You’re just not a wartime consigliere, Barry. Though don’t tell her I said so, neither is Hillary.
Only a day after we watched pundits and commentators bend over backwards and do cartwheels to inform us the events in Sydney were not about Islam but about one deranged individual, the mass murder of school children in Peshawar occurred, an act reminiscent of Pol Pot at his worst with a soupçon of Dr. Mengele. Our considerate and sophisticated State Department rushed in to reassure us that this was the work of the Pakistani Taliban, not the Afghani Taliban with whom the Department is trying to make some sort of deal as the U.S. troops exit that country. Never mind that these Taliban said this was only a “trailer” and that there was more to come, or as our buddy Richard Fernandez put it so succinctly, “Who cares about mere beheadings anymore? That’s so yesterday.”
No, the Department has moved on to its more important work, badgering Israel. In that they are joined by the Europeans, who are falling all over themselves to recognize a Palestinian state in the Security Council. The U.S. normally vetoes this nonsense, but not our John Kerry. He is playing it coy, saying he hasn’t seen the details yet. Or maybe he wants to wait to see if the North Koreans blow up our movie theaters first. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party is in an orgy of recrimination for so-called torture techniques they all signed on to in the first place. It’s a nightmare. U.S. foreign policy in the Obama-Clinton-Kerry years has turned into a bad revival of The Rocky Horror Show. We might as well get it over with and hand our country to the Taliban and ISIS. After all, they’re not Islamic. Our president told us. So they’ll be tolerant of other religions, even atheists. Yes, they have some problems with women, but our feminists will set them to rights, after they get rid of Hirsi Ali.
Oh, wait a minute. The Taliban and ISIS are Sunnis. That wouldn’t be fair — especially with all the time we’ve spent negotiating with the nice Iranians who are Shiites, as we know. We have to give them something. I know they get a bomb, but that’s not territory. That’s just potential territory, after the fallout clears. Maybe we should also give them Chicago. They have the kind of draconian laws that might cut down on the Windy City’s murder rate. And they actually do torture there — the real kind. Forget waterboarding. That’s for kindergarteners in Iran. Google Evin Prison. And while we’re at it, we can send Dianne Feinstein over there. She can do a report.
Yes, we’ve got a great foreign policy in this country. Just ask Putin and Medvedev. They’ll be glad you did because they’re kind of gloomy these days over the price of oil. But never mind, they’ll find a way back. Maybe they’ll take a few Baltic states — all those good seaports.
Sounds bad, huh? Tough times ahead for good old Western Civ. Well, I wouldn’t worry about it. They’re not teaching that stuff in our schools anymore, so nobody knows what it is.
Public sector jobs don't count. Rent-seeking jobs don't count. Jobs that result from grants/subsidies don't count.
The only jobs that count - the only REAL jobs - are private sector ones producing real stuff.
What percentage of "growth" is printing of money 24/7 vs actual production of wealth? If you think money and wealth are the same, you need some remedial education, or perhaps to be educated for the first time, who knows.
Therefore, your comment is nought but lies.
To which I would add, even if you believe this tripe you write, how do you explain the fact that the labor participation rate is at its lowest level since Carter was in office?
Unresolved cognitive dissonance is so tacky................
2006 - Republicans receive a solid rebuke from American Voters.
2010 - Democrats receive a solid rebuke from American Voters.
2014 - Democrats receive a solid rebuke from American Voters.
Doesn't it make sense to have a change in Prime Ministers, rather than what happened.
Therefore, why shouldn't the US apply to enter the Commonwealth, because how the US is governed does more harm than good, within the US, and outside of the US.
Sony found out that pissing on a dictator is tooooopid. I wonder if CNN and FOX are smart enough to figure it out. Every American corporation is just as vulnerable as Sony. So expect glowing accolades for Kim from the Media. Or else.
Until the craven POTUS is sent packing, expect American foreign policy to be affected by any dictator with a net connection and a few billion to hire talent.
Don't fear the Biden.
----------------------> WWW.jobs700.COM
WWII would not have occurred if the US had not gotten involved in WWI. The Germans might have won but probably would gotten tired of the French in due time - and monarchies in general. Hitler would have stayed in the army where he had found a place of belonging.
The US did not establish itself as the leader of the free world through war. We did that by being known as a land of individual liberty and have the waves of immigrants to prove it. Not going to war elsewhere is not isolationism. The US has never been isolated. By our going to foreign soil to fight wars we just perpetuate imperialism under the pretense of democracy.
I can't write a book here to substantiate this point of view but let's look at what is right before us. The US spent how much money and blood in Iraq for how many years thinking we could change the Arab world. The moment we pulled out the Arab world went back to doing what they've done to each other for over a millenium. But, by golly, we're going to send troops right back in to give it another go.
Ironically, more substantive and possibly lasting changes have come via Arab desire for self determination, aka, the "Arab spring". Where has Jordan been in all this? Don't know? My point exactly. What has been noticeably absent is US influence.
The US needs to get out and stay out and the Middle East will sort itself out. I have no doubt either that Israel will NOT suffer. They know how to take care of themselves without our "help" (read: interference).
And if Europe gets all tied in knots again. Let'em. Fool me once...
If the USA had stasyed out of WW1, Germany would have still lost. They could have held out 'till 1925 at best. Their Iron ore came from Sweden. The supply line had been mostly cut by English subs. No iron equals no steel. No steel means no weapons. Plus by 1919, they were scraping the bottom of the barrel for warm bodies. Your theory makes no sense. It never has.
That might also have tempered the European tendency to colonize which is why they were trying to carve up China along with the US. Maybe you missed my anti-imperialism sentiment.
"The Japanese had no choice but to fight the USA." How simplistic. Much of what fueled Japan's war mentality was the European and US attitudes of domination in the Far East which long preceded sanctions. I can't rewrite history but it is easy to see options other than war can produce different results.
Am I being too pollyanna here? I don't know. It seems Germany is accomplishing what Hitler only dreamed of - without firing a shot. In the Far East, China is indisputably the big dog. Again, without war while embracing capitalism.
If we are to learn from history we need to analyze it carefully.
As for bringing about the end of the First World War, what Foch and Senator Henry Cabot Lodge wanted was over-ruled, and the needless war came about at the end of the 20 year armistice that Foch referred to.
Given Foch's role at the end of the First World War was similar to Ike's, 25 years later, more light needs to shine on his soldiering, so that we have alternatives to what others say "it seemed to be a good idea at the time".
An empire seeking Germany had not existed before the late nineteenth century when, under Bismarck's influence, Germany was united. The German quest for lebensraum lasted only from the time of Bismarck until the defeat of Hitler. It was an intense but short lived adventure that had no time to mature into something with lasting potential.
The Islamic adventure, OTOH, has lasted about six times the lifetime of the US and is a far more dangerous enemy than German expansionism ever was. The idea that the Arab world just needs "to sort itself out" is incredibly naive. Do you think "the Arab world" will stop funding Islamic fundamentalism in America once we have demonstrated that we "respect" them and will "pull out" where they demand it. Are you unaware that Islam formally considers the whole world to be its object?
To ignore Islamic resurgence is to live in great peril. One question, just off the top of my head: When/if Europe becomes Islamic, what happens to all the nukes? Will that be the time to start interfering and cease being isolationist? What would be different, under your philosophy?
Your definition of "isolationist" is the paradigmatic excuse for going to war. The reality is that the US has never been isolated from taking in refugees from other lands. (Spare me the hiccups in this general policy historically.) As for the Islamification of Europe, it's the expected result of centuries of colonizing. They can't turn back the clock.
The fact is the Middle East has had more wars than you can list without European or US involvement. By going to the Middle East we've have on a global scale interrupted a family feud; at which point they join together to attack the interloper. I'm simply suggesting we let them go back to their feuding. They'll stop in due time. They always do for a season.
The Arabs who've wanted to step out of the family feud have, for the most part, done so already. It is the West's continued military involvement in the "homeland" that gives opportunity to stir the sons and grandsons to radicalism elsewhere.
As for the goal of world domination, when did that become part of Islamic teaching? Before or after multiple attempts of the West to dominate the Arab world? And how did it work out for them the first time they tried to conquer Europe? How has it worked out for ANYONE who has tried to conquer the world? That's a straw man argument for offensive war. As is the mention of nuclear weapons.
By the way, whatever disgust I have for Wilson lying to the American people and whatever contempt I have for the industrialists who used WWI as an opportunity to gain wealth will not cause me to dishonor the doughboys who volunteered and went to Europe out of feelings of duty and patriotism. They did not do it for "self interest".
I wasn't aware that I had proposed an attack.
"What you suggest sounds a bit like Germany 1930s in its implementation."
It's Islam that's for killing Jews, not me ... but what did I suggest?
"Your definition of "isolationist" is the paradigmatic excuse for going to war."
I wasn't aware that I had defined anything. BTW, how would a definition be a reason? You are a little incoherent.
The reality is that the US has never been isolated from taking in refugees from other lands.
Is this supposed to be a poetic segue on "isolationist"?
"They can't turn back the clock."
It is written, is it? Say, you wouldn't be a muzzie would you?
"The fact is the Middle East has had more wars than you can list without European or US involvement."
Sure, and that Pluto is no longer a planet is equally relevant.
"By going to the Middle East we've have on a global scale interrupted a family feud; at which point they join together to attack the interloper. I'm simply suggesting we let them go back to their feuding. They'll stop in due time. They always do for a season."
That's your opinion.
"The Arabs who've wanted to step out of the family feud have, for the most part, done so already."
You know this how? You are an Arab?
"It is the West's continued military involvement in the "homeland" that gives opportunity to stir the sons and grandsons to radicalism elsewhere."
Actually, it's the failure of the regional hegemon.
"As for the goal of world domination, when did that become part of Islamic teaching?"
At the beginning.
"Before or after multiple attempts of the West to dominate the Arab world?"
When Islam was founded.
"And how did it work out for them the first time they tried to conquer Europe?"
They had Spain for 800 years and on the other side, nearly went all the way to Vienna. They failed because the West started acting as if they had an enemy bent on world domination. You oppose that, so that puts you on their side.
"How has it worked out for ANYONE who has tried to conquer the world?"
A child would say, "I never got hit when I played in traffic yesterday, so it's safe". You've just put down the child's argument.
"That's a straw man argument for offensive war. As is the mention of nuclear weapons."
I guess you don't know what "straw man" means.
"They did not do it for "self interest" "
Who said they did. The interest of the United States is not the same thing as "self interest"
==== >>> ==== >>> ===== >>> www.walletwiki.Com
my neighbor's sister makes $62 /hr on the computer . She has been out of work for 5 months but last month her pay check was $16315 just working
on the computer for a few hours. original site,,
$♥♥♥♥♥♥$ >>>> http://ur1.ca/j3hk5