#2
Terror is the means, not the agent, boom vest components without splodeys are relatively harmless. When one day we clearly state who the agent is, we'll be going somewhere.
#4
FOXNEWS Guest Biz Pert [paraph] > NO GOING BACK TO THE DAYS = TIME IN AMERICA BEFORE 9-11.
IOW, Global OWG-NWO IS HERE TO STAY - only real issuea are whether said OWG-NWO is dominated by the US-West + Western -ISMS, or NOT, and HOW SAID OWG-NWO IS TO BE ORGANIZED = STRUCTURED!
OWG/GLOBALISM BYWORDS FOR TODAY, TOMORROW, AND SINCE 9-11 IS INTER-ETHNICISM" + "INTRANATIONALISM" + "TRANSNATIONALISM"
+ "REGIONALISM" + "TRANS/INTER-REGIONALISM" + "CONTINENTALISM" + "TRANSCONTINENTALISM" + ......................................@
UTOPIANISM, GLOBALISM, UNIVERSALISM, PLANETARISM, UNIVERSISM, INTERSTELLARISM???
We want to make it absolutely positively categorically undeniably uneguivocally..... totally concisely finger-pointing clear to the American people ---------------------- and D **** IT, DON'T YOU EVER FORGET WHAT WE NEVER TOLD YOU OR DID TO YOU. DON'T FORCE ME TO SEND "THE SIMPSON'S" COMIC BOOK GUY AFTER TOU!
D *** NG IT, OWG AMERIKA, SUPPORT YOUR FIFTH ELEMENT, RED-HAIRED MUUUULLLTIIIPPPASSSSSS-SAYING
SEXY ALIEN-HUMAN SPACE BABE + THE SOLYENT GREEN-HAPPY INTERSTELLAR FOOD/TRAVEL CORPORATION!
The present war in Afghanistan has many dimensions, many shades and many players, known as well as hidden. Most of the analysis fail to assess this subtle war and thus arrive at conclusions which are superficial.
Salient aspects of this war are as following:
- A Proxy War
- A combination of State and non State Actors
- Known and hidden actors
- A case of hunting with the hounds and running with the foxes
- Ethnic Factors
- The Great Myth of 80,000 Troops
- A case of large spaces and insufficient force ratios
- A case of inconclusive civil war
- A case of Long Term US Strategic Interests and its clash with regional actors
- A case of an undeclared Indo Pak War being fought in Afghanistan.
- US-Pakistan relationship is complex.
- Pakistan at cross roads of choice of direction.
We will discuss the above listed aspects in the succeeding paragraphs.
rest at link
Posted by: john frum ||
02/05/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Taliban
#1
Forgot one.
-Trying to civilize a bunch of clinically certifiable sociopaths.
#2
Afghanistan is mostly stable. Most problems are in the Pashto and Waziri regions. I blame: the UN for wasting money on refugee centers, which are terror bases; Pakistan's indulgence of Islamofascism; Karzai's brazen protection of the opium, cum heroin, industries as run by his fellow Pashtos.
Myth: there is no opium eradication in Afghanistan. If fact, crop replacement is extensive in all but Helmand District, which produces most opium that is used in Asia, Europe and Africa. Under the Taliban, the government took 15% of the drug trade, and this continues. Helmand is under Taliban sovereignty, and is so because Karzai strongly resists US air operations in his Pashto homeland. Heroin production was non existent when the Taliban took over; now Afghanistan exports little raw opium. UN documents record the exact location of the major heroin factories. Much of the killing of NATO troops can be directly attributed to the drug-prosperity that follows our indulgence of Karzai.
This issue will blow up in someone's face. It may take time but some US politician will glide into office, when a commitment is made to end drug/oil exploitation by our parasitic allies.
IIRC, after the flame up of antisemite violence of 2000 and following, the french police intelligence (RG) did a survey of caught perps, and only 6% of them were from the "traditional" antisemite rightwing, that is that between ca 2000 and 2003, 94% of violences directed at joooooos in France were done by Youths.
It can no longer be avoided: super delegates will determine the Democratic Presidential nominee this year. Here is the current situation:
* With Michigan and Florida removed from the equation, 2,025 delegates are required to win the nomination, and there are 3,253 pledged delegates.
* To date, four states with a combined 137 pledged delegates have held nominating contests.
* Currently, Barack Obama is projected with 63 pledged delegates, and Hillary Clinton is projected with 48 (source).
* On Super Tuesday, 22 states and a couple territories with a combined 1,688 pledged delegates will hold nominating contests.
From this point, quick math shows that after Super Tuesday, only 1,428 pledged delegates will still be available. Now, here is where the problem shows up. According to current polling averages, the largest possible victory for either candidate on Super Tuesday will be Clinton 889 pledged delegates, to 799 pledged delegates for Obama. (In all likelihood, the winning margin will be lower than this, but using these numbers helps emphasize the seriousness of the situation.) As such, the largest possible pledged delegate margin Clinton can have after Super Tuesday is 937 to 862. (While it is possible Obama will lead in pledged delegates after Super Tuesday, it does not currently seem possible for Obama to have a larger lead than 75). That leaves Clinton 1,088 pledged delegates from clinching the nomination, with only 1,428 pledged delegates remaining. Thus, in order to win the nomination without the aid of super delegates, in her best-case scenario after Super Tuesday, Clinton would need to win 76.2% of all remaining pledged delegates. Given our proportional delegate system, there is simply no way that is going to happen unless Obama drops out.
So, there you have it. Unless either Obama or Clinton drops out before the convention, there is simply no way that the nominee can be determined without the super delegates. In the broadest definition of the term, "a brokered convention" is a convention that is determined by super delegates instead of nominating contests. Through a deadly combination of a primary calendar race to the bottom and an anachronistic method of delegate selection, we Democrats seem to have already arrived at that point. Short of one candidate dropping out, there is simply no easy way that this situation can be resolved. Given that Michigan and Florida combine for 313 pledged delegates, it is likely that this situation won't be resolved without severe bureaucratic fighting on the DNC rules and by-laws committee, or even a credential fight at the convention itself.
And why should either candidate drop out? Clinton has a large lead in super delegates, and can make a real argument over the Michigan and Florida delegations. Obama, by contrast, will probably lead in pledged delegates at the end of February, and will be able to raise significantly more money than Clinton. And so, we are at an impasse. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/05/2008 08:50 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This has the potential for a dhimocrat version of 2000. Obama wins the popular vote and Hillary takes the delegates.
I need a warehouse for the popcorn if that happens.
#5
"With Michigan and Florida removed from the equation..."
Ummm...not exactly. DNC Chairmain Mao Howard Dean has gone on the record to say that an "Election committee" has the final say whether the Michigan and Florida delegates will be counted or not. The Dems will NOT go into a convention without a nominee. That would give them only eight weeks for their national campaign. If it's still close - look for the Clinton Pikers to come out of the woodwork.
I'm thinking of an American president who demonized ethnic groups as enemies of the state, censored the press, imprisoned dissidents, bullied political opponents, spewed propaganda, often expressed contempt for the Constitution, approved warrantless searches and eavesdropping, and pursued his policies with a blind, religious certainty.
Oh, and I'm not thinking of George W. Bush, but another "W" actually "WW": Woodrow Wilson, the Democrat who served from 1913 to 1921.
President Wilson is mostly remembered today as the first modern liberal president, the first (and only) POTUS with a PhD, and the only political scientist to occupy the Oval Office. He was the champion of "self determination" and the author of the idealistic but doomed "Fourteen Points" his vision of peace for Europe and his hope for a League of Nations. But the nature of his presidency has largely been forgotten.
That's a shame, because Wilson's two terms in office provide the clearest historical window into the soul of progressivism. Wilson's racism, his ideological rigidity, and his antipathy toward the Constitution were all products of the progressive worldview. And since "progressivism" is suddenly in vogue today's leading Democrats proudly wear the label it's worth actually reviewing what progressivism was and what actually happened under the last full-throated progressive president.
The record should give sober pause to anyone who's mesmerized by the progressive promise. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/05/2008 08:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#3
The author may have a comparison, but the philosophy of fascism hadn't been invented yet. Instead, I would class Wilson as he has been classed, as the first "liberal" President.
That is, he was as incompetent, petty, power grasping, and ineffectual as was, later, LBJ, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton.
His conduct of the war resulted in enormous numbers of unnecessary US casualties. And his creation of the FED essentially nationalized control of the US economy.
Another screw up placed the national railway system under Washington control, so that every bureaucrat ordered his own personal rail car. This resulted in a rail traffic jam on the East Coast that took six months to a year to clear.
He encouraged anti-German racism, and the formation of "patriotic" organizations, including the Ku Klux Klan, which grew to its greatest heights in the 1920s.
Plenty to criticize with the man, including the fact that his wife ran the country secretly after his stroke.
#4
I see his legacy as a failed one since everything he did led to more war and misery. The WWI treaty to end all wars gave us WWII, the breakup of the Austrian empire gave us the balkanization of the area, and the League of Nations gave us nothing.
#5
Yes Moose, she was the first American woman President. So Hillary is nothing 'special', but who needs real history when they can make it up Hollyweird style. However my reading is that the political powers to be didn't know what to do since the Constitution [which people still thought sacred even though Wilson himself thought it in terms of 'living' like many future jurists] was moot on the point of succession when the man was still alive, the Vice President didn't want the job, and the country had to get the admin work done at least. So, they all played a game of looking the other way, while papers went in the room with Edith [Galt] to come out after signed. The policy was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell".
And iirc, Wilson directed the segregation of the Navy which up till that time was integrated in the ranks.
#6
Procopius2k: That reminds me, while it is almost never mentioned, Wilson also directed the segregation of Washington, D.C., which had never before been done.
#9
Agreed 2x4 - is is only relevant to the degree that, having grown up in that milieu, he himself evidenced a strong and openly expressed sense of the inferiority not only of African Americans but also of Irish and other immigrants of the time.
#10
Of Teddy Roosevelt's two Maternal Unckles, one was an officer on the CSS Alabama and the other was a purchasing agent for the Confederacy in England. Both were never allowed to return to the US. Again, irrelevant.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
02/05/2008 20:03 Comments ||
Top||
Sen. Hillary Clinton teared up this morning at an event at the Yale Child Study Center, where she worked while in law school in the early 1970s.
A doctor, who was introducing Clinton, began to choke up, leading Clintons eyes to fill with tears, which she wiped out of her left eye. At the time, the doctor was saying how proud he was that sheepskin-coat, bell-bottom-wearing young woman he met in 1972 was now running for president.
How come Hillary only cries when its about her? In New Hampshire she gets asked, how do you do it, how are you so wonderful, and she cries. Now its look at our little girl, all grown up and she cries. Never for anyone else. The tears are always for her, and always just before a primary that looks iffy.
Im not feeling well today, so maybe thats why I want to throw up. Or maybe, its not the bug.
Tears in New Hampshire and she won. Will it work for her again? What do you think?
Posted by: Mike ||
02/05/2008 06:33 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[5 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
I think O'Bama will have a verrry good Tuesday, and the Clinton Attack Machine will spin into overdrive. Delicious.
Kinda like a DC version of "There Will Be Blood"
I can just imagine the cackle: "who's crying now, punk?"
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/05/2008 7:21 Comments ||
Top||
Decided last night that I do agree with the 'change' mantra. Congress has been pissing me off for about 2 years now. I will not vote for any congresscritter running for president, so go Mitt!
#1
besides the dead Joooooos never defended or mourned, you never hear the "human rights" assholes talk about the deliberate maiming, disfiguring aimed for by the Paleos with their nails/bolts/screws/wire-laced booms. The inclusion of these are not accidental, they are a deliberate attempt to cause widespread civilian damage, and should be denounced as such, then answered. No need to mass-bomb Gaza, although that's certainly deserved after their past evils. Time to cut off all vestiges of civil society to teh Gazans. Water, power, food, and sewage should be disconnected. Let their Arab brothers do more than use them as a weapon, i.e.e: pick up teh tab and provide the "needs" for them. Fuck the outcry from the UN, HRW, et al. They have proven their hypocrisy and hatred for Israel by their bias.
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/05/2008 18:02 Comments ||
Top||
#2
Didn't Bush and Rice just say they want to send even more money to the Paleos?
I'd really like to hear Bush's explanation of that to the these unmentioned and unmourned victims. Innocent victims who were deliberately targetted by the very people Bush and Rice want to send money to.
Controlled insanity a term popularized by George Orwell in his novel,1984, was his attempt to describe the machinations behind doublethink the very conscious effort of one party to tell a deliberate lie that it truly believes in.
This idea of controlled insanity rests on the proposition that one can be and yet not be at the same time. It is a sorry exercise in faulty logic and internally inconsistent arguments.
Unfortunately this diabolical and maybe even sophomoric type of confused thinking is the best way of describing many of the positions that have been advocated over time by the Lebanese opposition parties. They are constantly proclaiming their love for the country and their interest in promoting its welfare when each of their acts seems to be deliberately designed to achieve just the opposite. Weaken the state, promote instability and act as an advocate for foreign interests.
Although the above contradictions are apparent to all who would bother to look beyond the surface phenomenon of what is going on in Lebanon and thus one would not assign them a high probability of success, this tragedy of faulty logic has infected the totality of the political discourse regarding the Palestinian right of return. All parties in Lebanon repeat ad nauseum the mantra that The Palestinian refugees must not be settled in Lebanon without subjecting such a statement to any meaningful level of analysis.
Does a host country have any moral obligations to extend a helping hand to those who seek shelter within its borders? Is it not our duty to offer protection, equal treatment under the law and to help integrate the less fortunate who come asking for help? Are we suggesting that life in slums deprived of the very basics of sanitation, educational services, health care and jobs is acceptable provided that these unlucky inhabitants are not Lebanese citizens? What would be our position if say the US or a European country was to discriminate against refugees within their borders?
If we expect these countries to do whatever is in their power to integrate the refugees that cross their borders then why does not the same principal apply to us? How can we stand to look at our image in the mirror when we deliberately pursue policies that encourage exploitation, misery and squalor to those that are less fortunate? And last but not least would someone please care to explain how is it that a humane treatment of our brothers and sisters would deprive them of their legal rights to return?
Doublethink by the opposition is its hallmark and thus should not be a surprise. But it is very worrisome when the majority adopts the same method of uncritical analysis. Whenever anyone supports keeping the Palestinian refugees in the dastardly conditions that we have perpetuated over the past sixty years then it is incumbent on that individual to explain in plain language how mistreating a guest will help deliver that guests natural right.
Currently around 450,000 Palestinian refugees inhabit the hovels that we call refugee camps and it is time for us to treat them as fellow humans, recognize their contributions to our economy, offer them equal protection and help ease their pain. Poverty, inequality and social injustice is a reflection on what we hold to be dear. We have failed our Palestinian neighbors long enough; let us stop using their tragedy as a political football to enhance our own selfish political agendas. They deserve better.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/05/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[9 views]
Top|| File under: Global Jihad
#1
Yeah, Ghassan, just don't bring up all those dead Lebanese soldiers the Fatah al-Islam boys took out a few months back. Might help answer your question about why most Lebanese could give a shit about taking good care of the Palestinians in Lebanon...
In 1788, Massachusetts playwright Mercy Otis Warren took one look at the (unratified) U.S. Constitution and declared that "we shall soon see this country rushing into the extremes of confusion and violence." This, roughly, is the origin of American declinism -- and it's been downhill ever since. . . .
Declinism is again in vogue. "America's unipolar moment has inspired diplomatic and financial countermovements to block American bullying and construct an alternate world order," writes Parag Khanna in a recent New York Times Magazine cover story titled, cheerfully, "Who Shrank the Superpower?" In Sunday's Los Angeles Times, Fred Kaplan observes that "the United States can no longer take obeisance for granted." Mr. Kaplan's new book, "Daydream Believers: How a Few Grand Ideas Wrecked American Power," sounds just a bit derivative of Nancy Soderberg's "The Superpower Myth" (2005), Roger Burbach's "Imperial Overstretch" (2004) and Charles Kupchan's "The End of the American Era" (2003).
American "decline" is the foreign-policy equivalent of homelessness: The media only take note of it when a Republican is in the White House. Broadly speaking, declinists divide between those who merely accept America's supposed diminishment as a fact of life, and those who celebrate it as long overdue. As for the causes of decline, however, they tend to agree: declining (relative) economic muscle, due in large part to the rise of China; an overextended military bogged down needlessly in Iraq and endlessly in Afghanistan; the declining value of America's "brand" on account of Bush administration policies on detention, pre-emption, terrorism, global warming -- you name it.
Yet each of these assumptions collapses on a moment's inspection. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
02/05/2008 06:24 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[8 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
..."the United States can no longer take obeisance for granted."
I got news for all these geniuses: their predecessors were writing the same things in 1977. I'm wondering when exactly this obeisance was taking place, because it sure hasn't been in my adult lifetime. I'm beginning to wonder if the golden myth of American supremacy during the Eisenhower years wasn't a bunch of crap, too. Any of you old guys know?
#3
Trailing Wife, we're now at the point of sending financial aid to the country that performed the 9/11 attacks because it's the only way we're allowed to actually send supplies through to where we're fighting them in a proxy war in Afghanistan.
#4
That's why Afghanistan isn't important. We're funding the same people in Pakistan we are trying to kill in Afghanistan. Better to ship enough weapons via FSU Stans to the Northern Alliance and let them deal the traditional way with the Pashtoons and any frisky Pakis.
Posted by: ed ||
02/05/2008 15:07 Comments ||
Top||
#5
SOCIALIST-GOVTIST-COMMIE "REGRESSION" goes GLOBAL AND BEYOND, as per from LOCAL-NATIONAL, i.e. "POTEMKINIST" PC APPEARANCE/FALSE FACADE of strength and prosperity disguises belies underlying, serious or catastrophic weakness(es).
As a GUAM Library visitor reminded yesterday, MARXISM = COMMUNISM kept RUSSIA-CHINA SO WEAK THAT IN REALITY THE COMMIES NEED "BOURGEOSIE" PEACE, NOT MARX-PREMISED WAR OR REVOLUTION, TO REALISTICALLY ACHIEVE ANY "PROGRESS" + MARXIST-SOCIE "UTOPIANISM", ETC.
* TOPIX/FARK > VATICAN reports another substantial drop in the overall number of PRIESTS + NUNS.
By this aboesame[extended]logic or scope, the PAN-SECULARISTS in reality need GOD + RELIGION + NON-SECULAR BASED MORALISM-ETHICS TO ACHIEVE ANY AND ALL OF THE SECULAR AGENDA. notsomuch ATHEISM, SECUL-ATHEIST SCIENTIFISM, etc,
IOW, "TO KILL THE MESSIAH/SAVIOR IS TO KILL THE SUN". Iff I'm reading and comprehending my Bible, other Religious-Moralist texts, Mythic, and differens Pert/Personage Opinions-Commentaries correctly, to include vv Secularists, IFF THE SO-CALLED [World]HEAVENLY MESSIAH/SAVIOR IS DESTROYED OR OTHERWISE PREVENTED FROM FULFILLING HIS DIVINE MISSION, THE NON-SECULAR SUN = UNIVERSAL NATURAL SCIENS FORCES WILL BEGIN TO CATASTROPHICALLY DETERIORATE/WEAKEN UNTO NATURAL = SECUL SCIENTIFIC DESTRUCTION - EMPIRICALLY, MEASURABLY, QUANTIFIABLY BUT NO LESS DIVINICALLY OR GREATER.
Perhaps as best illustrated by the post 9-11 MOUDIAN/OSAMA BIN LADEN "END-TIMES" ISLAMIST APOCALYPSE, GOD WILL NOT ALLOW MANKIND TO SUCCEED OR EXPLORE DEEP SPACE WIDOUT GOD-FAITH???
Sub-IOW, BY ANY MEASURE "OWG AMERIKA" NEEDS MORE GOD-FAITH, NOT LESS.
In the 1960's or early 1970's, did young Vietnam soldier-veteran OLIVER STONE know about his future movie JFK, or 9-11 + Dubya + Osama + Moud, etc.???
SECULARISM + SECULAR SCIENCE SAYS "NO", ERGO SUPPORT DEFECTIVE NON-KNOWING SECULARISM = SECUL SCIENCE??? DON'T THINK SO.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
