TR is the hands-down #1 choice. Besides the Spanish army, he reeled in all sorts of robber barons, prised the Panama Canal (and the whole country of Panama) from the pompous but feeble Colombians, and sent his favorite Big Stick, the US battle fleet, around the world to impress other foreign girly-men.
I would have added Zachary Taylor, US commander during the Mexican War. A number of (mostly) Irish American volunteers had deserted to the Mexicans and formed their own regiment to fight against their former comrades. Taylor caught 67 of these San Patricios and promptly had them hanged.
I heard a Celtic folk-song praising the San Patricios on our local commie (PBS) station a while back, so the episode has left a worthwhile impression in traitor circles.
#4
This quote actually comes from a fellow politician at the time of Roosevelt's death: "Death had to take him sleeping, for if Roosevelt had been awake there would have been a fight." We have no witty commentary for that. That is just straight up badass.
LOL
Posted by: Frank G ||
02/22/2008 18:54 Comments ||
Top||
Europe is in a classic paradox. Emotionally and culturally, Europeans are invested in a leftist such as Obama who reflects their soft socialist values and fuzzy multilateralism. But given their inherent military weakness and rough neighborhood, they have grown to count on an antithetical America religious, conservative, militarily strong that is not afraid to use force to fulfill its obligations to preserve the shared Western globalized system from its constant multifarious challenges. Im not sure they privately want a President Obama calling Sarkozy or Merkel and announcing, I think we should co-chair a worldwide Islamic conference to hear out Irans grievances. Much better it would be for the U.S. to ensure that Iran doesnt get the bomb at which point the French elite would trash America in Le Monde for being unilateral, cowboyish, and preemptive.
Our response to this Euro-neuroticism?
We are weary and tired of it. As our ancestors out West used to sing, Yippy ti yi yo, get along little dogies, It's all your misfortune and none of my own
Are the Obamas, at bottom, snobs? Do they understand America? Are they of it? Did anyone at their Ivy League universities school them in why one should love America? Do they confuse patriotism with nationalism, or nativism? Are they more inspired by abstractions like "international justice" than by old visions of America as the city on a hill, which is how John Winthrop saw it, and Ronald Reagan and JFK spoke of it?
Have they been, throughout their adulthood, so pampered and praised--so raised in the liberal cocoon--that they are essentially unaware of what and how normal Americans think? And are they, in this, like those cosseted yuppies, the Clintons?
Why is all this actually not a distraction but a real issue? Because Americans have common sense and are bottom line. They think like this. If the president and his first lady are not loyal first to America and its interests, who will be? The president of France? But it's his job to love France, and protect its interests. If America's leaders don't love America tenderly, who will?
And there is a context. So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out. They can see we are giving up our sovereignty, that our leaders will not control our borders, that we don't teach the young the old-fashioned love of America, that the government has taken to itself such power, and made things so complex, and at the end of the day when they count up sales tax, property tax, state tax, federal tax they are paying a lot of money to lose the place they loved.
And if you feel you're losing America, you really don't want a couple in the White House whose rope of affection to the country seems lightly held, casual, provisional. America is backing Barack at the moment, so America is good. When it becomes angry with President Barack, will that mean America is bad?
* * *
Michelle Obama seems keenly aware of her struggles, of what it took to rise so high as a black woman in a white country. Fair enough. But I have wondered if it is hard for young African-Americans of her generation, having been drilled in America's sad racial history, having been told about it every day of their lives, to fully apprehend the struggles of others. I wonder if she knows that some people look at her and think "Man, she got it all." Intelligent, strong, tall, beautiful, Princeton, Harvard, black at a time when America was trying to make up for its sins and be helpful, and from a working-class family with two functioning parents who made sure she got to school.
That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide. A lot of white working-class Americans didn't come up with those things. Some of them were raised by a TV and a microwave and love our country anyway, every day.
Does Mrs. Obama know this? I don't know. If she does, love and gratitude for the place that tries to give everyone an equal shot would seem to be in order.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2008 07:52 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
It's like The Jeffersons are running, except Obama is Weezy and Michelle is George...
#2
Obama is so successful because he is the first black politican who is white enough to attract whites. So he has maybe 90% of the black vote. No big deal when blacks are a 13% minority. It just means he has a lock on about 1 out of 8 voters. Most black leaders have appealed to blacks by being confrontive with the white majority. They remain minorities. Like Bill Cosby and a few others, Obama chose to "rise above" the race issue. Even though I hate his sicko left-wing ideology with a passion, I can't help loving the man. He's beautiful, articulate(in prepared speeches)and includes us white folks in a positive(though indistinct) image of the future. Michelle sounds old-order black leadership. Bad news for him. He needs to dump her right quick, or at least muzzle her. She's poison to his newfound relation with majority whites. Somehow, I don't think he will hush her up.
#3
That's the great divide in modern America, whether or not you had a functioning family, and she apparently came from the privileged part of that divide.
And, despite Noonan's description of the Clintons as "cosseted yuppies" Bill Clinton clearly came up on the underprivileged part of that divide. I believe we'd be a better people if more of us were reared on the "privileged" side of that divide, but not be cause it is really so privileged, but because the other is so frequently tragic and produces results like Bill Clinton. But as long as the "privileged" side produces co-dependents like Hillary, I don't see it as determinative of much except human happiness.
#4
Obama is successful because he has no history to hold against him (no pesky votes, no race baiting, nothing). Plus he's handsome and articulate.
I do believe his bubble will burst prior to the general election though. His followers are creepy and cult-like and he has no resume and for the job of President we should expect more even if the Democratic Party doesn't.
#6
Right, Peggy, "So many Americans right now fear they are losing their country, that the old America is slipping away and being replaced by something worse, something formless and hollowed out." Something without borders. Something withour manufacturing. Someplace where a foreigner, George Soros, has backed the three remaining candidates with millions of dollars, yet I am restricted to $4,600 per candidate because I am a citizen. Some place where the CFR holds the strings to the three remaining candidates and would force a North American Union in spite of what the real owners of America want. Some place controlled by the elite. You know the elite. The royal families of the politically corrupt. Those who never sweat. Those who know what's best. Those who need a village to help raise a child.
Face it folks, we have lost it for now.
How can we get it back ?
My best suggestion is to take marching orders from a single source, like Limbaugh. We would need Limbaugh to instruct us who to vote for, for each district, and each state. Without it, we are scattered in the wind, and the elites will always out manuver us.
#7
I wouldn't go so far as to take my marching orders from Limbaugh but I do believe we are screwed at least for the next four years. The decline started with Bill Clinton. I was surprised to see it so soon after Reagan. It was a kind of moral degeneration combined with globalism. People thought it was OK if Clinton had an affair with an intern as long as the cheap plastic crap from China kept flowing. The rot has continued since then and I don't see it stopping any time soon no matter who gets elected in November. This has become a country where corporate bottom lines are all that matters. As one who believes in capitalism I might not see the problem with that except that these are no longer American corporations but global conglomerates. The products are no longer made in America. Even the workers are no longer necessarily Americans. The voters aren't either. The products are made in China. Even if it's an American product like a hamburger chances are an illegal alien from Mexico cooked it for you. Even the union members are not necessarily American anymore which may explain why they're able to endorse Obama. How long can this continue before the great American middle class is forced to accept third world conditions? Maybe it's our own fault. Maybe we've gotten too fat and lazy, too hypnotized by the TV. Maybe the golden era of America is over.
#9
When Michelle runs her mouth it reminds me of Jocelyn Elders. Problem is, if Barak wins, it'll be harder to fire a First Lady than a Surgeon General.
#10
Reminds me of the Salt and Peppa Show (the wife watches vh1, ugh).
When sharpton was having his big rally in louisiana, S&P decided to load the the family and head to jena to 'rally for blacks'. So the 2 rich gals and family load up on their tour bus and leave their exclusive neighborhood to go rally. It was shortly before this episode was aired that ABC posted a story debunking the meme.
Economically, the postwar boom was over by the late 1970's. It's just taken this long for people to start admitting it to themselves. It doesn't help that both parties have tried to sell the lie that if you vote for them, they'll magically make it 1954 all over again - and forever.
There will always be opportunities, and if we have as free a market as possible, we'll be better than most nations, but the great postwar prosperity that everyone thought was how America would be forever will never return. Neither party can make it so. No combination of policies can make it so, without the government forcing one group of citizens to pay extortionist fees for goods/services produced by another.
So we must do the adult thing and adjust.
Besides, what is great about America isn't some imagined guaranteed income security. It's freedom, both in terms of rights, and in terms of the economic freedom afforded by a free market. Those who think otherwise don't really get what "America" means. Better to have a little less creature comfort and have to worry a bit about your income and retirement but have a relatively free market, than to have the government force you (through regulatory pressure) to pay a lot more for a good or service so that your neighbor can avoid the horror of having to spend mental energy worrying about whether they'll have a job or pension in ten years. Down that path lays certain ruin.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
02/22/2008 16:10 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Maybe the golden era of America is over."
I'm sure the pessimists at the end of the Roman Republic felt the same too. However, the overall record of the Empire would prove them wrong.
#13
The Golden Era of America is not over, just yesterday, we set a new standard for missle accuracy. The real problem is that today the gubmint gives not a shit about the citizen. Many things point to this. The Kelo vs. New London decision, the open borders in spite of increased crime and vagrancy, and the collection of formerly available land by the federal gubmint for what ? We don't matter to them because they are elite. Just ask them, and all the matters is our vote. Notice how little attempt to assure that every vote is a live person voting once, and counted once ? Ever notice how crimes are committed by politicians or their minions, yet no one goes to trial or jail ?
The only way to right this is to stand as one. We must put our regional differences and religious differences behind us, and support one man, one team, and step on the elite. We must destroy the MSM who will always be our nemisis and the tool of the elite. After all, the elite own the MSM.
#15
Geez cheer up guys. Yeah the American public are ready to take a flying f**k at a rolling doughnut just like we did in 1976 and wind up w/a one term loser like Jimmah. But we were able to clean up his mess in less than four years, even w/a massive malaise hangover.
Posted by: regular joe ||
02/22/2008 17:58 Comments ||
Top||
#16
But we were able to clean up his (Carter's) mess in less than four years, even w/a massive malaise hangover. And the Iran mess is all OK now?
#17
You only notice it now because there's nukes involved.
Iran's been a relative backwater country for the past 32 years. As a regional power, it's a failure. Who are its allies now? Venzuela? Cuba? Certainly none of the other nations in the Gulf.
Economic power? The Russians want cash up front. The Chinese aren't exactly jumping in to rescue Iran's petroleum industry. Its trade is, if not strangled, severely limited.
It's not been a problem until recently. It's been a nusiance.
One of two things will happen in the wake of Thursday's New York Times story that suggested John McCain may have had a "romantic relationship" nine years ago with a lobbyist who did business before the Senate Commerce Committee which he then chaired. (The story purported to be about McCain's ethics and dealings with D.C. lobbyists, in a failed attempt to gloss gossip with a patina of gravitas.)
Either new information will come forward to corroborate this weak story - based solely on the speculation - as opposed to actual knowledge - of two sources (who refused to be named and, for all we know, may have an ax to grind), and despite denials by both McCain and the lobbyist, Vicki Iseman. Even then, the Gray Lady's reputation will suffer, because the New York Times, not John McCain, has become the story.
Or nothing new will come forward and the public will have every reason to believe that the New York Times and copycat media smeared McCain.
And the next time the Times' announces that it has lost circulation or is eliminating more newsroom positions, people will cheer, when they should be saddened. This story is bad news for the news business.
No doubt Times reporters Jim Rutenberg, Marilyn W. Thompson, David D. Kirkpatrick and Stephen Labaton believed they had a story. That's why newspapers have editors, to insist that reporters nail down hunches that reporters believe in their guts to be true.
That didn't happen with this story.
We've read this script before. In 2003 before the California gubernatorial recall election, the Los Angeles Times ran stories in which six women - four of whom remained anonymous - accused Arnold Schwarzenegger of groping or otherwise mistreating them between 1975 and 2000. The public never believed Schwarzenegger acted like a choir boy in his acting and Mr. Universe days, but voters revolted against the dredging up of unsubtantiated allegations older than many voters. Gutter journalism may be the reason Californians opted for the governator.
GOP strategist Dan Schnur, who worked on McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, remembers how the L.A. Times stories shored up Schwarzenegger's support among Republicans. Schnur noted, "John McCain can win a Republican primary against the New York Times."
Not that the Times' story is all good for McCain, Schnur added, as it keeps the candidate from talking about issues. Camp McCain has charged that the New York Times ran the lobbyist story Thursday because the New Republic was about to post a story "behind the bombshell" story.
Times executive editor Bill Keller has denied that charge. "On the timing, our policy is, we publish stories when they are ready," he wrote in a widely dispersed e-mail sent to The Page political Web site. It's not good for journalism when the paper of record's editor has all the credibility of a losing candidate who claims to never pay attention to political polls.
It didn't have to be this way. Editors at the Idaho Statesman refused to report on rumors about Sen. Larry Craig hitting on men - until the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, broke the story in August 2007 that Craig had pleaded guilty to disorderly conduct in a Minneapolis airport men's restroom. Craig's guilty plea nailed the story. When Craig tried to blame his guilty plea on the fact that his "state of mind" was distorted because the Idaho Statesman was out to get him, people laughed.
No one is laughing at the Times' story. The paper set out to shine a spotlight on McCain's ethics, but it ended up turning a harsh light on its own ethical lapses.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/22/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Note to the MSM, when you covered for Slick Willy and his bimbo parade, you killed this opportunity to jerk our chains. Outside of the Blue Euroenclaves, we basically believe in 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander.' The leftist dung of 'one set of rules for me and a separate set of rules for thee' doesn't sell. Have a nice day.
#2
Somebody had to fill the gap in checkout stands after the demise of the World Weekly News, the World's only reliable newspaper. Who better than the Gray Lady herself? Soon to be available at food stores near you.
#4
I read the headline of the NYT regarding McCain. I read the story and there was no story--it never followed the headline. If I wasn't familiar with the NYTs, it would otherwise be an incredible moment in journalism(?). Drive-by MSM shooting that should have been reported under fiction. Yes, the NYTs soiled itself again, and again, and then again. Their agenda is so transparent.
#5
This was a plan to derail the Republicans in the general election. First the Times did everything they could to get McCain nominated. Note the December endorsement before the primaries began. They already, in November, had assigned four reporters to write a hit piece that would be held until it became clear that McCain was the GOP nominee. I personally don't think the Slimes should be determining who the president of the USA should be. Fortunately, this was such a poor job that more voters are getting behind McCain than otherwise would have.
#1
In February 2006, I was detained by the U.S. Army and ejected from Iraq. My crime? Reporting on the weapons and tactics used to counter Improvised Explosive Devices, in apparent violation of the ground rules for embedded media. Unbeknownst to meand to my on-the-record source, apparentlythe military considers details about radio jammers (designed to block the signals that detonate IEDs) secret.
Apparently one of the secret qualifications for being allowed to embed with the US military is to have some common sense. But there is an upside to getting kicked out! You can now hang with Geraldo!
#2
A militaryâs handling of the media says a lot about its nation
Are you breathing? Considering the Paper of Fish Wrap published details of intel gathering that even Saint Roosevelt would have had the owners and editors before a military tribunal, regardless of SCOTUS decrees, and a firing squad, and the endless nasty, vile, and unending diatribes of lies, distortions, and intentional misrepresentations done by your chosen trade and community, I'm surprised from a historical perspective that you're still breathing. Our boys wouldn't even have to raise a hand, cause all they had to do was look the other way when you finally left the cocoon of your bunkered hotel room and Ali took an interest in you for his next AQ Youtube video and Ginzu commercial.
#1
The author of this piece, Mr. Shubakshi, is shocked...shocked to learn that Jews and Christians (and other non-dhimmi religious groups) have apparently been emigrating from muslim majority countries to the West for centuries. And Mr. Shubakshi just can't comprehend why that might be since everyone already knows that islam is a religion of peace and tolerance. (spit) We in the West call it a brain drain. The non-dhimmi emigrants refer to it as self-preservation.
Don't count on this story being told in the MSM. That'd be islamophobic and very un-PC.
by our very own Old Spook This was in a comment thread yesterday; I thought it deserved to be an article in its own right. Hope you don't mind that I took the liberty of posting it for you.
Excellent idea, and thanks for doing this. I've archived the two major BMD threads from yesterday and the day before as 'Classics' so they'll be available. AoS.
What you have to remember is that the Chinese have 24 confirmed operational ICBMs (which varies down to as few as 18 at a time due to maint). Yes. Just TWENTY-FOUR. DF-5/CSS-4 is the designation. Single 5 MT warhead, but 4 of them have a MIRV bus with up to 6 RV's each being supposedly 1-2MT. Range 15,000 Km, which means they can hit the western and central US. Liquid fueled. CEP of 600m (singe warhead) to 3 Km (MIRV). Takes them 30-60 minutes to prep them for launch, and rumor is that they do not usually keep the warheads mated to the missiles, so the launch prep may be even more time consuming.
Failure rate has been estimated (based on test firings) to be 8 percent for the launcher, 5 percent for the warheads (higher for MIRV bus).
So if they popped the entire arsenal, 24 missiles, they are likely to have 2 fail during launch. So lets pretend that those failures are single warhead launchers, the MIRV ones work. thats a total of 18 + (6*4) = 42 RVs. Out of that they lose 2 malfunction.
Thats a total of 40 RVs. we have the capacity to launch approximately 20 SM3 per ship, and have 3 of those available (remember, launch prep indications give us up to an hour of alert) Thats 60 launches against 40 warheads. Lest trim it down and say its a 1 per. SM3 have succeeded 15 of 17 targets so far, including early failures. 88 percent of 42 (I assume bad RV will not be visible until terminal phase, so all 42 need to be targets) is 36.9 - round down to 36.
That means 4 warheads leak through the initial phase. then Alaska gets involved, 12 missiles, fire 4, 80% = 1 left. Cali gets involved 8 missiles, fire 2. Dead RV.
China is neutralized for now.
(FYI they're are upgrading to the DF-31 and another missile, all of which will be MIRV'd, and have a full global range - still the total number of RVs will be less than 160 - and we carry enough SM3 in 3 Aegis to deliver 1 shot at each).
So yeah, the Chinese are pissed. We just pulled their fangs for a while.
Posted by: Mike ||
02/22/2008 06:16 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[16 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
This explains their desire to get more subs. They can threaten one leg of our anti-ICBM triad, as well as hound our task forces.
#5
The Chinese are not al lthat rich in terms of spending on tech. They ahve traditionally been more worried about India, Russian and Taiwan.
That and their military has always been an arm of the politics, and is more useful in control of the country than in fighting other places.
So they build enough to keep the Russians nervous, and to rattle at other people. Problem is the US BMD changed the equation, so they'll have to spend money now to modernize.
#6
The Indian BMD program is another problem for the Chinese.
They have had SRBMs based in Tibet aimed at Indian cities. India by contrast has had to develop longer range missiles to reach the main Chinese cities.
The Indian exo- and endo- atmospheric interceptors will handle SRBMs and some IRBMs, negating much of the Chinese arsenal. They will have to use their limited supply of DF-31 ICBMs to target India, which they would rather use to target the USA.
With India now attempting to develop interceptors capable of hitting ICBMs, the Chinese will have to ramp up production of a missile they have barely tested. They have reportedly had problems casting large diameter solid fuel rocket motors for the DF-31.
Posted by: john frum ||
02/22/2008 17:16 Comments ||
Top||
#7
As a reminder, CNN > WOLF BLITZER'S SITUATION ROOM > PENTAGON SAYS ALL SIGNS [post-strike/impact] POINT TO SUCCESS IN SATELLITE HIT/SHOOTDOWN.
A good start - hopefully, for the sake of future generations SHADO/SADE can improve upon same ala COMET APOPHIS = Year 2030 and anything, everything BIGGER AND BADDER TO COME, AND WIDOUT BLOWING UP MOONBASE ALPHA, ETC. ["SPACE 1999" show] + GOLD-LUMINOUS BRIT LUNAR BASE BABES ["UFO" show] IN THE PROCESS.
The setup/background for the next test of future OWG Planetary Defense will be realized this summer.
#9
90% of China's nukes (IRBMs, SRBMs and bombers) are aimed at Russia, India or Japan, not the US. The exceptions are US Asian bases.
Posted by: ed ||
02/22/2008 21:02 Comments ||
Top||
#10
The 31's are SLBM. ANd truthfully, givne the level of seamanship and engineering in the PLA Navy, I'd be surprised to see the submarine survive launching more than a couple of them. Not that they'd be caught and prosecuted by US ASW, but that they'd cook one off or sink the sub somehow.
FYI, the next gen Dong Feng DF-41 is a DF31 with a 3rd stage added. Not in service yet.
So the DF-5 (CSS-4) is the only land based ICBM platform they have.
Hassan Haydar
Al-Hayat
Whoever assassinated Imad Mughniyeh, and the suspicion is basically pointing at Israel and its security agencies until the the promised Syrian investigation confirms this, has given Hezbollah the opportunity to declare that the war of July 2006 is still "continuing and open" and hence far from over. This response may be seen as a stunned and angry reaction to the harsh blow that targeted one of the party's leaders who as revealed for the first time that Mughniyeh was the head of the Jihad (military) Council in Hezbollah, but the evidence indicates otherwise.
Hezbollah has recently withdrawn its recognition of UN Security Council resolution 1701 and denied its approval of the seven-point plan that ended the war despite audiovisual documentation of this approval as chief negotiator Prime Minister Fouad Siniora put it. In this context, the announcement implies that party has decided it is time to override the practical implications of the resolution on the ground, that is, the closing of the South Lebanon front that resulted from the deployment of international forces alongside the Lebanese Army.
Some interpreted Nasrallah's comments to imply that the party will probably resort to other "battlefields" since the south Lebanon front is now closed, especially since it perceived that Israel has violated the geographic framework of the conflict. Most likely, however, the response to Mughniyeh's assassination will only come in Lebanon and through its borders by means of an assault that will transcend local and international obstacles to prove that Lebanon remains the party's open battlefield for confrontation with Israel regardless of the consequences. This response would also reactivate the Syrian-Iranian strategy since both powers considered the closing of the South Lebanon front a harsh punishment that their ally had to concede under the pressure of temporary circumstances that are no longer present.
Hezbollah will not resort to a strike outside its preferred "battlefield" because for a quarter century it has been keen to refuse to acknowledge Mughniyeh's membership in the party or that the fact that he was fighting and moving in its name. First, Mughniyeh was linked directly to the central leadership in Tehran beyond the party hierarchy of command. Secondly, the party wanted to deny any suspicion that it was involved in terror in the eyes of the world, especially Europe which still disagrees over classifying Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. In fact, a few in Europe have repeatedly tried to justify the continued dealing with Hezbollah or at least refraining from taking toward it a radical position similar to the American stance. Consequently, the party disclosed the significant role and considerable stature of Mughniyeh only after his death. Hence, while the assassination has forced Hezbollah to acknowledge Mughniyeh, it will not compel it to abandon its keenness on maintaining bridges, even if weak, with part of the west.
The second chief reason is that closing the south Lebanon front has weakened the Syrian-Iranian alliance and its dependents because it isolated developments in Lebanon from those in Gaza, where another ally, Hamas, is suffering from the international and Arab isolation which has gotten worse following the recent violation of the Egyptian border. Hamas now faces an Israeli decision to respond with continued and violent military action that would squeeze it in a difficult corner since it has no practical means to make a qualitative response to ease the grumbling of its besieged supporters. At the same time, Hamas is unable to end the disaffection with Mahmoud Abbas' Palestinian Authority otherwise it would be admitting the failure of its coup in Gaza and would be forced to give up any gains it made from it.
With the obstruction of the council of ministers and parliament, the paralysis of the central district of the capital, and the imposed and extended presidential void, reactivating the Lebanese front still requires "neutralizing" the only remaining domestic element that can prevent dragging the country into the affairs of regional alliances, namely the Lebanese army. This path however was already started at Nahr Al-Bared, continued with the events in Mar Mikhail, and will continue with the attempts to preoccupy the army and exhaust it with the street fights and the wars of burning tires.
Posted by: Fred ||
02/22/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[16 views]
Top|| File under: Hezbollah
#1
HMMMMMM. 2008 > "Open War" [Islamist] agz Israel, versus "Open Campaign" vv US POTUS ELEX.
WAFF.com > ISRAEL TODAY - ISRAEL's ARMY CHIEF reportedly has informed his troops that "WAR IS COMING", and for the IDF = Israeli Army to prepare NOW for said war and other potential contigencies. IOW, REGIONAL PEACE IS DUBIOUS AND CAN NO LONGER BE ASSURED/GUARANTEED IN NEAR-TERN OR LONG-TERM??? ARTICLE > also indics that the USA DESIRES ANY AND ALL ISR JEWS TO LEAVE [ANCIENT?] JUDAEA + SAMARIA AREAS INSIDE MODERN ISRAEL AND HAND OVER TO THE NEW PALEO STATE/PA???
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.
