The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Daniel McAdams Archive
Bill Kristol on Iran Deal: 'Its Munich!'
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Bill Kristol. Credit: The Ron Paul Institute
Bill Kristol. Credit: The Ron Paul Institute

Bill Kristol is the epitome of the neocon mindset: cultivating a staid and urbane image while writing the most unhinged and mendacious claptrap. In his utterly predictable denunciation of the successful Iran nuclear talks, Kristol frames the issue in the crudest terms: if the deal goes through on the US end it will mean the return of $150 billion that was seized from the Iranians by the United States — and that money will be used to commit terrorism against the United States!

Writes Kristol: “How can we debate [the deal] without attending to the $150 billion that is going to a regime with American blood on its hands?”

Kristol cites the National Review which makes the fatuous claim (first made by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, which is headed by a close advisor to Israeli prime minister Netanyahu) that Iran has killed 1,000 Americans since 9/11. It turns out any weapon used in Iraq or Afghanistan against an invading US military that might have Iranian manufacturing origins means that the Iranians are responsible for that kill.

Do they want to extrapolate that methodology to include every bullet sold by the US military-industrial complex to every despot overseas?

But you can see how this works: A Netanyahu think tank makes an outlandish claim, it is picked up by the National Review and thus laundered from its biased foreign origins, and then recycled and further laundered by Kristol in his publication. Cute trick.

And Kristol’s objection to foreigners with American blood on their hands is highly selective. The Marxist-jihadist death cult Mojahedin-e-Khalq (MeK) hasplenty of American blood on its hands, but Kristol’s own magazine joinedother neocon voices in urging the US to remove the terrorists from the US list of terror organizations. Why? Because they are Kristol’s kind of terrorists: they infiltrate Iran to assassinate civilians and foment unrest, while passing off laptops with Mossad-fabricated data made to look like Iranian nuclear weapons activity.

The other thing that has Kristol up in arms over the deal is what he calls the “notorious” Annex III.D.10 of the agreement, which he claims will “help the Iranian regime fight off attempts by others to slow its nuclear program, and more.”

But what does that annex really say?

10. Co-operation in the form of training courses and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to prevent, protect and respond to nuclear security threats to nuclear facilities and systems as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems;

10. Co-operation through training and workshops to strengthen Iran’s ability to protect against, and respond to nuclear security threats, including sabotage, as well as to enable effective and sustainable nuclear security and physical protection systems.

In other words, the parties to the agreement will help Iran protect against attempts to attack and sabotage Iran’s peaceful and legal nuclear program. Recall the Israeli/US cyberattack on Iranian nuclear facilities and simultaneousprograms to assassinate Iranian scientists. Kristol is furious that anyone would find such illegal and murderous activity to be objectionable. After all, blood on one’s hands doesn’t count if it is Iranian or other Muslim blood.

Oh, and, writes Kristol: “Munich!!!” That is obligatory any time diplomacy supplants neocon lust for war.

That Kristol remains a favored foreign policy “expert” on stations like FoxNews and ABC says very little about the quality of his analysis and much more about his saying what the mainstream media want their audiences to hear.

Who can forget Bill Kristol’s greatest hits, such as this 2011 piece on the “liberation” of Libya titled “The Party of Freedom“? In it he writes:

And so, despite his doubts and dithering, President Obama is taking us to war in another Muslim country. Good for him. …Our invasions have in fact been liberations…in our own national interest, of course, but also to protect Muslim peoples and help them free themselves. Libya will be America’s fifth war of Muslim liberation.

Ah yes, that glorious liberation of Libya!

Indeed the timeline of his faulty predictions would no-doubt span the equator. Imagine any other profession where one can be so consistently wrong and still be considered (and handsomely remunerated as) an expert. Imagine your doctor was wrong in his diagnosis 95 percent of the time. Imagine your financial advisor consistently lost 95 percent of anything you invest with him. Yet Kristol continues to drop his golden turds from the hallowed heights of the foreign policy firmament. What a country…

(Republished from The Ron Paul Institute by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Bill Kristol, Iran, Neocons 
Hide 71 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Obvious points to be made about the deal with Iran for anyone who just uses their brain on undisputed facts include

    1. No deal meant nuclear weapons soon if Iran wants them.

    2. Any deal had to be a deal that satisfied at least six countries, not just the US, and only all the countries’ willingness to maintain sanctions gave any leverage.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”.

    I suppose if I were Bill Kristol I would answer point 3 by saying that the Iranians would try and have dirty bombs in place in the US as the basis for a counter threat. Or just say they had. To which the answer is more surveillance…. And, realistically that even Russia and China would help prevent that being possible – as would Pakistan which is Sunni.

    Read More
    • Replies: @orly
    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”.



    admiral fallon "they are ants, and when the time comes we will crush them."
    , @Seraphim
    And you tell us you didn't know what hasbara was! You learned it quickly.
    , @tbraton
    "3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”. "

    I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu could have put it any better, Wizard of Oz. In fact, hasn't that been the policy of Israel for several years now: threaten to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, knowing full well it is incapable of pulling off such a feat or unwilling to bear the cost of such a stroke, and trying to get the U.S. to do its dirty work for it instead?

    Judging from the fact that you place the last period outside the quotation marks (which is a British convention), I assume you are British. That might explain why you find no problem with "an American general" making such an important policy pronouncement before a Senate committee. Out of curiosity, do high military brass make such important policy pronouncements before the British Parliament or the Israeli Knessit? I wonder why we didn't follow such a prescription with respect to North Korea or Pakistan. Those countries would appear to constitute greater threats to the U.S. than Iran. But then we really aren't concerned with threats to the U.S., are we? Total destruction of Iran, huh? And that would benefit the U.S. how?
    , @KA
    The day Israel figured out ( late 2003) the war sent going well in Iraq- ie - to its favor , it unleashed three new fronts to counter rising Iran.
    ( Sy Hersh - Redirection , in NewYorker)
    - Support Kurd that will bring fights between Turkoman and Kurds,between Kurds and Sunni in Kurdistan,and Sunni will soon transport that fight against Kurds in Syria and Baghdad
    -Kurds's fight against Iraq government means it will fight Shia.
    The cauldron envisioned and dreamt by Yoded Yinon,Sharon,and PNAC, and Michael Ledeen of AEI is now a distinct and clear possibility .

    Israel just 2 yr ago in late 2001 , through Richard Perle have basically threatened Saudi, Egypt,and Jordan in a power point presentation at Pentagon .



    -Start telling western media that Shias and Sunnis are enemies and been uninterrupted for centuries
    -Bring 911 card out and keep putting pressure on Saudis until they fold and support the Israeli aims
    Israel meanwhile targeted Lebanon,Syria,and Gaza. Istael would attack Syria for the first time in 30 yrs in 2003 and would keep on doing so continuing to this year.
    Israel tried various means and ways even going to Georgia and Azerbaizan and Cyprus to reach an understanding of mounting attack on Iran hoping this then would produce a cascade of events resembling chaos in Lebanon or Syria.
    Anticipating an attack on Iran by Cheney as likely ,some in Israel tried to open another front to soften another country -Pakistan . Israeli politicians started mentioning Pakistan as the new clear emerging danger . One of the minister on visit to India told Indian gov and media that Pakistan was more dangerous than .
    Avi Liberman at home started selling same ideas to the media and western politicians.
    In USA , Lantos and Ackerman teamed up with right wing Indian government and started flaming Hindu Muslim tension .
    It was a time that Israel thought would never end .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Piss on those cretins Kristol and NuttyYahoo. If only their kind could disappear from the earth. . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Actually, it is surprising that the US Veterans have not created yet a Hall of Shame for the treasonous politicians and loudest warmongers that led the US towards initiating the unjust and bloody wars that have resulted in massive injuries and deaths, including massive injuries and deaths of the US military serviceman and woman. Krystol (and Feith and Cheney and Rice) should see the images of the mangled and dead every day, whether in their mail or on the streets whenever they go outside. I guess that a lot of Americans would contribute to maintain this "support the troops" service.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Tom_R says:

    JUDAISTS HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS FOR THE INNOCENT AMERICANS WHO DIED IN IRAQ.

    The several thousand US soldiers who died in the Iraq war died for the Judaists and Israel. US had no strategic interest in Iraq or has any in Iran. The Iraq war was for Israel and Israel only, as Saddam was sending paying suicide bombers to bomb buses in Tel Aviv and sending Scuds to Gaza. These 2 types of attacks against Israel have not happened since Saddam was removed, saving a few hundred Israelis at the expense of a trillion.

    But Bill Kristol, a Jewish conman, will not tell you that. It is because he thinks goyim blood has no value and they, as “Jews”, i.e. Abraham’s children (Abraham, who was a pimp and sold his wife to an African and therefore black pharaoh) have a right to con the goyim and lie to them, as approved by their Rabbis in their Talmud, make them die in their wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    You forgot to mention the lickspittle for Israel, George W Bush.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Silverado says:

    I’m surprised more Americans haven’t caught on to the neocon (defined as either a democratic defense hawk or any pro defense dept republican these days) scam of stirring up havoc (both real and imagined) all over the world so their buddies in the arms industries financed through their banker buddies can keep making and selling things that go boom to various other corrupt govts for inflated amounts of worth-less sovereign paper money keeping the vicious, EXPENSIVE cycle going and going and going…
    War Monger In-Chief Bill Kristol may be a Jewish conman but when it comes to being a plain old American criminal he’s (and his neocon kind are) pretty good at that too. The neocons he represents and speaks for are a bigger threat to our freedom & liberty than any terrorist and I don’t care what country the terrorist comes from. The neocons are the domestic terrorists that the govt has been warning us about. And more & more Americans are finally waking up & hearing that message…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Mulegino1 says:

    The black umbrella Munich Brigade is back at it. Every year is 1939. Every leader that the Empire doesn’t like is Hitler. Every country, region, municipality or state they want to get control over is embattled Czechoslovakia. Everyone who calls for moderation and prudence is Neville Chamberlain.

    You’d figure that after 76 years they could be a little creative and find another historical analogy – but remember, our pseudo-elites are not particularly bright or creative. Our own first rate intellectuals and savants – many of them featured here at Unz – are ignored by the mainstream media because they want sophomoric and mediocre shills like Kristol, Krauthammer, George Will, inter alia, to churn out utterly predictable kosher narratives; God forbid the public be enlightened.

    The Judeo-American way punishes dissent in the intellectual class; true threats like Francis Parker Yokey or Ezra Pound are utterly marginalized. In the case of Pound, America locked up one of the most brilliant literary figures in its history in a cage; in a way, this was symbolic of the intellectual imprisonment of the American mind by the Jewish super ego imposed upon it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Maj. Kong
    George Will isn't Jewish
    , @guest
    "Every leader that the Empire doesn’t like is Hitler."

    And not the real Hitler, but the comic book Hitler, who tried to conquer the world. The same Hitler who among nations with modern armies only managed to conquer France. (To be fair, he might've beat Britain or Russia one on one). Why this Hitler? Because pretending doing anything but what you want to do anyway will result in all of us dying is easier than thinking about the world as it actually is.

    Churchill got to be the Man of the Century by sticking his fingers in his ears, chanting "La-la-la, I'm not listening!" and starring in his own bloody romance of good and evil. The result was worse than what he started out with, as he said in his own words, and he didn't get a damn thing he wanted (Anglo-American world domination, a balance of power on the European continent, preservation of the empire, his side to get its way domestically, etc.) It's a tragic tale that history pretends was the greatest victory ever for reasons I can't fathom, except: 1). to admit otherwise would jeopardize the ongoing foreign policy and world power structure, and 2). we can forever pretend to know things would've been worse, somehow. As I said, it's always easier to pretend things are simple and that there's no choice but to do what you've already decided to do.

    There's also the Holocaust, which retroactively seems to make WWII beyond criticism, as slavery did our Civil War. But without the western allies fighting Hitler the Holocaust probably wouldn't have been possible, at least not the way we think it happened. Also, the way the allies fought, and especially the "unconditional surrender" policy, made it much, much worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. Don Nash says:

    Kristolnacht! Oh the horror…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. orly says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Obvious points to be made about the deal with Iran for anyone who just uses their brain on undisputed facts include

    1. No deal meant nuclear weapons soon if Iran wants them.

    2. Any deal had to be a deal that satisfied at least six countries, not just the US, and only all the countries' willingness to maintain sanctions gave any leverage.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee "It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons".

    I suppose if I were Bill Kristol I would answer point 3 by saying that the Iranians would try and have dirty bombs in place in the US as the basis for a counter threat. Or just say they had. To which the answer is more surveillance.... And, realistically that even Russia and China would help prevent that being possible - as would Pakistan which is Sunni.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”.

    admiral fallon “they are ants, and when the time comes we will crush them.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Realist says:
    @Tom_R
    JUDAISTS HAVE BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS FOR THE INNOCENT AMERICANS WHO DIED IN IRAQ.

    The several thousand US soldiers who died in the Iraq war died for the Judaists and Israel. US had no strategic interest in Iraq or has any in Iran. The Iraq war was for Israel and Israel only, as Saddam was sending paying suicide bombers to bomb buses in Tel Aviv and sending Scuds to Gaza. These 2 types of attacks against Israel have not happened since Saddam was removed, saving a few hundred Israelis at the expense of a trillion.

    But Bill Kristol, a Jewish conman, will not tell you that. It is because he thinks goyim blood has no value and they, as "Jews", i.e. Abraham’s children (Abraham, who was a pimp and sold his wife to an African and therefore black pharaoh) have a right to con the goyim and lie to them, as approved by their Rabbis in their Talmud, make them die in their wars.

    You forgot to mention the lickspittle for Israel, George W Bush.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Obvious points to be made about the deal with Iran for anyone who just uses their brain on undisputed facts include

    1. No deal meant nuclear weapons soon if Iran wants them.

    2. Any deal had to be a deal that satisfied at least six countries, not just the US, and only all the countries' willingness to maintain sanctions gave any leverage.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee "It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons".

    I suppose if I were Bill Kristol I would answer point 3 by saying that the Iranians would try and have dirty bombs in place in the US as the basis for a counter threat. Or just say they had. To which the answer is more surveillance.... And, realistically that even Russia and China would help prevent that being possible - as would Pakistan which is Sunni.

    And you tell us you didn’t know what hasbara was! You learned it quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Are you now saying that the deal with Iran actually suits Israel despite Netanyahu's antics?
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Are you now saying that the deal with Iran actually suits Israel despite Netanyahu's antics?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Mitch says:

    Claptrap = this guy McAdams.

    Whoever.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Ivan says:

    For these neocon clowns every deal is reminiscent of Munich 1938 or for the smarter fellows Rhineland 1936. It is never say June or July 1914, when WWI could have been avoided. This is what all of 20th century Western history has been reduced, a collection of Aesop’s fables whose moral all seem to be – see what happens when they don’t listen to the Zionists?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Note that one of the leading warmongering bloviators, David Brooks, preferred his son serving in Israeli Army instead of defending the US.
    All Israel-firsters look upon the US as a host to use, and eventually devour, by their beloved State of "Chosen People." Never mind that Israel is populated, to a large extend, by the former Soviets of questionable loyalty; the majority of those emigrated to Israel from the former USSR are economic migrants dreaming about living in Canada or the US.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. Maj. Kong says:
    @Mulegino1
    The black umbrella Munich Brigade is back at it. Every year is 1939. Every leader that the Empire doesn't like is Hitler. Every country, region, municipality or state they want to get control over is embattled Czechoslovakia. Everyone who calls for moderation and prudence is Neville Chamberlain.

    You'd figure that after 76 years they could be a little creative and find another historical analogy - but remember, our pseudo-elites are not particularly bright or creative. Our own first rate intellectuals and savants - many of them featured here at Unz - are ignored by the mainstream media because they want sophomoric and mediocre shills like Kristol, Krauthammer, George Will, inter alia, to churn out utterly predictable kosher narratives; God forbid the public be enlightened.

    The Judeo-American way punishes dissent in the intellectual class; true threats like Francis Parker Yokey or Ezra Pound are utterly marginalized. In the case of Pound, America locked up one of the most brilliant literary figures in its history in a cage; in a way, this was symbolic of the intellectual imprisonment of the American mind by the Jewish super ego imposed upon it.

    George Will isn’t Jewish

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "George Will isn’t Jewish"

    No, but he licks their....boots.
    , @Wally
    So what? He's bought and paid for by them.
    , @gilles
    Nor are Victor Davis Hanson, Woolsey, John Bolton et al, but they're still warmongering neoconservatives.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    George Will participated in the July 1979 Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu where their blueprint for the global war on terror was unfurled.

    Iran was still part of Israel's periphery doctrine in July 1979; the focus of the Milikovsky duo's wrath at that time was Arafat and the PLO.

    Different year
    different enemy
    what would zionists do with an existential threat?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. tbraton says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Obvious points to be made about the deal with Iran for anyone who just uses their brain on undisputed facts include

    1. No deal meant nuclear weapons soon if Iran wants them.

    2. Any deal had to be a deal that satisfied at least six countries, not just the US, and only all the countries' willingness to maintain sanctions gave any leverage.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee "It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons".

    I suppose if I were Bill Kristol I would answer point 3 by saying that the Iranians would try and have dirty bombs in place in the US as the basis for a counter threat. Or just say they had. To which the answer is more surveillance.... And, realistically that even Russia and China would help prevent that being possible - as would Pakistan which is Sunni.

    “3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”. ”

    I don’t think Benjamin Netanyahu could have put it any better, Wizard of Oz. In fact, hasn’t that been the policy of Israel for several years now: threaten to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities, knowing full well it is incapable of pulling off such a feat or unwilling to bear the cost of such a stroke, and trying to get the U.S. to do its dirty work for it instead?

    Judging from the fact that you place the last period outside the quotation marks (which is a British convention), I assume you are British. That might explain why you find no problem with “an American general” making such an important policy pronouncement before a Senate committee. Out of curiosity, do high military brass make such important policy pronouncements before the British Parliament or the Israeli Knessit? I wonder why we didn’t follow such a prescription with respect to North Korea or Pakistan. Those countries would appear to constitute greater threats to the U.S. than Iran. But then we really aren’t concerned with threats to the U.S., are we? Total destruction of Iran, huh? And that would benefit the U.S. how?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well total trivia out of the way first... I am not British and find myself often wondering where to put the quotation marks. I'm sure I could find an answer in Fowler or the equivalent "Modern American Usage" or work out a rule by sheer logic but it hardly seems worth the effort for an answer that I would probably forget.

    I have visited the Westminster Parliament on a number of occasions including parliamentary committee hearings and, by coincidence, I paid a brief visit to the Knesset on my first and only visit to Israel which was last May. (I have also visited about a dozen other Parliaments in various countries and even US state legislatures).

    You may have missed the point of my imagining a congressional committee meeting with a general testifying. To start with avoiding the pale abstract and trying to follow the example and teaching of great writers like Orwell means that one should try and deal in the concrete and paint vivid enough pictures for people to be able to react to strongly at least by way of comprehension if not agreement. But my major purpose, left to be inferred, was to show how the matter could be dealt with without the President or Secretary of State or leader of negotiations affronting the dignity of the Iranians yet making as sure as possible that they understood and believed the possible consequences and that the wimpish handwringing world was put on notice too so it couldn't be said that there was any deceit in the US position.

    Trustworthiness had been mentioned but, without claiming any expertise in diplomatic history I would draw attention to a related problem. If an ordinary contract is made under duress it will, subject to some qualifications, be unenforceable if not void ab initio. Since enforcement of treaty obligations is even more complicated it would never be surprising if a party to a treaty said "that unequal treaty was made under intolerable duress and we declare ourselves no longer bound by it (and in fact we want the whole Sudetenland back)". I think the ten year life of the treaty is very realistic in the light of the duress which has been exercised againstvIran.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Well total trivia out of the way first... I am not British and find myself often wondering where to put the quotation marks. I'm sure I could find an answer in Fowler or the equivalent "Moder American Usage" or work out a rule by sheer logic but it hardly seems worth the effort for an answer thati would probably forget.

    I have visited the Westminster Parliament on a number of occasions including parliamentary committee hearings and, by coincidence, I paid a brief visit to the Knesset on my first and only visit to Israel which was last May. (I have also visited about a dozen other Parliaments in various countries and even US state legislatures.

    You may have missed the point of my imagining a congressional committee meeting with a general testifying. To start with avoiding the pale abstract and trying to follow the example and teaching of great writers like Orwell means that one should try and deal in the concrete and paint vivid enough pictures for people to be able to react to strongly at least by way of comprehension if not agreement. But my major purpose, left to be inferred, was to show how the matter could be dealt with without the President or Secretary of State or leader of negotiations affronting the dignity of the Iranians yet making as sure as possible that they understood and believed the possible consequences and that the wimpish handwringing world was put on notice too so it couldn't be said that there was any deceit in the US position.

    Trustworthiness had been mentioned but, without claiming any expertise in diplomatic history I would draw attention to a related problem. If an ordinary contract is made under duress it will, subject to some qualifications, be unenforceable if not void ab initio. Since enforcement of treaty obligations is even more complicated it would never be surprising if a party to a treaty said "that unequal treaty was made under intolerable duress and we declare ourselves no longer bound by it (and in fact we want the whole Sudetenland back)".

    Your comment picks up my comment from another thread doesn't it? How one's fame and readership spreads.

    In 10 years time Iran may well reject the treaty anyway.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. KA says:

    He misses his dad. Dad could have helped him in this hour of needs. Poor Kristol knows only a couple of cities by name. TelAviv,Tehran,and Munich and he often confuses them with political figures known to him -J . Lieberman Bush Sr.,and Chamberline.

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

    There doesn’t seem to be any other realistic alternative other than coming to an agreement. The other option that has been bandied about is to wage a war against Iran. The proponents of the war option assume that it would be successful and achieve it’s goals, an assumption that may be inherently flawed. Iran is a large country, 80 million strong with quite a bit of internal resources. It’s not like invading Iraq-Afghanistan. They have the capability of fighting back and since they’ve been under threat for many years now it’s reasonable to assume that they’ve been preparing for attack, scattering and hiding sites, building tunnels, digging deeper with reinforced concrete for protection, etc. The US could bomb away but could never introduce boots on the ground therefore could never gain the necessary control needed. It’s also reasonable to assume that the US has run it’s own war games to see what’s feasible. Possibly the turn to negotiations is due to the realization that the war option is a loser. Military power has been shown to have it’s limits, the rest being economic and political.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sounds right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. @tbraton
    "3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”. "

    I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu could have put it any better, Wizard of Oz. In fact, hasn't that been the policy of Israel for several years now: threaten to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, knowing full well it is incapable of pulling off such a feat or unwilling to bear the cost of such a stroke, and trying to get the U.S. to do its dirty work for it instead?

    Judging from the fact that you place the last period outside the quotation marks (which is a British convention), I assume you are British. That might explain why you find no problem with "an American general" making such an important policy pronouncement before a Senate committee. Out of curiosity, do high military brass make such important policy pronouncements before the British Parliament or the Israeli Knessit? I wonder why we didn't follow such a prescription with respect to North Korea or Pakistan. Those countries would appear to constitute greater threats to the U.S. than Iran. But then we really aren't concerned with threats to the U.S., are we? Total destruction of Iran, huh? And that would benefit the U.S. how?

    Well total trivia out of the way first… I am not British and find myself often wondering where to put the quotation marks. I’m sure I could find an answer in Fowler or the equivalent “Modern American Usage” or work out a rule by sheer logic but it hardly seems worth the effort for an answer that I would probably forget.

    I have visited the Westminster Parliament on a number of occasions including parliamentary committee hearings and, by coincidence, I paid a brief visit to the Knesset on my first and only visit to Israel which was last May. (I have also visited about a dozen other Parliaments in various countries and even US state legislatures).

    You may have missed the point of my imagining a congressional committee meeting with a general testifying. To start with avoiding the pale abstract and trying to follow the example and teaching of great writers like Orwell means that one should try and deal in the concrete and paint vivid enough pictures for people to be able to react to strongly at least by way of comprehension if not agreement. But my major purpose, left to be inferred, was to show how the matter could be dealt with without the President or Secretary of State or leader of negotiations affronting the dignity of the Iranians yet making as sure as possible that they understood and believed the possible consequences and that the wimpish handwringing world was put on notice too so it couldn’t be said that there was any deceit in the US position.

    Trustworthiness had been mentioned but, without claiming any expertise in diplomatic history I would draw attention to a related problem. If an ordinary contract is made under duress it will, subject to some qualifications, be unenforceable if not void ab initio. Since enforcement of treaty obligations is even more complicated it would never be surprising if a party to a treaty said “that unequal treaty was made under intolerable duress and we declare ourselves no longer bound by it (and in fact we want the whole Sudetenland back)”. I think the ten year life of the treaty is very realistic in the light of the duress which has been exercised againstvIran.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. @Maj Kong

    So?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. @tbraton
    "3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee “It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons”. "

    I don't think Benjamin Netanyahu could have put it any better, Wizard of Oz. In fact, hasn't that been the policy of Israel for several years now: threaten to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, knowing full well it is incapable of pulling off such a feat or unwilling to bear the cost of such a stroke, and trying to get the U.S. to do its dirty work for it instead?

    Judging from the fact that you place the last period outside the quotation marks (which is a British convention), I assume you are British. That might explain why you find no problem with "an American general" making such an important policy pronouncement before a Senate committee. Out of curiosity, do high military brass make such important policy pronouncements before the British Parliament or the Israeli Knessit? I wonder why we didn't follow such a prescription with respect to North Korea or Pakistan. Those countries would appear to constitute greater threats to the U.S. than Iran. But then we really aren't concerned with threats to the U.S., are we? Total destruction of Iran, huh? And that would benefit the U.S. how?

    Well total trivia out of the way first… I am not British and find myself often wondering where to put the quotation marks. I’m sure I could find an answer in Fowler or the equivalent “Moder American Usage” or work out a rule by sheer logic but it hardly seems worth the effort for an answer thati would probably forget.

    I have visited the Westminster Parliament on a number of occasions including parliamentary committee hearings and, by coincidence, I paid a brief visit to the Knesset on my first and only visit to Israel which was last May. (I have also visited about a dozen other Parliaments in various countries and even US state legislatures.

    You may have missed the point of my imagining a congressional committee meeting with a general testifying. To start with avoiding the pale abstract and trying to follow the example and teaching of great writers like Orwell means that one should try and deal in the concrete and paint vivid enough pictures for people to be able to react to strongly at least by way of comprehension if not agreement. But my major purpose, left to be inferred, was to show how the matter could be dealt with without the President or Secretary of State or leader of negotiations affronting the dignity of the Iranians yet making as sure as possible that they understood and believed the possible consequences and that the wimpish handwringing world was put on notice too so it couldn’t be said that there was any deceit in the US position.

    Trustworthiness had been mentioned but, without claiming any expertise in diplomatic history I would draw attention to a related problem. If an ordinary contract is made under duress it will, subject to some qualifications, be unenforceable if not void ab initio. Since enforcement of treaty obligations is even more complicated it would never be surprising if a party to a treaty said “that unequal treaty was made under intolerable duress and we declare ourselves no longer bound by it (and in fact we want the whole Sudetenland back)”.

    Your comment picks up my comment from another thread doesn’t it? How one’s fame and readership spreads.

    In 10 years time Iran may well reject the treaty anyway.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Sorry (not really very sorry) but I had only remembered myself as positing the testifying general on another thread. I attribute the lapse to an outstanding New Zealand pinot noir.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. @anonymous
    There doesn't seem to be any other realistic alternative other than coming to an agreement. The other option that has been bandied about is to wage a war against Iran. The proponents of the war option assume that it would be successful and achieve it's goals, an assumption that may be inherently flawed. Iran is a large country, 80 million strong with quite a bit of internal resources. It's not like invading Iraq-Afghanistan. They have the capability of fighting back and since they've been under threat for many years now it's reasonable to assume that they've been preparing for attack, scattering and hiding sites, building tunnels, digging deeper with reinforced concrete for protection, etc. The US could bomb away but could never introduce boots on the ground therefore could never gain the necessary control needed. It's also reasonable to assume that the US has run it's own war games to see what's feasible. Possibly the turn to negotiations is due to the realization that the war option is a loser. Military power has been shown to have it's limits, the rest being economic and political.

    Sounds right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. @Seraphim
    And you tell us you didn't know what hasbara was! You learned it quickly.

    Are you now saying that the deal with Iran actually suits Israel despite Netanyahu’s antics?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    No, not at all. This is your invention. What I said is that you present the point of view of Israel.
    "Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara) (Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה‎ hasbará, "explaining") refers to public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions" (Wikipedia).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. @Wizard of Oz
    Well total trivia out of the way first... I am not British and find myself often wondering where to put the quotation marks. I'm sure I could find an answer in Fowler or the equivalent "Moder American Usage" or work out a rule by sheer logic but it hardly seems worth the effort for an answer thati would probably forget.

    I have visited the Westminster Parliament on a number of occasions including parliamentary committee hearings and, by coincidence, I paid a brief visit to the Knesset on my first and only visit to Israel which was last May. (I have also visited about a dozen other Parliaments in various countries and even US state legislatures.

    You may have missed the point of my imagining a congressional committee meeting with a general testifying. To start with avoiding the pale abstract and trying to follow the example and teaching of great writers like Orwell means that one should try and deal in the concrete and paint vivid enough pictures for people to be able to react to strongly at least by way of comprehension if not agreement. But my major purpose, left to be inferred, was to show how the matter could be dealt with without the President or Secretary of State or leader of negotiations affronting the dignity of the Iranians yet making as sure as possible that they understood and believed the possible consequences and that the wimpish handwringing world was put on notice too so it couldn't be said that there was any deceit in the US position.

    Trustworthiness had been mentioned but, without claiming any expertise in diplomatic history I would draw attention to a related problem. If an ordinary contract is made under duress it will, subject to some qualifications, be unenforceable if not void ab initio. Since enforcement of treaty obligations is even more complicated it would never be surprising if a party to a treaty said "that unequal treaty was made under intolerable duress and we declare ourselves no longer bound by it (and in fact we want the whole Sudetenland back)".

    Your comment picks up my comment from another thread doesn't it? How one's fame and readership spreads.

    In 10 years time Iran may well reject the treaty anyway.

    Sorry (not really very sorry) but I had only remembered myself as positing the testifying general on another thread. I attribute the lapse to an outstanding New Zealand pinot noir.

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

    How I wish some Iraq war vet would kick this pussy’s ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. KA says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Obvious points to be made about the deal with Iran for anyone who just uses their brain on undisputed facts include

    1. No deal meant nuclear weapons soon if Iran wants them.

    2. Any deal had to be a deal that satisfied at least six countries, not just the US, and only all the countries' willingness to maintain sanctions gave any leverage.

    3. Iran could be made to be very very cautious if an American general told a Senate committee "It is quite wrong to say the deal is toothless. Iran knows perfectly well that the day after it tests a nuclear weapon, or gives other adequate reason to believe it has one, as much of Iran will be bombed (after warnings to civilians) to total destruction as is required to ensure there will be no more nuclear weapons".

    I suppose if I were Bill Kristol I would answer point 3 by saying that the Iranians would try and have dirty bombs in place in the US as the basis for a counter threat. Or just say they had. To which the answer is more surveillance.... And, realistically that even Russia and China would help prevent that being possible - as would Pakistan which is Sunni.

    The day Israel figured out ( late 2003) the war sent going well in Iraq- ie – to its favor , it unleashed three new fronts to counter rising Iran.
    ( Sy Hersh – Redirection , in NewYorker)
    - Support Kurd that will bring fights between Turkoman and Kurds,between Kurds and Sunni in Kurdistan,and Sunni will soon transport that fight against Kurds in Syria and Baghdad
    -Kurds’s fight against Iraq government means it will fight Shia.
    The cauldron envisioned and dreamt by Yoded Yinon,Sharon,and PNAC, and Michael Ledeen of AEI is now a distinct and clear possibility .

    Israel just 2 yr ago in late 2001 , through Richard Perle have basically threatened Saudi, Egypt,and Jordan in a power point presentation at Pentagon .

    -Start telling western media that Shias and Sunnis are enemies and been uninterrupted for centuries
    -Bring 911 card out and keep putting pressure on Saudis until they fold and support the Israeli aims
    Israel meanwhile targeted Lebanon,Syria,and Gaza. Istael would attack Syria for the first time in 30 yrs in 2003 and would keep on doing so continuing to this year.
    Israel tried various means and ways even going to Georgia and Azerbaizan and Cyprus to reach an understanding of mounting attack on Iran hoping this then would produce a cascade of events resembling chaos in Lebanon or Syria.
    Anticipating an attack on Iran by Cheney as likely ,some in Israel tried to open another front to soften another country -Pakistan . Israeli politicians started mentioning Pakistan as the new clear emerging danger . One of the minister on visit to India told Indian gov and media that Pakistan was more dangerous than .
    Avi Liberman at home started selling same ideas to the media and western politicians.
    In USA , Lantos and Ackerman teamed up with right wing Indian government and started flaming Hindu Muslim tension .
    It was a time that Israel thought would never end .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. annamaria says:
    @Orville H. Larson
    Piss on those cretins Kristol and NuttyYahoo. If only their kind could disappear from the earth. . . .

    Actually, it is surprising that the US Veterans have not created yet a Hall of Shame for the treasonous politicians and loudest warmongers that led the US towards initiating the unjust and bloody wars that have resulted in massive injuries and deaths, including massive injuries and deaths of the US military serviceman and woman. Krystol (and Feith and Cheney and Rice) should see the images of the mangled and dead every day, whether in their mail or on the streets whenever they go outside. I guess that a lot of Americans would contribute to maintain this “support the troops” service.

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

    Kristol is the kind of Jew that reflects poorly on all Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. annamaria says:
    @Ivan
    For these neocon clowns every deal is reminiscent of Munich 1938 or for the smarter fellows Rhineland 1936. It is never say June or July 1914, when WWI could have been avoided. This is what all of 20th century Western history has been reduced, a collection of Aesop's fables whose moral all seem to be - see what happens when they don't listen to the Zionists?

    Note that one of the leading warmongering bloviators, David Brooks, preferred his son serving in Israeli Army instead of defending the US.
    All Israel-firsters look upon the US as a host to use, and eventually devour, by their beloved State of “Chosen People.” Never mind that Israel is populated, to a large extend, by the former Soviets of questionable loyalty; the majority of those emigrated to Israel from the former USSR are economic migrants dreaming about living in Canada or the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    Dual citizenship is a recipe for unclear thinking and ultimately a stupid life.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Realist says:
    @Maj. Kong
    George Will isn't Jewish

    “George Will isn’t Jewish”

    No, but he licks their….boots.

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

    Bill Kristal personifies the false faced Jew – every time he is on TV he is presented as an American, when clearly he is a fascist Zionist Jew working for Israel.

    His whole life, like that of his father, is about misleading the American people to the benefit of his mendacious tribe.

    What bad seed, what human trash.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Wally says:
    @Maj. Kong
    George Will isn't Jewish

    So what? He’s bought and paid for by them.

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

    Billy Kristol is a one trick pony. Here it is:
    The Russians are going to kill us in our beds!!!!!
    That’s it. No more, no less.
    Well, that’s all except for the piles and piles and piles of money courtesy of the Military Industrial Complex.

    I have to admit, though, choosing to shill for the MIC is a lot more lucrative than shilling for, say, Sister Teresa.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. People like Bill Kristol aren’t Israel-firsters. All they care about is Israel and Jews. They are Israel-onliers and Jewish supremacists. America and Americans are only on their radar screens if they can use us for something, and when they do, you can bet your life that mainly/only Israel and the tribe will benefit. There will be no thanks, payback or cooperation, and they would not consider helping us in return, unless they benefit substantially. Some great friends we have. I wouldn’t call them American in any sense.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. gilles says:
    @Maj. Kong
    George Will isn't Jewish

    Nor are Victor Davis Hanson, Woolsey, John Bolton et al, but they’re still warmongering neoconservatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    You forgot Dick Cheney
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @Maj. Kong
    George Will isn't Jewish

    George Will participated in the July 1979 Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu where their blueprint for the global war on terror was unfurled.

    Iran was still part of Israel’s periphery doctrine in July 1979; the focus of the Milikovsky duo’s wrath at that time was Arafat and the PLO.

    Different year
    different enemy
    what would zionists do with an existential threat?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ivan
    George F Will sounds like a man who has not learned a single new thing in the 30 or 40 years since President Carter's time. He can lay claim to being the Rip Van Winkle of American columnists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Realist says:
    @gilles
    Nor are Victor Davis Hanson, Woolsey, John Bolton et al, but they're still warmongering neoconservatives.

    You forgot Dick Cheney

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Inasmuch as the Iran deal is clearly, evidently, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously not the same as the Munich Agreement, and does not in any way, shape or form pose an existential threat to the world’s biggest diaper-clad statish-entity except in their fevered psycho-paranoia, doesn’t that make you stop and think that maybe the original Munich pact, to which major European powers agreed but which Jews opposed, was likewise not an existential threat to Jews except in their fevered dirty diaper-clad psycho-paranoia?

    Isn’t it quite the coincidence that

    – the Munich Agreement was affirmed by Britain, France and Germany Sept. 29, 1938

    – October 11, 1938, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. meets with FDR to implement plans for seven bomber manufacturing plants in USA

    – Nov. 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan enters the German embassy in Paris where he shoots German foreign service officer Ernst vom Rath.
    check out the title of this book about Grynszpan’s actions: The Day the Holocaust Began: The Odyssey of Herschel Grynszpan.

    hmm.
    The holocaust began on the day that a Jew shot and killed a German foreign service officer.

    So who the fuck started the “holocaust” — the dead German?
    But I digress —

    – vom Rath dies the next day, Nov. 8 or 9, 1938

    – Nov. 9 – 10, 1938 — according to the USHolocaust Museum (which we all know would never, ever, pinky-swear never tell a lie),

    “On the night of November 9, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans’ anger over the assassination of a German official in Paris at the hands of a Jewish teenager. In fact, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the pogroms. “

    Yea, that makes perfect sense doesn’t it: Germany has just achieved British and French buy-in to a non-violent resolution of a long-simmering problem.

    Germany’s economy is humming along, enjoying full employment in largely peace-time activities.

    For five long years Jews have been buffered from physical violence in Germany, by the actions and policies of the NSDAP.

    Louis Brandeis’s Feb. 14, 1933 directive that “all Jews must leave Germany” is plodding along, although, because many German Jews are reluctant to leave their fatherland, the Irgun has created the Mossad el-Aliyeh bet, the Committee for Illegal Immigration, to “assist” German Jews out of German and across the blocked border into Palestine, where their wealth is sorely needed to keep the zionist project solvent. Gestapo is aware of the presence of Mossad el and even assists them.

    Against all this background, the only logical thing for Goebbels to do is to incite mob violence against Jews.

    Right.

    So Americans and others should be forewarned: count of the Jews that King Kristol speaks for to carry out a false flag and attempt to provoke war against Iran, or even against USA.

    Just like they did in Munich in 1938.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    If I wanted to puncture your argument about Jews doing much the same in 1938 as you say they did in 2003 I would focus first on the immense difference between Jewish wealth and organised influence in 1938 compared to the 21st century with no effective limits on politically manipulative spending and a threatened Israel in which many American Jews have spent part of their youth to give a central theme and force to American Jewish lobbying organisations. (I say "threatened" because it is literally true, and because it is seen that way by friends of Israel, not because there is any short term likelihood that it will be overwhelmed).

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family, (I was about to add Frederick Lindemann but apparently he was only thought by some people to be Jewish) et al but the very fact that Jews like Trotsky were seen as major Bolshevik actors and, also, by contrast, Jews were pretty desperate in Germany and trying to save life and property rather than dominating anything suggests that their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now that they can focus so much singleminded persuasion backed by money and a fair degree of unity on the remaining pretender to superpower status.

    , @annamaria
    Similar to the US history of AIPAC' blackmailing and bribing the US Congress, the history of Israeli war crimes in Gaza Ghetto unveils a habit of blackmailing and snooty disregard towards the law. Israelis simply cannot help themselves but use their preferred ways of operation:
    "Public relations campaigns based on self-defense have been critical to Israeli officials avoiding accountability after each of the six major assaults on Gaza since Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza in 2005. Notwithstanding the reports of war crimes committed by Israeli forces, the remarkable success of those self-defense based public relations campaigns continued to provide Israeli officials with impunity: the freedom to strike militarily again.
    That impunity may come to an end if the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decides to open an investigation into the situation in Palestine and prosecutions follow. However, immediately after the Prosecutor announced that she was launching a “preliminary examination” on January 16, 2015, Netanyahu launched a multi-pronged “public diplomacy campaign to discredit the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to start an inquiry into what the Palestinians call Israeli ‘war crimes’ in the disputed territories.” The public diplomacy campaign is based entirely on Israel’s claim that it acted in self-defense. The Israeli campaign also included a threat to disregard the decision of the court, a threat to the funding of the court, and the announcement that Israel was freezing transfer of more than $100 million a month in taxes Israel collects for the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for the State of Palestine joining the ICC and requesting the ICC inquiry."
    Who would expect such profound immorality from the "most moral" tribe?
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/wrong-on-the-facts-wrong-on-the-law-israelis-false-claims-of-self-defense-in-gaza-war/
    , @Rurik
    End the Fed
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. @Seraphim
    And you tell us you didn't know what hasbara was! You learned it quickly.

    Are you now saying that the deal with Iran actually suits Israel despite Netanyahu’s antics?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Bill Kristol is like a malfunctioning android whose verbal skills have been reduced to a broken record repeating itself. “The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland” As if no other history ever existed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    If only. After his escapade with Sarah Palin, whom he had discovered and then peddled to the US electorate with a goal of making a useful puppet out of "Barracuda" (but succeeded only in making a laughing stock out of McCain and The Weekly Standard), Bill Krystol cannot change his reputation of a half-wit cynic. One could wonder whether he has ever though about his children's future that is going to be marred by association with his name and his stupid and bloody war-mongering? Krystol never served, of course (but he has been pro-war since his college days when he managed to avoid the draft to Vietnam) and his children never served as well. Bill Krystol makes his living by serving the "haves" and by being loudly loyal to Israel.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Committee_for_Israel
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    Are you now saying that the deal with Iran actually suits Israel despite Netanyahu's antics?

    No, not at all. This is your invention. What I said is that you present the point of view of Israel.
    “Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara) (Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה‎ hasbará, “explaining”) refers to public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions” (Wikipedia).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I think we must be at cross purposes. I have tried finding the Comment which justified my my asking whether "you" were now saying that the Iran deal suited Israel despite Netanyahu's antics but couldn't find it on this thread so looked at a couple of other threads and used "Find on this Page" and concluded in the end that I must have accidentally clicked on a button under one of your comments rather than the one that had struck me as odd. Sorry about that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    William Kristol is not speaking to Joe and Jane Sixpack, his rhetoric is aimed at opinion makers, politicians and true believers. Many people who do support Israel for a variety of reasons, see him simply as a pimple on his father’s ass. To look for anything deep in what he says is a waste of time.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  40. annamaria says:
    @George Taylor
    Bill Kristol is like a malfunctioning android whose verbal skills have been reduced to a broken record repeating itself. "The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland, The Sudetenland" As if no other history ever existed.

    If only. After his escapade with Sarah Palin, whom he had discovered and then peddled to the US electorate with a goal of making a useful puppet out of “Barracuda” (but succeeded only in making a laughing stock out of McCain and The Weekly Standard), Bill Krystol cannot change his reputation of a half-wit cynic. One could wonder whether he has ever though about his children’s future that is going to be marred by association with his name and his stupid and bloody war-mongering? Krystol never served, of course (but he has been pro-war since his college days when he managed to avoid the draft to Vietnam) and his children never served as well. Bill Krystol makes his living by serving the “haves” and by being loudly loyal to Israel.

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I am SHOCKED beyond all reason that Jews would strongly support Israel. This is simply SHOCKING information!! OMG!! Oh, the horror!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Clarice says:

    Neocons are nutty. So is Ron Paul and his cultish followers. Memo to nutjob Paul worshippers: Libertarianism will only work in ethnically homogenous societies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Libertarianism will only work in ethnically homogenous (sic) societies."

    The same can be said about Democracy.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @annamaria
    If only. After his escapade with Sarah Palin, whom he had discovered and then peddled to the US electorate with a goal of making a useful puppet out of "Barracuda" (but succeeded only in making a laughing stock out of McCain and The Weekly Standard), Bill Krystol cannot change his reputation of a half-wit cynic. One could wonder whether he has ever though about his children's future that is going to be marred by association with his name and his stupid and bloody war-mongering? Krystol never served, of course (but he has been pro-war since his college days when he managed to avoid the draft to Vietnam) and his children never served as well. Bill Krystol makes his living by serving the "haves" and by being loudly loyal to Israel.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency_Committee_for_Israel

    I am SHOCKED beyond all reason that Jews would strongly support Israel. This is simply SHOCKING information!! OMG!! Oh, the horror!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Bill Krystol does not simply support Israel: he wants to make the US into a servant (actually, a host, "an organism that harbors a parasite") for Israel.
    "We want to be hard-hitting; we want to get into the debate and shake things up and make some points in a firm way." And they did "shake the things up." Krystol and his ilk work for a foreign country by meddling into the affairs of the US for the benefit of the foreign country and against the interests of the US.
    , @OilcanFloyd
    If American Jews feel so strongly about Israel, they should move there. Israel means nothing to me, and the more I see American Jews forcing American loyalty to Israel by hook or crook, the more I despise Israel and dislike Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. @SolontoCroesus
    Inasmuch as the Iran deal is clearly, evidently, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously not the same as the Munich Agreement, and does not in any way, shape or form pose an existential threat to the world's biggest diaper-clad statish-entity except in their fevered psycho-paranoia, doesn't that make you stop and think that maybe the original Munich pact, to which major European powers agreed but which Jews opposed, was likewise not an existential threat to Jews except in their fevered dirty diaper-clad psycho-paranoia?

    Isn't it quite the coincidence that

    -- the Munich Agreement was affirmed by Britain, France and Germany Sept. 29, 1938

    -- October 11, 1938, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. meets with FDR to implement plans for seven bomber manufacturing plants in USA

    -- Nov. 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan enters the German embassy in Paris where he shoots German foreign service officer Ernst vom Rath.
    check out the title of this book about Grynszpan's actions: The Day the Holocaust Began: The Odyssey of Herschel Grynszpan.

    hmm.
    The holocaust began on the day that a Jew shot and killed a German foreign service officer.

    So who the fuck started the "holocaust" -- the dead German?
    But I digress --

    -- vom Rath dies the next day, Nov. 8 or 9, 1938

    -- Nov. 9 - 10, 1938 --- according to the USHolocaust Museum (which we all know would never, ever, pinky-swear never tell a lie),


    "On the night of November 9, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans' anger over the assassination of a German official in Paris at the hands of a Jewish teenager. In fact, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the pogroms. "
     
    Yea, that makes perfect sense doesn't it: Germany has just achieved British and French buy-in to a non-violent resolution of a long-simmering problem.

    Germany's economy is humming along, enjoying full employment in largely peace-time activities.

    For five long years Jews have been buffered from physical violence in Germany, by the actions and policies of the NSDAP.

    Louis Brandeis's Feb. 14, 1933 directive that "all Jews must leave Germany" is plodding along, although, because many German Jews are reluctant to leave their fatherland, the Irgun has created the Mossad el-Aliyeh bet, the Committee for Illegal Immigration, to "assist" German Jews out of German and across the blocked border into Palestine, where their wealth is sorely needed to keep the zionist project solvent. Gestapo is aware of the presence of Mossad el and even assists them.

    Against all this background, the only logical thing for Goebbels to do is to incite mob violence against Jews.

    Right.

    --

    So Americans and others should be forewarned: count of the Jews that King Kristol speaks for to carry out a false flag and attempt to provoke war against Iran, or even against USA.

    Just like they did in Munich in 1938.

    If I wanted to puncture your argument about Jews doing much the same in 1938 as you say they did in 2003 I would focus first on the immense difference between Jewish wealth and organised influence in 1938 compared to the 21st century with no effective limits on politically manipulative spending and a threatened Israel in which many American Jews have spent part of their youth to give a central theme and force to American Jewish lobbying organisations. (I say “threatened” because it is literally true, and because it is seen that way by friends of Israel, not because there is any short term likelihood that it will be overwhelmed).

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family, (I was about to add Frederick Lindemann but apparently he was only thought by some people to be Jewish) et al but the very fact that Jews like Trotsky were seen as major Bolshevik actors and, also, by contrast, Jews were pretty desperate in Germany and trying to save life and property rather than dominating anything suggests that their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now that they can focus so much singleminded persuasion backed by money and a fair degree of unity on the remaining pretender to superpower status.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Jacob Schiff financed wars to destroy the Russian monarchy.

    Samuel Untermyer, Rabbi Stephen Wise, buncha other rabbis and Jewish millionaires (in the 1920s and 1930s a million dollars was serious money) organized "international Jewry" to wage an "economic war on Germany . . .

    "Fourteen million Jews, dispersed throughout the world, have
    banded together as one man to declare war on the German
    persecutors of their co-religionists. " Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933
     
    (the thing is, according to Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," between a time shortly after Hitler's appointment as chancellor in Jan. 1933 and the assassination of the German foreign officer Ernst vom Rath and subsequent false-flag mob-violence in Germany in November 1938, "NSDAP quelled personal violence against Jews. . . . No Jew was sent to concentration camps until after the November 1938" provocation/violence.

    "Germany is a heavy borrower in foreign money markets, where
    Jewish influence is considerable. Continued anti-Semitism in
    Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on
    foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force
    anti-Jewish action to stop." Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933
     

    The Organisation of Jewish Youth in Britain are organizing
    demonstrations in London and the provinces during the weekend. Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933
     
    American Jewish Veterans of War organized a march down Fifth Avenue in New York City to protest "Hitlerite policies."

    Rabbi Stephen Wise observed in his Autobiography that German Jews were not opposed to NSDAP's policies and pleaded with American Jews like Brandeis, Frankfurter, Wise, Untermyer etc. to back off, but zionists had another agenda -- six weeks before the Jewish Declaration of War on Germany, Brandeis directed Stephen Wise that "All Jews Must Leave Germany . . . no Jew should remain in Germany."

    Wise's jaw dropped: "How the f&$k are we going to get 587,000 Jews out of Germany?"

    Brandeis responded, "That's your problem. Get 'er done."

    Wise set about scaring the crap out of German Jews to frighten them into taking their wealth and migrating to Palestine, which faced bankruptcy without that infusion. Wise wrote in his Autobiography that he stopped opening the many letters he received from Jews in Germany that pleaded with him to stop his zionist campaign to stir up shit in Germany; German Jews were among the group most opposed to zionism. German Jews did not feel threatened by the "persecution" that Wise and his gang bruited.



    Wise was also part of the multi-pronged campaign to engender hatred of Germans among the American public, using protest rallies as mentioned above, access to US government at the highest levels -- Henry Morgenthau, Jr. had frequent face-to-face access to FDR himself; they talked on the phone almost daily; Morgenthau was Secretary of Treasury (even tho he could scarcely count to 10 without stuttering) but expanded his reach into multiple other US government agencies. Morgenthau even defrauded the US Congress by inserting, AIPAC-like, language into the Lend Lease bills ostensibly to aid Britain, that went to Stalin's Bolshevik Russia.

    Wise and other used the media -- radio and newspapers, plus Hollywood levers available to him to demonize Germans and Germany in exactly the same manner as Jews are today using Jew-organized protest rallies, media, access at high places, etc. to demonize Iran. Just yesterday --

    THOUSANDS [of mostly Jewish people] PACK INTO TIMES SQUARE TO PROTEST IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL AP By VERENA DOBNIK Posted: 07/23/2015

    In 1933 Henry Morgenthau,Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, the Warburgs, Rothschild cutouts, had access to the highest levels of US decision-makers. Today those same roles are played by Brad Sherman, Chuck Schumer, Jack Lew, Stanley Fisher, etc etc etc.

    Jews started World War II, just the way they are trying to start World War III.
    Jews were primary beneficiaries of World War II. Jews plan to be the primary beneficiaries of World War III.

    The holocaust was not the utterly phony "planned, industrialized incineration of Jews," it was the planned, -- (Jews were a large part of the planning of firestorms to incinerate German civilians -- Erich Mendelsohn, "the Jewish architect," designed German Village; Jewish studios furnished German Village; Jewish pilots flew many of the US air raids that incinerated 131 German cities, destroying a thousand years of Germany's proud heritage (similar to the way Israeli-backed ISIS destroyed Syrian cultural treasures); Jews designed the atomic bomb and a Jewish pilot flew the Enola Gay in both of its atomic attacks on Japan -- the only people in the entire world to have designed and dropped an atom bomb on human beings have been Jews; Jews designed rehearsed, perfected the industrialized incineration of German civilians --

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPaCEFl-Zzg

    Jews are plotting and planning for the same kind of attack on Iranian civilians --

    This morning, July 23, 2015, Brad Sherman, Democratic representative from California, who is Jewish, appeared on C Span's Washington Journal to float the Democratic tactic to defeat the Iran deal without confronting the Obama-Kerry-UN Security Council power center: he suggests approving the deal for the duration of Obama's term, then working with a new administration "that is prepared to pull out of this deal," and demand that the deal be "renegotiated."

    Sherman concluded his C Span appearance with assurances that "nobody wants to go to war with Iran" but that "Iran should be held under the credible threat of use of military force;" such military action would "not involve US boots on the ground but would mean [US] bombing of Iranian nuclear sites and/or Iranian economic and industrial facilities."

    Just like the firebombing of Germany that Jews planned and carried out against German civilians, 1940-1945.
    , @Rurik

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family,
     
    End the Fed

    !
    , @guest
    "their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now "

    The biggest difference between then and now being, obviously, the Holocaust, which hangs like an axe on a frayed thread over the moral head of Western Man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. @Seraphim
    No, not at all. This is your invention. What I said is that you present the point of view of Israel.
    "Public diplomacy in Israel (also hasbara) (Hebrew: הַסְבָּרָה‎ hasbará, "explaining") refers to public relations efforts to disseminate abroad positive information or propaganda about the State of Israel and its actions" (Wikipedia).

    I think we must be at cross purposes. I have tried finding the Comment which justified my my asking whether “you” were now saying that the Iran deal suited Israel despite Netanyahu’s antics but couldn’t find it on this thread so looked at a couple of other threads and used “Find on this Page” and concluded in the end that I must have accidentally clicked on a button under one of your comments rather than the one that had struck me as odd. Sorry about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    It was implicit in your question.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. annamaria says:
    @Anonymous
    I am SHOCKED beyond all reason that Jews would strongly support Israel. This is simply SHOCKING information!! OMG!! Oh, the horror!!

    Bill Krystol does not simply support Israel: he wants to make the US into a servant (actually, a host, “an organism that harbors a parasite”) for Israel.
    “We want to be hard-hitting; we want to get into the debate and shake things up and make some points in a firm way.” And they did “shake the things up.” Krystol and his ilk work for a foreign country by meddling into the affairs of the US for the benefit of the foreign country and against the interests of the US.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. @Wizard of Oz
    If I wanted to puncture your argument about Jews doing much the same in 1938 as you say they did in 2003 I would focus first on the immense difference between Jewish wealth and organised influence in 1938 compared to the 21st century with no effective limits on politically manipulative spending and a threatened Israel in which many American Jews have spent part of their youth to give a central theme and force to American Jewish lobbying organisations. (I say "threatened" because it is literally true, and because it is seen that way by friends of Israel, not because there is any short term likelihood that it will be overwhelmed).

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family, (I was about to add Frederick Lindemann but apparently he was only thought by some people to be Jewish) et al but the very fact that Jews like Trotsky were seen as major Bolshevik actors and, also, by contrast, Jews were pretty desperate in Germany and trying to save life and property rather than dominating anything suggests that their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now that they can focus so much singleminded persuasion backed by money and a fair degree of unity on the remaining pretender to superpower status.

    Jacob Schiff financed wars to destroy the Russian monarchy.

    Samuel Untermyer, Rabbi Stephen Wise, buncha other rabbis and Jewish millionaires (in the 1920s and 1930s a million dollars was serious money) organized “international Jewry” to wage an “economic war on Germany . . .

    “Fourteen million Jews, dispersed throughout the world, have
    banded together as one man to declare war on the German
    persecutors of their co-religionists. ” Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933

    (the thing is, according to Richard Breitman and Allen Lichtman in “FDR and the Jews,” between a time shortly after Hitler’s appointment as chancellor in Jan. 1933 and the assassination of the German foreign officer Ernst vom Rath and subsequent false-flag mob-violence in Germany in November 1938, “NSDAP quelled personal violence against Jews. . . . No Jew was sent to concentration camps until after the November 1938″ provocation/violence.

    “Germany is a heavy borrower in foreign money markets, where
    Jewish influence is considerable. Continued anti-Semitism in
    Germany is likely to react seriously against her. A move is on
    foot on the part of Jewish financiers to exert pressure to force
    anti-Jewish action to stop.” Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933

    The Organisation of Jewish Youth in Britain are organizing
    demonstrations in London and the provinces during the weekend. Judea Declares War on Germany, March 24, 1933

    American Jewish Veterans of War organized a march down Fifth Avenue in New York City to protest “Hitlerite policies.”

    Rabbi Stephen Wise observed in his Autobiography that German Jews were not opposed to NSDAP’s policies and pleaded with American Jews like Brandeis, Frankfurter, Wise, Untermyer etc. to back off, but zionists had another agenda — six weeks before the Jewish Declaration of War on Germany, Brandeis directed Stephen Wise that “All Jews Must Leave Germany . . . no Jew should remain in Germany.”

    Wise’s jaw dropped: “How the f&$k are we going to get 587,000 Jews out of Germany?”

    Brandeis responded, “That’s your problem. Get ‘er done.”

    Wise set about scaring the crap out of German Jews to frighten them into taking their wealth and migrating to Palestine, which faced bankruptcy without that infusion. Wise wrote in his Autobiography that he stopped opening the many letters he received from Jews in Germany that pleaded with him to stop his zionist campaign to stir up shit in Germany; German Jews were among the group most opposed to zionism. German Jews did not feel threatened by the “persecution” that Wise and his gang bruited.

    Wise was also part of the multi-pronged campaign to engender hatred of Germans among the American public, using protest rallies as mentioned above, access to US government at the highest levels — Henry Morgenthau, Jr. had frequent face-to-face access to FDR himself; they talked on the phone almost daily; Morgenthau was Secretary of Treasury (even tho he could scarcely count to 10 without stuttering) but expanded his reach into multiple other US government agencies. Morgenthau even defrauded the US Congress by inserting, AIPAC-like, language into the Lend Lease bills ostensibly to aid Britain, that went to Stalin’s Bolshevik Russia.

    Wise and other used the media — radio and newspapers, plus Hollywood levers available to him to demonize Germans and Germany in exactly the same manner as Jews are today using Jew-organized protest rallies, media, access at high places, etc. to demonize Iran. Just yesterday –

    THOUSANDS [of mostly Jewish people] PACK INTO TIMES SQUARE TO PROTEST IRAN NUCLEAR DEAL AP By VERENA DOBNIK Posted: 07/23/2015

    In 1933 Henry Morgenthau,Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Brandeis, Bernard Baruch, Samuel Untermyer, the Warburgs, Rothschild cutouts, had access to the highest levels of US decision-makers. Today those same roles are played by Brad Sherman, Chuck Schumer, Jack Lew, Stanley Fisher, etc etc etc.

    Jews started World War II, just the way they are trying to start World War III.
    Jews were primary beneficiaries of World War II. Jews plan to be the primary beneficiaries of World War III.

    The holocaust was not the utterly phony “planned, industrialized incineration of Jews,” it was the planned, — (Jews were a large part of the planning of firestorms to incinerate German civilians — Erich Mendelsohn, “the Jewish architect,” designed German Village; Jewish studios furnished German Village; Jewish pilots flew many of the US air raids that incinerated 131 German cities, destroying a thousand years of Germany’s proud heritage (similar to the way Israeli-backed ISIS destroyed Syrian cultural treasures); Jews designed the atomic bomb and a Jewish pilot flew the Enola Gay in both of its atomic attacks on Japan — the only people in the entire world to have designed and dropped an atom bomb on human beings have been Jews; Jews designed rehearsed, perfected the industrialized incineration of German civilians –

    Jews are plotting and planning for the same kind of attack on Iranian civilians –

    This morning, July 23, 2015, Brad Sherman, Democratic representative from California, who is Jewish, appeared on C Span’s Washington Journal to float the Democratic tactic to defeat the Iran deal without confronting the Obama-Kerry-UN Security Council power center: he suggests approving the deal for the duration of Obama’s term, then working with a new administration “that is prepared to pull out of this deal,” and demand that the deal be “renegotiated.”

    Sherman concluded his C Span appearance with assurances that “nobody wants to go to war with Iran” but that “Iran should be held under the credible threat of use of military force;” such military action would “not involve US boots on the ground but would mean [US] bombing of Iranian nuclear sites and/or Iranian economic and industrial facilities.”

    Just like the firebombing of Germany that Jews planned and carried out against German civilians, 1940-1945.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Anonymous
    I am SHOCKED beyond all reason that Jews would strongly support Israel. This is simply SHOCKING information!! OMG!! Oh, the horror!!

    If American Jews feel so strongly about Israel, they should move there. Israel means nothing to me, and the more I see American Jews forcing American loyalty to Israel by hook or crook, the more I despise Israel and dislike Jews.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. annamaria says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Inasmuch as the Iran deal is clearly, evidently, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously not the same as the Munich Agreement, and does not in any way, shape or form pose an existential threat to the world's biggest diaper-clad statish-entity except in their fevered psycho-paranoia, doesn't that make you stop and think that maybe the original Munich pact, to which major European powers agreed but which Jews opposed, was likewise not an existential threat to Jews except in their fevered dirty diaper-clad psycho-paranoia?

    Isn't it quite the coincidence that

    -- the Munich Agreement was affirmed by Britain, France and Germany Sept. 29, 1938

    -- October 11, 1938, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. meets with FDR to implement plans for seven bomber manufacturing plants in USA

    -- Nov. 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan enters the German embassy in Paris where he shoots German foreign service officer Ernst vom Rath.
    check out the title of this book about Grynszpan's actions: The Day the Holocaust Began: The Odyssey of Herschel Grynszpan.

    hmm.
    The holocaust began on the day that a Jew shot and killed a German foreign service officer.

    So who the fuck started the "holocaust" -- the dead German?
    But I digress --

    -- vom Rath dies the next day, Nov. 8 or 9, 1938

    -- Nov. 9 - 10, 1938 --- according to the USHolocaust Museum (which we all know would never, ever, pinky-swear never tell a lie),


    "On the night of November 9, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans' anger over the assassination of a German official in Paris at the hands of a Jewish teenager. In fact, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the pogroms. "
     
    Yea, that makes perfect sense doesn't it: Germany has just achieved British and French buy-in to a non-violent resolution of a long-simmering problem.

    Germany's economy is humming along, enjoying full employment in largely peace-time activities.

    For five long years Jews have been buffered from physical violence in Germany, by the actions and policies of the NSDAP.

    Louis Brandeis's Feb. 14, 1933 directive that "all Jews must leave Germany" is plodding along, although, because many German Jews are reluctant to leave their fatherland, the Irgun has created the Mossad el-Aliyeh bet, the Committee for Illegal Immigration, to "assist" German Jews out of German and across the blocked border into Palestine, where their wealth is sorely needed to keep the zionist project solvent. Gestapo is aware of the presence of Mossad el and even assists them.

    Against all this background, the only logical thing for Goebbels to do is to incite mob violence against Jews.

    Right.

    --

    So Americans and others should be forewarned: count of the Jews that King Kristol speaks for to carry out a false flag and attempt to provoke war against Iran, or even against USA.

    Just like they did in Munich in 1938.

    Similar to the US history of AIPAC’ blackmailing and bribing the US Congress, the history of Israeli war crimes in Gaza Ghetto unveils a habit of blackmailing and snooty disregard towards the law. Israelis simply cannot help themselves but use their preferred ways of operation:
    “Public relations campaigns based on self-defense have been critical to Israeli officials avoiding accountability after each of the six major assaults on Gaza since Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza in 2005. Notwithstanding the reports of war crimes committed by Israeli forces, the remarkable success of those self-defense based public relations campaigns continued to provide Israeli officials with impunity: the freedom to strike militarily again.
    That impunity may come to an end if the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decides to open an investigation into the situation in Palestine and prosecutions follow. However, immediately after the Prosecutor announced that she was launching a “preliminary examination” on January 16, 2015, Netanyahu launched a multi-pronged “public diplomacy campaign to discredit the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to start an inquiry into what the Palestinians call Israeli ‘war crimes’ in the disputed territories.” The public diplomacy campaign is based entirely on Israel’s claim that it acted in self-defense. The Israeli campaign also included a threat to disregard the decision of the court, a threat to the funding of the court, and the announcement that Israel was freezing transfer of more than $100 million a month in taxes Israel collects for the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for the State of Palestine joining the ICC and requesting the ICC inquiry.”
    Who would expect such profound immorality from the “most moral” tribe?

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/wrong-on-the-facts-wrong-on-the-law-israelis-false-claims-of-self-defense-in-gaza-war/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
    The criminal, racist Zionist entity is beyond the pale. And so is the U.S. Government's subservience to it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. KA says:

    : “Goldberg and the Amalekites”, by Daniel Luban, lobeLog.com, 17 May 2009 –

    Amalekite – means those designated should be destroyed,not merely wiped off .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  50. Seraphim says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    I think we must be at cross purposes. I have tried finding the Comment which justified my my asking whether "you" were now saying that the Iran deal suited Israel despite Netanyahu's antics but couldn't find it on this thread so looked at a couple of other threads and used "Find on this Page" and concluded in the end that I must have accidentally clicked on a button under one of your comments rather than the one that had struck me as odd. Sorry about that.

    It was implicit in your question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. Rurik says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Inasmuch as the Iran deal is clearly, evidently, plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face obviously not the same as the Munich Agreement, and does not in any way, shape or form pose an existential threat to the world's biggest diaper-clad statish-entity except in their fevered psycho-paranoia, doesn't that make you stop and think that maybe the original Munich pact, to which major European powers agreed but which Jews opposed, was likewise not an existential threat to Jews except in their fevered dirty diaper-clad psycho-paranoia?

    Isn't it quite the coincidence that

    -- the Munich Agreement was affirmed by Britain, France and Germany Sept. 29, 1938

    -- October 11, 1938, Henry Morgenthau, Jr. meets with FDR to implement plans for seven bomber manufacturing plants in USA

    -- Nov. 7, 1938 Herschel Grynszpan enters the German embassy in Paris where he shoots German foreign service officer Ernst vom Rath.
    check out the title of this book about Grynszpan's actions: The Day the Holocaust Began: The Odyssey of Herschel Grynszpan.

    hmm.
    The holocaust began on the day that a Jew shot and killed a German foreign service officer.

    So who the fuck started the "holocaust" -- the dead German?
    But I digress --

    -- vom Rath dies the next day, Nov. 8 or 9, 1938

    -- Nov. 9 - 10, 1938 --- according to the USHolocaust Museum (which we all know would never, ever, pinky-swear never tell a lie),


    "On the night of November 9, 1938, violence against Jews broke out across the Reich. It appeared to be unplanned, set off by Germans' anger over the assassination of a German official in Paris at the hands of a Jewish teenager. In fact, German propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels and other Nazis carefully organized the pogroms. "
     
    Yea, that makes perfect sense doesn't it: Germany has just achieved British and French buy-in to a non-violent resolution of a long-simmering problem.

    Germany's economy is humming along, enjoying full employment in largely peace-time activities.

    For five long years Jews have been buffered from physical violence in Germany, by the actions and policies of the NSDAP.

    Louis Brandeis's Feb. 14, 1933 directive that "all Jews must leave Germany" is plodding along, although, because many German Jews are reluctant to leave their fatherland, the Irgun has created the Mossad el-Aliyeh bet, the Committee for Illegal Immigration, to "assist" German Jews out of German and across the blocked border into Palestine, where their wealth is sorely needed to keep the zionist project solvent. Gestapo is aware of the presence of Mossad el and even assists them.

    Against all this background, the only logical thing for Goebbels to do is to incite mob violence against Jews.

    Right.

    --

    So Americans and others should be forewarned: count of the Jews that King Kristol speaks for to carry out a false flag and attempt to provoke war against Iran, or even against USA.

    Just like they did in Munich in 1938.

    End the Fed

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Rurik says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    If I wanted to puncture your argument about Jews doing much the same in 1938 as you say they did in 2003 I would focus first on the immense difference between Jewish wealth and organised influence in 1938 compared to the 21st century with no effective limits on politically manipulative spending and a threatened Israel in which many American Jews have spent part of their youth to give a central theme and force to American Jewish lobbying organisations. (I say "threatened" because it is literally true, and because it is seen that way by friends of Israel, not because there is any short term likelihood that it will be overwhelmed).

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family, (I was about to add Frederick Lindemann but apparently he was only thought by some people to be Jewish) et al but the very fact that Jews like Trotsky were seen as major Bolshevik actors and, also, by contrast, Jews were pretty desperate in Germany and trying to save life and property rather than dominating anything suggests that their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now that they can focus so much singleminded persuasion backed by money and a fair degree of unity on the remaining pretender to superpower status.

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family,

    End the Fed

    !

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. Ivan says:
    @annamaria
    Note that one of the leading warmongering bloviators, David Brooks, preferred his son serving in Israeli Army instead of defending the US.
    All Israel-firsters look upon the US as a host to use, and eventually devour, by their beloved State of "Chosen People." Never mind that Israel is populated, to a large extend, by the former Soviets of questionable loyalty; the majority of those emigrated to Israel from the former USSR are economic migrants dreaming about living in Canada or the US.

    Dual citizenship is a recipe for unclear thinking and ultimately a stupid life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    My links below was ment for you. You may like it
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Ivan says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    George Will participated in the July 1979 Jerusalem Conference hosted by Benzion and Benjamin Netanyahu where their blueprint for the global war on terror was unfurled.

    Iran was still part of Israel's periphery doctrine in July 1979; the focus of the Milikovsky duo's wrath at that time was Arafat and the PLO.

    Different year
    different enemy
    what would zionists do with an existential threat?

    George F Will sounds like a man who has not learned a single new thing in the 30 or 40 years since President Carter’s time. He can lay claim to being the Rip Van Winkle of American columnists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Will and Richard Perle live a few doors from each other on a posh Chevy Chase boulevard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Ivan
    George F Will sounds like a man who has not learned a single new thing in the 30 or 40 years since President Carter's time. He can lay claim to being the Rip Van Winkle of American columnists.

    Will and Richard Perle live a few doors from each other on a posh Chevy Chase boulevard.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. Realist says:
    @Clarice
    Neocons are nutty. So is Ron Paul and his cultish followers. Memo to nutjob Paul worshippers: Libertarianism will only work in ethnically homogenous societies.

    “Libertarianism will only work in ethnically homogenous (sic) societies.”

    The same can be said about Democracy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. J1234 says:

    I’m afraid Mr. Kristol’s primary motivation is, “Israel first.” He may have some valid points, but his thinking is fatally clouded by his obsession.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Kerry: If Congress Kills Iran Deal, World Will Blame Israel
    Engages in 'Intense Exchange' With US Jewish Leaders
    by Jason Ditz, July 24, 2015

    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/24/kerry-if-congress-kills-iran-deal-world-will-blame-israel/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. @annamaria
    Similar to the US history of AIPAC' blackmailing and bribing the US Congress, the history of Israeli war crimes in Gaza Ghetto unveils a habit of blackmailing and snooty disregard towards the law. Israelis simply cannot help themselves but use their preferred ways of operation:
    "Public relations campaigns based on self-defense have been critical to Israeli officials avoiding accountability after each of the six major assaults on Gaza since Israel withdrew its settlers from Gaza in 2005. Notwithstanding the reports of war crimes committed by Israeli forces, the remarkable success of those self-defense based public relations campaigns continued to provide Israeli officials with impunity: the freedom to strike militarily again.
    That impunity may come to an end if the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) decides to open an investigation into the situation in Palestine and prosecutions follow. However, immediately after the Prosecutor announced that she was launching a “preliminary examination” on January 16, 2015, Netanyahu launched a multi-pronged “public diplomacy campaign to discredit the legitimacy of the International Criminal Court’s (ICC) recent decision to start an inquiry into what the Palestinians call Israeli ‘war crimes’ in the disputed territories.” The public diplomacy campaign is based entirely on Israel’s claim that it acted in self-defense. The Israeli campaign also included a threat to disregard the decision of the court, a threat to the funding of the court, and the announcement that Israel was freezing transfer of more than $100 million a month in taxes Israel collects for the Palestinian Authority in retaliation for the State of Palestine joining the ICC and requesting the ICC inquiry."
    Who would expect such profound immorality from the "most moral" tribe?
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/23/wrong-on-the-facts-wrong-on-the-law-israelis-false-claims-of-self-defense-in-gaza-war/

    The criminal, racist Zionist entity is beyond the pale. And so is the U.S. Government’s subservience to it.

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


    Another American Zionist showed Neff his Israeli passport alongside his U.S. one. Neff was taken aback; it had been illegal for Americans to hold dual citizenship. The man proudly informed him that the policy had been changed in 1967 by the Supreme Court, adding with emphasis that the case had been brought by an Israeli and the swing vote was cast by Abe Fortas.

    In later researching Fortas, Neff discovered that Fortas was a Zionist and that among his first thoughts when he left the Supreme Court had been to visit Israel. “There was nothing wrong with that,” Neff wrote, “but it did indicate an attachment of such personal importance that he should have recused himself from the dual citizenship case.” This ruling, Neff wrote, “had destroyed a 200-year tradition.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/07/08/donald-neff-a-journalist-erased-from-history-for-reporting-on-palestine/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  60. KA says:
    @Ivan
    Dual citizenship is a recipe for unclear thinking and ultimately a stupid life.

    My links below was ment for you. You may like it

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    KA --

    I appreciated the links to Alison Weir's article about Donald Neff.

    thanks.
    , @Ivan
    Thank you for the links, the more one reads of journalists airbrushed out of history, one has to wonder about the degree of internal censorship performed by the so-called Fourth Estate in the US. At least with Pravda we know we are being fed propaganda and be on our guard accordingly.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. KA says:
    @J1234
    I'm afraid Mr. Kristol's primary motivation is, "Israel first." He may have some valid points, but his thinking is fatally clouded by his obsession.

    Kerry: If Congress Kills Iran Deal, World Will Blame Israel
    Engages in ‘Intense Exchange’ With US Jewish Leaders
    by Jason Ditz, July 24, 2015

    http://news.antiwar.com/2015/07/24/kerry-if-congress-kills-iran-deal-world-will-blame-israel/

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

    The Deal is an Existential threat to Kristol . He has to look for a new job in Adelson’s casino .

    ” To get these gains, neither the United States nor its negotiating partners nor Iran’s regional rivals have not had to give up anything that involves any significant risks to themselves. As former International Atomic Energy Agency chief Hans Blix has put it, in return for all the far-reaching commitments Iran has made, the only commitment our side has had to make is to “drop punishment”.

    An anonymous former AIPAC official comments, “Iran has been the group’s raison d’être for two decades and it doesn’t know what else to do; its troops are trained to attack Iran and the lobby can’t afford to admit failure lest it lose supporters.” The former official continues, “Iran has been an enormously lucrative fundraiser for AIPAC; just look at what they’re spending on this campaign alone. It needs to keep the issue alive for institutional imperatives.”

    http://www.lobelog.com/the-sources-of-opposition-to-the-iran-agreement/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. @KA
    My links below was ment for you. You may like it

    KA –

    I appreciated the links to Alison Weir’s article about Donald Neff.

    thanks.

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

    Better still is this source : AIPAC itself

    It ‘s all about MONEY

    “For some observers, [AIPAC’s] opposition [to the JPOA] is difficult to understand, particularly because key members of the Israeli national security establishment have conspicuously declined to join Netanyahu in denouncing the Geneva deal.
    “I’m amazed that they’ve taken it this far,” said Keith Weissman, a former AIPAC specialist on Iran. “Bottom line is that if the Iranians comply with the terms of the deal – which it seems like they are doing so far, despite some internal resistance – they are further from breakout capacity [to produce a nuclear weapon] than they were before the deal.”
    But Douglas Bloomfield, a former senior AIPAC executive, suggested the motivation may be of a more practical nature. “It’s good for business,” he told IPS. “AIPAC has spent the last 20 years very, very effectively making a strong case against Iran, and Iran has been a great asset to them.”
    “They want to show they’re not going to give up on this; they’ve built a huge financial and political base on it. …Most of the Jewish groups and all of Congress have been on auto-pilot on Iran; nobody ever thought you might actually get a deal… In AIPAC’s case, they’re terrified they’re going to lose their major fund-raising appeal.”

    http://www.lobelog.com/follow-up-on-aipac-and-iran-deal/

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/12/iran-sanctions-bill-big-test-israel-lobby-power/

    KRUTHAMMER,KRISTOL and few others have to pay big bills so will AIPAC

    Nothing unusual. ADL’s FOXMAN did confirm this in response to a question that he works for the big donors .

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    AIPAC has painted itself into a lose-lose corner:

    If Congress rejects the Deal, AIPAC/Israel/Jews will be blamed.

    If Congress approves the Deal, AIPAC will be shown to have lost its grip on Congress.

    Either way is a Win for the American people.

    SPEND AIPAC SPEND.

    Rant, Kristol, Rant.

    Dig, Bibi, Dig.
    a hole big enough for your grave.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @KA
    Better still is this source : AIPAC itself

    It 's all about MONEY


    "For some observers, [AIPAC’s] opposition [to the JPOA] is difficult to understand, particularly because key members of the Israeli national security establishment have conspicuously declined to join Netanyahu in denouncing the Geneva deal.
    “I’m amazed that they’ve taken it this far,” said Keith Weissman, a former AIPAC specialist on Iran. “Bottom line is that if the Iranians comply with the terms of the deal – which it seems like they are doing so far, despite some internal resistance – they are further from breakout capacity [to produce a nuclear weapon] than they were before the deal.”
    But Douglas Bloomfield, a former senior AIPAC executive, suggested the motivation may be of a more practical nature. “It’s good for business,” he told IPS. “AIPAC has spent the last 20 years very, very effectively making a strong case against Iran, and Iran has been a great asset to them.”
    “They want to show they’re not going to give up on this; they’ve built a huge financial and political base on it. …Most of the Jewish groups and all of Congress have been on auto-pilot on Iran; nobody ever thought you might actually get a deal… In AIPAC’s case, they’re terrified they’re going to lose their major fund-raising appeal.”

    http://www.lobelog.com/follow-up-on-aipac-and-iran-deal/

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/12/iran-sanctions-bill-big-test-israel-lobby-power/

    KRUTHAMMER,KRISTOL and few others have to pay big bills so will AIPAC

    Nothing unusual. ADL's FOXMAN did confirm this in response to a question that he works for the big donors .

    AIPAC has painted itself into a lose-lose corner:

    If Congress rejects the Deal, AIPAC/Israel/Jews will be blamed.

    If Congress approves the Deal, AIPAC will be shown to have lost its grip on Congress.

    Either way is a Win for the American people.

    SPEND AIPAC SPEND.

    Rant, Kristol, Rant.

    Dig, Bibi, Dig.
    a hole big enough for your grave.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Ivan says:
    @KA
    My links below was ment for you. You may like it

    Thank you for the links, the more one reads of journalists airbrushed out of history, one has to wonder about the degree of internal censorship performed by the so-called Fourth Estate in the US. At least with Pravda we know we are being fed propaganda and be on our guard accordingly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. guest says:
    @Mulegino1
    The black umbrella Munich Brigade is back at it. Every year is 1939. Every leader that the Empire doesn't like is Hitler. Every country, region, municipality or state they want to get control over is embattled Czechoslovakia. Everyone who calls for moderation and prudence is Neville Chamberlain.

    You'd figure that after 76 years they could be a little creative and find another historical analogy - but remember, our pseudo-elites are not particularly bright or creative. Our own first rate intellectuals and savants - many of them featured here at Unz - are ignored by the mainstream media because they want sophomoric and mediocre shills like Kristol, Krauthammer, George Will, inter alia, to churn out utterly predictable kosher narratives; God forbid the public be enlightened.

    The Judeo-American way punishes dissent in the intellectual class; true threats like Francis Parker Yokey or Ezra Pound are utterly marginalized. In the case of Pound, America locked up one of the most brilliant literary figures in its history in a cage; in a way, this was symbolic of the intellectual imprisonment of the American mind by the Jewish super ego imposed upon it.

    “Every leader that the Empire doesn’t like is Hitler.”

    And not the real Hitler, but the comic book Hitler, who tried to conquer the world. The same Hitler who among nations with modern armies only managed to conquer France. (To be fair, he might’ve beat Britain or Russia one on one). Why this Hitler? Because pretending doing anything but what you want to do anyway will result in all of us dying is easier than thinking about the world as it actually is.

    Churchill got to be the Man of the Century by sticking his fingers in his ears, chanting “La-la-la, I’m not listening!” and starring in his own bloody romance of good and evil. The result was worse than what he started out with, as he said in his own words, and he didn’t get a damn thing he wanted (Anglo-American world domination, a balance of power on the European continent, preservation of the empire, his side to get its way domestically, etc.) It’s a tragic tale that history pretends was the greatest victory ever for reasons I can’t fathom, except: 1). to admit otherwise would jeopardize the ongoing foreign policy and world power structure, and 2). we can forever pretend to know things would’ve been worse, somehow. As I said, it’s always easier to pretend things are simple and that there’s no choice but to do what you’ve already decided to do.

    There’s also the Holocaust, which retroactively seems to make WWII beyond criticism, as slavery did our Civil War. But without the western allies fighting Hitler the Holocaust probably wouldn’t have been possible, at least not the way we think it happened. Also, the way the allies fought, and especially the “unconditional surrender” policy, made it much, much worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mulegino1
    The myth of the "Good War" is the foundation of post-war American hegemony in Europe and the west.

    The myth of the "Holocaust" is the foundation for the attempted domination of the world by Atlanticist-Zionism.
    , @Seraphim
    @Churchill got to be the Man of the Century

    But he really was. He is behind all the great catastrophes of the the 20th century, the real warmonger and war-criminal who saw the seeds of all future catastrophes the World inherited.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Mulegino1 says:
    @guest
    "Every leader that the Empire doesn’t like is Hitler."

    And not the real Hitler, but the comic book Hitler, who tried to conquer the world. The same Hitler who among nations with modern armies only managed to conquer France. (To be fair, he might've beat Britain or Russia one on one). Why this Hitler? Because pretending doing anything but what you want to do anyway will result in all of us dying is easier than thinking about the world as it actually is.

    Churchill got to be the Man of the Century by sticking his fingers in his ears, chanting "La-la-la, I'm not listening!" and starring in his own bloody romance of good and evil. The result was worse than what he started out with, as he said in his own words, and he didn't get a damn thing he wanted (Anglo-American world domination, a balance of power on the European continent, preservation of the empire, his side to get its way domestically, etc.) It's a tragic tale that history pretends was the greatest victory ever for reasons I can't fathom, except: 1). to admit otherwise would jeopardize the ongoing foreign policy and world power structure, and 2). we can forever pretend to know things would've been worse, somehow. As I said, it's always easier to pretend things are simple and that there's no choice but to do what you've already decided to do.

    There's also the Holocaust, which retroactively seems to make WWII beyond criticism, as slavery did our Civil War. But without the western allies fighting Hitler the Holocaust probably wouldn't have been possible, at least not the way we think it happened. Also, the way the allies fought, and especially the "unconditional surrender" policy, made it much, much worse.

    The myth of the “Good War” is the foundation of post-war American hegemony in Europe and the west.

    The myth of the “Holocaust” is the foundation for the attempted domination of the world by Atlanticist-Zionism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. guest says:
    @Wizard of Oz
    If I wanted to puncture your argument about Jews doing much the same in 1938 as you say they did in 2003 I would focus first on the immense difference between Jewish wealth and organised influence in 1938 compared to the 21st century with no effective limits on politically manipulative spending and a threatened Israel in which many American Jews have spent part of their youth to give a central theme and force to American Jewish lobbying organisations. (I say "threatened" because it is literally true, and because it is seen that way by friends of Israel, not because there is any short term likelihood that it will be overwhelmed).

    It is true that the views of one Jew were probably worth as much as those of five goyim if one judges by the apparent influence of Waizman, Brandeis, Frankfurter, Morgenthau, the Rothschild family, (I was about to add Frederick Lindemann but apparently he was only thought by some people to be Jewish) et al but the very fact that Jews like Trotsky were seen as major Bolshevik actors and, also, by contrast, Jews were pretty desperate in Germany and trying to save life and property rather than dominating anything suggests that their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now that they can focus so much singleminded persuasion backed by money and a fair degree of unity on the remaining pretender to superpower status.

    “their capacity to influence world events were nothing like as great then as it is now ”

    The biggest difference between then and now being, obviously, the Holocaust, which hangs like an axe on a frayed thread over the moral head of Western Man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. Seraphim says:
    @guest
    "Every leader that the Empire doesn’t like is Hitler."

    And not the real Hitler, but the comic book Hitler, who tried to conquer the world. The same Hitler who among nations with modern armies only managed to conquer France. (To be fair, he might've beat Britain or Russia one on one). Why this Hitler? Because pretending doing anything but what you want to do anyway will result in all of us dying is easier than thinking about the world as it actually is.

    Churchill got to be the Man of the Century by sticking his fingers in his ears, chanting "La-la-la, I'm not listening!" and starring in his own bloody romance of good and evil. The result was worse than what he started out with, as he said in his own words, and he didn't get a damn thing he wanted (Anglo-American world domination, a balance of power on the European continent, preservation of the empire, his side to get its way domestically, etc.) It's a tragic tale that history pretends was the greatest victory ever for reasons I can't fathom, except: 1). to admit otherwise would jeopardize the ongoing foreign policy and world power structure, and 2). we can forever pretend to know things would've been worse, somehow. As I said, it's always easier to pretend things are simple and that there's no choice but to do what you've already decided to do.

    There's also the Holocaust, which retroactively seems to make WWII beyond criticism, as slavery did our Civil War. But without the western allies fighting Hitler the Holocaust probably wouldn't have been possible, at least not the way we think it happened. Also, the way the allies fought, and especially the "unconditional surrender" policy, made it much, much worse.

    @Churchill got to be the Man of the Century

    But he really was. He is behind all the great catastrophes of the the 20th century, the real warmonger and war-criminal who saw the seeds of all future catastrophes the World inherited.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. Priss Factor [AKA "The Priss Factory"] says:

    Munich. LOL.

    We know this is all just shtick.

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

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Talk TV sensationalists and axe-grinding ideologues have fallen for a myth of immigrant lawlessness.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?