israel needs to be criticized for its foreign policy nothing to to with Judaism or religion you can't silence us just by calling us anti semetic so fuck you
you are obviously biased Israel deserves to be criticized for its treatment of the Palestinians over the last 60 years not to mention the war crimes they have committed but you choose to ignore the facts so who's the asshole?
all war crimes are atrocious, I choose to speak out against israel specifically because of the media blackout on that issue, everyone tries to cover up israel war crimes so that is the reason I speak out I'm not afraid to be called anti semetic because i know that i am not so in conclusion fuck israel they are the real terrorist just look at the body count numbers don't lie but you do
Adam Smith would say that self interest and competition leads to social prosperity; as the result of, incentive which motivates people to preserver. However, what isnt talked about is how a competition based economy leads to strategic corruption, power and wealth consolidation (wealth gap), social stratification (class), technological paralysis, labor abuse (exploitation), and a covert form of government dictatorship or rich ruling elite (Peter Joseph).
muslims only learned how to kill and that is their hobies. they cannot even see their brother(shie's and sunnis) are breathing and they have long war against each other .like in afghanistan and irag . even hamas and fatahh killing each other like an unlished dog. god bless israel to dealing with such a crul and harsh nations(muslims). hope to see all these terrorists that only target innecent humans and childern go to hell. my prayer goes to all israelis and hope victory
We give you 3 billion fucking dollars every year, and you still treat our elected leaders like they are servile dogs there to do your bidding, and think that the soul purpose of our men and women in uniform is to shed their blood fighting your filthy wars. Rethink your fucking position. And by the way, Spielberg is AMERICAN. Einstein was AMERICAN. Neither of them were ever Israeli. They serve their own countries, not a foreign one.
And return their land to the poor people living there, stop taking shit as the holy land, the chosen people, who write that books anyway, GOD? come on men wrote them, and men have interests. so your land theft doesnt have a valid fundamentation kike, stop lying to you and the world and get out of ocuppied land. If the romes kick your arse out of there, or if the german kill your people is not arabs fault, dont not maskerade your imperialism ambition kike.
Hey bros about the oil thief in middle east. As k3304 said Iraq is an strategic country look at a map, but i think it is not the only primary objective. Take a look about the position of iran and saudi with palestianian, i think they want to kill 2 birds one shot. Zionists mutherfuckers.
Also keep an eye in the media supporting this cause we may boycot them later permanently so we all know they are just liars.
Al Franken, Steven Speilberg, Barbara Steisandt, David Geffen, Barney Frank, Jann Wenner, George Soros, Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewert, Randi Rhoades, Chuck Shumer, Wolf Blitzer, Ed Rendell, Gloria Steinem, Madeliene Albright, Sandy Berger, Dianne Feinstein, Woody Allen, Norman Lear, Bette Midler, Rob Reiner, Barry Manilow, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, etc.
ngarey, Iraq is a strategic country in the stability of the middle east. It's easy to see why by just looking at the map. So, do you want the troops pulled out of Iraq and let Iran take care if israel ?
I admire your commitment to PNAC, but that think tank has been discredited.
If I had no morals or regard for human life, then sure, I would say lets go ahead and occupy Iraq for the next hundred years and suck up the oil and lets get that pipeline going along our military bases in Afghanistan. The only problem is that this will not benefit me AT ALL! The money goes right into Cheney's Hailliburton coffers.
We've missed a major opportunity to pursue alternative energy at the turn of the century and give us energy independence, instead the neo-cons orchestrated a 'new Pearl Harbour' and led us down the path of war for corporate interests.
The neo-conservative movement had its origins in Trotskyist communism, no doubt, but that is far removed from the 'Liberal Democrat' position.
Make no mistake that their position now and since Bush's installment as figurehead in 2000 has been to the extreme far right of the Republican party, a 'lunatic fringe' if you will.
EXACTLY! If Jews in America predominantly vote liberal (which they do), then how are THEY implicated in the massive right-wing neocon Jewish conspiracy? These putty-heads' conspiracies are self-defeating...
Yes, those noble progressives like to use codewords like 'neocon' and 'banker' when they really mean 'Jew'. As David Brooks humorously wrote regarding neoconservatism, "The 'con' is short for 'conservative', and the 'neo' is short for 'Jew'. He then elaborated by saying something to the effect of, "Whenever you see a sentence that begins with 'Neocons believe...', you can bet that 95% of what follows is flatly untrue."
Man im so so sick of this Jew crap everywhere. If they attack Iran that several russian designed reactors 5 of them spread out over a large area and 2 underconstruction. So israel will attack drawing in the russians, where do you think that this fallouts heading. Soviet Soil.
Then you have China Supporting what ever actions the Soviets will. And world condembing Israel But no one in the States will realy know about for the Media here is all Jew right up to the CFR.
Thanks for sharing and allowing comments too. It isn't raining, USA is being pissed on. USA Congress, White House, Defense Dept, Main Stream Media, Dept of Agriculture, FDA, NASA, NSA, HS, FEMA, Federal Reserve all Occupied by Israel and the consequence of this control is the Oil crisis, Foreclosure Crisis, and terrorist attacks on WTC, Pentagon, & Anthrax. Israel deserves to reap the hatred the devil has sewn. The sooner Israel is removed from all equations the sooner the World will have Peace.
If you are going to allow the resurrection of a long discredited and despised practice, torture. WHY should we NOT believe you are secretly planning to resurrect SLAVERY also !? This question is not meant to be humorous by any means.
If Bush Can Gut Fourth Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
Perhaps it is like prohibition,they are already making a ton off slavery.Seriously,the slave trade in Israel,Saudi Arabia and eastern europe ,to name a few places is BIG business.Sickly enough it is for sex slavery mainly and children at that.Man thats messed up.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Several countries in the ME if you count terrorism and aiding insurgency. Treaties don't mean squat to Islamofacists. Come again?
They want to control the Straight. Nuclear weapons would give them a gun to point at the world's head. They have all the ability needed to have civil nuke power w/o enrichment, which is pissing off the entire world and isolating them.
So is enrichment worthwhile if its costing billions in trade and possibly attack from the west? Hardly.
Fun4Sly. Your funny dude. A nuclear armed Iran. When all along they are not makeing nukes. They are makeing Electricity for even they know Oil will just be impractible as the newer HHO enegeys are being tested all the time. Personaly if you had taken the time away from FOX networking. And Devoted equal time to the internet search engins. All of a suden comes a revelation. Hey Fox like our President Lies all the time.
I do all my own research on ME sites. There is no way to take them at their word, in fact, Iran's mullahs are constantly preaching to their flocks that Iran needs all weapons. They describe nukes, bios, and cw.
You seem to know very little about Islam. Many components are barbaric, and the extremists follow it to the letter, including Iran.
Iran is pursuing weapons; otherwise, enrichment would be no big deal. Deception is an accepted practice in Islam.
Oh sure, it's all the big, sinister, icy, black hand of Fox News, huh? As though Fox invented the idea that Iran is building weapons. Everyone in the civilized world KNOWS Iran is building weapons, this isn't about mass-media disinformation! If you think Iran is building reactors just so they can light up Tehran like a Christmas tree, then you're living in a dream world. Maybe you should hold the crap you read on the internet to the same standard of scrutiny as you do the mainstream media.
It's shocking how the otherwise reasonable Americans will embrace the enemies of our nation unequivocally. Ahmadinejad says, "oh no, we're not building nukes", and you just say, "oh it's okay, he's not building nukes." Those who view American foreign policy with any clarity should be able to look past battlefields like Iraq for the sake of analyzing the BIG war we're fighting right now, which is the clash of liberal democracy and muslim authoritarianism. You're missing the forest for the trees.
What he says doesn't matter that much, not when you have people in the west looking to own the place again. Just like in the good old days. And again, Ahme doesn't have a lot of power, he's not the decider, but so he is painted like he is, by instance say Mccain during the run. Shame, fooling the ignorant masses again. Clash? LOL. Its the new age of modern colonialism again, all wrapped up in rubbish rhetoric. The west who so speak about peace and human rights are also busy arming the world.
What is this colonialism nonsense? Where? If you look at the progress liberal democracy has made across the world in the past four decades, in nations where it was never thought possible that the people were capable of self-government, is it really so utopian to believe that we're stronger when we protect human rights and extend western democracy to those who seek it? We ought to be supporting the pro-democracy movement in Iran right now, but instead we've put our CIA in shackles.
The problem is we really are poor at supporting human rights. The history of supporting bad human rights violating regimes is not very well known but there it is. Saddam was helped in place by USA. Then bombed, sanctioned, then bombed again and now permanently occupied. That is hardly freedom.
The shah was put in place by US/UK. Suharto was supported. Apartheid regimes were supported.
USA has been involved in Iran at least since 2005. And its interests are mostly self-serving.
Of COURSE our interests are self-serving, that's why they're....our INTERESTS. How exactly is Iraq 'permanently occupied'? Oh yeah, it ISN'T. The new government has established sovereignty through legitimate, democratic elections. Schools and hospitals have been built, along with massive water and energy infrastructure. The troops are slowly withdrawing.
You can't grasp that unsavory alliances are sometimes necessary in order to accomplish a broader goal.
Why are you compelled to blame America first, with stupid claims of 'colonialism' and 'empire building'? In case you haven't noticed, the US military is the largest peacekeeping force in the world. Until the UN ceases to be animated by anti-Americanism (like yourself), and will actually enforce their own laws and treaties, the US military should be deployed to defend democracy and human rights around the world. Otherwise you have anarchy, and anarchy is the death of freedom and civilization.
i bet those 77% of jews who voted for Obama will be very surprised that he will appease his way all the way till Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Amidinejad knows he's a big fuckin" pussy who just want to pick up peace prizes from the Europeans. Barry's a very shallow man.
I haven't blame America first. Again you put words into my mouth. It an age old diease wanting to rule or at least dominate the world. That foreign policy if it will continue for a long time it will lead to complete bankruptcy.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, or worse, volentary suicide with a rope around the neck. Don't talk about laws when companies like Xe are outside of it, and no US soldier can be put under international law. Or Gitmo. Secret prisons.
Preemption saves lives. You can't wrap your head around that. Too worried about being perceived as arrogant by lesser nations. Boo-hoo! Personally I prefer protecting the national interest over placating the opinions of third-worlders
Pre-emption is how all empires sell their war. Back in 1992 when Wolfowitz mad plans leaked out people criticized it. Bush 41 didn't like it at all and neither did Powell.
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Hitler
Of course they fucking sold wars. What do you think they told the population?
Like any war-machine they wanted public support, and it's widely known how they used propaganda and pure lies to get it done. Just like the neoconservatives.
I bet Hitler would've liked Full Spectrum Dominance. Or how about weapons which target specific genotypes..could be politically useful. Not the same gang and ideology, but a lot of the rhetoric is not really that much different.
WHAT neoconservative propaganda? What lies? The policy proposals put forward by the neocons was grounded in reality and formed by coalitions of very different-minded political thinkers who found common ground on the issues of foreign policy. You truly are a slave to bullshit. The evil you believe in isn't even real, it's this ethereal, other-worldly, truly hothouse evil that simply isn't realistic. When someone EXPLAINS things to you, you remain convinced of conspiracy, all evidence be damned.
Like the selling of the Iraq war. Intelligence fixed around policy and things like that. Grounded in reality? Despite what we now know? You're being lied to and yet you just take it.
What happened to the WMD's? Did they move them to Syria (a common conspiracy). Most wars are based on bogus information, like the Gulf of Tonkin, another lie.
45 minutes. Mushroom cloud, involvement with 9/11, we know where the weapons are etc.. all used to scare the population into supporting something which they otherwise might not have.
Or like the first Iraq war. The incubator story. Made up to gain support. Lies and warpropaganda.
I sincerly hope we use them again on the Islamonazis. Israel is sure some kind of magical entity with all the power you think it has.
Why don't you just give up, bend over, and let them bugger you then? Seems like its omnipotent to you anyway. Its easier if you don't fight from what I hear.
What I see is a corrupt religion run by ignorants and the mentally ill. It needs extermination - just like the Nazi's.
Fun4Sly, Have you ever traveled anywhere outside the states? try going to canada where every nation on earth has their own customs liveing them enjoying in customs of others. I have had Musslim Neighbors, And Arab Neighbors who were Christian. Where can you get off saying this crap on what you see a couple of vids? Or too much FOX tv. And as For Corruption in the Church my no longer catholic faith was the biggist weight of my chest, Dont condem out of ignoranc a billion and half people world
My conclusions are hardly based on a "couple of vids." And the last time I checked, there is no component of the Catholic church that has sanctioned the murder and brutalization of others.
I have extensive contact with Islamic apostates. I am hardly ignorant. You have zero point of reference and cannot understand the twisted aspects of radical Islam. In fact, radical is not a proper segregation. Devout Islamists should be radical according to Islam.
Sheesh your going of like Bleeker From Sesamie street here. And when your conclusions are concluded is what now you being unilateral? And you seem to have some, Well alot of pent up hostility ? Radical Mormans, Radical Clansmen, Radical Southern Baptists, Whats your point here junior, that every nation has them or you just like to pick on Musslims. I belive your sufering from SalatiousFuxedAlotOfUs. Chill man might see you in Camp Fema one day who knows EH?
And none of those guys are in charge of a $100B income next year such as Iran. None of them are producing nukes, and none of them chant "Death to America."
You fail to realize how insanely dangerous this group of loons is. They would whack you w/o hesitation, and they are far closer than you think.
Whats the real reason we have huge forces in the ME? For oil alone, hardly. Nazis were rational compared to these guys. A holocaust there will enable the return of their 12th Imam.
Here's what your fear-selling conspiracy-mongers left out:
1) Neither Cheney, Rumsfeld nor Bolton are neoconservatives. Wolfowitz, Kristol and Perle, sure, but none of the others are considered part of the SMALL faction of neocon intellectuals within the GOP.
2) At the height of its activity, the PNAC had a staff of FOUR people. It was basically Bill Kristol and a fax machine. They authored policy proposals that were adopted based on their MERIT, not the influence of some "shadowy cabal".
What fear mongering? 45 minutes and WMD's strike USA? Mushroom clouds? They'll follow us home and all that crap we heard so that they succeeded in selling their "theathre wars"?
Neocon intellectuals is an oxymoron. And many of those have been signatories for PNAC documents and blueprints.
Few can deny how influential these people have been. They did for instance target Sarah Palin. Second, there are other so called think thanks like AEI who produce the same sort of garbage..
If you knew anything about neoconservatism (you don't) or if you were even interested in knowing about it (you aren't), then you would ask ACTUAL neocons why they feel the way they do about foreign policy. The blogosphere is rife with errors, echoes of errors, conspiracy-mongering and the passionate intensity of ill-informed people of uncharitable sentiment. Your arguments reflect the worst traits of the internet: ad hominem arguments, vicious accusations and disdain for accuracy and precision.
You started with "idiot" and the claim that its only four people. So fuck of with your stupid blindspot of totally forgetting what you yourself have written to me as well as others.
It's enough to listen to Bolton, Kristol, Cheney, Krauthammer and people like that..
I don't need the filters of newsmedia or people like you who claim to have some sort of expertise on what they're really about. I've actually taken the time to read for instance the letters to Clinton, the 2000Sep blueprint etc.
This just gets better! I started with 'idiot' because your assertion was idiotic and offensive to reason.
Secondly, I put much more faith in the postulations of a Kristol or Krauthammer any day of the week before I'd trust you 'free thinkers'. Here you claim objectivity, but you're just parroting the same tired, anti-Bush crap. Look, you don't HAVE to like Bush and it's FAIR to criticize his policies, but it helps your cause if you know what the hell you're talking about, which you don't.
Well why didn't you adress that instead of starting with an ad hominem? You really don't. You done it to others as well, lumping people together, putting words into their mouths.
And you try to reduce things like PNAC to a mere 4 people. That was stupid.
And what anti-Bush? Ok, here is some, he is incompetent, received a country in much better shape than he handed it over. But he is no neocon at least... but when it comes to US foreign policy I'm not a big fan of either party.
Well there you go. You didn't HAVE to spell out all that anti-Bush rhetoric because I already KNEW that's how you felt. You idiots ARE all the same, and you just proved my point. I didn't HAVE to put the words in your mouth, they were already there. I can read you dummies like a book because you all embrace the SAME BULLSHIT.
Here's what's REALLY stupid: That you believe the PNAC was anything but a TINY think tank in Washington with a staff of FIVE, if you include Kristol.
All the same=stupid generalization. If I dont' agree with either parties foreign policy then how can I be of either side? I'm not.
I'm clearly not going to learn anything from a guy who says stupid things like "everyone knows Iran is developing nuclear weapons". Geez, sounds like you could be the new curve ball. Maybe you should contact CIA, IAEA etc..I'm sure they'd be interested in your information, since you seem to know more than anyone else.
Generalizations and stereotypes can be our friends. They reflect half-truths which are much more reliable than mere emotional speculation, which is all you've got. Perhaps I jumped the gun in lumping you in with the left. Forgive me. But if you insist on waxing emotional on matters that are clearly intellectual and removed from emotion, then you're going to sound like a whiny leftist.
I don't think the CIA is interested in any of the common knowledge I've put forward. They know the score.
I don't care for half-truths. And I don't care to respond nicely to people who the first they to do is calling someone an idiot, without knowing almost nothing about the person they speak to.
And you've done it so with others..like asking someone else something similar to "where did you get that info from A. Jones?" and saying things like "the jew hating leftwing" or similar. Appeal to emotion. Again, I think your blindspot is huge here. And I'm wasting my time.
I'm a big boy, I can take it. My feelings aren't hurt if I'm called names. Sure, I've been vitriolic because I'm deeply troubled by the harmful air of anti-semitic world-domination conspiracy that has made such an alarming resurgence since 9/11. And it IS harmful. You think people in the Arab world don't pick up this propaganda ball and run with it? It is literally a global poisoning of minds, and it DISGUSTS me. I call out Jones because he's the leader of this pernicious, subversive movement.
"anti-semitic world-domination conspiracy " This comes usually from the religious right. I know, because I've debated people on Alex Jones websites. Most jews in USA vote for the "left". Arab world an propaganda. Please, in USA they don't stand a chance against say AIPAC..which I have to agree with Pat B. is too powerful. Jones is a Christian libertarian.. I'm neither, so I don't find a lot of agreement from him.
He's not a libertarian, he's part of the so-called 'paleoconservative' movement, and if you think we neocons are a crazy bunch, you haven't seen anything til you look at these paleoconservatives. THEY are the extreme right wingers, truly reactionary conservatives who view America as a malevolent force for evil. Buchanan's one of them, Jones is one of them, and those people are NUTS. I used to admire Buchanan as a young Republican but he lost me when he revealed himself as a rabid anti-semite.
Jones has a hard-on for Ron Paul, whom I would personally never vote for (and I can't). I'm not a fan of them really either, but for a more peaceful world they do have some points. Note..some. USA cannot afford neoconservatism. It's beyond me why Bush and co didn't ask for a war tax to finance the wars. It certainly was needed. A lower steady GDP rise is better than an economy almost based on borrowing, making many consider dumping the dollar as a reserve. Empires fail. Calm down.
Ron Paul is a crazy, conspiracy-mongering anti-semite crackpot also, as has been plainly revealed by now. Any politician who can't accept that we must support Israel, our only ally in a very troubled, authoritative region, will never get my support. Liberal democracy is strengthened at home when it's defended abroad.
WHAT police state? You mean like Cuba, Iran, China and North Korea, with their gulags, forced labor camps, political prisons, reeducation and secret police? Yeah. OK.
"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a loosening of the general ties of civilized society ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere may force the United States, no matter how reluctantly, to the exercise of an international police power" - John Quincy Adams
Additionally, "A nation's first duty is within its borders, but it is not thereby absolved from facing its duties in the world as a whole; and if it refuses to do so, it merely forfeits its right to struggle for a place among the people that shape the destiny of mankind." - Teddy Roosevelt
There has been un unrepresented powergrab during Bush/Cheney. Unfortunately Obama seems to continue those. At least press freedom index has improved from 38 to 22 or something like that.
Sure, I've heard this variation of your conspiracy garbage as well. Again, you come with nothing original, only echoed nonsense. See, you dummies were constantly railing that Bush was going to usher in this new era of American fascism, and then when THAT didn't happen, you did what all let-down conspiracy-mongers do, you CHANGED YOUR STORY! Now it's Obama who's going to usher in this new era of authoritarianism! Really, your anti-Americanism is SO transparent.
Oh please. Cato institute was one of them which wrote a report on how much liberties are been taken away. Does this mean a completely fascistic government? No, but liberties certainly eroded. I have a tough time imagining the founding fathers accepting anything like the "patriot act", or "enhanced interrogations". Besides, if the "full information awareness is in works" then you can be damn sure it makes many holes into the bill of rights. And Bush said a warrant is needed, BS they got amnesty
Look, all of this is perfectly debatable, but when you start talking about the 'freedom index' and the Bush/Cheney 'power grab', you just sound stupid. The Cato Institute is diametrically opposed to the Bush admin, so it's no surprise they'd take issue with some of their policies. I take issue with some of the Bush policies as well. But I hardly see any significant erosion of freedom under his leadership.
Well, if the press freedom index falls from something like 11 to 38 it oughta worry citizens of any political opinion. When it comes to war dissent is often not sought after..it is however one of the basic principles of what is important with the USA.
Like UK I expect more erosions, and they happen gradually. And by then people simply might not just care. I personally cannot agree with it, but have it your way.
3) The budget (some few hundred thousand dollars) and resources of the PNAC absolutely PALE in comparison to The Heritage Foundation, The Brookings Institution, The Cato Institute, The Center for American Progress, all MASSIVE Washington think tanks, NONE of whom are sympathetic to the neoconservative vision of foreign policy.
4) The number of NON-neocons who signed onto the policies introduced by PNAC scholars is not an indication of affiliation, but rather a sign of the outline's plausibility.
I don't know what you've been doing the last 10 years or so but the influence of the PNAC crowd has been massive throughout the years. Weekly Standard for instance. And many of them work in media.. Kristol for instance is often on Fox News speaking..
It isn't without reason that people like C. Matthew's said "We're all neocons now", or that Kristol wishes Bush would've saved Scooter Libby from prison. Stories like these have been numerous, and I can't with the limitation start to quote them all
Please outline for me this 'massive' influence. They're arguments for the war in Iraq were influential, yes. How else? Where is this influence? So Bill Kristol is a pundit on Fox and publishes a conservative magazine. So what?? Yeah, that Chris Matthews, he's a really objective source of information, isn't he? You idiots like to criticize conservatives for watching Fox and reading WS, but you seem to have NO problem with the vitriolic bias of MSNBC, or mags like The Nation and The Progressive.
I don't generally discuss with dining room tables. If you fail to see the massive influence that they had over the years then the problem is yours not mine. I'm not doing your homework.
Besides, you haven't provided any source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program...which you were so sure of.
Nice try, but it sounds to me like you're not doing ANY homework. Iran's desire to destroy Israel is no state secret. Why are you asking me for proof? Listen to the words coming out of the mouths of their leaders in global forums. Their intentions are so transparent that France and Germany are actually on our side!
Yes, like the last time when the Iraq war was sold on nothing but lies (well, not all of it, but the downing street memos and a lot more are enough to start investigations and put many people in many countries behind bars). I suppose you think the rhetoric of Ahme, an almost powerless president matters.. besides, a similar rhetoric has been heard from all sides.. and we know that there are a lot of people who again want in again to iran
An iran attack on israel would be suicide, don't expect it
The war wasn't sold on lies. To lie is to willingly deceive. The claims of WMD were corroborated by intelligence services around the world. It may be fair to say that the Bush admin's war cause was hurt by going to war under the pretense of WMD when later none were found, but it doesn't make the objective (and subsequent outcome) any less moral.
As for Ahmadinejad, I'm aware he's only the mouthpiece of the mullocracy. So why shouldn't I interpret his words as the will of the mullahs?
Of course it was, that is how almost any war are sold, because most of them are unnecesseray and the people won't support them without lies. Again, the intellitence was fixed around the policy, it was all a matter of getting it done. Be it to consider painting an aircraft in hoping Saddam would shoot it down.. or Blair's recent admission in saying that even without WMD's they'd take Saddam down (a guy which was helped in place by US in the first place)
Okay Professor, since these are all just 'wars for oil' and foreign resources, then answer me this: Where was the oil in Vietnam? In Korea? In Germany and Italy? In Japan? In the Balkans? It's a completely foreign concept to you that America is a nation whose brave soldiers will die for the liberty of others. Since you yourself can't conceive of dying for someone else, it boggles your mind that others would and so you have to search for some sinister underlying theme behind our war efforts.
Not all of it. Never made the claim. There was a difference in the cold war but a lot of has to do with dominance. This is why democratic non-supporting regimes are often toppled and a puppet put in place.
WWI and II completely different as well. The beast woke up after WWII in general.
" Since you yourself can't conceive of dying for someone else" never said anything to contrary. Your putting words into my mouth and this leads nowhere.
Oil is a motive in the middle-east for sure... and as we know China has made huge investments in the oilmarket in Iran it is VERY plausible to say that USA once again wants after being kicked out. True for much of Europe as well.
The US war machine is in dire need of downsizing. There is no real competition to US as a power atm. Perhaps China and India in the future but that is the future. Excuse me if I remain skeptical of foreign policy decisions, but I think it lies on a stable grounding.
And it's permanent occupation, according to PNAC blueprint would have happened even should relations with Saddam improve. USA is looking for a permanent stay in the area. Modern neo-colonialism, just different rhetoric.
The war decicion was made long before they said it would. Rumsfeld asked for 9/11 to be tied to Iraq, go massive as he said. Cheney was mapping out iraqi oil fields pre-9/11.
You have veered WAY off into loony, paranoid conspiracy land here. There was no war for oil. The intelligence was not fixed around the policy. The US never had plans to colonize any nation. More internet nonsense propagated by people with overactive imaginations who have no idea what they're talking about.
Of course it is. Take away oil out of the equation and the west quickly would lose its interest in the middle-east. Don't fool yourself.
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." Dick Cheney 1998
Again, WHERE? Where are these lucrative oil contracts? Where and when did we seize control of Iraq's oil? We didn't. The country's oil reserves were divided among the sectarian representative states within the Iraqi parliament. The whole 'war for oil' thing is the most common (and idiotic) lie regarding the war in Iraq. In the ousting of tyranny, no complicated calculations of geopolitical interest are necessary.
AS for Ahme/mullahs. You shouldn't, because the rhetoric is not the same. A lot what Ahma says is to gain popularity among some of his supporters.. he doesn't for instance have any power over the military.
Iran has signed the NPT, has even a fatwa against nuclear weapons and allows inspections. Nothing to worry about. And they wouldn't have anything to gain by attacking Israel, which I think would be able to defend itself, even without US help.
" they [Iran] have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us."
Gee, wanting "diplomacy" to fail are? Iraq-redux. Same lies, same assholes.
Of COURSE Bolton is against diplomacy because he's seen first hand for decades that diplomacy only emboldens the regime. It has never been anything short of an utter failure and embarrassment. The Arab world doesn't respect weakness, they respect strength. And if you think President Twinkle-Toes is just gonna waltz over there and charm the hell out of the Iranian government and convince them to stop Uranium enrichment with his soaring rhetoric, then you're living in the realms of science fiction
Yes, diplomacy worked just so badly with the Russian, with the Chinese etc..
Iran is a result of bad foreign policy, the coup of 1953 backfired and the relations are still bad with Iran. Had the Shah been in place longer then Iran would already have had nuclear energy. Iran has been badly treated by USA. First the coup againt a democratic election and then the backing and supporting of Saddam in his war against Iran. Google: "why iran won't budge on nukes".
Does it look like diplomacy is working with Russia and China NOW?? Obama renegs on our missile shield with the Poles and the Czechs in hopes that Russia would be more helpful in enforcing sanctions against Iran, and what happened, they told him to GET LOST. Obama wants to give billions to third world dictators and modernizing states like China in return for climate-pledge transparency, and China tells him to GET LOST. You think the world respects this guy?? They think he's an ASSHOLE!
USA would never allow Russian missiles on Cuba, Canada, in South America.
And Russia should not tolerate them at its footsteps. Part of the deal after the cold war was also not to expand NATO, which of course happened. Left hand does not know what the right hand does, just like talking about human rights and at the same time arming the world. Hypocricy.
Keep your toys on your own playground, forget about 'full spectrum dominance', forget about pax americana. It'll ruin USA.
You missed my whole point, which is that your idea that diplomacy will wipe all asses is incredibly naive. The world is a dangerous place. Obama tried diplomacy (it was supposed to be his strongest suit) and the world laughed in his face. You have to stand up to these people! The world EXPECTS America to maintain a posture of strong leadership in the world, and when we don't, our enemies walk all over us as they're doing right now.
You seem to be leaving out a little detail, like, say, the complete COLLAPSE of Soviet communism as an economy and a political ideology, and it was accomplished by getting in their face and saying "Don't even THINK about it." The cold war wasn't exactly a bunch of diplomatic niceties, genius. And while you armchair intellectuals are at home debating semantics and self-congratulating one another in your rejection of all things American, those very same 'euphemisms' are covering your ass.
Airchair intelletuals..would that be the chickenhawk neocons? All or almost all skipping war in one way or another when they could've served but no have no trouble sending other people to die in their war hard-ons.
You call them chickenhawks, but it only displays your ignorance of neoconservatism. How about former CIA head James Woolsey? War veteran and prominent neocon. How about the FATHERS of modern neoconservatism, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz? Both war veterans. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Henry Jackson? How about brilliant military historian Max Boot? Once again, you don't have a fucking CLUE what you're talking about. Never mind that statesmen and soldiers perform different jobs.
Most of them are chickenhawks. Draftdodgers etc.. too coverdly to go to war on their own..and most of them wouldn't want their own kids on the battle-field so that they can build that perpetual peace through perpertual war. In a Straussian manner this this for the little people, the ignorant masses who can easily be scared to do this and that.
Irving Kristol doesn't have as much to do with neoconservatism as his son for instance..
Wow, you misunderstand Straussian philosophy just as you do the neoconservative tendency; why am I not surprised? Read 'Persecution and the Art of Writing' by Strauss. Not that it would help you understand what he's talking about.
To say that Irving Kristol "doesn't have as much to do with neoconservatism as his son" is just.....stupid. It's like saying Franklin doesn't have as much to do with electricity as light bulbs do.
Who are these draft dodgers? More foolish claims of no substance.
Oh okay, I'll GOOGLE it. Dumbass. You read it on the internet so it MUST be true, huh? Since you're big on emotional witch-hunts where you criticize politicians for not doing the jobs of soldiers, do you also blame SOLDIERS for not doing the jobs of POLITICIANS? Everyone has their job, smart guy. A politician's is to author and pass or not pass war policy, and a soldier's is to execute that policy. Also, since you're so convinced that PNAC was a deceptive, satanic force, where are they now?
More useless adhomimens. Keep em coming. Soldiers don't decide wars and often have unclear missions, so no blame on them. But had they in general been more skeptical they wouldn't bought all the BS they've been fed with.
PNAC is not satanic (lets not bring in religious fairy tales into this) but an arrogant, impossible overreaching foreign policy which would leave usa with less and less number of friends and possible bankruptcy. It's not realistic.
As for PNAC, well those folks tried to brainwash Palin (probably would've succeeded) and do not enjoy as much power today as with Bush where even their power diminished in the end. My guess Bush felt fooled by them.
So not gone.. but as I said, in USA both parties are too much poisoned by the military industrial complex.. so I have a wait and see attitude. I'm not impressed by Obama so far.. USA needs something closer to the 90's again than 00's. More peace and financial stability.
Its a philopshy of deception. Just like the supposed WMDs in Iraq..which was how the war was sold. Scare the masses and they'll agree with another foolish adventure. As for Obama, he too is weak against the disease of the military industrial complex which Eisenhower so much warned about. Either way, massive taxcuts, military adventures, fragile economy should force any wise leader to look for other solutions. I'm not counting on it (with the expansion to Pakistan and Afghanistan after all)
And Bolton wants the UN out of its way because it is in the way for the American Empire, of Pax Americana, the protection of US interests at any cost..in a world of have's and have's nots. The man belongs in a padded cell.
Shit, I would HOPE for the protection of US interests at any cost. That's the difference between you and I. You'd give away the best country in the world in favor of tolerance and multiculturism. And therein lies the most fundamental difference between the political left and right in this country: The right believes America is the greatest nation, a benevolent force for good in the world, and the left believes it's a tragically flawed nation with a tendency towards great evil.
You're not. You cannot afford it. Get it into your head. When empires over their military they quickly ruin themselves.
"The right believes America is the greatest nation". Utter BS. You only need to look what the right said about when Clinton used the military in the 90's. Oh boy. And it was all black helicopters this and that, and now Obama is somehow not even an American citizen.
Most of you bend over to the will of the party, you're weak.
Who do you think got behind a lot of that birth certificate nonsense? Your buddy Alex "I Just Pulled This Memo Off of a Fax Machine, It MUST Be True" Jones! It's exactly the kind of conspiracy horseshit I've been railing against. Also, once again, your grasp of history is foggy, at best. The right criticized Bill Clinton for not being aggressive ENOUGH considering the information he was given. And they SUPPORTED him during the campaign against ethnic genocide in Kosovo.
What in God's name are you yammering about? Clinton gained a second term by governing more from the center and appeasing some right-wing hawks through his intervention in the Balkans. I can't speak for traditional conservatives and libertarians, but we neoconservatives supported those actions unequivocally.
Neoconvervatives were not that big in during Clinton. It took some time before PNAC was formed for instance.
The rightwingers who were in power did not support Clinton. There are tons of quotes to be found on this. Back then it was more Powell than the neocons. You should know it.
Come 2001 and and the neocons hijacked the party, especially after 9/11. In the end more and more distanced themselves from it.
"not that big"? Neoconservatives have NEVER served as elected officials in any office since Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Professor. But they've been a mainstay of conservative intellectualism since the 60's. If anything, the 9/11 attacks vindicated the arguments they've been making for DECADES.
My opinion is not the same. Much of the modern neoconservatism came after Reagan and with Wolwowitz first draft about year 1992 which leaked out to the press and then was rewritten by Cheney I think to make it milder. Unilateralism will be heavy burden, its a shame you neocons don't see it. If anything then 9/11 teaches the lesson of blowbacks. The same with 1979 Iranian revolution.
Neocons have no problem with alliances. They are wary of granting multilateral institutions like the UN a veto over US action, or joining deeply flawed international agreements simply for the sake of multilateral harmony. Neocons are committed to US global leadership and they know that the costs of such leadership are so high that the US needs allies to share the burden. Neocons are deeply suspicious of the UN, but are happy to make common cause with them when doing so will serve US interest.
They seek it if they can find it but do not see it as that important. This is why there has been tons of anti-UN rhetoric from the right in the last well 7 years or so. Not that the UN is perfect (I don't think any institution really is) or anything.
Pre-emptive war is not legal..so of course they will not find much support at UN. Seems to me it was only because of Powell that Bush even bothered with the inspections at all...
Similarly, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, Hardball, Real Time w/ Bill Maher and The Simpsons are NOT what sane people consider to be objective sources of information either, Mr. Fact-Finder.
No, they're just your favorite shows, right? According to your videos and your NAMED favorites. You even QUOTED Matthews. But you don't actually glean any information from them, do you? Please. You're not fooling anyone, smart guy.
You really try hard to misunderstand do you? Matthews comment was common, when everyone pretty much had an war hard on and some people described Bush's crowd as a foreign policy dream.
A lot of people too distance from it like Fukuyama..of course years after realizing what a mess it had created, how much good-will USA had lost..
Comedy shows are not news sources. Its a way of seeing the foolishness in a lot..
But right wingers barely have comedians so I guess you won't understand.
Yes, and Francis Fukuyama isn't the only neocon who finds himself at odds with their vision of foreign policy. That doesn't mean I agree with him. To quote Charles Krauthammer, I find Fukayama's conclusions "breathtakingly incoherent". But we conservatives disagree on lots of things. In fact most conservatives agree on little outside of their core principles. Unlike those on the political left, who more often than not march lockstep in their beliefs, remaining true to their collectivist nature.
That's what you think. The truth is, I'm just another liberal who was mugged by reality. I'm a REAL liberal, the way liberals USED to be before the failure of 60s radicalism, when the left became a bunch of socialist, America-hating, government-worshiping, secular-humanist, yellow-bellied peacenik trash. In other words, I grew up and joined the party most interested in preserving American exceptionalism.
More ridiculous trash. Secularism is part of any sort of liberalism. Keep thy religions to thyself and out of government. Besides, religion is outdated.
As for "American exceptionalism", look up two documentaries: What I've learned about US foreign policy and The War on Democracy. And consider just how many non-democratic regimes US at this time suppports. Bad foreign policy is what US has been doing for years, this leads blowbacks..
You're way too idealistic. Of course I don't like some of the people we've propped up over the years, but I understand the ugly truth. In a clash with authoritarianism, liberal democracies must sometimes act out of character and remain constantly vigilant. This is accomplished by sometimes aligning ourselves with unsavory characters around the world. The point is always the BIG picture, something the left constantly misses while griping endlessly over this or that battlefield.
Additionally, I'm all for keeping religion out of government, but don't put it in the toilet. It may be outdated to godless secular-progressives, but it remains a very tangible force in the lives of billions. In America we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. It's a personal thing, sure, but it's also a huge defining part of our culture.
No, it's not illegal to be a non-believer, the rest of us just wish you'd shut the hell up about it and leave us and our religion alone. Your pious reforms are unwelcome among reasonable people.
What big picture? The right used to be against the wars when the so called American left (which is more BS) started plenty of wars. The American right has changed throughout the years. There days of Goldwater are long gone. Stop using those silly talking points, you got your head all too much inside the rightwing bubble. How can you see the big picture when you don't even own a mirror?
There was a time when the American left understood the need to defend this country at all costs. Those times are gone, unfortunately. The new left is only happy when America is rendered marginal and weak among the rest of the world; an idea born of their warped rejection of American exceptionalism and embrace of radical egalitarianism.
Do you know how fucking large US military is? It makes everyone else like tiny in comparison. And it certainly was known that Saddam was pretty much completely crippled and had nothing to do with 9/11.
(sigh)....That's how the US military SHOULD be. In the BROADER war on terror, no reasonable ground could be gained with Saddam Hussein still in power. al-Zarqawi was living and training in Iraq (with Saddam's full knowledge) before we invaded. He had an unwritten accord with bin Laden in the vein of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Hussein was known to have paid the families of suicide bombers and maintain ties with VARIOUS terror groups both internal and external. Chew on that reality.
Reality? Neoconservatism has nothing to do with reality. Its like all dream of an empire, they eventually all fail.""We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. "
Again, want to defeat terrorism, then google Rand corp how terrorism ends.
When did the word " Neo-Con " change to mean lifelong Republicans ? I wonder if a dog still means dog ? I hope you didn't buy T-shirts....
dontanner232 1 year ago
You Jew-haters are all a bunch of fucking morons. None of you even know what neoconservatism is. Everything's just a big Jew conspiracy to you idiots.
PNAC! Dick Cheney! Dual loyalties! AIPAC! Corporate interests! Blood for oil! The Zionist threat!
Shut up, you fucking morons.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
israel needs to be criticized for its foreign policy nothing to to with Judaism or religion you can't silence us just by calling us anti semetic so fuck you
peacenotapartheid 2 years ago
Oh, what an original thought. Did you pick that up watching Alex Jones videos, professor?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
so what are you suggesting that I am not allowed to criticize Israel's foreign policy? your being ridiculous
peacenotapartheid 2 years ago
You can criticize whatever you want, but that doesn't mean you won't sound like an asshole in the process.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
you are obviously biased Israel deserves to be criticized for its treatment of the Palestinians over the last 60 years not to mention the war crimes they have committed but you choose to ignore the facts so who's the asshole?
peacenotapartheid 2 years ago
You're definitely the asshole. And I get the feeling you don't view the Arab atrocities with the same scrutiny as you do the Israeli war crimes.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
It starts with yourself looking in the mirror.
Don't give others lectures if your own behaviour is anything but good.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
And both sides are doing a lot of wrong. I usually point out to an rather recent article on this. Google, "the gaza blame game".
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
all war crimes are atrocious, I choose to speak out against israel specifically because of the media blackout on that issue, everyone tries to cover up israel war crimes so that is the reason I speak out I'm not afraid to be called anti semetic because i know that i am not so in conclusion fuck israel they are the real terrorist just look at the body count numbers don't lie but you do
peacenotapartheid 2 years ago
SHOCKINGLY disconnected from reality.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Adam Smith would say that self interest and competition leads to social prosperity; as the result of, incentive which motivates people to preserver. However, what isnt talked about is how a competition based economy leads to strategic corruption, power and wealth consolidation (wealth gap), social stratification (class), technological paralysis, labor abuse (exploitation), and a covert form of government dictatorship or rich ruling elite (Peter Joseph).
buckfush12 3 years ago
islam = terror
muslims only learned how to kill and that is their hobies. they cannot even see their brother(shie's and sunnis) are breathing and they have long war against each other .like in afghanistan and irag . even hamas and fatahh killing each other like an unlished dog. god bless israel to dealing with such a crul and harsh nations(muslims). hope to see all these terrorists that only target innecent humans and childern go to hell. my prayer goes to all israelis and hope victory
sarvareteabee 3 years ago 3
This has been flagged as spam show
what the hell is going on with the world
thanasi89 3 years ago
we gave you Einstein we gave you Speilberg you ungrateful people..try rethinking your position..
johnsmdm 3 years ago
We give you 3 billion fucking dollars every year, and you still treat our elected leaders like they are servile dogs there to do your bidding, and think that the soul purpose of our men and women in uniform is to shed their blood fighting your filthy wars. Rethink your fucking position. And by the way, Spielberg is AMERICAN. Einstein was AMERICAN. Neither of them were ever Israeli. They serve their own countries, not a foreign one.
roht5 2 years ago
And return their land to the poor people living there, stop taking shit as the holy land, the chosen people, who write that books anyway, GOD? come on men wrote them, and men have interests. so your land theft doesnt have a valid fundamentation kike, stop lying to you and the world and get out of ocuppied land. If the romes kick your arse out of there, or if the german kill your people is not arabs fault, dont not maskerade your imperialism ambition kike.
bananito2 3 years ago
Hey bros about the oil thief in middle east. As k3304 said Iraq is an strategic country look at a map, but i think it is not the only primary objective. Take a look about the position of iran and saudi with palestianian, i think they want to kill 2 birds one shot. Zionists mutherfuckers.
Also keep an eye in the media supporting this cause we may boycot them later permanently so we all know they are just liars.
bananito2 3 years ago
AMERICAN JEWS ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS !!!
Al Franken, Steven Speilberg, Barbara Steisandt, David Geffen, Barney Frank, Jann Wenner, George Soros, Bill Maher, David Letterman, Jon Stewert, Randi Rhoades, Chuck Shumer, Wolf Blitzer, Ed Rendell, Gloria Steinem, Madeliene Albright, Sandy Berger, Dianne Feinstein, Woody Allen, Norman Lear, Bette Midler, Rob Reiner, Barry Manilow, Russ Feingold, Carl Levin, etc.
AMERICAN JEWS ARE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS !!!
k3304 3 years ago 6
Eh, I can give you an equally long list of Neo-conservative Zionist Jews... so lets just focus on the issues.
ngarey 3 years ago
ngarey, OK name them and i bet i can name more liberal democrat jews because thats the party they grew up on.
k3304 3 years ago 4
You think this is a fucking game, boy?
ngarey 3 years ago
ngarey, no i dont think it's a game. Name them.
k3304 3 years ago
So you think ALL Jews are responsible for the mess we're in now? Aren't you missing an 88 march with your skinhead buddies.
ngarey 3 years ago
ngarey, the origins of modern liberal jewry came from the teachings of Karl Marx
nah, im not a skinhead, just calling them like i see them
k3304 3 years ago
yeah well, now the Republican party is the party of Trotsky, the liberals, like me, were against the Iraq was from the start.
ngarey 3 years ago
ngarey, Iraq is a strategic country in the stability of the middle east. It's easy to see why by just looking at the map. So, do you want the troops pulled out of Iraq and let Iran take care if israel ?
k3304 3 years ago
I admire your commitment to PNAC, but that think tank has been discredited.
If I had no morals or regard for human life, then sure, I would say lets go ahead and occupy Iraq for the next hundred years and suck up the oil and lets get that pipeline going along our military bases in Afghanistan. The only problem is that this will not benefit me AT ALL! The money goes right into Cheney's Hailliburton coffers.
ngarey 3 years ago
We've missed a major opportunity to pursue alternative energy at the turn of the century and give us energy independence, instead the neo-cons orchestrated a 'new Pearl Harbour' and led us down the path of war for corporate interests.
ngarey 3 years ago
ngarey, wasnt Bill Clinton preident for 8 years and 4 years of Jimmy Carter from the first oil crisis ?
You can always invest in Halliburton, if your that jealous
k3304 3 years ago
The neo-conservative movement had its origins in Trotskyist communism, no doubt, but that is far removed from the 'Liberal Democrat' position.
Make no mistake that their position now and since Bush's installment as figurehead in 2000 has been to the extreme far right of the Republican party, a 'lunatic fringe' if you will.
ngarey 3 years ago
LOL
That's funny because Trotsky and Trotskyism are clearly on the far left.
haytubenon 3 years ago
You have absolutely NO idea what neoconservatism is, just what you heard watching propaganda films masquerading as 'documentaries' on youtube.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
EXACTLY! If Jews in America predominantly vote liberal (which they do), then how are THEY implicated in the massive right-wing neocon Jewish conspiracy? These putty-heads' conspiracies are self-defeating...
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
@LuckyPierre78 , jews are like the unwanted step-child to the liberal democrat party. Liberals would rather have them perceived to be neo-cons.
k3304 2 years ago
Yes, those noble progressives like to use codewords like 'neocon' and 'banker' when they really mean 'Jew'. As David Brooks humorously wrote regarding neoconservatism, "The 'con' is short for 'conservative', and the 'neo' is short for 'Jew'. He then elaborated by saying something to the effect of, "Whenever you see a sentence that begins with 'Neocons believe...', you can bet that 95% of what follows is flatly untrue."
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Man im so so sick of this Jew crap everywhere. If they attack Iran that several russian designed reactors 5 of them spread out over a large area and 2 underconstruction. So israel will attack drawing in the russians, where do you think that this fallouts heading. Soviet Soil.
Then you have China Supporting what ever actions the Soviets will. And world condembing Israel But no one in the States will realy know about for the Media here is all Jew right up to the CFR.
cycimian 3 years ago
Thanks for sharing and allowing comments too. It isn't raining, USA is being pissed on. USA Congress, White House, Defense Dept, Main Stream Media, Dept of Agriculture, FDA, NASA, NSA, HS, FEMA, Federal Reserve all Occupied by Israel and the consequence of this control is the Oil crisis, Foreclosure Crisis, and terrorist attacks on WTC, Pentagon, & Anthrax. Israel deserves to reap the hatred the devil has sewn. The sooner Israel is removed from all equations the sooner the World will have Peace.
mcc11505 3 years ago
If you are going to allow the resurrection of a long discredited and despised practice, torture. WHY should we NOT believe you are secretly planning to resurrect SLAVERY also !? This question is not meant to be humorous by any means.
If Bush Can Gut Fourth Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
If Courts Can Gut Second Amendment, How Can We Assume 13th Amendment Ban on Slavery is Safe?
johnbbbs 3 years ago 2
Perhaps it is like prohibition,they are already making a ton off slavery.Seriously,the slave trade in Israel,Saudi Arabia and eastern europe ,to name a few places is BIG business.Sickly enough it is for sex slavery mainly and children at that.Man thats messed up.
humanswin 3 years ago
Please spread the word.
706easy 3 years ago
My brother is getting shipped out to Iraq, boy am I pissed.
chewbaca1989 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Do you knuckleheads have any clue what a nuke armed Iran would be like?
They are pursuing nukes! One can find it if you only look. Iran is the last country on the planet that should ever have nukes.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago
Fun4Sly,
Can you point out on a map who Iran has invaded or attacked?
Iran has a sovereign right to have nuclear energy according to international law, and has abided by the Nuclear treaties. Come again?
chewbaca1989 3 years ago 3
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Several countries in the ME if you count terrorism and aiding insurgency. Treaties don't mean squat to Islamofacists. Come again?
They want to control the Straight. Nuclear weapons would give them a gun to point at the world's head. They have all the ability needed to have civil nuke power w/o enrichment, which is pissing off the entire world and isolating them.
So is enrichment worthwhile if its costing billions in trade and possibly attack from the west? Hardly.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago
Fun4Sly. Your funny dude. A nuclear armed Iran. When all along they are not makeing nukes. They are makeing Electricity for even they know Oil will just be impractible as the newer HHO enegeys are being tested all the time. Personaly if you had taken the time away from FOX networking. And Devoted equal time to the internet search engins. All of a suden comes a revelation. Hey Fox like our President Lies all the time.
cycimian 3 years ago
I do all my own research on ME sites. There is no way to take them at their word, in fact, Iran's mullahs are constantly preaching to their flocks that Iran needs all weapons. They describe nukes, bios, and cw.
You seem to know very little about Islam. Many components are barbaric, and the extremists follow it to the letter, including Iran.
Iran is pursuing weapons; otherwise, enrichment would be no big deal. Deception is an accepted practice in Islam.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago 2
Oh sure, it's all the big, sinister, icy, black hand of Fox News, huh? As though Fox invented the idea that Iran is building weapons. Everyone in the civilized world KNOWS Iran is building weapons, this isn't about mass-media disinformation! If you think Iran is building reactors just so they can light up Tehran like a Christmas tree, then you're living in a dream world. Maybe you should hold the crap you read on the internet to the same standard of scrutiny as you do the mainstream media.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
" Everyone in the civilized world KNOWS Iran is building weapons"
LOL. Contrary to IAEA, US own NIE etc..
This is more empire building. Everyone wants to go to Baghdad. Real men want to go to Tehran. [Newsweek, 8/11/2002]
It's all about selling another useless war to the ignorant masses.
Wanna talk downingstreet memos on Iraq? I wish it had a much attention as "climategate".
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
It's shocking how the otherwise reasonable Americans will embrace the enemies of our nation unequivocally. Ahmadinejad says, "oh no, we're not building nukes", and you just say, "oh it's okay, he's not building nukes." Those who view American foreign policy with any clarity should be able to look past battlefields like Iraq for the sake of analyzing the BIG war we're fighting right now, which is the clash of liberal democracy and muslim authoritarianism. You're missing the forest for the trees.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
What he says doesn't matter that much, not when you have people in the west looking to own the place again. Just like in the good old days. And again, Ahme doesn't have a lot of power, he's not the decider, but so he is painted like he is, by instance say Mccain during the run. Shame, fooling the ignorant masses again. Clash? LOL. Its the new age of modern colonialism again, all wrapped up in rubbish rhetoric. The west who so speak about peace and human rights are also busy arming the world.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
What is this colonialism nonsense? Where? If you look at the progress liberal democracy has made across the world in the past four decades, in nations where it was never thought possible that the people were capable of self-government, is it really so utopian to believe that we're stronger when we protect human rights and extend western democracy to those who seek it? We ought to be supporting the pro-democracy movement in Iran right now, but instead we've put our CIA in shackles.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
The problem is we really are poor at supporting human rights. The history of supporting bad human rights violating regimes is not very well known but there it is. Saddam was helped in place by USA. Then bombed, sanctioned, then bombed again and now permanently occupied. That is hardly freedom.
The shah was put in place by US/UK. Suharto was supported. Apartheid regimes were supported.
USA has been involved in Iran at least since 2005. And its interests are mostly self-serving.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Of COURSE our interests are self-serving, that's why they're....our INTERESTS. How exactly is Iraq 'permanently occupied'? Oh yeah, it ISN'T. The new government has established sovereignty through legitimate, democratic elections. Schools and hospitals have been built, along with massive water and energy infrastructure. The troops are slowly withdrawing.
You can't grasp that unsavory alliances are sometimes necessary in order to accomplish a broader goal.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Yes it is. That supersized embassy, military bases etc. You're not leaving.
Withdrawing, where? LOL
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Why are you compelled to blame America first, with stupid claims of 'colonialism' and 'empire building'? In case you haven't noticed, the US military is the largest peacekeeping force in the world. Until the UN ceases to be animated by anti-Americanism (like yourself), and will actually enforce their own laws and treaties, the US military should be deployed to defend democracy and human rights around the world. Otherwise you have anarchy, and anarchy is the death of freedom and civilization.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
i bet those 77% of jews who voted for Obama will be very surprised that he will appease his way all the way till Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Amidinejad knows he's a big fuckin" pussy who just want to pick up peace prizes from the Europeans. Barry's a very shallow man.
k3304 2 years ago
I haven't blame America first. Again you put words into my mouth. It an age old diease wanting to rule or at least dominate the world. That foreign policy if it will continue for a long time it will lead to complete bankruptcy.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot, or worse, volentary suicide with a rope around the neck. Don't talk about laws when companies like Xe are outside of it, and no US soldier can be put under international law. Or Gitmo. Secret prisons.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
And pre-emptive war which is illigal unless attacked. International be damned, USA does almost what it wants. This is pure arrogance.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Preemption saves lives. You can't wrap your head around that. Too worried about being perceived as arrogant by lesser nations. Boo-hoo! Personally I prefer protecting the national interest over placating the opinions of third-worlders
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Pre-emption is how all empires sell their war. Back in 1992 when Wolfowitz mad plans leaked out people criticized it. Bush 41 didn't like it at all and neither did Powell.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
That would be a cute little theory if only it were true.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
"An evil exists that threatens every man, woman, and child of this great nation. We must take steps to ensure our domestic security and protect our homeland." - Hitler
Even Hitler used it.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Hitler didn't "sell" his war effort, genius, he formed a police state and killed his detractors. Try again.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Of course they fucking sold wars. What do you think they told the population?
Like any war-machine they wanted public support, and it's widely known how they used propaganda and pure lies to get it done. Just like the neoconservatives.
I bet Hitler would've liked Full Spectrum Dominance. Or how about weapons which target specific genotypes..could be politically useful. Not the same gang and ideology, but a lot of the rhetoric is not really that much different.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
WHAT neoconservative propaganda? What lies? The policy proposals put forward by the neocons was grounded in reality and formed by coalitions of very different-minded political thinkers who found common ground on the issues of foreign policy. You truly are a slave to bullshit. The evil you believe in isn't even real, it's this ethereal, other-worldly, truly hothouse evil that simply isn't realistic. When someone EXPLAINS things to you, you remain convinced of conspiracy, all evidence be damned.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Like the selling of the Iraq war. Intelligence fixed around policy and things like that. Grounded in reality? Despite what we now know? You're being lied to and yet you just take it.
What happened to the WMD's? Did they move them to Syria (a common conspiracy). Most wars are based on bogus information, like the Gulf of Tonkin, another lie.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
45 minutes. Mushroom cloud, involvement with 9/11, we know where the weapons are etc.. all used to scare the population into supporting something which they otherwise might not have.
Or like the first Iraq war. The incubator story. Made up to gain support. Lies and warpropaganda.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Fun4Sly you need some history lessons. Which country in the world has the most nukes and has used them in the past?
Please, do yourself a favor and get your head out of your ass.
Your government is Israels little slave and you are blind as a puppet.
TOAFN 3 years ago
I sincerly hope we use them again on the Islamonazis. Israel is sure some kind of magical entity with all the power you think it has.
Why don't you just give up, bend over, and let them bugger you then? Seems like its omnipotent to you anyway. Its easier if you don't fight from what I hear.
What I see is a corrupt religion run by ignorants and the mentally ill. It needs extermination - just like the Nazi's.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago
Fun4Sly, Have you ever traveled anywhere outside the states? try going to canada where every nation on earth has their own customs liveing them enjoying in customs of others. I have had Musslim Neighbors, And Arab Neighbors who were Christian. Where can you get off saying this crap on what you see a couple of vids? Or too much FOX tv. And as For Corruption in the Church my no longer catholic faith was the biggist weight of my chest, Dont condem out of ignoranc a billion and half people world
cycimian 3 years ago
My conclusions are hardly based on a "couple of vids." And the last time I checked, there is no component of the Catholic church that has sanctioned the murder and brutalization of others.
I have extensive contact with Islamic apostates. I am hardly ignorant. You have zero point of reference and cannot understand the twisted aspects of radical Islam. In fact, radical is not a proper segregation. Devout Islamists should be radical according to Islam.
We are fortunate that more are not.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago
Sheesh your going of like Bleeker From Sesamie street here. And when your conclusions are concluded is what now you being unilateral? And you seem to have some, Well alot of pent up hostility ? Radical Mormans, Radical Clansmen, Radical Southern Baptists, Whats your point here junior, that every nation has them or you just like to pick on Musslims. I belive your sufering from SalatiousFuxedAlotOfUs. Chill man might see you in Camp Fema one day who knows EH?
cycimian 3 years ago
And none of those guys are in charge of a $100B income next year such as Iran. None of them are producing nukes, and none of them chant "Death to America."
You fail to realize how insanely dangerous this group of loons is. They would whack you w/o hesitation, and they are far closer than you think.
Whats the real reason we have huge forces in the ME? For oil alone, hardly. Nazis were rational compared to these guys. A holocaust there will enable the return of their 12th Imam.
Fun4Sly 3 years ago 4
Death to israel!
ZionistWorldOrder 3 years ago
I love how every time someone expresses a view contrary to that of some leftist head-case, they get accused of (gasp!) Fox News watching...
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
There really is no need to make anything up. The PNAC neocon crowd are a dangerous group of people for US survival.
Hirnlego999 3 years ago
Yeah, the PNAC, all four of them. Look out for those guys! Idiot...
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Who "four of them"?
You mean people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Kristol, Bolton, Perle etc etc etc?
This crowd pretty much ruled over WH under 8 years. Idiot.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Here's what your fear-selling conspiracy-mongers left out:
1) Neither Cheney, Rumsfeld nor Bolton are neoconservatives. Wolfowitz, Kristol and Perle, sure, but none of the others are considered part of the SMALL faction of neocon intellectuals within the GOP.
2) At the height of its activity, the PNAC had a staff of FOUR people. It was basically Bill Kristol and a fax machine. They authored policy proposals that were adopted based on their MERIT, not the influence of some "shadowy cabal".
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
What fear mongering? 45 minutes and WMD's strike USA? Mushroom clouds? They'll follow us home and all that crap we heard so that they succeeded in selling their "theathre wars"?
Neocon intellectuals is an oxymoron. And many of those have been signatories for PNAC documents and blueprints.
Few can deny how influential these people have been. They did for instance target Sarah Palin. Second, there are other so called think thanks like AEI who produce the same sort of garbage..
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
If you knew anything about neoconservatism (you don't) or if you were even interested in knowing about it (you aren't), then you would ask ACTUAL neocons why they feel the way they do about foreign policy. The blogosphere is rife with errors, echoes of errors, conspiracy-mongering and the passionate intensity of ill-informed people of uncharitable sentiment. Your arguments reflect the worst traits of the internet: ad hominem arguments, vicious accusations and disdain for accuracy and precision.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You started with "idiot" and the claim that its only four people. So fuck of with your stupid blindspot of totally forgetting what you yourself have written to me as well as others.
It's enough to listen to Bolton, Kristol, Cheney, Krauthammer and people like that..
I don't need the filters of newsmedia or people like you who claim to have some sort of expertise on what they're really about. I've actually taken the time to read for instance the letters to Clinton, the 2000Sep blueprint etc.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
This just gets better! I started with 'idiot' because your assertion was idiotic and offensive to reason.
Secondly, I put much more faith in the postulations of a Kristol or Krauthammer any day of the week before I'd trust you 'free thinkers'. Here you claim objectivity, but you're just parroting the same tired, anti-Bush crap. Look, you don't HAVE to like Bush and it's FAIR to criticize his policies, but it helps your cause if you know what the hell you're talking about, which you don't.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Well why didn't you adress that instead of starting with an ad hominem? You really don't. You done it to others as well, lumping people together, putting words into their mouths.
And you try to reduce things like PNAC to a mere 4 people. That was stupid.
And what anti-Bush? Ok, here is some, he is incompetent, received a country in much better shape than he handed it over. But he is no neocon at least... but when it comes to US foreign policy I'm not a big fan of either party.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Well there you go. You didn't HAVE to spell out all that anti-Bush rhetoric because I already KNEW that's how you felt. You idiots ARE all the same, and you just proved my point. I didn't HAVE to put the words in your mouth, they were already there. I can read you dummies like a book because you all embrace the SAME BULLSHIT.
Here's what's REALLY stupid: That you believe the PNAC was anything but a TINY think tank in Washington with a staff of FIVE, if you include Kristol.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
All the same=stupid generalization. If I dont' agree with either parties foreign policy then how can I be of either side? I'm not.
I'm clearly not going to learn anything from a guy who says stupid things like "everyone knows Iran is developing nuclear weapons". Geez, sounds like you could be the new curve ball. Maybe you should contact CIA, IAEA etc..I'm sure they'd be interested in your information, since you seem to know more than anyone else.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Generalizations and stereotypes can be our friends. They reflect half-truths which are much more reliable than mere emotional speculation, which is all you've got. Perhaps I jumped the gun in lumping you in with the left. Forgive me. But if you insist on waxing emotional on matters that are clearly intellectual and removed from emotion, then you're going to sound like a whiny leftist.
I don't think the CIA is interested in any of the common knowledge I've put forward. They know the score.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I don't care for half-truths. And I don't care to respond nicely to people who the first they to do is calling someone an idiot, without knowing almost nothing about the person they speak to.
And you've done it so with others..like asking someone else something similar to "where did you get that info from A. Jones?" and saying things like "the jew hating leftwing" or similar. Appeal to emotion. Again, I think your blindspot is huge here. And I'm wasting my time.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
I'm a big boy, I can take it. My feelings aren't hurt if I'm called names. Sure, I've been vitriolic because I'm deeply troubled by the harmful air of anti-semitic world-domination conspiracy that has made such an alarming resurgence since 9/11. And it IS harmful. You think people in the Arab world don't pick up this propaganda ball and run with it? It is literally a global poisoning of minds, and it DISGUSTS me. I call out Jones because he's the leader of this pernicious, subversive movement.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
"anti-semitic world-domination conspiracy " This comes usually from the religious right. I know, because I've debated people on Alex Jones websites. Most jews in USA vote for the "left". Arab world an propaganda. Please, in USA they don't stand a chance against say AIPAC..which I have to agree with Pat B. is too powerful. Jones is a Christian libertarian.. I'm neither, so I don't find a lot of agreement from him.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
He's not a libertarian, he's part of the so-called 'paleoconservative' movement, and if you think we neocons are a crazy bunch, you haven't seen anything til you look at these paleoconservatives. THEY are the extreme right wingers, truly reactionary conservatives who view America as a malevolent force for evil. Buchanan's one of them, Jones is one of them, and those people are NUTS. I used to admire Buchanan as a young Republican but he lost me when he revealed himself as a rabid anti-semite.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Jones has a hard-on for Ron Paul, whom I would personally never vote for (and I can't). I'm not a fan of them really either, but for a more peaceful world they do have some points. Note..some. USA cannot afford neoconservatism. It's beyond me why Bush and co didn't ask for a war tax to finance the wars. It certainly was needed. A lower steady GDP rise is better than an economy almost based on borrowing, making many consider dumping the dollar as a reserve. Empires fail. Calm down.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Ron Paul is a crazy, conspiracy-mongering anti-semite crackpot also, as has been plainly revealed by now. Any politician who can't accept that we must support Israel, our only ally in a very troubled, authoritative region, will never get my support. Liberal democracy is strengthened at home when it's defended abroad.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
More useless ad hominems.
"The best way to destroy an enemy is to make him a friend." " Abraham Lincoln
"Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none." ~Thomas Jefferson
"Liberal democracy is strengthened at home when it's defended abroad. "
Horseshit. Turning into a police state more like.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
WHAT police state? You mean like Cuba, Iran, China and North Korea, with their gulags, forced labor camps, political prisons, reeducation and secret police? Yeah. OK.
"Chronic wrongdoing, or an impotence which results in a loosening of the general ties of civilized society ultimately require intervention by some civilized nation, and in the Western Hemisphere may force the United States, no matter how reluctantly, to the exercise of an international police power" - John Quincy Adams
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Additionally, "A nation's first duty is within its borders, but it is not thereby absolved from facing its duties in the world as a whole; and if it refuses to do so, it merely forfeits its right to struggle for a place among the people that shape the destiny of mankind." - Teddy Roosevelt
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
There has been un unrepresented powergrab during Bush/Cheney. Unfortunately Obama seems to continue those. At least press freedom index has improved from 38 to 22 or something like that.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Sure, I've heard this variation of your conspiracy garbage as well. Again, you come with nothing original, only echoed nonsense. See, you dummies were constantly railing that Bush was going to usher in this new era of American fascism, and then when THAT didn't happen, you did what all let-down conspiracy-mongers do, you CHANGED YOUR STORY! Now it's Obama who's going to usher in this new era of authoritarianism! Really, your anti-Americanism is SO transparent.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Oh please. Cato institute was one of them which wrote a report on how much liberties are been taken away. Does this mean a completely fascistic government? No, but liberties certainly eroded. I have a tough time imagining the founding fathers accepting anything like the "patriot act", or "enhanced interrogations". Besides, if the "full information awareness is in works" then you can be damn sure it makes many holes into the bill of rights. And Bush said a warrant is needed, BS they got amnesty
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Look, all of this is perfectly debatable, but when you start talking about the 'freedom index' and the Bush/Cheney 'power grab', you just sound stupid. The Cato Institute is diametrically opposed to the Bush admin, so it's no surprise they'd take issue with some of their policies. I take issue with some of the Bush policies as well. But I hardly see any significant erosion of freedom under his leadership.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Well, if the press freedom index falls from something like 11 to 38 it oughta worry citizens of any political opinion. When it comes to war dissent is often not sought after..it is however one of the basic principles of what is important with the USA.
Like UK I expect more erosions, and they happen gradually. And by then people simply might not just care. I personally cannot agree with it, but have it your way.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
3) The budget (some few hundred thousand dollars) and resources of the PNAC absolutely PALE in comparison to The Heritage Foundation, The Brookings Institution, The Cato Institute, The Center for American Progress, all MASSIVE Washington think tanks, NONE of whom are sympathetic to the neoconservative vision of foreign policy.
4) The number of NON-neocons who signed onto the policies introduced by PNAC scholars is not an indication of affiliation, but rather a sign of the outline's plausibility.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
I don't know what you've been doing the last 10 years or so but the influence of the PNAC crowd has been massive throughout the years. Weekly Standard for instance. And many of them work in media.. Kristol for instance is often on Fox News speaking..
It isn't without reason that people like C. Matthew's said "We're all neocons now", or that Kristol wishes Bush would've saved Scooter Libby from prison. Stories like these have been numerous, and I can't with the limitation start to quote them all
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Please outline for me this 'massive' influence. They're arguments for the war in Iraq were influential, yes. How else? Where is this influence? So Bill Kristol is a pundit on Fox and publishes a conservative magazine. So what?? Yeah, that Chris Matthews, he's a really objective source of information, isn't he? You idiots like to criticize conservatives for watching Fox and reading WS, but you seem to have NO problem with the vitriolic bias of MSNBC, or mags like The Nation and The Progressive.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Mode ad hominems. Fuck off pierre.
I don't own a TV, so again you're putting words into my mouth.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Well here's an idea, my scholarly chap:
BUY a fucking television set. Then you can SEE what your criticizing and therefore have a strong frame of reference.
Also, you've still failed to elaborate on the 'massive influence' of the neoconservatives on American society. Not that I'm surprised.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
TV = waste of time. I prefer reading.
I don't generally discuss with dining room tables. If you fail to see the massive influence that they had over the years then the problem is yours not mine. I'm not doing your homework.
Besides, you haven't provided any source for Iran's supposed nuclear weapons program...which you were so sure of.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Nice try, but it sounds to me like you're not doing ANY homework. Iran's desire to destroy Israel is no state secret. Why are you asking me for proof? Listen to the words coming out of the mouths of their leaders in global forums. Their intentions are so transparent that France and Germany are actually on our side!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Yes, like the last time when the Iraq war was sold on nothing but lies (well, not all of it, but the downing street memos and a lot more are enough to start investigations and put many people in many countries behind bars). I suppose you think the rhetoric of Ahme, an almost powerless president matters.. besides, a similar rhetoric has been heard from all sides.. and we know that there are a lot of people who again want in again to iran
An iran attack on israel would be suicide, don't expect it
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
The war wasn't sold on lies. To lie is to willingly deceive. The claims of WMD were corroborated by intelligence services around the world. It may be fair to say that the Bush admin's war cause was hurt by going to war under the pretense of WMD when later none were found, but it doesn't make the objective (and subsequent outcome) any less moral.
As for Ahmadinejad, I'm aware he's only the mouthpiece of the mullocracy. So why shouldn't I interpret his words as the will of the mullahs?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Of course it was, that is how almost any war are sold, because most of them are unnecesseray and the people won't support them without lies. Again, the intellitence was fixed around the policy, it was all a matter of getting it done. Be it to consider painting an aircraft in hoping Saddam would shoot it down.. or Blair's recent admission in saying that even without WMD's they'd take Saddam down (a guy which was helped in place by US in the first place)
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Okay Professor, since these are all just 'wars for oil' and foreign resources, then answer me this: Where was the oil in Vietnam? In Korea? In Germany and Italy? In Japan? In the Balkans? It's a completely foreign concept to you that America is a nation whose brave soldiers will die for the liberty of others. Since you yourself can't conceive of dying for someone else, it boggles your mind that others would and so you have to search for some sinister underlying theme behind our war efforts.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Not all of it. Never made the claim. There was a difference in the cold war but a lot of has to do with dominance. This is why democratic non-supporting regimes are often toppled and a puppet put in place.
WWI and II completely different as well. The beast woke up after WWII in general.
" Since you yourself can't conceive of dying for someone else" never said anything to contrary. Your putting words into my mouth and this leads nowhere.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Oil is a motive in the middle-east for sure... and as we know China has made huge investments in the oilmarket in Iran it is VERY plausible to say that USA once again wants after being kicked out. True for much of Europe as well.
The US war machine is in dire need of downsizing. There is no real competition to US as a power atm. Perhaps China and India in the future but that is the future. Excuse me if I remain skeptical of foreign policy decisions, but I think it lies on a stable grounding.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
And then there is office of special plans.
And it's permanent occupation, according to PNAC blueprint would have happened even should relations with Saddam improve. USA is looking for a permanent stay in the area. Modern neo-colonialism, just different rhetoric.
The war decicion was made long before they said it would. Rumsfeld asked for 9/11 to be tied to Iraq, go massive as he said. Cheney was mapping out iraqi oil fields pre-9/11.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
You have veered WAY off into loony, paranoid conspiracy land here. There was no war for oil. The intelligence was not fixed around the policy. The US never had plans to colonize any nation. More internet nonsense propagated by people with overactive imaginations who have no idea what they're talking about.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Of course it is. Take away oil out of the equation and the west quickly would lose its interest in the middle-east. Don't fool yourself.
"The good Lord didn't see fit to put oil and gas only where there are democratically elected regimes friendly to the United States. Occasionally we have to operate in places where, all things considered, one would not normally choose to go. But, we go where the business is." Dick Cheney 1998
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Again, WHERE? Where are these lucrative oil contracts? Where and when did we seize control of Iraq's oil? We didn't. The country's oil reserves were divided among the sectarian representative states within the Iraqi parliament. The whole 'war for oil' thing is the most common (and idiotic) lie regarding the war in Iraq. In the ousting of tyranny, no complicated calculations of geopolitical interest are necessary.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
AS for Ahme/mullahs. You shouldn't, because the rhetoric is not the same. A lot what Ahma says is to gain popularity among some of his supporters.. he doesn't for instance have any power over the military.
Iran has signed the NPT, has even a fatwa against nuclear weapons and allows inspections. Nothing to worry about. And they wouldn't have anything to gain by attacking Israel, which I think would be able to defend itself, even without US help.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Here's your buddy Bolton on Iran:
" they [Iran] have not done anything more dramatic, such as withdrawing from the nonproliferation treaty, or throwing out inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which I actually hoped they would do that that kind of reaction would produce a counter-reaction that actually would be more beneficial to us."
Gee, wanting "diplomacy" to fail are? Iraq-redux. Same lies, same assholes.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Of COURSE Bolton is against diplomacy because he's seen first hand for decades that diplomacy only emboldens the regime. It has never been anything short of an utter failure and embarrassment. The Arab world doesn't respect weakness, they respect strength. And if you think President Twinkle-Toes is just gonna waltz over there and charm the hell out of the Iranian government and convince them to stop Uranium enrichment with his soaring rhetoric, then you're living in the realms of science fiction
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Yes, diplomacy worked just so badly with the Russian, with the Chinese etc..
Iran is a result of bad foreign policy, the coup of 1953 backfired and the relations are still bad with Iran. Had the Shah been in place longer then Iran would already have had nuclear energy. Iran has been badly treated by USA. First the coup againt a democratic election and then the backing and supporting of Saddam in his war against Iran. Google: "why iran won't budge on nukes".
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Does it look like diplomacy is working with Russia and China NOW?? Obama renegs on our missile shield with the Poles and the Czechs in hopes that Russia would be more helpful in enforcing sanctions against Iran, and what happened, they told him to GET LOST. Obama wants to give billions to third world dictators and modernizing states like China in return for climate-pledge transparency, and China tells him to GET LOST. You think the world respects this guy?? They think he's an ASSHOLE!
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
USA would never allow Russian missiles on Cuba, Canada, in South America.
And Russia should not tolerate them at its footsteps. Part of the deal after the cold war was also not to expand NATO, which of course happened. Left hand does not know what the right hand does, just like talking about human rights and at the same time arming the world. Hypocricy.
Keep your toys on your own playground, forget about 'full spectrum dominance', forget about pax americana. It'll ruin USA.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
You missed my whole point, which is that your idea that diplomacy will wipe all asses is incredibly naive. The world is a dangerous place. Obama tried diplomacy (it was supposed to be his strongest suit) and the world laughed in his face. You have to stand up to these people! The world EXPECTS America to maintain a posture of strong leadership in the world, and when we don't, our enemies walk all over us as they're doing right now.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
If you can speak with the Russians during cold war you can speak with almost anyone. If you want to that is.
Policing the world is pure Orwellian eufemism. Just like "enhanced interrogation" or "patriot act"
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
You seem to be leaving out a little detail, like, say, the complete COLLAPSE of Soviet communism as an economy and a political ideology, and it was accomplished by getting in their face and saying "Don't even THINK about it." The cold war wasn't exactly a bunch of diplomatic niceties, genius. And while you armchair intellectuals are at home debating semantics and self-congratulating one another in your rejection of all things American, those very same 'euphemisms' are covering your ass.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Airchair intelletuals..would that be the chickenhawk neocons? All or almost all skipping war in one way or another when they could've served but no have no trouble sending other people to die in their war hard-ons.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
You call them chickenhawks, but it only displays your ignorance of neoconservatism. How about former CIA head James Woolsey? War veteran and prominent neocon. How about the FATHERS of modern neoconservatism, Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz? Both war veterans. Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Henry Jackson? How about brilliant military historian Max Boot? Once again, you don't have a fucking CLUE what you're talking about. Never mind that statesmen and soldiers perform different jobs.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Most of them are chickenhawks. Draftdodgers etc.. too coverdly to go to war on their own..and most of them wouldn't want their own kids on the battle-field so that they can build that perpetual peace through perpertual war. In a Straussian manner this this for the little people, the ignorant masses who can easily be scared to do this and that.
Irving Kristol doesn't have as much to do with neoconservatism as his son for instance..
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Wow, you misunderstand Straussian philosophy just as you do the neoconservative tendency; why am I not surprised? Read 'Persecution and the Art of Writing' by Strauss. Not that it would help you understand what he's talking about.
To say that Irving Kristol "doesn't have as much to do with neoconservatism as his son" is just.....stupid. It's like saying Franklin doesn't have as much to do with electricity as light bulbs do.
Who are these draft dodgers? More foolish claims of no substance.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Just google "rightwingers with no military service" and you'll find plenty.
I'll leave Strauss and his noble lies behind because utube conversations don't really lead anywhere at this speed.
Of course Irving laid the foundations but his role in say PNAC is not as big as his son's.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Oh okay, I'll GOOGLE it. Dumbass. You read it on the internet so it MUST be true, huh? Since you're big on emotional witch-hunts where you criticize politicians for not doing the jobs of soldiers, do you also blame SOLDIERS for not doing the jobs of POLITICIANS? Everyone has their job, smart guy. A politician's is to author and pass or not pass war policy, and a soldier's is to execute that policy. Also, since you're so convinced that PNAC was a deceptive, satanic force, where are they now?
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
More useless adhomimens. Keep em coming. Soldiers don't decide wars and often have unclear missions, so no blame on them. But had they in general been more skeptical they wouldn't bought all the BS they've been fed with.
PNAC is not satanic (lets not bring in religious fairy tales into this) but an arrogant, impossible overreaching foreign policy which would leave usa with less and less number of friends and possible bankruptcy. It's not realistic.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
As for PNAC, well those folks tried to brainwash Palin (probably would've succeeded) and do not enjoy as much power today as with Bush where even their power diminished in the end. My guess Bush felt fooled by them.
So not gone.. but as I said, in USA both parties are too much poisoned by the military industrial complex.. so I have a wait and see attitude. I'm not impressed by Obama so far.. USA needs something closer to the 90's again than 00's. More peace and financial stability.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Its a philopshy of deception. Just like the supposed WMDs in Iraq..which was how the war was sold. Scare the masses and they'll agree with another foolish adventure. As for Obama, he too is weak against the disease of the military industrial complex which Eisenhower so much warned about. Either way, massive taxcuts, military adventures, fragile economy should force any wise leader to look for other solutions. I'm not counting on it (with the expansion to Pakistan and Afghanistan after all)
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
For someone who claims non-partisanship, you echo the most common sentiments of far-right paleos regarding US foreign policy.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
And Bolton wants the UN out of its way because it is in the way for the American Empire, of Pax Americana, the protection of US interests at any cost..in a world of have's and have's nots. The man belongs in a padded cell.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Shit, I would HOPE for the protection of US interests at any cost. That's the difference between you and I. You'd give away the best country in the world in favor of tolerance and multiculturism. And therein lies the most fundamental difference between the political left and right in this country: The right believes America is the greatest nation, a benevolent force for good in the world, and the left believes it's a tragically flawed nation with a tendency towards great evil.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You're not. You cannot afford it. Get it into your head. When empires over their military they quickly ruin themselves.
"The right believes America is the greatest nation". Utter BS. You only need to look what the right said about when Clinton used the military in the 90's. Oh boy. And it was all black helicopters this and that, and now Obama is somehow not even an American citizen.
Most of you bend over to the will of the party, you're weak.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Who do you think got behind a lot of that birth certificate nonsense? Your buddy Alex "I Just Pulled This Memo Off of a Fax Machine, It MUST Be True" Jones! It's exactly the kind of conspiracy horseshit I've been railing against. Also, once again, your grasp of history is foggy, at best. The right criticized Bill Clinton for not being aggressive ENOUGH considering the information he was given. And they SUPPORTED him during the campaign against ethnic genocide in Kosovo.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You got it wrong. They didn't want Clinton to use the military at all for feelgood missions.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
What in God's name are you yammering about? Clinton gained a second term by governing more from the center and appeasing some right-wing hawks through his intervention in the Balkans. I can't speak for traditional conservatives and libertarians, but we neoconservatives supported those actions unequivocally.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Neoconvervatives were not that big in during Clinton. It took some time before PNAC was formed for instance.
The rightwingers who were in power did not support Clinton. There are tons of quotes to be found on this. Back then it was more Powell than the neocons. You should know it.
Come 2001 and and the neocons hijacked the party, especially after 9/11. In the end more and more distanced themselves from it.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
"not that big"? Neoconservatives have NEVER served as elected officials in any office since Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, Professor. But they've been a mainstay of conservative intellectualism since the 60's. If anything, the 9/11 attacks vindicated the arguments they've been making for DECADES.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
My opinion is not the same. Much of the modern neoconservatism came after Reagan and with Wolwowitz first draft about year 1992 which leaked out to the press and then was rewritten by Cheney I think to make it milder. Unilateralism will be heavy burden, its a shame you neocons don't see it. If anything then 9/11 teaches the lesson of blowbacks. The same with 1979 Iranian revolution.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Neocons have no problem with alliances. They are wary of granting multilateral institutions like the UN a veto over US action, or joining deeply flawed international agreements simply for the sake of multilateral harmony. Neocons are committed to US global leadership and they know that the costs of such leadership are so high that the US needs allies to share the burden. Neocons are deeply suspicious of the UN, but are happy to make common cause with them when doing so will serve US interest.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
They seek it if they can find it but do not see it as that important. This is why there has been tons of anti-UN rhetoric from the right in the last well 7 years or so. Not that the UN is perfect (I don't think any institution really is) or anything.
Pre-emptive war is not legal..so of course they will not find much support at UN. Seems to me it was only because of Powell that Bush even bothered with the inspections at all...
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Actually he didn't seem to support it. But he certainly is not my buddy..
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Similarly, The Daily Show, Colbert Report, Hardball, Real Time w/ Bill Maher and The Simpsons are NOT what sane people consider to be objective sources of information either, Mr. Fact-Finder.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Never claimed them to be. I'm very much a reader.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
No, they're just your favorite shows, right? According to your videos and your NAMED favorites. You even QUOTED Matthews. But you don't actually glean any information from them, do you? Please. You're not fooling anyone, smart guy.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
You really try hard to misunderstand do you? Matthews comment was common, when everyone pretty much had an war hard on and some people described Bush's crowd as a foreign policy dream.
A lot of people too distance from it like Fukuyama..of course years after realizing what a mess it had created, how much good-will USA had lost..
Comedy shows are not news sources. Its a way of seeing the foolishness in a lot..
But right wingers barely have comedians so I guess you won't understand.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
Yes, and Francis Fukuyama isn't the only neocon who finds himself at odds with their vision of foreign policy. That doesn't mean I agree with him. To quote Charles Krauthammer, I find Fukayama's conclusions "breathtakingly incoherent". But we conservatives disagree on lots of things. In fact most conservatives agree on little outside of their core principles. Unlike those on the political left, who more often than not march lockstep in their beliefs, remaining true to their collectivist nature.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Again you deal with ridiculous stereotypes..which to me suggest that you need to step outside of rightwing bubble a bit.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
That's what you think. The truth is, I'm just another liberal who was mugged by reality. I'm a REAL liberal, the way liberals USED to be before the failure of 60s radicalism, when the left became a bunch of socialist, America-hating, government-worshiping, secular-humanist, yellow-bellied peacenik trash. In other words, I grew up and joined the party most interested in preserving American exceptionalism.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
More ridiculous trash. Secularism is part of any sort of liberalism. Keep thy religions to thyself and out of government. Besides, religion is outdated.
As for "American exceptionalism", look up two documentaries: What I've learned about US foreign policy and The War on Democracy. And consider just how many non-democratic regimes US at this time suppports. Bad foreign policy is what US has been doing for years, this leads blowbacks..
A big war machine is big gov.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
You're way too idealistic. Of course I don't like some of the people we've propped up over the years, but I understand the ugly truth. In a clash with authoritarianism, liberal democracies must sometimes act out of character and remain constantly vigilant. This is accomplished by sometimes aligning ourselves with unsavory characters around the world. The point is always the BIG picture, something the left constantly misses while griping endlessly over this or that battlefield.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Additionally, I'm all for keeping religion out of government, but don't put it in the toilet. It may be outdated to godless secular-progressives, but it remains a very tangible force in the lives of billions. In America we have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM it. It's a personal thing, sure, but it's also a huge defining part of our culture.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
It belongs in the toilett. It's one of the first ideas in trying to explain the world and oh boy did they fuck it up.
Of course you have freedom from it. No one is forced to have a religion.
Its not illegal to be a non-believer.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
No, it's not illegal to be a non-believer, the rest of us just wish you'd shut the hell up about it and leave us and our religion alone. Your pious reforms are unwelcome among reasonable people.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
What big picture? The right used to be against the wars when the so called American left (which is more BS) started plenty of wars. The American right has changed throughout the years. There days of Goldwater are long gone. Stop using those silly talking points, you got your head all too much inside the rightwing bubble. How can you see the big picture when you don't even own a mirror?
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
There was a time when the American left understood the need to defend this country at all costs. Those times are gone, unfortunately. The new left is only happy when America is rendered marginal and weak among the rest of the world; an idea born of their warped rejection of American exceptionalism and embrace of radical egalitarianism.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Yes. Like Iraq was a threat to USA.
Do you know how fucking large US military is? It makes everyone else like tiny in comparison. And it certainly was known that Saddam was pretty much completely crippled and had nothing to do with 9/11.
Hirnlego999 2 years ago
(sigh)....That's how the US military SHOULD be. In the BROADER war on terror, no reasonable ground could be gained with Saddam Hussein still in power. al-Zarqawi was living and training in Iraq (with Saddam's full knowledge) before we invaded. He had an unwritten accord with bin Laden in the vein of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Hussein was known to have paid the families of suicide bombers and maintain ties with VARIOUS terror groups both internal and external. Chew on that reality.
LuckyPierre78 2 years ago
Reality? Neoconservatism has nothing to do with reality. Its like all dream of an empire, they eventually all fail.""We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. "
Again, want to defeat terrorism, then google Rand corp how terrorism ends.
Only 7% success rate with military...
Hirnlego999 2 years ago