The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Eric Margolis ArchiveBlogview
Khadaffi's Murder
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

“We came, we saw…he died” boasted a beaming Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, speaking of the 2011 western overthrow of Libya’s leader Muammar Khadaffi.

She was, of course, shamelessly paraphrasing Caesar’s famous summary of his campaign around the Black Sea. Mrs. Clinton, who seems ordained to be America’s next president, should have been rather more cautious in admitting to murder.

This week marks the fifth anniversary of Khadaffi’s grisly death. The Libyan leader was fleeing in a motor convoy to reach friendly tribal territory when French warplanes and a US drone attacked and destroyed the vehicles. Wounded, Khadaffi crawled into a culvert where he was captured by French and US-backed rebels.

Khadaffi was severely beaten, then anally raped with a long knife. At least two bullets finally ended his suffering. Thus ended the colorful life of the man who wanted to be the second Nasser and leader of a united Arab world. His death was a warnings to others trying to challenge the Mideast status quo I call the American Raj.

I was invited to interview Khadaffi in 1987 at his Tripoli headquarters in the Bab al-Azizya barracks. This was on the one year anniversary of 1986 US air attacks on the barracks that sought to assassinate Khadaffi, described by US President Ronald Reagan as the “mad dog of the Mideast.” But that night, the ‘Leader,’ as he liked to be called, went to his Bedouin tent in the courtyard and thus escaped death – for a time.

A US 2,000lb bomb came crashing through the roof of the barracks right onto the bed where Khadaffi usually slept, often with his two-year old adopted daughter. The girl died.

Khadaffi led me by the hand through the ruined building, asking me “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?” I explained to him: his support of the Palestinians, Nelson Mandela, the Irish Republican Army, and Basque separatists. For Khadaffi, they were all legitimate freedom fighters. I rebuked him for not backing the Afghan mujahadin then fighting Soviet occupation who were real freedom fighters.

Khadaffi or at least his intelligence chief, the sinister Abdullah Senussi, was accused of being involved in the downing of a French UTA and US Pan Am airliner. Libya financed anti-French movements in Paris-dominated West Africa and the Sahel.

Chad became a flash-point between Paris and Tripoli. The former head of French intelligence, Count Alexandre de Marenches, told me France’s president, Francois Mitterand, ordered him to bomb Khadaffi’s personal jet, then changed his mind. The British also tried to kill Khadaffi by means of a large car bomb in Benghazi.

Eventually, Libya managed to bury the hatchet with its western foes, though Khadaffi remained highly annoying to the former colonial powers and a fierce critic of the Saudis whom he denounced as thieves of Arab resources and betrayers of the Palestinians.

ORDER IT NOW

I’ve often been asked what Khadaffi was like. He was a simple Bedouin born in a tent. Khadaffi was disgusted by the poverty and corruption of the Arab world, and its domination and exploitation by the Americans, French and British. He saw himself as a champion of Palestinian rights, and Libya, with only 6 million people, as the leader of modernized Africa.

But he was also a dreamer who often had fanciful schemes, like the Great Manmade River to draw artesian water from the Sahara. He loved to insult his fellow Arab leaders, branding them cowards, thieves and liars. Khadaffi was theatrical and flamboyant and loved to show off.

After spending an evening with Khadaffi in his Bedouin tent, I told him, tongue in cheek, “Leader, we may bomb you but I must confess our women think you are the most handsome and dashing Arab leader.” He beamed and showed me some of his Italian-tailored faux combat wear and kid-skin jump boots. At times he seemed like a kid in a toy store – zany but also serious and determined. According to his many critics, Khadaffi was a dangerous, anti-western megalomaniac.
He was also vilified and demonized by the western media, a process that happened to all third world leaders who refuse to accept western dictates.

Khadaffi was quietly cooperating with the US when the Arab Spring erupted in Tunisia. Secretary Hillary Clinton and her neocon advisors decided to seize advantage of Mideast turmoil and overthrow Khadaffi.

A new ‘color revolution’ was unleashed by the western powers. Protests were organized in Benghazi, always an anti-Khadaffi stronghold, by CIA, French intelligence and Britain’s MI6. Western special forces attacked Libyan military positions. The UN was gulled into calling for ‘humanitarian intervention to supposedly save civilian lives.’

France led the military intervention. Khadaffi’s son, Seif, had claimed that his father had helped finance French president Nicholas Sarkozy’s election. The vindictive Sarkozy intended to shut up the Khadaffis.

Western special forces intervened behind the cover of a popular uprising. Khadaffi’s rag tag forces quickly collapsed and rebel groups seized power, murdering Khadaffi in the process.

The west got Libya’s high grade oil and was rid of a thorn in its side. Khadaffi told me that if he were overthrown, Libya would splinter into its tribal mosaic – which is just what has happened. Chaos reigns as warlords backed by the US, France, Britain, Italy and Egypt – and a small ISIS contingent – fight over bleeding Libya. Decades of development that made Libya Africa’s leader in health care and education were wiped away.

Interestingly, the template for the western overthrow of Khadaffi – aka “regime change” – was next employed in Syria, with vastly more destructive results but less success. Expect to see more color revolutions when Mrs. Clinton takes over the White House.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy, History • Tags: Libya 
Of Related Interest
shutterstock_65521447
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
uss-liberty-new
The 50 year cover-up of a mass murder of U.S. servicemen orchestrated by Israel and its friends
Photo by Stefan Krasowski | CC BY 2.0
123 Comments to "Khadaffi's Murder"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Thinking of Qaddafi’s murder, how and to what ends it was done, I can’t but remember a writer’s hope: To future memory, if the future will have memory.

    No idea how long it’ll take before truth on the events of the 20th century can be written.
    Maybe the USA chapter will open with pictures of the 1/2 atom bomb(s) thrown on Japan, + an image of Qaddafi while he was being brutalized.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The US chapter should open with the boiler explosion aboard the USS Maine, which, most inexplicably, took place in Havana harbor on 15 February 1898. There is still no "official" conclusion as to whether or not it was that or a Spanish mine.

    The Romans wisely asked, Qui Bono?

    , @Eileen Kuch
    And, don't forget the burned-out Venice of Central Europe, which is Dresden .. firebombed by both RAF and USAAF heavy bombers on February 13-14, 1945 .. burning alive and suffocating to death anywhere between 300,000 and 500,000 German civilians .. more than in the nuclear bombings of Hiroghima and Nagasaki combined.
    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.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /emargolis/khadaffis-murder/#comment-1618121
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. 5371 says:

    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Hopefully before long.....}

    Nice sentiment, but won't happen. She will die of old age.

    The only people who could do it would be the American people: and they are hopelessly brainwashed. Hillary is supported by at least 50% of the US electorate. She has a very good chance to become POTUS.
    What are the chances she will be executed in US for mass-murder? Zero.

    War criminals Bush, Blair, Cheney, et. al. are enjoying comfortable lives of "respected statesmen" (sic). Those people are responsible for the killing and murder of 100s of 1,000s of innocent Iraqi civilians. Is there anyone in US officialdom even talking about bringing charges against them?
    Criminals protect fellow criminals.

    And American sheeple are too busy grazing to care.
    , @Boris

    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.
     
    Can't help but laugh at idiots like this. So mad, sad and lonely. The left owns your ass, dipshit.
  3. Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam’s government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq’s civilian population.

    I don’t have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there’s little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population — that is, collective punishment — that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.

    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    “Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson’s first claim: they elect their leaders; “the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people.”
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation — as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson’s moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to RevoltR2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it’s not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton’s fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen — in fact, the entire citizenry — in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children’s lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children — the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    Read More
    • Agree: The Scalpel, Kiza, Rurik
    • Replies: @Diogenes
    I must confess I am very sympathetic to your argument but it also debunks the idea of "innocent" civilians. I idea of innocence goes with the idea of being a non combatant in a conflict and that a noncombatant should not be deliberately targeted along with real combatants. This however never stopped the western "allies" from bombing the shit out of cities full of "innocent" civilians in Japan and Germany during WW2 , in the Korean and Viet Nam wars respectively or in Iraq and Libya. This was morally justified because they were members of a belligerent nation that could not be defeated by only killing combatants without also destroying the workers in the military industries and in effect destroying the nation's morale to fight. Interestingly, you couldn't destroy a nations morale by bombing the shit out of its citizens.
    Nevertheless, those noncombatants who vote for and morally or economically support their warmongering nation's leadership cannot be construed to be "innocent" and should be subjected to the destruction for their indirect involvement in war making. A further question arises who in that nation is truly innocent and should be spared the ravages of war, those that didn't vote for the warmongers, those that actively resisted the waging of war, etc? Unfortunately the immunity of innocence is impossible to implement in total war for it is practically impossible to use weapons of mass violence with moral discrimination. The innocent and guilty must suffer and die together during conquest and just as those who must await their fate in Aleppo and Mosul not withstanding the moral hypocrisy of western politicians.
    Finally, in democracy those in power are not truly "chosen by the people" but by the 1% who program the people to vote in a manner which advances their interested and programed voters are not innocent either and should be made to pay for their faux choices!
    , @The Scalpel
    Thank you, Mr. Margolis, for an honest account of Khadaffi's murder. He may have had flaws, but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general. That puts him far ahead of most national leaders, especially western leaders who generally represent the elite against the people.

    Khadaffi was mainly the victim of the vicious western propaganda machine. His story is an excellent example of the true motives behind "democracy promotion" R2P and all that BS
    , @Augustus
    The idea that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected leader of Iraq is preposterous. What a laughable start to such a long comment.
    Whatever "caloric deficit" was suffered by the Iraqi population, it was the result of Hussein's mismanagement or intentional mistreatment of the population. There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.
    , @george Archers
    real sad part--bill clinton back in the whitehouse
    , @Wizard of Oz
    There are interesting corollaries to the collective punishment justifications. One is that it is appropriate to punish people by killing their children. Another is that death or mutilation is appropriate punishment for not being capable of putting together a team to get rid of the government before the punisher loses patience..

    I query the usefulness of arguments about collective punishment and suggest that arguments about Australia's turning round of boats and use of offshore (indeed foreign) detention for so-ca!led asylum seekers arriving by boat may be more appropriate. At least they work. Sanctions against Iraq don't seem to have.
    , @Boris
    Nice circular logic.
    , @Sam Shama
    Let me try to understand your barmy post. According to you, Americans are collectively responsible for the acts of several administrations they had elected. So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous. Hillary's election, merely compounds a sin already committed and thus in your model, the possibility of an escape from punishment rather moot. Or are you suggesting Donald be the purgatory?

    And here I thought you had relinquished Catholicism for Zoroastrianism.
  4. The theme has been repeated ad nauseum for more than a century, yet few Americans have a clue. Pathetic.

    Read More
  5. Killary Rodham C. has done the Libyan and Syrian holocaust for AIPAC and Goldman Sachs (LEA claims).

    Because Western governments are run by megacorporate interests, who only see the labour class as a cost, which need to be as low as possible: IMMIGRATION!

    Or otherwise, they can be used as NATO’s cannon fodder against Russia. Killary Rodham C. is likely to start a new operation Barbarossa II, this time nucleair, making her, and NOT Trump, the new female-fascist leader of the West: HITLERY!

    Read More
  6. Thank you very much Mr. Margolis. Your courage and integrity are deeply appreciated. Re Clinton assuming office though, that’s not “when” but “if”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I've always doubted Mr Margolis 's integrity since I found him out manufacturing a quote. And I fail to see evidence of courage so ask what is your reason for praising his courage?
  7. “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”

    I’m surprised that Mr. Margolis was – and apparently still is – so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That’s why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan’s airstrike targeted not all of Libya’s population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    Read More
    • Replies: @antiz
    That has never been proven Schlomo, you know that.

    Could have been your Mossad agents for all i know, it was occupied Palestine "israel" that benefited from Khaddafis death and the destruction of his country. The most developed and wealthiest one in Africa.

    , @Rehmat
    Have you ever wondered why the West murdered Qaddafi who helped not only millions of Libyan but also tens of millions of African and some Israel-loving leaders like French Sarkozy and British Tony Blair - but praised as war criminal and nuclear edict, Shimon Peres?

    "Truth must be said, I do admire fierce President Ahmadinejad almost as much as I despise war criminal Shimon Peres," Israeli-born British author Gilad Atzmon, October 4, 2009.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/09/28/shimon-peres-the-war-criminal-goes-to-hell/
    , @biz
    Indeed. Qadafi was a sponsor of international terrorism, including the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Scotland which killed 188 Americans.

    Idiots around here never met an anti-American dictator that they didn't like.
    , @Kiza
    You totally missed the point of this sentence - it was to name drop, that is that a president of a country was on first names terms with Mr. Eric.

    The only thing more ridiculous than this sentence is your comment.

    , @george Archers
    Any bets--USA pulled off the killings and put the blame? Happens all the time U little foolish boy..
    , @El Sheikh
    Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That’s why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya.

    Not true.

    Read ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky's By Way of Deception, which explains in detail how Israel led Americans to believe that Libyans were responsible for this bombing. Israeli operatives had planted within Tripoli a "Trojan," a special communication device that acted as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad. They then used this device to broadcast what appeared as orders given to Libyan embassies to commit acts of terror. These were intercepted for some time before the La Belle Discotheque bombing, whose perpetrators were never found.

    In other words, Reagan was duped.

    And notice that Reagan’s airstrike targeted not all of Libya’s population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.

    Uh huh. Which is why there were forty civilian casualties.

    Hasbara doesn't sell well in this neck of the woods.
    , @USAMNESIA
    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1998/08/bomb-a27.html

    Anyone paying attention and willing to take a little time will realize this "event" was like many others of its kind.


    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frédéric Bastiat
  8. Diogenes says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    I must confess I am very sympathetic to your argument but it also debunks the idea of “innocent” civilians. I idea of innocence goes with the idea of being a non combatant in a conflict and that a noncombatant should not be deliberately targeted along with real combatants. This however never stopped the western “allies” from bombing the shit out of cities full of “innocent” civilians in Japan and Germany during WW2 , in the Korean and Viet Nam wars respectively or in Iraq and Libya. This was morally justified because they were members of a belligerent nation that could not be defeated by only killing combatants without also destroying the workers in the military industries and in effect destroying the nation’s morale to fight. Interestingly, you couldn’t destroy a nations morale by bombing the shit out of its citizens.
    Nevertheless, those noncombatants who vote for and morally or economically support their warmongering nation’s leadership cannot be construed to be “innocent” and should be subjected to the destruction for their indirect involvement in war making. A further question arises who in that nation is truly innocent and should be spared the ravages of war, those that didn’t vote for the warmongers, those that actively resisted the waging of war, etc? Unfortunately the immunity of innocence is impossible to implement in total war for it is practically impossible to use weapons of mass violence with moral discrimination. The innocent and guilty must suffer and die together during conquest and just as those who must await their fate in Aleppo and Mosul not withstanding the moral hypocrisy of western politicians.
    Finally, in democracy those in power are not truly “chosen by the people” but by the 1% who program the people to vote in a manner which advances their interested and programed voters are not innocent either and should be made to pay for their faux choices!

    Read More
    • Replies: @bbbb
    Cool- we hear what you 'think'.

    I think you're a loony toon!
  9. SEATAF says:

    “Protests were organized in Benghazi, always an anti-Khadaffi stronghold, by CIA, French intelligence and Britain’s MI6.” Source?

    Read More
  10. Avery says:
    @5371
    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.

    {Hopefully before long…..}

    Nice sentiment, but won’t happen. She will die of old age.

    The only people who could do it would be the American people: and they are hopelessly brainwashed. Hillary is supported by at least 50% of the US electorate. She has a very good chance to become POTUS.
    What are the chances she will be executed in US for mass-murder? Zero.

    War criminals Bush, Blair, Cheney, et. al. are enjoying comfortable lives of “respected statesmen” (sic). Those people are responsible for the killing and murder of 100s of 1,000s of innocent Iraqi civilians. Is there anyone in US officialdom even talking about bringing charges against them?
    Criminals protect fellow criminals.

    And American sheeple are too busy grazing to care.

    Read More
  11. Nice article, but you should have noted that Hillary destroyed Africa’s most developed and wealthiest nation, with benefits like free health care and education that Americans lack. You could have noted that western banks looted the $90 billion Libya had foolishly invested in London just prior to this coup. You could have noted that Libya was blamed for the Pan Am bombing, despite hard evidence that others did it, as provided here:

    Mar 28, 2011 – The Lockerbie Cover Up Revisited

    One of my best articles at Sanders Research described why Libya played no role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. It was payback from the Iranians after our Navy shot down one of their airliners, enabled by duped American agents.

    _______________________________________________________________

    The Lockerbie Cover Up
    By Carlton Meyer
    Feb/12/2007

    Libya played no role in the bombing over Lockerbie. Iran funded the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in retaliation for the shoot down of an Iranian Airbus commercial flight by the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes a few months previously. The Damascus-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) was suspected by British and American investigators in the early years of the Lockerbie probe. All the evidence pointed that way, until the administration of President George H.W. Bush decided to blame Libya.

    _______________

    the rest is here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    Carlton, what happened to Sanders Research?
    It was a must read site that just vanished- and took its invaluable archives with it. I referred several people to pieces like "Who created Condi Rice?"
    Most of what was on the site seems to have been scrubbed from other sites it was published on, too.
  12. antiz says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    That has never been proven Schlomo, you know that.

    Could have been your Mossad agents for all i know, it was occupied Palestine “israel” that benefited from Khaddafis death and the destruction of his country. The most developed and wealthiest one in Africa.

    Read More
  13. Max Payne says:
    @SEATAF
    "Protests were organized in Benghazi, always an anti-Khadaffi stronghold, by CIA, French intelligence and Britain’s MI6." Source?

    The power of Google son. You should try it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    That reply misses two points. One is as to what can be relied on that you find by Googling. The other is that Margolis was being asked what were the sources he relied on.
  14. Rehmat says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    Have you ever wondered why the West murdered Qaddafi who helped not only millions of Libyan but also tens of millions of African and some Israel-loving leaders like French Sarkozy and British Tony Blair – but praised as war criminal and nuclear edict, Shimon Peres?

    “Truth must be said, I do admire fierce President Ahmadinejad almost as much as I despise war criminal Shimon Peres,” Israeli-born British author Gilad Atzmon, October 4, 2009.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/09/28/shimon-peres-the-war-criminal-goes-to-hell/

    Read More
  15. biz says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    Indeed. Qadafi was a sponsor of international terrorism, including the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Scotland which killed 188 Americans.

    Idiots around here never met an anti-American dictator that they didn’t like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Apparently, you're one of the idiots around here who believe in Mossad lies.

    Pan Am Flight 103 crash was a Mossad false flag operation which was used to discredt Qaddafi for his support for Palestinian resistance.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/08/23/lockerbie-was-mossad-false-flag-operation/
    , @Jack ryan
    Yeah ok

    But at least 5,000 plus Black African male migrants weren t launching EVERY F@@@@& Day from Libya to invade Europe when Qaddafi was in power.
  16. @Carlton Meyer
    Nice article, but you should have noted that Hillary destroyed Africa's most developed and wealthiest nation, with benefits like free health care and education that Americans lack. You could have noted that western banks looted the $90 billion Libya had foolishly invested in London just prior to this coup. You could have noted that Libya was blamed for the Pan Am bombing, despite hard evidence that others did it, as provided here:

    Mar 28, 2011 - The Lockerbie Cover Up Revisited

    One of my best articles at Sanders Research described why Libya played no role in the 1988 bombing of Pan Am flight 103. It was payback from the Iranians after our Navy shot down one of their airliners, enabled by duped American agents.

    _______________________________________________________________

    The Lockerbie Cover Up
    By Carlton Meyer
    Feb/12/2007

    Libya played no role in the bombing over Lockerbie. Iran funded the downing of Pan Am flight 103 in retaliation for the shoot down of an Iranian Airbus commercial flight by the U.S. Navy cruiser USS Vincennes a few months previously. The Damascus-based Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine General Command (PFLP-GC) was suspected by British and American investigators in the early years of the Lockerbie probe. All the evidence pointed that way, until the administration of President George H.W. Bush decided to blame Libya.

    _______________

    the rest is here: http://www.g2mil.com/fire.htm

    Carlton, what happened to Sanders Research?
    It was a must read site that just vanished- and took its invaluable archives with it. I referred several people to pieces like “Who created Condi Rice?”
    Most of what was on the site seems to have been scrubbed from other sites it was published on, too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @BlackVeil
    I am sorry to hear that this Sanders Research site has vanished - I would have liked to consult it.

    I looked up that Condi Rice article, and I find it is as you say, there are references to it on websites, but the full article is nowhere, it has been taken away.

    It is odd how good sites, with lots of resources, spring up - then - all of sudden - gone. That was the story with Guerrilla News Network, which had much valuable journalism and comment posts with lots of info, on topics such as the DC Madam's "suicide." And also, with far less resources, Liberty Forum, a place where many views were exchanged. All suddenly deleted and scrubbed away. Some people say they were set ups - just to lure people - I don't know.
    , @Ace
    Part of the piece on Rice is here.
    , @Robert Hume
    Have you tried the Wayback machine?
  17. Rehmat says:
    @biz
    Indeed. Qadafi was a sponsor of international terrorism, including the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Scotland which killed 188 Americans.

    Idiots around here never met an anti-American dictator that they didn't like.

    Apparently, you’re one of the idiots around here who believe in Mossad lies.

    Pan Am Flight 103 crash was a Mossad false flag operation which was used to discredt Qaddafi for his support for Palestinian resistance.

    https://rehmat1.com/2009/08/23/lockerbie-was-mossad-false-flag-operation/

    Read More
  18. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    Thank you, Mr. Margolis, for an honest account of Khadaffi’s murder. He may have had flaws, but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general. That puts him far ahead of most national leaders, especially western leaders who generally represent the elite against the people.

    Khadaffi was mainly the victim of the vicious western propaganda machine. His story is an excellent example of the true motives behind “democracy promotion” R2P and all that BS

    Read More
    • Replies: @Karl
    > but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general


    sure. And he arrived at the "Lifetime Leader" chair by winning multiple serial FAIR elections, right?

    And people WONDER why Israel has no problem out-smarting The-Scalpel type wing of the alt-right.
  19. OutWest says:

    Whatever Kaddafi was he in fact was an effective linchpin ruler of an incipient hellhole of competing violent anarchists. She remade an annoyance into a disaster.

    Read More
  20. It came out not long ago that the 2 yo girl that was supposedly killed, wasn’t. Regan was right to go after Qaddafy at the time. However, this last round, started by Hillary and the French and Brits, was far out of line. Anyone that gives up a chemical and Nuke weapons program, as did Qaddafy, is a fool.

    Bush was foolish to go into Iraq as he did. Obama was a total idiot to allow Hillary her head in Libya. Libya is just another of the many serious failures of the Obama maladministration.

    Read More
  21. Da-Mith says:

    I thought Khadaffi’s downfall was his proposed introduction of a new african currency The Gold Dinar. Khadaffi wanted to escape the shackles of the American Petro dollar…and we all know that that is a very serious offence …punishable by death…to TPTB.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rehmat
    Yes - the Muslim Dinar and support for Palestinian brought the wrath of USrael on Col. Qaddafi.

    “Europe obviously knew that there would be consequences of a “humanitarian intervention” in Libya when they collaborated with Washington. They knew how Europe would be affected in the foreseeable future, it was predictable. But they saw political and economic opportunities by removing Gaddafi from power. It is also important to understand that the US and its European partners were also concerned with Gaddafi’s plan to launch the gold dinar as a single African currency, a clear threat against the dollar and euro hegemony on the African continent. Brussels may be just following orders, after all Washington was instrumental in the creation of NATO in the first place. Either way, the people on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea will suffer at the expense of Western Imperialism and their reckless foreign policies,” says Timothy Alexander Guzman, and American writer and blogger....

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/05/18/libya-and-western-humanitarian-mess/
    , @Wizard of Oz
    That sounds like the silly stuff you might believe if your knowledge of international finance was limited to what you might get from the Rehmat Comic book for those with extreme ADHD. Or would you care to spell out your understanding of Petrodollar and this interesting theory.
  22. Rehmat says:
    @Da-Mith
    I thought Khadaffi's downfall was his proposed introduction of a new african currency The Gold Dinar. Khadaffi wanted to escape the shackles of the American Petro dollar...and we all know that that is a very serious offence ...punishable by death...to TPTB.

    Yes – the Muslim Dinar and support for Palestinian brought the wrath of USrael on Col. Qaddafi.

    “Europe obviously knew that there would be consequences of a “humanitarian intervention” in Libya when they collaborated with Washington. They knew how Europe would be affected in the foreseeable future, it was predictable. But they saw political and economic opportunities by removing Gaddafi from power. It is also important to understand that the US and its European partners were also concerned with Gaddafi’s plan to launch the gold dinar as a single African currency, a clear threat against the dollar and euro hegemony on the African continent. Brussels may be just following orders, after all Washington was instrumental in the creation of NATO in the first place. Either way, the people on both sides of the Mediterranean Sea will suffer at the expense of Western Imperialism and their reckless foreign policies,” says Timothy Alexander Guzman, and American writer and blogger….

    https://rehmat1.com/2014/05/18/libya-and-western-humanitarian-mess/

    Read More
  23. Augustus says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    The idea that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected leader of Iraq is preposterous. What a laughable start to such a long comment.
    Whatever “caloric deficit” was suffered by the Iraqi population, it was the result of Hussein’s mismanagement or intentional mistreatment of the population. There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.}


    Silly MSM-Kool-Aid addled disinformation.

    And here is the proof:

    [Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it for Iraq's non existent WMD's]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Notice that the Evil Witch does not deny 500K Iraqi children were killed as a result of US-imposed sanctions.
    Notice that the Evil Witch says nothing about any supposed escrow accounts that Hussein supposedly did not tap, you know, to "justify" the deaths.
    Notice the cold, reptilian affirmation by a monster that killing 500K "Ayraaab" children was, quote, "worth it".

    As to Saddam Hussein being democratically elected: not much more "democratically" elected than "democratically" selected Bush The Lesser: selected by SCOTUS. Here in the US the Rulers let the Sheeple think they "elect". In case of Iraq, for example, they dispense with the pretense.

    The current massive MSM assault on the non-Establishment Trump should disabuse any US voter that we are the ones who elect the next POTUS.

    , @Avery
    [RT meets Aleppo cancer kids denied aid, food due to EU & US sanctions against Assad]

    https://www.rt.com/news/363998-syria-children-cancer-help/

    How long before the Evil Witch the HildaBeast claims in a future interview that the murder of 1,000s of Syrian children was, quote, "worth it".
    , @Che Guava
    You may also try reading comments a little more closely before making an incorrect assertion.

    SolontoC clearly stated that


    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government.
     
    Try returning to the post and actually reading it. It is not without interest.
  24. Kiza says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    You totally missed the point of this sentence – it was to name drop, that is that a president of a country was on first names terms with Mr. Eric.

    The only thing more ridiculous than this sentence is your comment.

    Read More
  25. We should perhaps realize that in fact Khadaffi was a visionary, a saintly man, maybe even an actual angel sent down from paradise in human form in a vain effort to bring the heavenly light on this darkened place. I am forced to search for a conclusion within these narrow bounds of possibility if I take seriously the hommage paid to this exalted historical personage that once enriched our planet with his bodily presence.

    For we are told Khaddafi was a simple Bedouin born in a tent, early on disgusted by the poverty and corruption, and the domination and exploitation by the Americans, French and British, was a champion of Palestinian rights, and Libya, the leader of modernized Africa. Almost Jesus-like properties from birth onwards.

    But to be absolutely fair there were also some negative aspects to the man to be considered we are warned, as he was a dreamer who often had fanciful schemes, loved to insult his fellow Arab leaders, was theatrical and flamboyant and loved to show off. Someone our women think was the most handsome and dashing Arab leader. One might be tempted to believe, perhaps fear, that there are those among us who are tempted to judge these falterings not in principle unforgivable.

    We should perhaps install an international holiday commemorating Khaddafi and celebrating his life.

    Read More
  26. USSR coming into afghanistan to fight anticommunist fighters was a legal, but nevertheless a criminal act? EM is, according to me, tacitly saying that USSR behaved criminally by coming into Afghanistan to rescue kabul communist govt.

    If at that time afghanistan was recognized by UN as the de jure state, then, USSR army fighting islamic fascists/wahhabis was morally and legally correct an action.

    EM calls people with views and actions from stone age “the real freedom fighters”. Kaddafi, being also an islamists most likely had not rebuked Eric, but i would have!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I agree, I like many of Margolis's columns and agree with most points in this one. However,

    I rebuked him for not backing the Afghan mujahadin then fighting Soviet occupation who were real freedom fighters.
     
    leaves me stunned by the false consciousness. Ghadaffy sure had the right idea to not support them.

    The most charitable interpretation is that Margolis is in tune with the stupider ideas of British Oi! punk, the song Guns for the Afghan Rebels being the best comparison.

    At least the Angelic Upstarts had the excuse of using it, at least in part, to wind up fake radicals like the Clash.

    Very puzzled about where Margolis gets his own take on the same idea.

    It is also a very poor sentence.

  27. Two acts that signed Qaddafi’s death warrent were his decisions to use the 744 tons of gold that Libya had amassed to take Africa off the dollar and put a pan-African, gold-back dinar in its place and to establish an African Development Bank to lend African nations for legitimate infrastructure projects at reasonable rates so as to free the continent from reliance on the US-controlled IMF and World Bank with their ruinous “Shock Doctrine” policies of cutting medical and educational programs that aid the poor while privatizing a nation’s natural and industrial resources to back these loans which are always in excess of what a nation can repay–thus leading to a nation being raped of all it possesses. Libya’s gold and its oil are now safely in Western hands and Africa has one more been returned to poverty and debtor’s slavery.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    You are exactly correct. The banking cartel owns Washington (including Hillary) and will not tolerate ANY competition. You win the thread hands down and with only two periods. :) Thank you Mr. Williams.
  28. @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    real sad part–bill clinton back in the whitehouse

    Read More
  29. @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    Any bets–USA pulled off the killings and put the blame? Happens all the time U little foolish boy..

    Read More
  30. @Anonymous
    Thinking of Qaddafi's murder, how and to what ends it was done, I can't but remember a writer's hope: To future memory, if the future will have memory.

    No idea how long it'll take before truth on the events of the 20th century can be written.
    Maybe the USA chapter will open with pictures of the 1/2 atom bomb(s) thrown on Japan, + an image of Qaddafi while he was being brutalized.

    The US chapter should open with the boiler explosion aboard the USS Maine, which, most inexplicably, took place in Havana harbor on 15 February 1898. There is still no “official” conclusion as to whether or not it was that or a Spanish mine.

    The Romans wisely asked, Qui Bono?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    As far back as 1800 America's founders had their eyes on Cuba which was a fabously wealthy place at the time. Jefferson wrote that Cuba was a natural part of the United States.

    Spain insisted on holding on to Cuba. We, the United States fomented several revolutions in Cuba during the 19th century. Finally we succeeded and Cuba became an economic colony of ours.

    I'm sure we intended to grab the Phillipines as well. Why else would the navy been sent thousands of miles into the Pacific if our intervention had been just to
    "Free" the Cubans from Spain?
  31. DanC says:

    Aside from Khadaffi’s mistake of attempting to divorce Libya and the rest of Africa from the Petrodollar (an action punishable by death, as demonstrated also in the cases of Christophe de Margerie and Saddam Hussein) he also committed the sin of cutting infrastructure deals with China, and negotiating oil sales to China.

    The Europeans have always considered Libyan oil to be “theirs” since it represents energy security against their dependence on pipelines from Russia and oil shipped across insecure sea lanes. Khadaffi’s fate was sealed when he appeared to be on the verge of letting China “poach” a resource considered by the Western Euros to be of strategic national interest.

    This was one oil war that didn’t follow the usual pattern, with the US going in to try and gain control of a strategic oil region, while asking the Euro nations to participate and provide a veneer of supposed “international support.” This one was was instigated by the Europeans, who asked for support from the Americans, which is why the EU coutries were the ones doing most of the actual bombing and special ops, combat operations, while the Americans stayed more in the background, providing intelligence and supplies, with very little American combat involvement, although there was some.

    Read More
  32. bbbb says:
    @Diogenes
    I must confess I am very sympathetic to your argument but it also debunks the idea of "innocent" civilians. I idea of innocence goes with the idea of being a non combatant in a conflict and that a noncombatant should not be deliberately targeted along with real combatants. This however never stopped the western "allies" from bombing the shit out of cities full of "innocent" civilians in Japan and Germany during WW2 , in the Korean and Viet Nam wars respectively or in Iraq and Libya. This was morally justified because they were members of a belligerent nation that could not be defeated by only killing combatants without also destroying the workers in the military industries and in effect destroying the nation's morale to fight. Interestingly, you couldn't destroy a nations morale by bombing the shit out of its citizens.
    Nevertheless, those noncombatants who vote for and morally or economically support their warmongering nation's leadership cannot be construed to be "innocent" and should be subjected to the destruction for their indirect involvement in war making. A further question arises who in that nation is truly innocent and should be spared the ravages of war, those that didn't vote for the warmongers, those that actively resisted the waging of war, etc? Unfortunately the immunity of innocence is impossible to implement in total war for it is practically impossible to use weapons of mass violence with moral discrimination. The innocent and guilty must suffer and die together during conquest and just as those who must await their fate in Aleppo and Mosul not withstanding the moral hypocrisy of western politicians.
    Finally, in democracy those in power are not truly "chosen by the people" but by the 1% who program the people to vote in a manner which advances their interested and programed voters are not innocent either and should be made to pay for their faux choices!

    Cool- we hear what you ‘think’.

    I think you’re a loony toon!

    Read More
  33. El Sheikh says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That’s why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya.

    Not true.

    Read ex-Mossad agent Victor Ostrovsky’s By Way of Deception, which explains in detail how Israel led Americans to believe that Libyans were responsible for this bombing. Israeli operatives had planted within Tripoli a “Trojan,” a special communication device that acted as a relay station for misleading transmissions made by the disinformation unit in the Mossad. They then used this device to broadcast what appeared as orders given to Libyan embassies to commit acts of terror. These were intercepted for some time before the La Belle Discotheque bombing, whose perpetrators were never found.

    In other words, Reagan was duped.

    And notice that Reagan’s airstrike targeted not all of Libya’s population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.

    Uh huh. Which is why there were forty civilian casualties.

    Hasbara doesn’t sell well in this neck of the woods.

    Read More
  34. Avery says:
    @Augustus
    The idea that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected leader of Iraq is preposterous. What a laughable start to such a long comment.
    Whatever "caloric deficit" was suffered by the Iraqi population, it was the result of Hussein's mismanagement or intentional mistreatment of the population. There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.

    {There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.}

    Silly MSM-Kool-Aid addled disinformation.

    And here is the proof:

    [Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it for Iraq's non existent WMD's]

    Notice that the Evil Witch does not deny 500K Iraqi children were killed as a result of US-imposed sanctions.
    Notice that the Evil Witch says nothing about any supposed escrow accounts that Hussein supposedly did not tap, you know, to “justify” the deaths.
    Notice the cold, reptilian affirmation by a monster that killing 500K “Ayraaab” children was, quote, “worth it”.

    As to Saddam Hussein being democratically elected: not much more “democratically” elected than “democratically” selected Bush The Lesser: selected by SCOTUS. Here in the US the Rulers let the Sheeple think they “elect”. In case of Iraq, for example, they dispense with the pretense.

    The current massive MSM assault on the non-Establishment Trump should disabuse any US voter that we are the ones who elect the next POTUS.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Adding to what you are saying, both Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday resigned from directing the UN-run oil-for-food program in disgust. Mr. Halliday (I saw him speak at UCLA in person) denounced the entire program of being genocidal. He also accused the British and American governments of systematically suppressing one of the most needed tools to combat dysentery and other water-borne diseases - chlorine. The indomitable John Pilger had one of the best writings on the subject:
    "Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50....'We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water.'...Like Halliday before him, his job was to administer the Oil for Food Programme, which since 1996 has allowed Iraq to sell a fraction of its oil for money that goes straight to the Security Council. Almost a third pays the UN's 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and compensation claims....'Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee in New York]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons.'"
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

    Peace.

  35. Avery says:
    @Augustus
    The idea that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected leader of Iraq is preposterous. What a laughable start to such a long comment.
    Whatever "caloric deficit" was suffered by the Iraqi population, it was the result of Hussein's mismanagement or intentional mistreatment of the population. There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.

    [RT meets Aleppo cancer kids denied aid, food due to EU & US sanctions against Assad]

    https://www.rt.com/news/363998-syria-children-cancer-help/

    How long before the Evil Witch the HildaBeast claims in a future interview that the murder of 1,000s of Syrian children was, quote, “worth it”.

    Read More
  36. @Anonymous
    Thinking of Qaddafi's murder, how and to what ends it was done, I can't but remember a writer's hope: To future memory, if the future will have memory.

    No idea how long it'll take before truth on the events of the 20th century can be written.
    Maybe the USA chapter will open with pictures of the 1/2 atom bomb(s) thrown on Japan, + an image of Qaddafi while he was being brutalized.

    And, don’t forget the burned-out Venice of Central Europe, which is Dresden .. firebombed by both RAF and USAAF heavy bombers on February 13-14, 1945 .. burning alive and suffocating to death anywhere between 300,000 and 500,000 German civilians .. more than in the nuclear bombings of Hiroghima and Nagasaki combined.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Surely those figures have long since been debunked as Goebbels propaganda.
  37. Talha says:
    @Avery
    {There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.}


    Silly MSM-Kool-Aid addled disinformation.

    And here is the proof:

    [Madeleine Albright - The deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was worth it for Iraq's non existent WMD's]
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8

    Notice that the Evil Witch does not deny 500K Iraqi children were killed as a result of US-imposed sanctions.
    Notice that the Evil Witch says nothing about any supposed escrow accounts that Hussein supposedly did not tap, you know, to "justify" the deaths.
    Notice the cold, reptilian affirmation by a monster that killing 500K "Ayraaab" children was, quote, "worth it".

    As to Saddam Hussein being democratically elected: not much more "democratically" elected than "democratically" selected Bush The Lesser: selected by SCOTUS. Here in the US the Rulers let the Sheeple think they "elect". In case of Iraq, for example, they dispense with the pretense.

    The current massive MSM assault on the non-Establishment Trump should disabuse any US voter that we are the ones who elect the next POTUS.

    Yo Avery,

    Adding to what you are saying, both Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday resigned from directing the UN-run oil-for-food program in disgust. Mr. Halliday (I saw him speak at UCLA in person) denounced the entire program of being genocidal. He also accused the British and American governments of systematically suppressing one of the most needed tools to combat dysentery and other water-borne diseases – chlorine. The indomitable John Pilger had one of the best writings on the subject:
    “Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50….’We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water.’…Like Halliday before him, his job was to administer the Oil for Food Programme, which since 1996 has allowed Iraq to sell a fraction of its oil for money that goes straight to the Security Council. Almost a third pays the UN’s ‘expenses’, reparations to Kuwait and compensation claims….’Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee in New York]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons.’”

    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Sanction on Syria are depriving children and the ill of needed food and medicine.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ahMxGAPQHiQ
    , @Avery
    Yo, Talha.

    I remember reading about the chlorine at the time. But not in the MSM.
    It was completely, deliberately ignored.
    American people, except those few who were interested and dug it up, had no clue. Vast numbers were absolutely convinced Americans were there to do good, and would never do anything to deliberately harm children.

    Even today, despite the proliferation of alternative media, most Americans get their daily dose of disinformation from the usual channels of propaganda.
    Aware people, like those commenting @UNZ, are in the minority.
  38. @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Adding to what you are saying, both Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday resigned from directing the UN-run oil-for-food program in disgust. Mr. Halliday (I saw him speak at UCLA in person) denounced the entire program of being genocidal. He also accused the British and American governments of systematically suppressing one of the most needed tools to combat dysentery and other water-borne diseases - chlorine. The indomitable John Pilger had one of the best writings on the subject:
    "Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50....'We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water.'...Like Halliday before him, his job was to administer the Oil for Food Programme, which since 1996 has allowed Iraq to sell a fraction of its oil for money that goes straight to the Security Council. Almost a third pays the UN's 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and compensation claims....'Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee in New York]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons.'"
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

    Peace.

    Sanction on Syria are depriving children and the ill of needed food and medicine.

    Read More
  39. BlackVeil says:
    @Bill Jones
    Carlton, what happened to Sanders Research?
    It was a must read site that just vanished- and took its invaluable archives with it. I referred several people to pieces like "Who created Condi Rice?"
    Most of what was on the site seems to have been scrubbed from other sites it was published on, too.

    I am sorry to hear that this Sanders Research site has vanished – I would have liked to consult it.

    I looked up that Condi Rice article, and I find it is as you say, there are references to it on websites, but the full article is nowhere, it has been taken away.

    It is odd how good sites, with lots of resources, spring up – then – all of sudden – gone. That was the story with Guerrilla News Network, which had much valuable journalism and comment posts with lots of info, on topics such as the DC Madam’s “suicide.” And also, with far less resources, Liberty Forum, a place where many views were exchanged. All suddenly deleted and scrubbed away. Some people say they were set ups – just to lure people – I don’t know.

    Read More
  40. Alden says:
    @Eustace Tilley (not)
    The US chapter should open with the boiler explosion aboard the USS Maine, which, most inexplicably, took place in Havana harbor on 15 February 1898. There is still no "official" conclusion as to whether or not it was that or a Spanish mine.

    The Romans wisely asked, Qui Bono?

    As far back as 1800 America’s founders had their eyes on Cuba which was a fabously wealthy place at the time. Jefferson wrote that Cuba was a natural part of the United States.

    Spain insisted on holding on to Cuba. We, the United States fomented several revolutions in Cuba during the 19th century. Finally we succeeded and Cuba became an economic colony of ours.

    I’m sure we intended to grab the Phillipines as well. Why else would the navy been sent thousands of miles into the Pacific if our intervention had been just to
    “Free” the Cubans from Spain?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I am probably in danger of the 'posting too fast' message, but seem to have a clear recollection of reading that the Philippines was in fact a US colony until the Pacific War.
  41. Ace says:
    @Bill Jones
    Carlton, what happened to Sanders Research?
    It was a must read site that just vanished- and took its invaluable archives with it. I referred several people to pieces like "Who created Condi Rice?"
    Most of what was on the site seems to have been scrubbed from other sites it was published on, too.

    Part of the piece on Rice is here.

    Read More
  42. nsa says:

    The vile jooie traitor Sarkozy connived with the muzzie nigger traitor Barry to destroy Libya by turning it over to the joohadis……..and destroy what is left of western civilization in europe by unleashing a full invasion of europe by the subhuman hordes of africa…..the jooies hate europe and would love to see it overrun. All the while, the kosher msm of course performed its watchdog duty and kept the population fully informed……

    Read More
  43. Karl says:
    @The Scalpel
    Thank you, Mr. Margolis, for an honest account of Khadaffi's murder. He may have had flaws, but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general. That puts him far ahead of most national leaders, especially western leaders who generally represent the elite against the people.

    Khadaffi was mainly the victim of the vicious western propaganda machine. His story is an excellent example of the true motives behind "democracy promotion" R2P and all that BS

    > but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general

    sure. And he arrived at the “Lifetime Leader” chair by winning multiple serial FAIR elections, right?

    And people WONDER why Israel has no problem out-smarting The-Scalpel type wing of the alt-right.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Indeed The Scalpel must have missed the evidence from Gaddafi's own mouth and from video of his behaviour in many documentaries such as one I have just seen part of on the TV History channel which doesn't leave strong arguments in place for Bedluin tribesmen turned oil squillionaires.
    , @The Scalpel
    I am simply looking at the advances in Libyan society made during Khadaffi's tenure. The things that were accomplished, indisputably led to the betterment of Libyan society, and the causes he supported were generally idealistic and not for profit.

    I think you are confusing "elections" with things that benefit the people of a country. I would say not necessarily so. A county may flourish under a benevolent dictator but flounder under a corrupt democracy. Neither is perfect, of course
  44. @Max Payne
    The power of Google son. You should try it.

    That reply misses two points. One is as to what can be relied on that you find by Googling. The other is that Margolis was being asked what were the sources he relied on.

    Read More
  45. @Karl
    > but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general


    sure. And he arrived at the "Lifetime Leader" chair by winning multiple serial FAIR elections, right?

    And people WONDER why Israel has no problem out-smarting The-Scalpel type wing of the alt-right.

    Indeed The Scalpel must have missed the evidence from Gaddafi’s own mouth and from video of his behaviour in many documentaries such as one I have just seen part of on the TV History channel which doesn’t leave strong arguments in place for Bedluin tribesmen turned oil squillionaires.

    Read More
  46. Che Guava says:
    @Augustus
    The idea that Saddam Hussein was the democratically elected leader of Iraq is preposterous. What a laughable start to such a long comment.
    Whatever "caloric deficit" was suffered by the Iraqi population, it was the result of Hussein's mismanagement or intentional mistreatment of the population. There were no restrictions on imports of food or medicines. The Iraqi oil sales escrow account at the UN had a balance of $64 billion that was unused because the Iraqi govt. (Hussein) had not requested it be used for those purchases.
    The entire comment is silly propaganda.

    You may also try reading comments a little more closely before making an incorrect assertion.

    SolontoC clearly stated that

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government.

    Try returning to the post and actually reading it. It is not without interest.

    Read More
  47. @Da-Mith
    I thought Khadaffi's downfall was his proposed introduction of a new african currency The Gold Dinar. Khadaffi wanted to escape the shackles of the American Petro dollar...and we all know that that is a very serious offence ...punishable by death...to TPTB.

    That sounds like the silly stuff you might believe if your knowledge of international finance was limited to what you might get from the Rehmat Comic book for those with extreme ADHD. Or would you care to spell out your understanding of Petrodollar and this interesting theory.

    Read More
  48. @Tim Howells
    Thank you very much Mr. Margolis. Your courage and integrity are deeply appreciated. Re Clinton assuming office though, that's not "when" but "if".

    I’ve always doubted Mr Margolis ‘s integrity since I found him out manufacturing a quote. And I fail to see evidence of courage so ask what is your reason for praising his courage?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tim Howells
    Re courage: This article is a good slating of Clinton, and imo an implicit endorsement of Trump, since it follows roughly Trump's critique of Clinton's foreign policy positions. This will not do Mr. Margolis any favors in his relationships with his former friends, colleagues and employers at the NY Times, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, LA Times et al. Maybe I should have waited for an explicit endorsement of Trump before praising his courage.

    What's the story with the alleged manufactured quote?
  49. @Eileen Kuch
    And, don't forget the burned-out Venice of Central Europe, which is Dresden .. firebombed by both RAF and USAAF heavy bombers on February 13-14, 1945 .. burning alive and suffocating to death anywhere between 300,000 and 500,000 German civilians .. more than in the nuclear bombings of Hiroghima and Nagasaki combined.

    Surely those figures have long since been debunked as Goebbels propaganda.

    Read More
  50. Che Guava says:
    @bob balkas
    USSR coming into afghanistan to fight anticommunist fighters was a legal, but nevertheless a criminal act? EM is, according to me, tacitly saying that USSR behaved criminally by coming into Afghanistan to rescue kabul communist govt.

    If at that time afghanistan was recognized by UN as the de jure state, then, USSR army fighting islamic fascists/wahhabis was morally and legally correct an action.

    EM calls people with views and actions from stone age "the real freedom fighters". Kaddafi, being also an islamists most likely had not rebuked Eric, but i would have!

    I agree, I like many of Margolis’s columns and agree with most points in this one. However,

    I rebuked him for not backing the Afghan mujahadin then fighting Soviet occupation who were real freedom fighters.

    leaves me stunned by the false consciousness. Ghadaffy sure had the right idea to not support them.

    The most charitable interpretation is that Margolis is in tune with the stupider ideas of British Oi! punk, the song Guns for the Afghan Rebels being the best comparison.

    At least the Angelic Upstarts had the excuse of using it, at least in part, to wind up fake radicals like the Clash.

    Very puzzled about where Margolis gets his own take on the same idea.

    It is also a very poor sentence.

    Read More
  51. @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    There are interesting corollaries to the collective punishment justifications. One is that it is appropriate to punish people by killing their children. Another is that death or mutilation is appropriate punishment for not being capable of putting together a team to get rid of the government before the punisher loses patience..

    I query the usefulness of arguments about collective punishment and suggest that arguments about Australia’s turning round of boats and use of offshore (indeed foreign) detention for so-ca!led asylum seekers arriving by boat may be more appropriate. At least they work. Sanctions against Iraq don’t seem to have.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Sanctions against Iraq don’t seem to have [worked].
     
    "Worked" to achieve what end?
  52. Che Guava says:
    @Alden
    As far back as 1800 America's founders had their eyes on Cuba which was a fabously wealthy place at the time. Jefferson wrote that Cuba was a natural part of the United States.

    Spain insisted on holding on to Cuba. We, the United States fomented several revolutions in Cuba during the 19th century. Finally we succeeded and Cuba became an economic colony of ours.

    I'm sure we intended to grab the Phillipines as well. Why else would the navy been sent thousands of miles into the Pacific if our intervention had been just to
    "Free" the Cubans from Spain?

    I am probably in danger of the ‘posting too fast’ message, but seem to have a clear recollection of reading that the Philippines was in fact a US colony until the Pacific War.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    !Muy correcto, amigo!
    , @OutWest
    The U.S. had agreed to free the Philippines sometime in the early/mid 1940s. This was delayed but not cancelled by the Japanese occupation of the islands.
  53. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Karl
    > but he seems to have been working in the sincere best interest of the people of Libya and humanity in general


    sure. And he arrived at the "Lifetime Leader" chair by winning multiple serial FAIR elections, right?

    And people WONDER why Israel has no problem out-smarting The-Scalpel type wing of the alt-right.

    I am simply looking at the advances in Libyan society made during Khadaffi’s tenure. The things that were accomplished, indisputably led to the betterment of Libyan society, and the causes he supported were generally idealistic and not for profit.

    I think you are confusing “elections” with things that benefit the people of a country. I would say not necessarily so. A county may flourish under a benevolent dictator but flounder under a corrupt democracy. Neither is perfect, of course

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The only credit that Gadaffi deserves for spending a fraction of the huge oil revenues on such obvious people pacifiers as health services is that it proves he wasn't a complete idiot at holding power. He no doubt noticed what the Saudis did which would have also told him how much very rich dictators and tyrants can get away with.
  54. Yes. Libya is really made ruins for the goodness of America. America is great. Great and Great. Full of wisdom. Full of peace n democracy. Good state. Should be a king of postmodernism. It is handful n helpful humanitarian interventionist. Liberated people all over the world to sunrise horizon. Giving unlimited aid to poor countries. Developing countries as well. USA IS VERY VERY NOBLE STATE. Acting a heaven of noble willings.

    All its potentials and strengths directing at safe world. No bad ideas behind it. No unjustified character of US. Very good. Very strong. Very wealthy. Very wisely. Very truly. It is real king of modern imperium but not completely like Rome. It is ever glory.

    It only has one language. The USA. it is OK. Pretty GOOD (standing applause)

    Read More
  55. @Wizard of Oz
    I've always doubted Mr Margolis 's integrity since I found him out manufacturing a quote. And I fail to see evidence of courage so ask what is your reason for praising his courage?

    Re courage: This article is a good slating of Clinton, and imo an implicit endorsement of Trump, since it follows roughly Trump’s critique of Clinton’s foreign policy positions. This will not do Mr. Margolis any favors in his relationships with his former friends, colleagues and employers at the NY Times, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, LA Times et al. Maybe I should have waited for an explicit endorsement of Trump before praising his courage.

    What’s the story with the alleged manufactured quote?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    An earlier article by Margolis had Stalin boasting to Churchill at Yalta that Kaganovich (of the Holomodor) was his Eichmann. It seemed so absurdly unlikely that I did a fairly thorough search and all I could come up with for a source was Eric Margolis. That he picked it up from someone in a bar and didn't think it improbable would be bad enough for his credibility. After all it's not as though WW2 is ancient history for him as it might be to a Millenial.
  56. Avery says:
    @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Adding to what you are saying, both Hans Von Sponeck and Denis Halliday resigned from directing the UN-run oil-for-food program in disgust. Mr. Halliday (I saw him speak at UCLA in person) denounced the entire program of being genocidal. He also accused the British and American governments of systematically suppressing one of the most needed tools to combat dysentery and other water-borne diseases - chlorine. The indomitable John Pilger had one of the best writings on the subject:
    "Chlorine, that universal guardian of safe water, has been blocked by the Sanctions Committee. In 1990, an Iraqi infant with dysentery stood a one in 600 chance of dying. This is now one in 50....'We all know that the regime, Saddam Hussein, is not paying the price for economic sanctions; on the contrary, he has been strengthened by them. It is the little people who are losing their children or their parents for lack of untreated water.'...Like Halliday before him, his job was to administer the Oil for Food Programme, which since 1996 has allowed Iraq to sell a fraction of its oil for money that goes straight to the Security Council. Almost a third pays the UN's 'expenses', reparations to Kuwait and compensation claims....'Requested radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics are consistently blocked by United States and British advisers [to the Sanctions Committee in New York]. There seems to be a rather ludicrous notion that such agents could be converted into chemical or other weapons.'"
    https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2000/mar/04/weekend7.weekend9

    Peace.

    Yo, Talha.

    I remember reading about the chlorine at the time. But not in the MSM.
    It was completely, deliberately ignored.
    American people, except those few who were interested and dug it up, had no clue. Vast numbers were absolutely convinced Americans were there to do good, and would never do anything to deliberately harm children.

    Even today, despite the proliferation of alternative media, most Americans get their daily dose of disinformation from the usual channels of propaganda.
    Aware people, like those commenting @UNZ, are in the minority.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Yo Avery,

    Agreed. It is a testament to the goodness in the common American that he must be lied to about this stuff in order for these policies to remain in place...however, the fact that he gets duped again and again is definitely not a plus.

    It seems a general distrust in the political structure is growing and so it will hopefully be harder to push these policies in the future. I guess we'll see after the election...

    Peace.
  57. woodNfish says:

    After spending an evening with Khadaffi in his Bedouin tent, I told him, tongue in cheek, “Leader, we may bomb you but I must confess our women think you are the most handsome and dashing Arab leader.”

    Suck a lot of raghead dick don’t you margolis?

    Khadaffi was severely beaten, then anally raped with a long knife. At least two bullets finally ended his suffering.

    A shame they wasted those two bullets. This should happen to most of the global elitist pricks and especially Paul Ryan and his fellow traitors including those in Europe.

    Read More
  58. Rehmat says:

    To hundreds of millions of Libyan and victims of Zionist imperialism, Muammar Gaddafi, will remain a hero.

    Five year after Qaddafi was murdered along with 80,000 Libyan civilian by the US-France-UK-Italy-NATO butchers for being a threat to the Western capitalism and Israel, the people of Libya are once again turning to Qaddafi family to save them from the mayhem that has engulfed the country.

    Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton who mocked the lynching of Qaddafi in October 2011 would have never thought the ghost of their victim would return to save Libya from the western vultures. The Jewish vengeance also failed to kill Qaddafi’s surviving son Seif al-Islam to die as a common criminal in the Zionist-controlled International Criminal Court custody.

    In 2011, Benjamin Netanyahu, a serial liar, told CNN viewers: “Well, Qaddafi is no friend of Israel. He’s no friend of the Jewish people. And I think his people can see now, he’s no friend of the Libyan people. This is a man who helped explode civilian airlines in the skies. He’s fostered terrorism. He’s done a lot of terrible things. So I don’t think anybody would be sorry to see him go. I wouldn’t.” Obviously, views of a much bigger terrorist on a small fish.

    On April 12, 2016, Seif al-Islam was set free, in accordance with the amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament last year.

    Watch below RT documentary exposing Western regime change in Libya for greed and the Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/10/26/libyan-beg-qaddafi-family-to-save-the-nation/

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    Strange he should have cared so much about paLiestinians a thousand miles away , when right next door to him , Morocco is carrying on a brutal occupation of Western Sahara that has killed 50% more civilians than Israel has. Morocco is also occupying 1000x more land than Israel has .
  59. A characteristically excellent article by Eric Margolis. It might be added that the murder of Khadaffi opened up Europe’s southern flank, which the Libyan leader had been defending, to the current migrant invasion.

    Read More
  60. Talha says:
    @Avery
    Yo, Talha.

    I remember reading about the chlorine at the time. But not in the MSM.
    It was completely, deliberately ignored.
    American people, except those few who were interested and dug it up, had no clue. Vast numbers were absolutely convinced Americans were there to do good, and would never do anything to deliberately harm children.

    Even today, despite the proliferation of alternative media, most Americans get their daily dose of disinformation from the usual channels of propaganda.
    Aware people, like those commenting @UNZ, are in the minority.

    Yo Avery,

    Agreed. It is a testament to the goodness in the common American that he must be lied to about this stuff in order for these policies to remain in place…however, the fact that he gets duped again and again is definitely not a plus.

    It seems a general distrust in the political structure is growing and so it will hopefully be harder to push these policies in the future. I guess we’ll see after the election…

    Peace.

    Read More
  61. @Che Guava
    I am probably in danger of the 'posting too fast' message, but seem to have a clear recollection of reading that the Philippines was in fact a US colony until the Pacific War.

    !Muy correcto, amigo!

    Read More
  62. OutWest says:
    @Che Guava
    I am probably in danger of the 'posting too fast' message, but seem to have a clear recollection of reading that the Philippines was in fact a US colony until the Pacific War.

    The U.S. had agreed to free the Philippines sometime in the early/mid 1940s. This was delayed but not cancelled by the Japanese occupation of the islands.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Sorry, Outwest, you are wrong on both timing and intentions.

    If you have anything to refute or beyond what I say below, I would be pleased to hear it.

    The US Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, intended to establish a 'Philippines Commonwealth' in 1934.

    This was to have been a ten-year process.

    Use of the term 'Commonwealth' implies that the aim was not independence, but an outpost in S.E. Asia on much the same terms under which Puerto Rico is a 'Commonwealth' within the US.
  63. My god you americans are murderous bastards.not content with killing 500,000 innocents in Iraq
    you are now stopping young Syrian cancer victims from receiving life saving medicines.never have so many children been killed on the insane whim(of clinton and blair) and then made out that it was seemingly a good thing for humanity(albrigh(sick).and don’t forget cameron in this horror story.the english public school is a precursor to the madness of ‘skull and bones’or whatever the
    fuck it is called.when god commits these bastards to the anal bayonetting division of Hell,for all eternity,my only problem is is that they might enjoy it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eustace Tilley (not)
    This commenter doth demonstrate,
    By ranting most illiterate from brains,
    That 'tis necessity to regulate
    Some commenters by electronic chains.

    To block a blockhead is no crime,
    But act of mental self-defense;
    I'll have to block him for all time
    To spare my time for men of sense.

  64. Boris says:
    @5371
    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.

    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.

    Can’t help but laugh at idiots like this. So mad, sad and lonely. The left owns your ass, dipshit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Your prolapsed rectum appears to be curdling your temper.
  65. Boris says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    Nice circular logic.

    Read More
  66. nsa says:

    The jooies and their american useful idiots got a twofer….they destroyed another arab country by turning it over to their joohadi allies….and promoted the destruction of europe with a flatout invasion by the african hordes. The jooies hate white europeans even more than the arabs…..a fact you will not read in the kosher media. White americans are beginning to suspect they are next on the jooie hit list. The only solution is to ban jooies from public life for their own good as well as ours, or forcibly deport them to israel. There are 140 instances in the last 1500 years of jooies being forcibly evicted from the host country….it’s called self-preservation.

    Read More
  67. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Several years ago I read a monograph prepared for the Army War College (iirc) by Patrick Clawson. The general topic was the sanctions imposed on Iraq in the 1990s. In several essays, Clawson discussed caloric sufficiency; who was starving and why; what actions Saddam's government was taking to ensure food to the population, and, of pertinent interest, the morality of the sanctions imposed on Iraq's civilian population.

    I don't have the document at hand; as I recall, Clawson argued that there's little doubt that imposing sanctions on a civilian population -- that is, collective punishment -- that democratically elects its leaders is appropriate.

    Clawson acknowledged, however, that the Iraqi people did not elect their government. Nevertheless, Clawson continued, it is still appropriate to impose the collective punishment of sanctions on the Iraqi people because their government was behaving improperly which the people should have risen up to overthrow; because they did not, it was legitimate to sanction them for their failure to act against the bad acts of their government.


    In a speech in Miami, Florida on Oct. 20, U.S. President Barack Obama said:

    "Our democracy depends on people knowing that their vote matters. That in fact, those who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people. Then, when your preferred candidate loses, even when you are the one who is running and you lose, you’ve got to see the bigger picture and say, that here in America we believe in democracy and we accept the will of the people.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1A1AEYr8gQ

    Thus, the president of the United States declared that the citizenry of the United States fit the parameters of Clawson's first claim: they elect their leaders; "the people who occupy the seats of power are chosen by the people."
    It follows, then, that if that elected leadership commits evil acts, such as wrongfully invading a sovereign nation -- as was done to Iraq, to Libya, and to Syria, then it is legitimate to collectively punish the people of that nation who elected those leaders.

    The people of the United States of America are collectively culpable and liable for the evil acts of their government, and according to Clawson's moral argument, it would be legitimate to collectively punish them, even to the point of causing the death-by-sanctioned-starvation of (the equivalent of) 7.5 million American children.

    If the USA were not a democracy, according to Clawson, its citizens would still have the responsibility to oppose or resist the evil acts of their government.

    Either way, the people of the USA have a Responsibility to Revolt -- R2R.

    The Responsibility to Revolt, R2R, is not just a talking point; it's not an interesting poli sci kind of thing to bandy about; it is moral obligation the neglect of which can legitimately bring down upon the citizenry collective punishment.

    Donald Trump was correct to say that he would not declare in advance his intention to concede the election should he win.
    The American people have been boxed into a situation that presages the election of an individual who is already responsible for evil and illegitimate acts against millions of people in other nations. Hillary Clinton voted for the war in Iraq; Hillary Clinton masterminded the destruction of the sovereign state of Libya and the rape and murder of its leader; Hillary Clinton's fingerprints have been all over the war being waged against the legitimate government and sovereign state of Syria. Hillary Clinton is, by any measure, guilty of evil acts that may amount to crimes against humanity. A vote for Hillary Clinton makes that voter complicit in her crimes and susceptible to rightly-imposed collective punishment.

    For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.

    Not only is a vote for Hillary Clinton an immoral choice, the failure to resist or oppose a Clinton presidency is likewise immoral, and places that citizen -- in fact, the entire citizenry -- in a position of culpability for that failure.

    Vote as if your children's lives depend upon it. 7.5 million children -- the American equivalent to 500,000 dead Iraqi children. Is the price worth it?

    Let me try to understand your barmy post. According to you, Americans are collectively responsible for the acts of several administrations they had elected. So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous. Hillary’s election, merely compounds a sin already committed and thus in your model, the possibility of an escape from punishment rather moot. Or are you suggesting Donald be the purgatory?

    And here I thought you had relinquished Catholicism for Zoroastrianism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous.
     
    No.
    Read carefully:

    "For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian." (nb. notice that no Jews seem to have suffered in the wars that made the region safe for their apartheid enclave)

    Realistically speaking, USAians have two choices: Clinton or Trump. A vote for Clinton compounds the felony -- she committed war crimes and portends to commit more of the same. A vote for Trump is the only moral choice available.

    Yes, Americans are, indeed, "collectively responsible" -- and culpable, for the acts of leaders they elect. That's a concept that the Jews who dominated the destruction and then psychological warfare against Germany insisted upon and carried out from before the war ended to this very day. If it's good enough for Jews, shouldn't it be good enough for Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Afghanis, Palestinians to expect that those who committed crimes against them should be severely punished?
    ---

    One never really sheds years of being Catholic, but no matter; there is no conflict between the elements of Zoroastrianism and the best of Catholicism. Christianity -- and Judaism -- owe their ethical principles to Zoroaster.

  68. The criminal pussy, killary is responsible for thousands of deaths in Libya and Syria, many children and women. She is directly responsible for massacre of Qaddafi and his family.
    If ICC cannot arrest her and give her life in prison, then ICC should be bombed with the pimps inside. ICC has NO credibility. South Africa got out of ICC, because ICC only goes after innocent people and non white. US is not member of ICC because US know has done millions of crime against humanity and has killed more than 400 millions people around the world.
    Now the dummies in the US are trying to put a mass murderer, baby killer and corrupt Zionist servant on the thrown. Americans who are silent and cooperating with terrorist state and mass murderers pose as ‘politicians’ are also mass murderers. The only solution left is to bomb the mass murderers in Washington who have killed millions of people and their leaders and have destroyed many countries for ‘greater Israel’. Destroy the criminal Zionist tribe with their phony intellectuals who are behind Killary now.

    What stupid Putin (Russia) and China are doing? Why these cowards are cooperating with the terrorist state and Zionist criminals?

    Russia and china should have created a strong united front against the criminals in Washington by now. This shows that Putin and china are liars and only colonies.

    Read More
  69. @Bill Jones
    Carlton, what happened to Sanders Research?
    It was a must read site that just vanished- and took its invaluable archives with it. I referred several people to pieces like "Who created Condi Rice?"
    Most of what was on the site seems to have been scrubbed from other sites it was published on, too.

    Have you tried the Wayback machine?

    Read More
  70. @Tim Howells
    Re courage: This article is a good slating of Clinton, and imo an implicit endorsement of Trump, since it follows roughly Trump's critique of Clinton's foreign policy positions. This will not do Mr. Margolis any favors in his relationships with his former friends, colleagues and employers at the NY Times, Huffington Post, CNN, BBC, LA Times et al. Maybe I should have waited for an explicit endorsement of Trump before praising his courage.

    What's the story with the alleged manufactured quote?

    An earlier article by Margolis had Stalin boasting to Churchill at Yalta that Kaganovich (of the Holomodor) was his Eichmann. It seemed so absurdly unlikely that I did a fairly thorough search and all I could come up with for a source was Eric Margolis. That he picked it up from someone in a bar and didn’t think it improbable would be bad enough for his credibility. After all it’s not as though WW2 is ancient history for him as it might be to a Millenial.

    Read More
  71. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Did European elites who supported this destruction of Libya have any idea of what the refugee crisis would do to Europe?

    “WELCOME REFUGEES” is disingenuous moral cover for “WE ZIONISTS DESTROYED YOUR MUSLIM NATIONS AND UPROOTED YOU, HAHA.”

    If a Zionist burns a Muslim’s house down and then stands in front of a European’s house and holds up a sign that says “WELCOME REFUGEES” and takes moral credit for ‘compassion’ and ‘humanitarianism’, that is so low.

    As for the Zionist’s arson that destroyed the Muslim’s house? Fuhgeddaboudit.

    Read More
  72. @The Scalpel
    I am simply looking at the advances in Libyan society made during Khadaffi's tenure. The things that were accomplished, indisputably led to the betterment of Libyan society, and the causes he supported were generally idealistic and not for profit.

    I think you are confusing "elections" with things that benefit the people of a country. I would say not necessarily so. A county may flourish under a benevolent dictator but flounder under a corrupt democracy. Neither is perfect, of course

    The only credit that Gadaffi deserves for spending a fraction of the huge oil revenues on such obvious people pacifiers as health services is that it proves he wasn’t a complete idiot at holding power. He no doubt noticed what the Saudis did which would have also told him how much very rich dictators and tyrants can get away with.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Scalpel
    That sort of proves my point. The United States which has a lot more wealth, and a lot more wealth per capita, has no universal health care for their population. So in that sense, you could say that the dictator did more for his people with limited resources than our fine democracy does for ours. Of course, here, the wealthy do not have to worry much about the cost of healthcare. They are well represented here.
    , @Avery
    A 'fraction'?
    Au Contraire Mon Ami.


    [Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project]
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868

    {It was Muammar Gaddafi`s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production.
    Libyans called it the eighth wonder of the world. Western media called it a pet project and the pipe dream of a mad dog. The “mad dog” himself in 1991 prophetically said about the largest civil engineering venture in the world:
    After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.}


    And then the NATO/Neocon reptiles came out of hibernation, and.....

    [War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure.]
    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30999-war-crime-nato-deliberately-destroyed-libya-s-water-infrastructure

    {The military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming the damage on Gaddafi himself. Since then, the country's water infrastructure - and the suffering of its people - has only deteriorated further.}

    Over to you, homes.
    Let's see you defend the reptilian war criminals.

  73. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @Wizard of Oz
    The only credit that Gadaffi deserves for spending a fraction of the huge oil revenues on such obvious people pacifiers as health services is that it proves he wasn't a complete idiot at holding power. He no doubt noticed what the Saudis did which would have also told him how much very rich dictators and tyrants can get away with.

    That sort of proves my point. The United States which has a lot more wealth, and a lot more wealth per capita, has no universal health care for their population. So in that sense, you could say that the dictator did more for his people with limited resources than our fine democracy does for ours. Of course, here, the wealthy do not have to worry much about the cost of healthcare. They are well represented here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I'll only concede this, that Gaddafi was shrewd enough to look at First World health systems which gave, and still give, greater life expectancies to their people than G/K's Libyan one, and saw that the US model was preposterous....
  74. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Stray thought: if private contractors could protect oil production in places like Libya and Iraq, no one would care about all these fine gentlemen killing each other half a world away. Maybe Israeli-style electronic fences and drones would do the trick.

    Then it would be a question of taking out mad dogs PRN–mostly to prevent wars between states and eradicate WMDs (as in Syria).

    Think of it as a 4GW approach to energy security.

    Read More
  75. Avery says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    The only credit that Gadaffi deserves for spending a fraction of the huge oil revenues on such obvious people pacifiers as health services is that it proves he wasn't a complete idiot at holding power. He no doubt noticed what the Saudis did which would have also told him how much very rich dictators and tyrants can get away with.

    A ‘fraction’?
    Au Contraire Mon Ami.

    [Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project]

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868

    {It was Muammar Gaddafi`s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production.
    Libyans called it the eighth wonder of the world. Western media called it a pet project and the pipe dream of a mad dog. The “mad dog” himself in 1991 prophetically said about the largest civil engineering venture in the world:
    After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.}

    And then the NATO/Neocon reptiles came out of hibernation, and…..

    [War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure.]

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30999-war-crime-nato-deliberately-destroyed-libya-s-water-infrastructure

    {The military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming the damage on Gaddafi himself. Since then, the country’s water infrastructure – and the suffering of its people – has only deteriorated further.}

    Over to you, homes.
    Let’s see you defend the reptilian war criminals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't time to read and follow up all that but, in the contrarian spirit of one with no dog in the fight, I note that willingness to spend vast amounts on visionary projects doesn't earn many points for virtue, especially if he was going to draw on North Africa's artesian basins to send the H2O in the end to add to the water vapour in the atmosphere. We Aussies have a dubious record of misusing our artesian water so that occurs to me. His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev...
  76. @Frank Williams
    Two acts that signed Qaddafi's death warrent were his decisions to use the 744 tons of gold that Libya had amassed to take Africa off the dollar and put a pan-African, gold-back dinar in its place and to establish an African Development Bank to lend African nations for legitimate infrastructure projects at reasonable rates so as to free the continent from reliance on the US-controlled IMF and World Bank with their ruinous "Shock Doctrine" policies of cutting medical and educational programs that aid the poor while privatizing a nation's natural and industrial resources to back these loans which are always in excess of what a nation can repay--thus leading to a nation being raped of all it possesses. Libya's gold and its oil are now safely in Western hands and Africa has one more been returned to poverty and debtor's slavery.

    You are exactly correct. The banking cartel owns Washington (including Hillary) and will not tolerate ANY competition. You win the thread hands down and with only two periods. :) Thank you Mr. Williams.

    Read More
  77. “We came, we saw, he died! [cackle, cackle, cakle]“

    The words and reactions of a cold-blooded sociopath, especially given the manner in which he was killed. Khadaffi was no angel, but the manner of his death was not something a serious politician would laugh about.

    Trump represents many unknowns, but Hillary represents a number of very troubling knowns that make me very comfortable with taking my chances on Trump.

    Read More
  78. @The Scalpel
    That sort of proves my point. The United States which has a lot more wealth, and a lot more wealth per capita, has no universal health care for their population. So in that sense, you could say that the dictator did more for his people with limited resources than our fine democracy does for ours. Of course, here, the wealthy do not have to worry much about the cost of healthcare. They are well represented here.

    I’ll only concede this, that Gaddafi was shrewd enough to look at First World health systems which gave, and still give, greater life expectancies to their people than G/K’s Libyan one, and saw that the US model was preposterous….

    Read More
  79. @Avery
    A 'fraction'?
    Au Contraire Mon Ami.


    [Libya’s “Water Wars” and Gaddafi`s Great Man-Made River Project]
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-water-wars-and-gaddafis-great-man-made-river-project/5334868

    {It was Muammar Gaddafi`s dream to provide fresh water for all Libyans and to make Libya self-sufficient in food production.
    Libyans called it the eighth wonder of the world. Western media called it a pet project and the pipe dream of a mad dog. The “mad dog” himself in 1991 prophetically said about the largest civil engineering venture in the world:
    After this achievement, American threats against Libya will double. The United States will make excuses, but the real reason is to stop this achievement, to keep the people of Libya oppressed.}


    And then the NATO/Neocon reptiles came out of hibernation, and.....

    [War Crime: NATO Deliberately Destroyed Libya's Water Infrastructure.]
    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/30999-war-crime-nato-deliberately-destroyed-libya-s-water-infrastructure

    {The military targeting of civilian infrastructure, especially of water supplies, is a war crime under the Geneva Conventions. Yet this is precisely what NATO did in Libya, while blaming the damage on Gaddafi himself. Since then, the country's water infrastructure - and the suffering of its people - has only deteriorated further.}

    Over to you, homes.
    Let's see you defend the reptilian war criminals.

    I haven’t time to read and follow up all that but, in the contrarian spirit of one with no dog in the fight, I note that willingness to spend vast amounts on visionary projects doesn’t earn many points for virtue, especially if he was going to draw on North Africa’s artesian basins to send the H2O in the end to add to the water vapour in the atmosphere. We Aussies have a dubious record of misusing our artesian water so that occurs to me. His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {I haven’t time to read and follow up …}

    If you haven’t the time, then don’t malign what Gadaffi was trying to do.

    {His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev…}

    Yeah, sure. Parsimonious. Whatever.
    Anybody can be, quote, 'parsimonious' with $10s of billions of free money from American taxpayers.

    When Israel stops sucking $10s of billions from US taxpayers to subsidize its housing projects and stops begging for $5 Billion @ year from US taxpayers, come back and tell us about ‘parsimonious’, homes.
  80. SoRnay says:

    Schumer Calls on BP to Suspend Planned Drilling Activities in Libya

    14 Jul 2010

    U.S. Senators Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Charles Schumer (D-NJ) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) will hold a news conference today to call for BP to suspend its oil drilling plans in Libya. Before BP makes money off of drilling there, the senators want to know to what extent BP helped to facilitate the release of Lockerbie bomber (SIC) Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish prison in order to finalize and expedite a $900 million offshore drilling deal with Libya. They have requested a full State Department investigation.

    _________________________________________________________________

    Mystery surrounds prison death of terrorist whose testimony was key to Iraq invasion

    15 May 2009

    THE Islamist terrorist who was the key source of the false intelligence used to trigger the US and UK 2003 military invasion of Iraq has been found dead in a Libyan prison cell.

    Ibn al-Sheikh al-Libi allegedly commited suicide by hanging in the prison where he was being held in the Libyan capital, Tripoli. His death followed a visit by a team from Human Rights Watch, one of the world’s leading independent organisations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights.

    The al-Libi affair opens a window on an extraordinarily close espionage link that existed between the government of the former US president, George Bush, and the authoritarian Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.

    [...]

    After extracting the false confession from al-Libi, the Egyptians handed him to the CIA. The date of the transfer is unknown, as is the location where he was detained, although there is speculation it was Guantanamo Bay in Cuba. Some time in early 2006 the Americans delivered al-Libi to Gaddafi.

    The al-Libi case sheds light on the extraordinary level of co-operation that existed between the Bush team and the Gaddafi regime.

    Gaddafi helped the US pursue al-Qaeda’s network in North Africa by extraditing radicals to neighbouring pro-Western states.

    http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/12768102.Mystery_surrounds_prison_death_of_terrorist_whose_testimony_was_key_to_Iraq_invasion/

    Read More
  81. Avery says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I haven't time to read and follow up all that but, in the contrarian spirit of one with no dog in the fight, I note that willingness to spend vast amounts on visionary projects doesn't earn many points for virtue, especially if he was going to draw on North Africa's artesian basins to send the H2O in the end to add to the water vapour in the atmosphere. We Aussies have a dubious record of misusing our artesian water so that occurs to me. His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev...

    {I haven’t time to read and follow up …}

    If you haven’t the time, then don’t malign what Gadaffi was trying to do.

    {His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev…}

    Yeah, sure. Parsimonious. Whatever.
    Anybody can be, quote, ‘parsimonious’ with $10s of billions of free money from American taxpayers.

    When Israel stops sucking $10s of billions from US taxpayers to subsidize its housing projects and stops begging for $5 Billion @ year from US taxpayers, come back and tell us about ‘parsimonious’, homes.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Objections to Israel's policies and practice and its relations with the US are surely irrelevant to the question whether or not Israel has led the way in using water parsimoniously - in the obvious sense of not wasting it and getting maximum results from its use.

    (Equally irrelevant that the Israelis may well be taking more than their fair share of water in and north of Galilee and in the Jordan basin and catchment).

    I didn't have to tread your stuff to have some awareness of Gaddafi's dreams of using artesian water....
  82. I mentioned $70 billion in Libyan funds that disappeared in London after the coup. Forbes reported on $1.2 billion that Goldman Sachs stole, as in “poorly invested”. Hillary got a share via “speaking fees.”

    Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya’s $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-lost-98-of-libyas-1-3b-sovereign-wealth-fund-investment/#67803806739c

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Anyone stupid enough to park money with the jooies deserves to have it all stolen.
  83. nsa says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    I mentioned $70 billion in Libyan funds that disappeared in London after the coup. Forbes reported on $1.2 billion that Goldman Sachs stole, as in "poorly invested". Hillary got a share via "speaking fees."

    Goldman Sachs Lost 98% of Libya's $1.3B Sovereign Wealth Fund Investment

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/05/31/goldman-sachs-lost-98-of-libyas-1-3b-sovereign-wealth-fund-investment/#67803806739c

    Anyone stupid enough to park money with the jooies deserves to have it all stolen.

    Read More
  84. Jack ryan says: • Website
    @biz
    Indeed. Qadafi was a sponsor of international terrorism, including the bombing of the Pan Am flight over Scotland which killed 188 Americans.

    Idiots around here never met an anti-American dictator that they didn't like.

    Yeah ok

    But at least 5,000 plus Black African male migrants weren t launching EVERY F@@@@& Day from Libya to invade Europe when Qaddafi was in power.

    Read More
  85. USAMNESIA says:
    @Jus' Sayin'...

    “why Mr. Eric did the Americans try to kill me?”
     
    I'm surprised that Mr. Margolis was - and apparently still is - so ignorant of history that he could not provide Qadafi with an appropriate answer. Libyan secret agents had just terror bombed a discoteque in West Berlin, killing many people, among them three American servicemen. That's why Reagan ordered an airstrike against Libya. And notice that Reagan's airstrike targeted not all of Libya's population but just representative agencies of the guilty government.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_Berlin_discotheque_bombing

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1998/08/bomb-a27.html

    Anyone paying attention and willing to take a little time will realize this “event” was like many others of its kind.

    “When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men in a society, over the course of time they create for themselves a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it.” – Frédéric Bastiat

    Read More
  86. 5371 says:
    @Boris

    Hopefully before long the mutilated corpses of #TheCunt and its Hoomer Aberdeen will be hanging upside down somewhere side by side, like Benito M. and Clara Petacci.
     
    Can't help but laugh at idiots like this. So mad, sad and lonely. The left owns your ass, dipshit.

    Your prolapsed rectum appears to be curdling your temper.

    Read More
  87. Che Guava says:
    @OutWest
    The U.S. had agreed to free the Philippines sometime in the early/mid 1940s. This was delayed but not cancelled by the Japanese occupation of the islands.

    Sorry, Outwest, you are wrong on both timing and intentions.

    If you have anything to refute or beyond what I say below, I would be pleased to hear it.

    The US Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, intended to establish a ‘Philippines Commonwealth’ in 1934.

    This was to have been a ten-year process.

    Use of the term ‘Commonwealth’ implies that the aim was not independence, but an outpost in S.E. Asia on much the same terms under which Puerto Rico is a ‘Commonwealth’ within the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    Split the difference? In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state. What might have been done under the “commonwealth” designation at another time is indeterminate.

    My sense of FDR -while not favorable- is that he perhaps saw that the day of empire had passed –particularly for Great Britain. Truman is a bit less readable but at least for table dressing as the cold War formed up would be in favor of independence.
  88. @Sam Shama
    Let me try to understand your barmy post. According to you, Americans are collectively responsible for the acts of several administrations they had elected. So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous. Hillary's election, merely compounds a sin already committed and thus in your model, the possibility of an escape from punishment rather moot. Or are you suggesting Donald be the purgatory?

    And here I thought you had relinquished Catholicism for Zoroastrianism.

    So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous.

    No.
    Read carefully:

    “For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian.” (nb. notice that no Jews seem to have suffered in the wars that made the region safe for their apartheid enclave)

    Realistically speaking, USAians have two choices: Clinton or Trump. A vote for Clinton compounds the felony — she committed war crimes and portends to commit more of the same. A vote for Trump is the only moral choice available.

    Yes, Americans are, indeed, “collectively responsible” — and culpable, for the acts of leaders they elect. That’s a concept that the Jews who dominated the destruction and then psychological warfare against Germany insisted upon and carried out from before the war ended to this very day. If it’s good enough for Jews, shouldn’t it be good enough for Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Afghanis, Palestinians to expect that those who committed crimes against them should be severely punished?

    One never really sheds years of being Catholic, but no matter; there is no conflict between the elements of Zoroastrianism and the best of Catholicism. Christianity — and Judaism — owe their ethical principles to Zoroaster.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I'm not voting for HRC certainly. I was sold on Trump since early in the year, but his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Is it possible that the Clinton's had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP? Why would the 16 other Reps - especially Bush - not use all the publicly available data against Trump during the Primaries?

    So I might write someone else in.
  89. @Wizard of Oz
    There are interesting corollaries to the collective punishment justifications. One is that it is appropriate to punish people by killing their children. Another is that death or mutilation is appropriate punishment for not being capable of putting together a team to get rid of the government before the punisher loses patience..

    I query the usefulness of arguments about collective punishment and suggest that arguments about Australia's turning round of boats and use of offshore (indeed foreign) detention for so-ca!led asylum seekers arriving by boat may be more appropriate. At least they work. Sanctions against Iraq don't seem to have.

    Sanctions against Iraq don’t seem to have [worked].

    “Worked” to achieve what end?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I confess to not remembering precisely what I had mind when I wrote that though obviously the offshore processing of supposed asylum seekers was part of the contrast.

    I think I was probably standing on nothing less obvious than that Saddam Hussein wasn't behaving in a way those imposing the sanctions would approve - and which might lead to lifting of the sanctions - whether or not he was actually playing games with WMDs or merely wanted his enemies closest to home to believe he had them. So there was a case where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people's suffering.

  90. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    So, this alone renders a vote or not for Hillary, superfluous.
     
    No.
    Read carefully:

    "For all his faults, and for all the uncertainty that a Donald Trump presidency implies, he does not have blood on his hands, much less the blood of millions of children and adults, Muslim and Christian." (nb. notice that no Jews seem to have suffered in the wars that made the region safe for their apartheid enclave)

    Realistically speaking, USAians have two choices: Clinton or Trump. A vote for Clinton compounds the felony -- she committed war crimes and portends to commit more of the same. A vote for Trump is the only moral choice available.

    Yes, Americans are, indeed, "collectively responsible" -- and culpable, for the acts of leaders they elect. That's a concept that the Jews who dominated the destruction and then psychological warfare against Germany insisted upon and carried out from before the war ended to this very day. If it's good enough for Jews, shouldn't it be good enough for Iraqis, Libyans, Syrians, Afghanis, Palestinians to expect that those who committed crimes against them should be severely punished?
    ---

    One never really sheds years of being Catholic, but no matter; there is no conflict between the elements of Zoroastrianism and the best of Catholicism. Christianity -- and Judaism -- owe their ethical principles to Zoroaster.

    I’m not voting for HRC certainly. I was sold on Trump since early in the year, but his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Is it possible that the Clinton’s had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP? Why would the 16 other Reps – especially Bush – not use all the publicly available data against Trump during the Primaries?

    So I might write someone else in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuckie
    A vote for anyone other than Trump translates to a vote for Hillary, doesn't it?
    , @RobinG
    Don't be a schmuck. What antics? Talk on the bus? So what?

    Are you comparing ALLEGATIONS of sleazy behavior with the FACT that War Witch Clinton has killed, maimed and dispossessed MILLIONS - and cackles about it?
    , @SolontoCroesus

    "[T]he nomination of Wendell Willkie as the 1940 Republican presidential candidate was the collaborative work of British intelligence, American interventionists, and the Roosevelt White House [including Roosevelt's long-time advisor, Felix Frankfurter ***]. Making Willkie the Republican nominee required Herculean effort since he had never before held public office and had actually been a Democrat. The purpose of his nomination was not to defeat Roosevelt but to make sure that no non-interventionist alternative existed. Willkie himself consciously participated in this deception, maintaining close ties with British agents and the White House." Dr. Stephen Sniegoski review of Desperate Deception by Thomas Mahl http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm see also http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

     

    Although defeated in the election, Willkie had become a major figure on the public scene, . . .[He] decided his next cause should be military aid to embattled Britain,[83] and announced support of the president's Lend-Lease program on January 13, 1941.[84] Lend-Lease was highly unpopular in the Republican Party, and Willkie's announcement created a firestorm, . . .

    Roosevelt, both appreciating Willkie's talents, and seeking to divide and conquer his opposition, had been mulling over ways his former opponent might be of use. The president's onetime advisor, Justice Felix Frankfurter, had suggested to Van Doren on New Year's Eve that Willkie should travel across the Atlantic to demonstrate bipartisan support of Britain.[84] . . . Roosevelt believed that the visit of the nominal head of the opposition party would be far more effective in demonstrating American support than sending one of his advisors.


    Irita Van Doren, the book review editor of the New York Herald Tribune who became a friend, and later his lover.[2] Cultured, brilliant and well connected, Van Doren introduced him to new books, new ideas, and new circles of friends. Unlike Van Doren, Willkie was indiscreet about their relationship, and their affair was well known to the reporters covering him during his 1940 presidential campaign. None of them printed a word.[18]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie
     
    Sextapes and other dirty tricks: FDR & Willkie, Clinton & Trump --

    But now comes F.D.R.'s voice, covered up these 40 years, ordering a political aide to besmear Wendell Willkie - whose real sin was to dare challenge F.D.R.'s right to a third term - with rumors of an affair with a lady in New York, assumed to be book review editor Irita Van Doren.

    ''Spread it as a word-of-mouth thing,'' directed the President of the United States. (In some transcripts, that dismaying command appears as ''(We can) spread it,'' as if historians are loath to let the guilty quotation stand without some tiny extenuation.) ''We can't have any of our principal speakers refer to it,'' said F.D.R., ''but the people down the line can get it out.'' Donald Segretti had not yet been born.

    F.D.R. went on to explain in detail how the salacious rumor should be planted http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/17/opinion/essay-fdr-s-dirty-tricks.html
     

    *** Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom Franklin Roosevelt pondered the decision to run for a third term: even as the Supreme Court Justice participated in maneuvering Wendell Willkie into running on the Republican ticket, Frankfurter urged FDR to seek a third term, according to Richard Moe in "Roosevelt's Second Act."
    ----------
    Oft-repeated objections to Willkie's candidacy:

    "First, he [Willkie] had recently been . . . a registered Democrat. Second, he was a big business executive, with an office a block from Wall Street, and in the branch of big business, the utility industry, which had become almost a symbol of corruption.

    A further objection . . . was that he had never held a public office, either elective or appointive, and was assumed to have little knowledge of politics." Wendell Willkie, Fighter for Freedom
     

  91. Is it possible that the Clinton’s had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP?

    I would not reject that hypothesis (a tedious way of saying Yes)

    his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Please tell me the sex talk has not “left you in a quandary.” I hear pious wimmin call C Span to report that they “simply can’t vote for Trump because he is so vulgar. What kind of example is that for our children??” But they have no problem voting for HRC who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

    My concern about Trump is the sentiment, above; and if that is not the case, that he simply does not have the ability to act against what Pat Lang calls “the Borg.” He does not have a political machine to fight the deeply entrenched establishment.

    So I might write someone else in.

    That’s a vote for HRC.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    and Robin & Chuckie

    Well, let's see if I can make any sense here.

    We all know that Trump's attitude towards women is nothing rare as should set him apart from untold powerful men, past and present. In this aspect of "presidential stature and suitability", it is his extensive publicly recorded comportment - Howard Stern, morning tv shows where he flippantly comments on his own daughter's fundaments, the Billy Bush conversation, and now all the women coming out with allegations etc. - I fear will weigh on his gravitas. Perhaps it is an Anglican, indeed a hypocritical tradition which demands dalliances of this sort remain strictly behind the curtain for a leader to be effective in the USA. Recall Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair.

    Even setting aside the sex stuff as so much piffle, there is this small matter of his pledging complete support for Wall Street banks I witnessed first hand at the NY Econ Club. Again, let's let this go as Hillary is more than cut from the same cloth.

    I am bigly driven by a desire to see a substantial infrastructure bill as a presidential mandate, negotiate the passages of House and Senate within the first six months. Yet I don't see a clear path for it.

    A Trump win at best would be marginal with little momentum down-ballot, and surely the Dems would fight it tooth and nail for obvious reasons, chief of which, it would elevate the economy for the long term, assuring continued GoP capture of the WH.

    I suppose a Hillary win has a greater prospect of an electoral sweep with the attendant momentum down-ballot and thus a higher probability of an infra-bill. She has also evidently adopted most of Bernie's platform and Bernie apparently is going to police her.

    But I despise her candidacy for so many reasons, not the least of which, her warmongering and bellicose attitude towards Russia/Putin.

    Lastly, if we admit the possibility of a pre-arrangement between the houses of Trump and Clinton [She gets the WH and he gets a TV network], which we are, as S2C seems to be in agreement, what are we supposed to conclude of Trump?

  92. Chuckie says:
    @Sam Shama
    I'm not voting for HRC certainly. I was sold on Trump since early in the year, but his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Is it possible that the Clinton's had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP? Why would the 16 other Reps - especially Bush - not use all the publicly available data against Trump during the Primaries?

    So I might write someone else in.

    A vote for anyone other than Trump translates to a vote for Hillary, doesn’t it?

    Read More
  93. RobinG says:
    @Sam Shama
    I'm not voting for HRC certainly. I was sold on Trump since early in the year, but his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Is it possible that the Clinton's had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP? Why would the 16 other Reps - especially Bush - not use all the publicly available data against Trump during the Primaries?

    So I might write someone else in.

    Don’t be a schmuck. What antics? Talk on the bus? So what?

    Are you comparing ALLEGATIONS of sleazy behavior with the FACT that War Witch Clinton has killed, maimed and dispossessed MILLIONS – and cackles about it?

    Read More
  94. @Sam Shama
    I'm not voting for HRC certainly. I was sold on Trump since early in the year, but his recent antics have left me in quandary.

    Is it possible that the Clinton's had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP? Why would the 16 other Reps - especially Bush - not use all the publicly available data against Trump during the Primaries?

    So I might write someone else in.

    “[T]he nomination of Wendell Willkie as the 1940 Republican presidential candidate was the collaborative work of British intelligence, American interventionists, and the Roosevelt White House [including Roosevelt's long-time advisor, Felix Frankfurter ***]. Making Willkie the Republican nominee required Herculean effort since he had never before held public office and had actually been a Democrat. The purpose of his nomination was not to defeat Roosevelt but to make sure that no non-interventionist alternative existed. Willkie himself consciously participated in this deception, maintaining close ties with British agents and the White House.” Dr. Stephen Sniegoski review of Desperate Deception by Thomas Mahl http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm see also http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

    Although defeated in the election, Willkie had become a major figure on the public scene, . . .[He] decided his next cause should be military aid to embattled Britain,[83] and announced support of the president’s Lend-Lease program on January 13, 1941.[84] Lend-Lease was highly unpopular in the Republican Party, and Willkie’s announcement created a firestorm, . . .

    Roosevelt, both appreciating Willkie’s talents, and seeking to divide and conquer his opposition, had been mulling over ways his former opponent might be of use. The president’s onetime advisor, Justice Felix Frankfurter, had suggested to Van Doren on New Year’s Eve that Willkie should travel across the Atlantic to demonstrate bipartisan support of Britain.[84] . . . Roosevelt believed that the visit of the nominal head of the opposition party would be far more effective in demonstrating American support than sending one of his advisors.

    Irita Van Doren, the book review editor of the New York Herald Tribune who became a friend, and later his lover.[2] Cultured, brilliant and well connected, Van Doren introduced him to new books, new ideas, and new circles of friends. Unlike Van Doren, Willkie was indiscreet about their relationship, and their affair was well known to the reporters covering him during his 1940 presidential campaign. None of them printed a word.[18]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie

    Sextapes and other dirty tricks: FDR & Willkie, Clinton & Trump –

    But now comes F.D.R.’s voice, covered up these 40 years, ordering a political aide to besmear Wendell Willkie – whose real sin was to dare challenge F.D.R.’s right to a third term – with rumors of an affair with a lady in New York, assumed to be book review editor Irita Van Doren.

    ”Spread it as a word-of-mouth thing,” directed the President of the United States. (In some transcripts, that dismaying command appears as ”(We can) spread it,” as if historians are loath to let the guilty quotation stand without some tiny extenuation.) ”We can’t have any of our principal speakers refer to it,” said F.D.R., ”but the people down the line can get it out.” Donald Segretti had not yet been born.

    F.D.R. went on to explain in detail how the salacious rumor should be planted http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/17/opinion/essay-fdr-s-dirty-tricks.html

    *** Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom Franklin Roosevelt pondered the decision to run for a third term: even as the Supreme Court Justice participated in maneuvering Wendell Willkie into running on the Republican ticket, Frankfurter urged FDR to seek a third term, according to Richard Moe in “Roosevelt’s Second Act.”
    ———-
    Oft-repeated objections to Willkie’s candidacy:

    “First, he [Willkie] had recently been . . . a registered Democrat. Second, he was a big business executive, with an office a block from Wall Street, and in the branch of big business, the utility industry, which had become almost a symbol of corruption.

    A further objection . . . was that he had never held a public office, either elective or appointive, and was assumed to have little knowledge of politics.” Wendell Willkie, Fighter for Freedom

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    Fascinating, yet not too surprising. It is politics at work. Thanks.
  95. @SolontoCroesus

    Sanctions against Iraq don’t seem to have [worked].
     
    "Worked" to achieve what end?

    I confess to not remembering precisely what I had mind when I wrote that though obviously the offshore processing of supposed asylum seekers was part of the contrast.

    I think I was probably standing on nothing less obvious than that Saddam Hussein wasn’t behaving in a way those imposing the sanctions would approve – and which might lead to lifting of the sanctions – whether or not he was actually playing games with WMDs or merely wanted his enemies closest to home to believe he had them. So there was a case where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people’s suffering.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people’s suffering.
     
    what an ass you are WizoOz

    Did you read Clawson's report?
    Didn't think so.
    I did.

    Clawson prepared charts and gathered data indicating that Saddam's government implemented measures to ensure basic food requirements to the broadest number with special attention to the least able to care for themselves. A robust black market operated, but the poor did not have access to it, so Saddam's government tried to provide for those people.
    Facts
    Data
    Evidence
    It's not just a fashion accessory.

    Like most of your commentary, #96 is something you pulled out of your prejudiced ass without bothering to process it thru your mind.
  96. @Avery
    {I haven’t time to read and follow up …}

    If you haven’t the time, then don’t malign what Gadaffi was trying to do.

    {His best advice would probably come from Israel which uses water very parsimoniously in the Negev…}

    Yeah, sure. Parsimonious. Whatever.
    Anybody can be, quote, 'parsimonious' with $10s of billions of free money from American taxpayers.

    When Israel stops sucking $10s of billions from US taxpayers to subsidize its housing projects and stops begging for $5 Billion @ year from US taxpayers, come back and tell us about ‘parsimonious’, homes.

    Objections to Israel’s policies and practice and its relations with the US are surely irrelevant to the question whether or not Israel has led the way in using water parsimoniously – in the obvious sense of not wasting it and getting maximum results from its use.

    (Equally irrelevant that the Israelis may well be taking more than their fair share of water in and north of Galilee and in the Jordan basin and catchment).

    I didn’t have to tread your stuff to have some awareness of Gaddafi’s dreams of using artesian water….

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {...are surely irrelevant ....}

    Nope, not irrelevant.
    Very relevant when the cost of desalination is concerned.
    When a small country like Israel gets practically unlimited funds from a large and wealthy country like US, then the economics of desalination become moot.

    Then the question: how many other countries can afford that?
    If you get free money from some rich Uncle, yeah you can desalinate - no matter how much it costs.

    You brought up the Israeli desalination example to counter the need for counties in the future to secure fresh water supplies.
    How would it be possible to provide ample fresh water supplies that can replace fresh water made by Nature, which is free?

    The Israeli example is an aberration, even if true.
  97. Avery says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Objections to Israel's policies and practice and its relations with the US are surely irrelevant to the question whether or not Israel has led the way in using water parsimoniously - in the obvious sense of not wasting it and getting maximum results from its use.

    (Equally irrelevant that the Israelis may well be taking more than their fair share of water in and north of Galilee and in the Jordan basin and catchment).

    I didn't have to tread your stuff to have some awareness of Gaddafi's dreams of using artesian water....

    {…are surely irrelevant ….}

    Nope, not irrelevant.
    Very relevant when the cost of desalination is concerned.
    When a small country like Israel gets practically unlimited funds from a large and wealthy country like US, then the economics of desalination become moot.

    Then the question: how many other countries can afford that?
    If you get free money from some rich Uncle, yeah you can desalinate – no matter how much it costs.

    You brought up the Israeli desalination example to counter the need for counties in the future to secure fresh water supplies.
    How would it be possible to provide ample fresh water supplies that can replace fresh water made by Nature, which is free?

    The Israeli example is an aberration, even if true.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I cannot give time to answer this in the detail that you may think it deserves but I note that your reference to Israel's budgetary considerations with respect tothe cost (and benefits) of desalination and the amount and disposition of American subsidies seems to be more hand waving than reaearched or informed.

    The Negev is remarkably well suited to solar power, as Libya wiuld be too, and the Israelis have impressive installations there which are no doubt more than subsidised piety abput climate change but also good investments in developing the technology for future profit.

    Moreover it is really the Israeli contribution to drip irrigation that you need to inform yourself about.

    It would have been a good start by Gaddafi if he had emulated decades old Israeli water use.
  98. @Wizard of Oz
    I confess to not remembering precisely what I had mind when I wrote that though obviously the offshore processing of supposed asylum seekers was part of the contrast.

    I think I was probably standing on nothing less obvious than that Saddam Hussein wasn't behaving in a way those imposing the sanctions would approve - and which might lead to lifting of the sanctions - whether or not he was actually playing games with WMDs or merely wanted his enemies closest to home to believe he had them. So there was a case where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people's suffering.

    where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people’s suffering.

    what an ass you are WizoOz

    Did you read Clawson’s report?
    Didn’t think so.
    I did.

    Clawson prepared charts and gathered data indicating that Saddam’s government implemented measures to ensure basic food requirements to the broadest number with special attention to the least able to care for themselves. A robust black market operated, but the poor did not have access to it, so Saddam’s government tried to provide for those people.
    Facts
    Data
    Evidence
    It’s not just a fashion accessory.

    Like most of your commentary, #96 is something you pulled out of your prejudiced ass without bothering to process it thru your mind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    And jou in your wisdom think that Saddam Hussein was demonstrating by those measures that he cared about the sufferingof people qua suffering? And again trying to construe your curious question about the sanctiona against Iraq do you think the sanctions worked and if so to what effect and by ahat chain of causation. Ir are you just playing your silly gmes? And bo, I didn't read the Clawson stuff. I didbt inficate that my interest was yhe same as yours, and it wasn't.
  99. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Is it possible that the Clinton’s had a pre-arrangement with Trump to destroy the GoP?
     
    I would not reject that hypothesis (a tedious way of saying Yes)

    his recent antics have left me in quandary.
     
    Please tell me the sex talk has not "left you in a quandary." I hear pious wimmin call C Span to report that they "simply can't vote for Trump because he is so vulgar. What kind of example is that for our children??" But they have no problem voting for HRC who is responsible for the deaths of thousands of children.

    My concern about Trump is the sentiment, above; and if that is not the case, that he simply does not have the ability to act against what Pat Lang calls "the Borg." He does not have a political machine to fight the deeply entrenched establishment.

    So I might write someone else in.
     
    That's a vote for HRC.

    and Robin & Chuckie

    Well, let’s see if I can make any sense here.

    We all know that Trump’s attitude towards women is nothing rare as should set him apart from untold powerful men, past and present. In this aspect of “presidential stature and suitability”, it is his extensive publicly recorded comportment – Howard Stern, morning tv shows where he flippantly comments on his own daughter’s fundaments, the Billy Bush conversation, and now all the women coming out with allegations etc. – I fear will weigh on his gravitas. Perhaps it is an Anglican, indeed a hypocritical tradition which demands dalliances of this sort remain strictly behind the curtain for a leader to be effective in the USA. Recall Bill Clinton after the Lewinsky affair.

    Even setting aside the sex stuff as so much piffle, there is this small matter of his pledging complete support for Wall Street banks I witnessed first hand at the NY Econ Club. Again, let’s let this go as Hillary is more than cut from the same cloth.

    I am bigly driven by a desire to see a substantial infrastructure bill as a presidential mandate, negotiate the passages of House and Senate within the first six months. Yet I don’t see a clear path for it.

    A Trump win at best would be marginal with little momentum down-ballot, and surely the Dems would fight it tooth and nail for obvious reasons, chief of which, it would elevate the economy for the long term, assuring continued GoP capture of the WH.

    I suppose a Hillary win has a greater prospect of an electoral sweep with the attendant momentum down-ballot and thus a higher probability of an infra-bill. She has also evidently adopted most of Bernie’s platform and Bernie apparently is going to police her.

    But I despise her candidacy for so many reasons, not the least of which, her warmongering and bellicose attitude towards Russia/Putin.

    Lastly, if we admit the possibility of a pre-arrangement between the houses of Trump and Clinton [She gets the WH and he gets a TV network], which we are, as S2C seems to be in agreement, what are we supposed to conclude of Trump?

    Read More
  100. @metcalf,p(ret'd)
    My god you americans are murderous bastards.not content with killing 500,000 innocents in Iraq
    you are now stopping young Syrian cancer victims from receiving life saving medicines.never have so many children been killed on the insane whim(of clinton and blair) and then made out that it was seemingly a good thing for humanity(albrigh(sick).and don't forget cameron in this horror story.the english public school is a precursor to the madness of 'skull and bones'or whatever the
    fuck it is called.when god commits these bastards to the anal bayonetting division of Hell,for all eternity,my only problem is is that they might enjoy it.

    This commenter doth demonstrate,
    By ranting most illiterate from brains,
    That ’tis necessity to regulate
    Some commenters by electronic chains.

    To block a blockhead is no crime,
    But act of mental self-defense;
    I’ll have to block him for all time
    To spare my time for men of sense.

    Read More
  101. OutWest says:
    @Che Guava
    Sorry, Outwest, you are wrong on both timing and intentions.

    If you have anything to refute or beyond what I say below, I would be pleased to hear it.

    The US Congress passed the Tydings-McDuffie Act, intended to establish a 'Philippines Commonwealth' in 1934.

    This was to have been a ten-year process.

    Use of the term 'Commonwealth' implies that the aim was not independence, but an outpost in S.E. Asia on much the same terms under which Puerto Rico is a 'Commonwealth' within the US.

    Split the difference? In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state. What might have been done under the “commonwealth” designation at another time is indeterminate.

    My sense of FDR -while not favorable- is that he perhaps saw that the day of empire had passed –particularly for Great Britain. Truman is a bit less readable but at least for table dressing as the cold War formed up would be in favor of independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    The Commonwealth of Australia existed as an independent country for some 30 years before the UK Statute of Westminster (almost) cut the ties with the mother country. I think it was much longer for Canada and a bit shorter for New Zealand because of their dates of federation/independence. Before 1901 it was Australia's six self-governing colonies that told the mother country what Constitution to enact for the new nation. After 1931 there were still constitutonal ties for many years such as appeals to the Privy Council in legal matters and even now the Governor-General of Australia is effectively head of state, like the Queen in the UK, but appointed by the Queen - on the de facto binding advice of the Australian PM.
    , @Che Guava

    In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state.
     
    OK, smart propaganda feed boy, when precisely was that? I gave you a verifiable point (act of 1934, which sure didn't look like a guarantee of independence, but of a status identical to that of Puerto Rico even now).

    They may have pretended to treat the Philippines as an independent state after the reconquest, but it was not. What is the precise announcement or treaty you are referring to?

    I would guess that you have nothing to say, since the timing of your initial comment was out by years.
  102. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    "[T]he nomination of Wendell Willkie as the 1940 Republican presidential candidate was the collaborative work of British intelligence, American interventionists, and the Roosevelt White House [including Roosevelt's long-time advisor, Felix Frankfurter ***]. Making Willkie the Republican nominee required Herculean effort since he had never before held public office and had actually been a Democrat. The purpose of his nomination was not to defeat Roosevelt but to make sure that no non-interventionist alternative existed. Willkie himself consciously participated in this deception, maintaining close ties with British agents and the White House." Dr. Stephen Sniegoski review of Desperate Deception by Thomas Mahl http://www.thornwalker.com/ditch/mahl.htm see also http://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-alexander-cockburn-and-the-british-spies/

     

    Although defeated in the election, Willkie had become a major figure on the public scene, . . .[He] decided his next cause should be military aid to embattled Britain,[83] and announced support of the president's Lend-Lease program on January 13, 1941.[84] Lend-Lease was highly unpopular in the Republican Party, and Willkie's announcement created a firestorm, . . .

    Roosevelt, both appreciating Willkie's talents, and seeking to divide and conquer his opposition, had been mulling over ways his former opponent might be of use. The president's onetime advisor, Justice Felix Frankfurter, had suggested to Van Doren on New Year's Eve that Willkie should travel across the Atlantic to demonstrate bipartisan support of Britain.[84] . . . Roosevelt believed that the visit of the nominal head of the opposition party would be far more effective in demonstrating American support than sending one of his advisors.


    Irita Van Doren, the book review editor of the New York Herald Tribune who became a friend, and later his lover.[2] Cultured, brilliant and well connected, Van Doren introduced him to new books, new ideas, and new circles of friends. Unlike Van Doren, Willkie was indiscreet about their relationship, and their affair was well known to the reporters covering him during his 1940 presidential campaign. None of them printed a word.[18]
     
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendell_Willkie
     
    Sextapes and other dirty tricks: FDR & Willkie, Clinton & Trump --

    But now comes F.D.R.'s voice, covered up these 40 years, ordering a political aide to besmear Wendell Willkie - whose real sin was to dare challenge F.D.R.'s right to a third term - with rumors of an affair with a lady in New York, assumed to be book review editor Irita Van Doren.

    ''Spread it as a word-of-mouth thing,'' directed the President of the United States. (In some transcripts, that dismaying command appears as ''(We can) spread it,'' as if historians are loath to let the guilty quotation stand without some tiny extenuation.) ''We can't have any of our principal speakers refer to it,'' said F.D.R., ''but the people down the line can get it out.'' Donald Segretti had not yet been born.

    F.D.R. went on to explain in detail how the salacious rumor should be planted http://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/17/opinion/essay-fdr-s-dirty-tricks.html
     

    *** Felix Frankfurter was the only person with whom Franklin Roosevelt pondered the decision to run for a third term: even as the Supreme Court Justice participated in maneuvering Wendell Willkie into running on the Republican ticket, Frankfurter urged FDR to seek a third term, according to Richard Moe in "Roosevelt's Second Act."
    ----------
    Oft-repeated objections to Willkie's candidacy:

    "First, he [Willkie] had recently been . . . a registered Democrat. Second, he was a big business executive, with an office a block from Wall Street, and in the branch of big business, the utility industry, which had become almost a symbol of corruption.

    A further objection . . . was that he had never held a public office, either elective or appointive, and was assumed to have little knowledge of politics." Wendell Willkie, Fighter for Freedom
     

    Fascinating, yet not too surprising. It is politics at work. Thanks.

    Read More
  103. @SolontoCroesus

    where the suffering of Iraqi people showed how little some tyrants can be expected to care about their people’s suffering.
     
    what an ass you are WizoOz

    Did you read Clawson's report?
    Didn't think so.
    I did.

    Clawson prepared charts and gathered data indicating that Saddam's government implemented measures to ensure basic food requirements to the broadest number with special attention to the least able to care for themselves. A robust black market operated, but the poor did not have access to it, so Saddam's government tried to provide for those people.
    Facts
    Data
    Evidence
    It's not just a fashion accessory.

    Like most of your commentary, #96 is something you pulled out of your prejudiced ass without bothering to process it thru your mind.

    And jou in your wisdom think that Saddam Hussein was demonstrating by those measures that he cared about the sufferingof people qua suffering? And again trying to construe your curious question about the sanctiona against Iraq do you think the sanctions worked and if so to what effect and by ahat chain of causation. Ir are you just playing your silly gmes? And bo, I didn’t read the Clawson stuff. I didbt inficate that my interest was yhe same as yours, and it wasn’t.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    who caused the suffering?

    George H W Bush in his hubris, arrogance, and quest for "a new world order" attacked Iraq in 1991 because he could.

    When you are looking to place blame, look to the perpetrators, not the targets nor the victims.

    Saddam did not impose sanctions on his people, the George H W Bush/Madeleine Albright administration and their partners in war crime did so.

    That you "can't recall" what goal you had in mind when you said "sanctions did not work," you revealed yourself to be more in the category of a mynah bird than a homo sapiens.

    "I don't have any idea what we're trying to achieve, or if it is legal, moral, or productive, but let's do more of it until it works. After all, the price is worth it -- inasmuch as we are not paying any price."
  104. @Wizard of Oz
    And jou in your wisdom think that Saddam Hussein was demonstrating by those measures that he cared about the sufferingof people qua suffering? And again trying to construe your curious question about the sanctiona against Iraq do you think the sanctions worked and if so to what effect and by ahat chain of causation. Ir are you just playing your silly gmes? And bo, I didn't read the Clawson stuff. I didbt inficate that my interest was yhe same as yours, and it wasn't.

    who caused the suffering?

    George H W Bush in his hubris, arrogance, and quest for “a new world order” attacked Iraq in 1991 because he could.

    When you are looking to place blame, look to the perpetrators, not the targets nor the victims.

    Saddam did not impose sanctions on his people, the George H W Bush/Madeleine Albright administration and their partners in war crime did so.

    That you “can’t recall” what goal you had in mind when you said “sanctions did not work,” you revealed yourself to be more in the category of a mynah bird than a homo sapiens.

    “I don’t have any idea what we’re trying to achieve, or if it is legal, moral, or productive, but let’s do more of it until it works. After all, the price is worth it — inasmuch as we are not paying any price.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I picked up on the discussion of collective punishment and you seem to have diverted to the supposition that I have a wish to defend US foreign policy.

    My main criticism of US foreign policy since the Cold War is that it has been incompetent and a failure rather than intrinsically immoral. But I hadn't given much thought to George H.W.Bush's war which was well enough justified by traditional standards n its defence of the sovereign state of Kuwait whatever false impressions may have been conveyed to Saddam Hussein. A shame of course that America's longstanding tradition of betraying allies - especially the Shia known as the Marsh Arabs (from memory) - was yet again on display. But that's realpolitik mixed with real American electoral politics.

    And of course it was the US (and other countries - indeed the UN I think - that imposed sanctions. Who is saying it was not? And did those sanctions achieve anything intended or wothwhile? I think not which seems to be where the latest excursion initiated by you began.

    Do you, by the way, deny the reports that Saddam's régime in fact made sure the sanctions did hurt his people (dome of them) by not using available fimunds to important medical supplies?
  105. Significant by its absence in the piece is any mentioning of the the 143.8 metric tonnes of gold that Libya had and of which the Killer-Bitch Clinton was of such signficance that she mentions in one her “e-mails” to (I think) Sid Blumenthal!

    Read More
  106. anon says: • Disclaimer

    Mr. Margolis
    You had a serious man crush on Momar and though he was very handsome .

    Read More
  107. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Rehmat
    To hundreds of millions of Libyan and victims of Zionist imperialism, Muammar Gaddafi, will remain a hero.

    Five year after Qaddafi was murdered along with 80,000 Libyan civilian by the US-France-UK-Italy-NATO butchers for being a threat to the Western capitalism and Israel, the people of Libya are once again turning to Qaddafi family to save them from the mayhem that has engulfed the country.

    Both Nicolas Sarkozy and Hillary Clinton who mocked the lynching of Qaddafi in October 2011 would have never thought the ghost of their victim would return to save Libya from the western vultures. The Jewish vengeance also failed to kill Qaddafi’s surviving son Seif al-Islam to die as a common criminal in the Zionist-controlled International Criminal Court custody.

    In 2011, Benjamin Netanyahu, a serial liar, told CNN viewers: “Well, Qaddafi is no friend of Israel. He’s no friend of the Jewish people. And I think his people can see now, he’s no friend of the Libyan people. This is a man who helped explode civilian airlines in the skies. He’s fostered terrorism. He’s done a lot of terrible things. So I don’t think anybody would be sorry to see him go. I wouldn’t.” Obviously, views of a much bigger terrorist on a small fish.

    On April 12, 2016, Seif al-Islam was set free, in accordance with the amnesty law passed by the Tobruk parliament last year.

    Watch below RT documentary exposing Western regime change in Libya for greed and the Jews.

    https://rehmat1.com/2016/10/26/libyan-beg-qaddafi-family-to-save-the-nation/

    Strange he should have cared so much about paLiestinians a thousand miles away , when right next door to him , Morocco is carrying on a brutal occupation of Western Sahara that has killed 50% more civilians than Israel has. Morocco is also occupying 1000x more land than Israel has .

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Strange...
     
    Perhaps this Forward article might shed a little light:

    Qaddafi, I came to understand, had spent decades conditioning his populace to hate Jews in a bid to build popular support for himself, as so many Arab dictators have done. And in the end, when his tyranny and misrule ultimately undid him, it was the hatred of Jews that he so successfully inculcated which was turned against him...

    What I found, unfortunately, along with freedom of expression, was a virulent and ubiquitous anti-Semitism that looks likely to outlast the ruler who promoted it...

    To be sure, widespread incitement against Libyan Jews pre-dated Qaddafi. But the young dictator successfully channeled prevalent anti-Semitism to effectively make Libya Judenrein, cleansed of Jews, for the first time since Greco-Roman era...

    In October, Gerbi returned to Tripoli to reopen the historic Dar Bishi Synagogue. In response he was nearly lynched while praying there. Hundreds of Libyans protested his presence in Tripoli and Benghazi on the eve of Yom Kippur, with placards that read, “There is no place for Jews in Libya.” His endeavor ended under threat of death and with a return flight to Rome on an Italian military plane...

    Even if Qaddafi had Jewish ancestry, his completion of the ethnic cleansing of Libya’s Jews, his support for terrorism against Israel and Western targets and his backing for Palestinian fighters against Israel during the Lebanese Civil War... defies any claim that he identified or practiced as a Jew.

    http://forward.com/news/146435/qaddafis-hatred-of-jews-turned-on-him/
     
  108. geokat62 says:
    @anon
    Strange he should have cared so much about paLiestinians a thousand miles away , when right next door to him , Morocco is carrying on a brutal occupation of Western Sahara that has killed 50% more civilians than Israel has. Morocco is also occupying 1000x more land than Israel has .

    Strange…

    Perhaps this Forward article might shed a little light:

    Qaddafi, I came to understand, had spent decades conditioning his populace to hate Jews in a bid to build popular support for himself, as so many Arab dictators have done. And in the end, when his tyranny and misrule ultimately undid him, it was the hatred of Jews that he so successfully inculcated which was turned against him…

    What I found, unfortunately, along with freedom of expression, was a virulent and ubiquitous anti-Semitism that looks likely to outlast the ruler who promoted it…

    To be sure, widespread incitement against Libyan Jews pre-dated Qaddafi. But the young dictator successfully channeled prevalent anti-Semitism to effectively make Libya Judenrein, cleansed of Jews, for the first time since Greco-Roman era…

    In October, Gerbi returned to Tripoli to reopen the historic Dar Bishi Synagogue. In response he was nearly lynched while praying there. Hundreds of Libyans protested his presence in Tripoli and Benghazi on the eve of Yom Kippur, with placards that read, “There is no place for Jews in Libya.” His endeavor ended under threat of death and with a return flight to Rome on an Italian military plane…

    Even if Qaddafi had Jewish ancestry, his completion of the ethnic cleansing of Libya’s Jews, his support for terrorism against Israel and Western targets and his backing for Palestinian fighters against Israel during the Lebanese Civil War… defies any claim that he identified or practiced as a Jew.

    http://forward.com/news/146435/qaddafis-hatred-of-jews-turned-on-him/

    Read More
  109. @SolontoCroesus
    who caused the suffering?

    George H W Bush in his hubris, arrogance, and quest for "a new world order" attacked Iraq in 1991 because he could.

    When you are looking to place blame, look to the perpetrators, not the targets nor the victims.

    Saddam did not impose sanctions on his people, the George H W Bush/Madeleine Albright administration and their partners in war crime did so.

    That you "can't recall" what goal you had in mind when you said "sanctions did not work," you revealed yourself to be more in the category of a mynah bird than a homo sapiens.

    "I don't have any idea what we're trying to achieve, or if it is legal, moral, or productive, but let's do more of it until it works. After all, the price is worth it -- inasmuch as we are not paying any price."

    I picked up on the discussion of collective punishment and you seem to have diverted to the supposition that I have a wish to defend US foreign policy.

    My main criticism of US foreign policy since the Cold War is that it has been incompetent and a failure rather than intrinsically immoral. But I hadn’t given much thought to George H.W.Bush’s war which was well enough justified by traditional standards n its defence of the sovereign state of Kuwait whatever false impressions may have been conveyed to Saddam Hussein. A shame of course that America’s longstanding tradition of betraying allies – especially the Shia known as the Marsh Arabs (from memory) – was yet again on display. But that’s realpolitik mixed with real American electoral politics.

    And of course it was the US (and other countries – indeed the UN I think – that imposed sanctions. Who is saying it was not? And did those sanctions achieve anything intended or wothwhile? I think not which seems to be where the latest excursion initiated by you began.

    Do you, by the way, deny the reports that Saddam’s régime in fact made sure the sanctions did hurt his people (dome of them) by not using available fimunds to important medical supplies?

    Read More
  110. @Avery
    {...are surely irrelevant ....}

    Nope, not irrelevant.
    Very relevant when the cost of desalination is concerned.
    When a small country like Israel gets practically unlimited funds from a large and wealthy country like US, then the economics of desalination become moot.

    Then the question: how many other countries can afford that?
    If you get free money from some rich Uncle, yeah you can desalinate - no matter how much it costs.

    You brought up the Israeli desalination example to counter the need for counties in the future to secure fresh water supplies.
    How would it be possible to provide ample fresh water supplies that can replace fresh water made by Nature, which is free?

    The Israeli example is an aberration, even if true.

    I cannot give time to answer this in the detail that you may think it deserves but I note that your reference to Israel’s budgetary considerations with respect tothe cost (and benefits) of desalination and the amount and disposition of American subsidies seems to be more hand waving than reaearched or informed.

    The Negev is remarkably well suited to solar power, as Libya wiuld be too, and the Israelis have impressive installations there which are no doubt more than subsidised piety abput climate change but also good investments in developing the technology for future profit.

    Moreover it is really the Israeli contribution to drip irrigation that you need to inform yourself about.

    It would have been a good start by Gaddafi if he had emulated decades old Israeli water use.

    Read More
  111. @OutWest
    Split the difference? In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state. What might have been done under the “commonwealth” designation at another time is indeterminate.

    My sense of FDR -while not favorable- is that he perhaps saw that the day of empire had passed –particularly for Great Britain. Truman is a bit less readable but at least for table dressing as the cold War formed up would be in favor of independence.

    The Commonwealth of Australia existed as an independent country for some 30 years before the UK Statute of Westminster (almost) cut the ties with the mother country. I think it was much longer for Canada and a bit shorter for New Zealand because of their dates of federation/independence. Before 1901 it was Australia’s six self-governing colonies that told the mother country what Constitution to enact for the new nation. After 1931 there were still constitutonal ties for many years such as appeals to the Privy Council in legal matters and even now the Governor-General of Australia is effectively head of state, like the Queen in the UK, but appointed by the Queen – on the de facto binding advice of the Australian PM.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Wiz.
    You may have a great tale, but US usage of 'Commonwealth' has nothing to do with the Brit. Commonwealth as replacement for Empire, and lately, for Britain.

    Massachusetts is 'the Commonwealth of', IIRC, but has nothing to do with the meaning you attempt to apply.

    I think one or two US states still have 'Commonwealth' in their official names (Kentucky?), but it means nothing.
  112. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    The Commonwealth of Australia existed as an independent country for some 30 years before the UK Statute of Westminster (almost) cut the ties with the mother country. I think it was much longer for Canada and a bit shorter for New Zealand because of their dates of federation/independence. Before 1901 it was Australia's six self-governing colonies that told the mother country what Constitution to enact for the new nation. After 1931 there were still constitutonal ties for many years such as appeals to the Privy Council in legal matters and even now the Governor-General of Australia is effectively head of state, like the Queen in the UK, but appointed by the Queen - on the de facto binding advice of the Australian PM.

    Wiz.
    You may have a great tale, but US usage of ‘Commonwealth’ has nothing to do with the Brit. Commonwealth as replacement for Empire, and lately, for Britain.

    Massachusetts is ‘the Commonwealth of’, IIRC, but has nothing to do with the meaning you attempt to apply.

    I think one or two US states still have ‘Commonwealth’ in their official names (Kentucky?), but it means nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Also, the official name of Puerto Rico is'Commonwealth of ...'
    , @RobinG
    •Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Kentucky was originally part of the land grant of the Colony of Virginia.)
    •Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
    •Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
    •Commonwealth of Virginia
    , @Wizard of Oz
    You have misunderstood what I was saying. It had nothing to do with "Commonwealth" as in "British Commonwealth" or "British Commonwealth and Empire" terms that came into use as the Empire ceased to be and was replaced by eventually almost exclusively independent nations.

    No, I was simply illustrating usage of "Commonwealth" in the English language to refer to an independent country much as "Republic" might. I think Out West was right in saying that there word as applied to the Philippines was "indeterminate". Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn't mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.

  113. Che Guava says:
    @OutWest
    Split the difference? In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state. What might have been done under the “commonwealth” designation at another time is indeterminate.

    My sense of FDR -while not favorable- is that he perhaps saw that the day of empire had passed –particularly for Great Britain. Truman is a bit less readable but at least for table dressing as the cold War formed up would be in favor of independence.

    In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state.

    OK, smart propaganda feed boy, when precisely was that? I gave you a verifiable point (act of 1934, which sure didn’t look like a guarantee of independence, but of a status identical to that of Puerto Rico even now).

    They may have pretended to treat the Philippines as an independent state after the reconquest, but it was not. What is the precise announcement or treaty you are referring to?

    I would guess that you have nothing to say, since the timing of your initial comment was out by years.

    Read More
    • Replies: @OutWest
    Well, no later than when they told us to get the hell out of Subic Bay.
  114. Che Guava says:
    @Che Guava
    Wiz.
    You may have a great tale, but US usage of 'Commonwealth' has nothing to do with the Brit. Commonwealth as replacement for Empire, and lately, for Britain.

    Massachusetts is 'the Commonwealth of', IIRC, but has nothing to do with the meaning you attempt to apply.

    I think one or two US states still have 'Commonwealth' in their official names (Kentucky?), but it means nothing.

    Also, the official name of Puerto Rico is’Commonwealth of …’

    Read More
  115. RobinG says:
    @Che Guava
    Wiz.
    You may have a great tale, but US usage of 'Commonwealth' has nothing to do with the Brit. Commonwealth as replacement for Empire, and lately, for Britain.

    Massachusetts is 'the Commonwealth of', IIRC, but has nothing to do with the meaning you attempt to apply.

    I think one or two US states still have 'Commonwealth' in their official names (Kentucky?), but it means nothing.

    •Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Kentucky was originally part of the land grant of the Colony of Virginia.)
    •Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
    •Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
    •Commonwealth of Virginia

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thank you, RobinG.

    I am not a US person. At least I got the two I cited right. Pennsylvania, I also knew, but forgot. Didn't know it was still part of the state's official name in Virginia. Assumed it would have been dropped in the War of Northern Aggression, when the state was split.
  116. @Che Guava
    Wiz.
    You may have a great tale, but US usage of 'Commonwealth' has nothing to do with the Brit. Commonwealth as replacement for Empire, and lately, for Britain.

    Massachusetts is 'the Commonwealth of', IIRC, but has nothing to do with the meaning you attempt to apply.

    I think one or two US states still have 'Commonwealth' in their official names (Kentucky?), but it means nothing.

    You have misunderstood what I was saying. It had nothing to do with “Commonwealth” as in “British Commonwealth” or “British Commonwealth and Empire” terms that came into use as the Empire ceased to be and was replaced by eventually almost exclusively independent nations.

    No, I was simply illustrating usage of “Commonwealth” in the English language to refer to an independent country much as “Republic” might. I think Out West was right in saying that there word as applied to the Philippines was “indeterminate”. Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn’t mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Wiz,

    I have not at all misunderstood you.

    Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn’t mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.
     
    You compare persimmons with blueberries, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico having 'Commonwealth' as part of their official names means nothing.

    The 'Commonwealth' in state's names had indeed the same intention as in the earlier uses of the term, and with the later (as in the case of your presumable nation-state of origin, sometimes called 'Oz').

    Puerto Rico and the Philippines were both grabbed as a result of the US-Spain war of 1898.

    Ergo, it is a safe assumption that 'Commonwealth' in the act of 1934 did not refer to independence, but to a similar status to that of the 'Commonwealth of Puerto Rico', a colony with strictly limited autonomy, doubtless even more limited than in the case of Puerto Rico.
  117. Che Guava says:
    @RobinG
    •Commonwealth of Kentucky, (Kentucky was originally part of the land grant of the Colony of Virginia.)
    •Commonwealth of Massachusetts,
    •Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
    •Commonwealth of Virginia

    Thank you, RobinG.

    I am not a US person. At least I got the two I cited right. Pennsylvania, I also knew, but forgot. Didn’t know it was still part of the state’s official name in Virginia. Assumed it would have been dropped in the War of Northern Aggression, when the state was split.

    Read More
  118. Che Guava says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    You have misunderstood what I was saying. It had nothing to do with "Commonwealth" as in "British Commonwealth" or "British Commonwealth and Empire" terms that came into use as the Empire ceased to be and was replaced by eventually almost exclusively independent nations.

    No, I was simply illustrating usage of "Commonwealth" in the English language to refer to an independent country much as "Republic" might. I think Out West was right in saying that there word as applied to the Philippines was "indeterminate". Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn't mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.

    Wiz,

    I have not at all misunderstood you.

    Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn’t mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.

    You compare persimmons with blueberries, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico having ‘Commonwealth’ as part of their official names means nothing.

    The ‘Commonwealth’ in state’s names had indeed the same intention as in the earlier uses of the term, and with the later (as in the case of your presumable nation-state of origin, sometimes called ‘Oz’).

    Puerto Rico and the Philippines were both grabbed as a result of the US-Spain war of 1898.

    Ergo, it is a safe assumption that ‘Commonwealth’ in the act of 1934 did not refer to independence, but to a similar status to that of the ‘Commonwealth of Puerto Rico’, a colony with strictly limited autonomy, doubtless even more limited than in the case of Puerto Rico.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Funny, the Olde Wizzer gave himself a sobriquet that identifies him as a phony.
  119. RobinG says:
    @Che Guava
    Wiz,

    I have not at all misunderstood you.

    Yhe fact that Massachusetts or Puerto Rico is called a Commonwealth doesn’t mean that its application to the Philippines meant the same thing.
     
    You compare persimmons with blueberries, Massachusetts and Puerto Rico having 'Commonwealth' as part of their official names means nothing.

    The 'Commonwealth' in state's names had indeed the same intention as in the earlier uses of the term, and with the later (as in the case of your presumable nation-state of origin, sometimes called 'Oz').

    Puerto Rico and the Philippines were both grabbed as a result of the US-Spain war of 1898.

    Ergo, it is a safe assumption that 'Commonwealth' in the act of 1934 did not refer to independence, but to a similar status to that of the 'Commonwealth of Puerto Rico', a colony with strictly limited autonomy, doubtless even more limited than in the case of Puerto Rico.

    Funny, the Olde Wizzer gave himself a sobriquet that identifies him as a phony.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Your conclusion or inference illustrates that cute American parochialism, not to say insularity, that once seemed so naively charming if one wasn't part of the Hispanic/Latino world.
  120. @ Che Guava

    If not a “safe assumption” I would concede “a reasonable inference” :-)

    Read More
  121. @RobinG
    Funny, the Olde Wizzer gave himself a sobriquet that identifies him as a phony.

    Your conclusion or inference illustrates that cute American parochialism, not to say insularity, that once seemed so naively charming if one wasn’t part of the Hispanic/Latino world.

    Read More
  122. OutWest says:
    @Che Guava

    In fact the United States did acknowledge the Philippines as an independent state.
     
    OK, smart propaganda feed boy, when precisely was that? I gave you a verifiable point (act of 1934, which sure didn't look like a guarantee of independence, but of a status identical to that of Puerto Rico even now).

    They may have pretended to treat the Philippines as an independent state after the reconquest, but it was not. What is the precise announcement or treaty you are referring to?

    I would guess that you have nothing to say, since the timing of your initial comment was out by years.

    Well, no later than when they told us to get the hell out of Subic Bay.

    Read More
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 Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.