounts but they tend to support the general outlines of the Arabic history. Many of them can be traced back to compilers in the mid eighth century, men like Sayf b. Umar. Sayf lived in Kūfa in Iraq and died after 786. Beyond that we know nothing of his life, but he is the most important narrative source for the early conquests. Medieval and modern historians have suspected that he fabricated some of his accounts, but the most recent scholarship suggests that he is more reliable than previous authors had imagined. He is certainly responsible for collecting

    Kennedy, Hugh. The Great Arab Conquests: How the Spread of Islam Changed the World We Live In (p. 23). Da Capo Press. Kindle Edition.

    That’s OK – al-Baladhuri was his student so his work likely encompasses and revises that of his teacher. Everything else sounds very balanced.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on

    This is nonsense and has no factual basis.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US,

    Poles and Ukrainians have zero political influence in the US.

    On the contrary, I do think it has factual basis. Trivially perhaps, all nations in one respect or another pursue their animosities on behalf of their internal ethnics.

    Permit me to be blunt here. The trouble [at least in my reckoning] is that the U.S. seems to be sorely lacking a clear vision regarding what it is that constitutes the true interest of it’s citizenry. I mean starting with the W-Rice-Feith-Cheney-Bibi convolution, we seem to be tracing a path which only ends with more war. What are the interests of our citizenry? we need to get this very basic objective function correct, otherwise we shall be buried in our own hubris.

    Now, it could be partially owing to the nation’s unparalleled strength in economic resources and geographic situation which affords acts without much forethought; iow consequences of it’s malfeasance [strong word, but can't think of another that does justice - 'stumbling' let's it off the hook rather too easily] have rarely if ever, been felt by it’s citizenry, which is also why of late we’ve been producing politicians of the very worst variety.

    be right back [off to check my fishing rod :-) ]

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. annamaria says:
    @iffen
    It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on

    This is nonsense and has no factual basis.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US,

    Poles and Ukrainians have zero political influence in the US.

    “The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US…” –
    Lets try to be more specific about the ethnicity of those emigres from Poland (& Lithuania) and Ukraine, whose children make the most vicious influential Russophobes: Podhoretz, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Kagans ….

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Yes, I don't know of any influential Polish or Ukrainian pundit in America younger than Zbig.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. KA says:
    @iffen
    bent on erasing it from the surface of the earth

    Post WWII, the US was all in for the creation of the State of Israel.

    Shouldn't we stand by that commitment? Should we just decide (and say), "Forget this, it is more trouble than it's worth"?

    There are many angles from which the 1947 behaviors of theUS could be confronted .
    But lets stick the one US openly supported .US supported a non bidding UN gen assembly resolution creating 2 states Israel and Palestine Why did US abandon Palestine?
    When it supported creation of Israel on the basis of UN resolution,it also agreed to the other side of the equation that was the remaing land of the British Mandate would be for Palestine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Why did US abandon Palestine?

    I am under the impression that the UN proposed two state solution was rejected by various Arab states. I am unsure if the Palestinians were even consulted or were able to exert any influence on the process. I am not sure what the US could have done to force the Palestinians to accept the UN terms. (If it was today we would probably kill them and plant them in their cemeteries.) IIRC there is quite a bit of imprecision in exactly what the UN approved. I think that before the UN plan could be implemented we had one of those "Saigon Embassy rooftop events" where reality eclipsed wishful thinking.

    All that aside, I think that it is a reasonable position to say that the UN proposal should govern.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. 5371 says:
    @annamaria
    "The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US..." -
    Lets try to be more specific about the ethnicity of those emigres from Poland (& Lithuania) and Ukraine, whose children make the most vicious influential Russophobes: Podhoretz, Kristol, Wolfowitz, Perle, Ledeen, Kagans ....

    Yes, I don’t know of any influential Polish or Ukrainian pundit in America younger than Zbig.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. jtgw says: • Website

    There’s this, but then there’s undeniable evidence that the Donald has his own chains to the warfare state, e.g. Rudy Giuliani and John Bolton. Plus there’s all his own warmongering pronouncements that nobody denies but usually we explain them away as concessions to the “red meat” crowd. However, I think there’s something to be said for Ilana Mercer’s “process of Trump” theory: that support for Donald represents something bigger than the current election cycle, an inchoate awakening of the people to the real agenda of the globalist deep state.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  164. iffen says:
    @KA
    There are many angles from which the 1947 behaviors of theUS could be confronted .
    But lets stick the one US openly supported .US supported a non bidding UN gen assembly resolution creating 2 states Israel and Palestine Why did US abandon Palestine?
    When it supported creation of Israel on the basis of UN resolution,it also agreed to the other side of the equation that was the remaing land of the British Mandate would be for Palestine.

    Why did US abandon Palestine?

    I am under the impression that the UN proposed two state solution was rejected by various Arab states. I am unsure if the Palestinians were even consulted or were able to exert any influence on the process. I am not sure what the US could have done to force the Palestinians to accept the UN terms. (If it was today we would probably kill them and plant them in their cemeteries.) IIRC there is quite a bit of imprecision in exactly what the UN approved. I think that before the UN plan could be implemented we had one of those “Saigon Embassy rooftop events” where reality eclipsed wishful thinking.

    All that aside, I think that it is a reasonable position to say that the UN proposal should govern.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Yes,it was imposed upon Arab and it was imposed upon the residents of the mandate . But one can't say " I impose this part of the diktat and not this part " By allowing Israel ( it used to criticize Israel until 2001) to grab and consolidate what belongs to US approved UN resolution mandated Palestine state.
    US has been imposing a lot on the Arab wold that Arab did not approve of . Libya did not approve ,Iraq didnot approve ,Somalia didn't approve .
    US has every right to do what it wants to do.
    So does the future . Right is might .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. KA says:
    @iffen
    Why did US abandon Palestine?

    I am under the impression that the UN proposed two state solution was rejected by various Arab states. I am unsure if the Palestinians were even consulted or were able to exert any influence on the process. I am not sure what the US could have done to force the Palestinians to accept the UN terms. (If it was today we would probably kill them and plant them in their cemeteries.) IIRC there is quite a bit of imprecision in exactly what the UN approved. I think that before the UN plan could be implemented we had one of those "Saigon Embassy rooftop events" where reality eclipsed wishful thinking.

    All that aside, I think that it is a reasonable position to say that the UN proposal should govern.

    Yes,it was imposed upon Arab and it was imposed upon the residents of the mandate . But one can’t say ” I impose this part of the diktat and not this part ” By allowing Israel ( it used to criticize Israel until 2001) to grab and consolidate what belongs to US approved UN resolution mandated Palestine state.
    US has been imposing a lot on the Arab wold that Arab did not approve of . Libya did not approve ,Iraq didnot approve ,Somalia didn’t approve .
    US has every right to do what it wants to do.
    So does the future . Right is might .

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Right is might .

    Do tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. iffen says:
    @KA
    Yes,it was imposed upon Arab and it was imposed upon the residents of the mandate . But one can't say " I impose this part of the diktat and not this part " By allowing Israel ( it used to criticize Israel until 2001) to grab and consolidate what belongs to US approved UN resolution mandated Palestine state.
    US has been imposing a lot on the Arab wold that Arab did not approve of . Libya did not approve ,Iraq didnot approve ,Somalia didn't approve .
    US has every right to do what it wants to do.
    So does the future . Right is might .

    Right is might .

    Do tell.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. annamaria says:
    @iffen
    It kills the former enemies of its ethnic groups in proportion to the wealth of those ethnic groups in US, Jewish enemies, Saudi enemies, British enemies, Albanian enemies and so on

    This is nonsense and has no factual basis.

    The current US attack on Russia is mostly driven by Polish and Ukrainian ethnicity in the US,

    Poles and Ukrainians have zero political influence in the US.

    http://thesaker.is/ukraine-was-right-why-russia-is-the-biggest-threat-in-the-world/

    “From 1986- 2003 the leader of the OUNb [Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists] was Slava Stetsko. Stetsko gained the mantle from her husband who died in 1986, Yaroslav Stetsko. He was the right hand to Stepan Bandera. Stetsko is the only Axis WWII leader who can claim eventual victory over the Allies even though this trio were responsible for the first Holocaust of WWII. It was the mass execution of over 30,000 Jews at Babi Yar. They starved 3 million war prisoners to death in Ukraine. They tortured and murdered close to ½ million Ukrainians. And they were never tried in court for these crimes.
    Instead, they financed the radicalization of Ukraine and radical political parties starting before 1989. The biggest influence proved to be bringing back OUNb children groups from the Diaspora. These children groups were still labeled by the CIA as Bandera terrorist groups until the 1980’s. During WWII they planted bombs and murdered civilians that disagreed with Nazi ideology.
    In far-flung Nazi strongholds like New York, Boston, Stamford, Philadelphia, and Geelong, Australia emigre kids are still taught that Stepan Bandera is a saint to be worshiped and a perfect person that they need to model their lives after.”

    The reality is bolder than any imagination. Here the interests of Kagans’ family converge with the interests of Ukrainian neo-Nazis and – voila – we have new reality in Ukraine, meaning a civil war on the borders with nuclear-armed Russian Federation. Forgotten are the memories of the “first Holocaust of WWII” and other “30,000 Jews at Babi Yar.” Not a peep from the Anti-Defamation League. The Wall Street Journal was happy to publish an extended article on a powerful Jewish/Ukrainian oligarch Kolomojsky — a criminal implicated in financing the neo-Nazi battalion guilty of auto-da-fe in Odessa. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M52STMHluOg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2xCLqQnnjs
    The humanitarians at the US State Dept. “did not notice” the crime and even arranged Kolomojsky’s immigration to the US. “Russian law enforcement agencies accuse Kolomoyskyi of masterminding murders and use of banned ways and methods of warfare. He is suspected of initiating and financing military operations in south-eastern Ukraine, where over 3,000 people have been killed since April, according to the UN human rights office. Kolomoyskyi was put on international wanted list on June 21.” http://tass.ru/en/world/752232: http://tass.ru/en/world/752232
    Compare the protection that the US State Dept. provided for this thug with the persecution of Assange. So much for “never again.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Mr. Anon says:
    @iffen
    that is to say, the real interests of America and its people

    Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the "real interests" are recorded? If so, can you shoot me a copy?

    “Do you have the original, gold embossed document whereupon the “real interests” are recorded?”

    It’s not hard to discern where my interests lie, or those of millions of other people like me. Your attempt to deflect my point is obviously nothing but sophism. But a good starting point for what are real American interests would not be………..whatever the interests of some foreign country are.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Talha
    That is not the moral quandry...

    How was the same friend's property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.

    That is not the moral quandry…

    How was the same friend’s property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.

    Arabic isn’t spoken across the Middle East today and Islam isn’t the religion outside of the Arabian peninsula because Muhammad and his successors held hands with their neighbors and sang kumbaya. Every country on earth is the product of armed conquest. Some are merely more recent than others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Sure thing, when one is in the neighborhood with the Sassanids and the Byzantines one should learn to speak the language of steel and fire efficiently and right quick; expand or be expanded upon. But that is all pre-modern reality, after ww2 the nation's joined hands to make sure we don't incinerate cities or massacre POWs anymore and Israel is certainly post ww2. And it certainly is a top medal contender when it comes to UN resolution violations. Now if it wants to go back to the law of the jungle, fine - it shouldn't bring up namby-pamby protestations of "they want to push us into the sea!"

    One is either consistent or a hypocrite.

    Peace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Talha says:
    @Johann Ricke

    That is not the moral quandry…

    How was the same friend’s property acquired? That is the issue people have a problem with.

    Peace.
     
    Arabic isn't spoken across the Middle East today and Islam isn't the religion outside of the Arabian peninsula because Muhammad and his successors held hands with their neighbors and sang kumbaya. Every country on earth is the product of armed conquest. Some are merely more recent than others.

    Sure thing, when one is in the neighborhood with the Sassanids and the Byzantines one should learn to speak the language of steel and fire efficiently and right quick; expand or be expanded upon. But that is all pre-modern reality, after ww2 the nation’s joined hands to make sure we don’t incinerate cities or massacre POWs anymore and Israel is certainly post ww2. And it certainly is a top medal contender when it comes to UN resolution violations. Now if it wants to go back to the law of the jungle, fine – it shouldn’t bring up namby-pamby protestations of “they want to push us into the sea!”

    One is either consistent or a hypocrite.

    Peace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.