If John McCain had been elected President, would we be out of Afghanistan by now? After all, McCain would have been much better situated politically than Obama to declare, "Nobody loves the smell of napalm in the morning more than John McCain, but even I recognize this is an increasingly pointless war, so we're outta there."
In general, it's easier for a President to betray his base than to overcome his opposition, so often people wind up with the opposite of what they thought they voted for.
By the way, for the newcomers, here's my September 26, 2001 essay predicting (before the shooting began) the course of the war in Afghanistan, based on my watching the 1975 movie The Man Who Would Be King several times on VHS:
By the way, for the newcomers, here's my September 26, 2001 essay predicting (before the shooting began) the course of the war in Afghanistan, based on my watching the 1975 movie The Man Who Would Be King several times on VHS:
In the last two weeks [i.e., since 9/11], a couple of contradictory assertions about Afghanistan have become commonplace in the press.
The first is that outsiders inevitably face horrifying defeat in Afghanistan.
The second is that the U.S. must not only kill Osama bin Laden and batter the Taliban regime, but should then take up the Imperial Burden in Afghanistan. The U.S., they say, should conquer and pacify the entire Texas-sized country, build a unified nation out of its warring ethnic groups, reconstruct its economy, liberate its women, calm its furious holy men, and make it a middle class democracy.
"The Man Who Would Be King" reminds us that neither despair nor utopianism is a realistic attitude for anyone contemplating a military incursion into that harsh land. ...
Those who advocate that we stay in Afghanistan long after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are dealt with should ponder Kipling and Huston's parable.
Posts
117 comments:
Yeah, but at least we'd get more sexy librarian cum mama bear photographs on the newswire.
It's the little things which make life worth living.
Absolutely not. We wouldn't be out of Afghanistan, but, on the other hand, I don't know if a Democratic majority Congress would have authorized an Obama-sized escalation in Afghanistan if a President McCain had asked for it.
McCain's would never betray AIPAC and Haliburton. But he'd betray his conservative base on issues like abortion, judges, taxes, bailouts, immigration, etc.
Getting out might have been one of those "unpredictable" things he's known for.
In Obama's case let's not fail to notice that US combat soldiers, and correspondingly our war dead, are overwhelmingly from the demographic least likely to vote for him. And if a long pointless war works to sour the same white working class on patriotism, why that would be a bonus.
?
Obama wanted to EXPAND the war to Pakistan. That was one of his major campaign issues.
"As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to re-enforce our counter-terrorism operations and support NATO's efforts against the Taliban."
"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."
People voted for that, for the record.
Afghanistan highlights two strange characteristics of Obama supporters.
The Obamites assume that he's lying a lot of the time. I've never seen this seen amongst a politician's supporters before.
He clearly said he was for escalating the war in Afghanistan, but many lefties were shocked when he actually did in 2009. They assumed he was lying for political advantage. Many Obamites think he's lying on gay marriage and gun control as well.
A fairly common trope among Obamites is that while his Afghan decision was mistaken, the process by which he reached it was incredibly thorough, wise and all round wonderful.
I don't see how it's possible to hold this position. If Obama got the most complete possible information, the best analysis and most sage advice before the decision, why don't they conclude that their own visceral opposition to Afghan escalation is mistaken? Or alternatively, if they are sure it was mistake, how can the process that produced the mistake be so praiseworthy?
If the US presence in Afghanistan is necessary to protect Joe Lieberman's people then McCain would keep the US in Afghanistan.
It's that simple.
Afghanistan is about Pakistan's nukes. If McCain had been elected we'd be (openly) in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and probably Iran on top.
These people are crazy.
Part 1/3:
Basically I was pretty certain before the election that a McCain victory would be bad for the GOP and for the country, in regards to Afghanistan and everything else - bad enough, even, to make four years of Obama - Elena Kagan and all - worth the suffering. I made comments here to that effect, though I'm not sure if I was using "Captain Jack Aubrey" or some other pseudonym at the time.
Neither party was ready to do the right thing for the economy. Neither was willing to end the war. Democrats couldn't because Obama had insisted that Afghanistan was 'the real war.' The Republicans because, well, they're Republicans, and the neocons get far more say than the base.
With McCain in office he would've pushed for amnesty and would've gotten it. He would've continued the same disastrous fiscal policies that have gotten us where we are, only the GOP would've taken the blame. The economy still wouldn't be improving and the mid-terms would be like looking down the barrel of a gun, staring at 2/3rds Democratic majorities in
both the House and Senate.
He couldn't have done what he (supposedly) wanted to, because Democrats and "moderate" Republicans would've still constituted a sizable majority, but conservative Republicans still would've taken the blame.
Part 2/3:
The Democrats got their victory, and now they're paying for it. Not because they can't do what the base wants, but because they can- and are - and people in America are beginning to understand the error of their ways.
Nevertheless, I predict the new Republican majority will spend the next congress cutting taxes for the rich and making nothing but half-hearted attempts to cut spending and improve border enforcement. Because they need to get re-elected - so that they can spend several more terms not cutting spending and not enforcing our immigration laws.
George W. Bush gave us an expensive new health care entitlement, instigated the federal takeover of public education, massively boosted spending on education, agriculture, and transportation, and made two attempts at amnesty all because he and Republicans needed to get re-elected. And conservatives got what? Two new occupants on the Supreme Court and what else? Zilch.
Yet ask Americans where Bush sits on the ideological spectrum and they will put him way out on the far right - even most conservatives will.
Part 3/3:
Immigration (legal and even legal) is really a major factor in our current and future decline. So much so that it's probably irreversible. Irreversible, in large part, thanks to the 4+ decades of brain-washing Americans have undergone in public schools. Even most conservative Americans aren't willing to accept that there are racial disparities in intelligence, and that therefore our doom is written in the demographic data; and they aren't willing to accept the policies needed to deport 12 million illegals, let alone the alteration of birthright citizenship.
So America is now permanently on its way to dumb. But then Europe and Canada really aren't all that far behind.
As a side note, Angelo Codevilla's recent American Spectator essay has been given all sorts of attention on the web, and I'm grateful for it. However, historian Christopher Lasch said it all and then some 14 years ago in the book published shortly after his death, The Revolt of the Elites and the Betrayal of Democracy. Lasch was contemptuous of both modern liberals and Reagan-style conservatives - as we all should be.
Obama wanted to EXPAND the war to Pakistan. That was one of his major campaign issues.
Be sure to pronouce that "Pawkeestawn," and bow when you say it.
Peace be upon him.
Obama really did mess up and box himself up in regard to Afghanistan.
Had to prove he was a "tough guy" so he took what was then the relatively non-controversial Afghan war and championed it.
You really think clowns like this, or puppets like this, actually have any say about how to keep the world safe for plutocracy?
Steve, did you support the war in Afghanistan in 2001? If yes, what changed?
"And conservatives got what?"
That depends on how you define "conservatives". Those that you define as conservatives got zilch and will continue to get zilch forever.
There won't be a re-run of the 1994-96 Republican Congress, Juan McAmnesty McLettuce notwithstanding (how Arizonans can vote for the guy even given JD Hayworth's hangar-sized flaws is beyond me).
Why?
BECAUSE WE RAN OUT OF MONEY. Ponzi schemes always collapse because at some point you run out of money. Which is where we are at now. Germany has a temporary run-up of manufacturing exports. China is a bursting bubble. Japan senescent and obsolete. Western Europe a welfare state for Muslims. India a fragile outsourcing crust on top of a seething, tribal, communist rebellion/tribal rebellion populace. There is no one to bail us out.
As for Afghanistan, it is all about:
1. Not being punked out bin Laden and the Taliban (very bad for the US).
2. Keeping a lid on Pakistan and Iran, nuclear powers.
Contd:
My criticism is that few here get that a globalized world means Waziristan AND THE VIOLENCE can be at your doorstep. With a car bomb or nuclear bomb.
America and the West's dominance, culturally, economically, militarily, are over. Pakistan (and doubtless Iran) have nukes. Failed states from failed peoples! North Korea has them (and semi-functional ICBMs which Iran at this point likely lacks not nukes).
Each nuke contains 100X the conventional striking power of an entire Aircraft Carrier group.
Meanwhile bin Laden argues the West is weak, decadent, and easy pickings. That the US can be hit with impunity because it lacks will and staying power and the ability to prevail, that the US is easy to punk out.
Considering that the Taliban was willing to sign off on the 9/11 attack, which had we been even more unlucky could have killed 20,000 in the Twin Towers (more chaotic evacuation) and had the White House or Congress hit (by Flight 93) -- would have been an act of war far in excess of anything Hirohito did.
The Taliban and AQ bought the idea that the weak and decadent US would do nothing of consequence.
Being weak (allowing the Ground Zero Victory Mosque to be built) simply invites attack, again, and again, and again.
This is the downside of globalization and cheap Chinese sneakers. You have to make guys like Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the ISI chiefs, Ahmadinejad, the IRGC leaders, AFRAID (within bounds) of the US and what the US might do.
If the problem you cared about was the possibility of terrorists from Afghanistan slipping into the us, you'd address this by controlling the borders and being really careful about issuing visas to folks from poorly governed Muslim parts if the world. Otherwise, you'd minimize your exposure to those places, avoid helping the terrorists recruit by refraining from blowing up weddings and such.
Our leaders haven't taken those actions. We still don't have control of who comes into our country. Enforcing such control is simply too high a price to pay. (Having all our phone calls and emails routed through Ft Meade, spending billions we don't have blowing up mud huts in Afghanistan, or having the tsa take nudie pictures of everyone who flies--those aren't too high a price. They don't bother the important people, see.).
Don't judge by their words, judge by their actions. The powerful in both parties' actions don't make sense, if they believe 9/11 style attacks are a big threat. For them, endless wars, privatized police-state mechanisms, and massive growth on government power aren't sacrifices at all--just the opposite. Every million dollar missile that blows up a mud hut, every million dollar scanner taking Porno pictures of air travelers, is an opportunity to enrich themselves and reward their friends.
at minimum, we can be sure mccain would not have been awarded the nobel peace prize for blowing up 20 people per month in pakistan via UAV missile strikes. only obama can order people blown up in a diplomatic fashion.
as for aghanistan, the US is more likely to eventually give up there than in iraq, since there is no oil. the US will never be out of iraq and will from this point forward, maintain tens of thousands of troops there permanently. or for as long as the US is functional enough to maintain such bases. which at this rate cannot be much longer than 30 years.
note the VAST, GAPING, CANYON SIZED difference in US television coverage of iraq and afghanistan between when GW bush was president, compared to obama.
today, US television doesn't want to know anything about what's happening in those places. you have to resort to the internet to learn the surprising news that americans are now being killed in afghanistan at a rate of about 60 per month. with the way the television covers, or rather doesn't cover, afghanistan, you would never be under the impression that it has been going worse than ever for the US.
if GW bush was president and that was happening, the television would be demanding answers, while it sent reporters to the airport to photograph each and every casket coming back.
oooh, and what did i say about iraq on this very blog not 1 or 2 months ago? exactly as i predicted, most of the iraqis in positions of leadership are begging the US to not draw down troops. at least 100 iraqis are getting blown up per month by other iraqis. kurds and turks continue to kill each other, oil operations are sabotaged monthly, and so forth. these are all highly predictable events.
if G-dub was still retard in chief, US reporters would be in his face, demanding to know whether he planned to "abandon the helpless iraqis" and joking about "mission accomplished."
but these same media personalities are hopelessly compromised in their allegiance to obama, so they won't say anything about iraq going into decline. obama himself is totally in a straightjacket here, and has to do something to reduce US military presence in iraq, lest he break another campaign promise.
Obama came out against the Iraqi surge and for negotiating with Iran, which opened him up to criticism from the neoconservatives. To bolster an appearance of toughness and strength, he decided to intensify the war in Afghanistan, which was more broadly supported by the public. He never really thought much about what we'd gain, the resources we need to win, and the pitfalls of a prolonged conflict. Just like the neoconservatives and previous admimistration he denounced, Obama showed a combination of absentmindedness and opportunism in escalating involvement in Afghanistan.
The most prudent course of action would just be to leave the country and let those guys fight it out for power. I'd perhaps provide some sort of economic and limited air support for Northern Alliance, non-Pathan forces so they can at least hold their own territory in the north, but this war is pointless. I don't see how the Taliban taking back south/central Afghanistan is going to destroy our country.
If we want to fight terrorism aggresively, we should....
1.) Stop Muslim immigration
2.) Buyout plan for American Muslims
3.) More aggressive, Israeli style security at airports
4.) Border fence on Canadian and Mexican borders, with sea patrol
5.) Have a quick strike force positioned in some friendly territory in Afghanistan, perhaps up north where non-Pathans live. If we see something bad about to happen (ie terrorists plotting to strike here), strike quickly and get out. Otherwise keep out.
Biden claims that we might be out of Afghanistan soon. When it comes to throwing people (Wright, Ayers, Sherrod, Grandma) or policies (cutting govt spending, escalating Afghanistan war, fighting Israeli settlements) under the bus, you really can't beat this guy. Hopefully we can convince him to throw the amnesty under the bus.
Bad news: JD Hayworth is behind McCain by 20 points. Would've been nice to have JD in the Senate, but it looks like we're gonna get 6 more years of the Maverick.
"Afghanistan is about Pakistan's nukes. If McCain had been elected we'd be (openly) in Pakistan as well as Afghanistan and probably Iran on top."
Whoops, OBAMA is the one who wanted war with Pakistan.
Do your homework.
Oh, and didn't Bush invade Iran already? Oh, right, that was just a paranoid delusion.
This gives some sense of the stakes:
http://www.usvetdsp.com/terror_atk_2008.htm
Before 9/11 I was getting "pass this on to everyone you know" e-mails from my 'progressive' friends about how the Taliban were a bunch of misogynists and homophobes who destroyed old Buddhist statues -- and about how "something" had to be done about Afghanistan.
As much as progressives say they dislike war, the Taliban represents everything they hate -- to them the Taliban is 'religious right' Tea Partiers in black turbans.
jody: the US will never be out of iraq and will from this point forward, maintain tens of thousands of troops there permanently.
I'd rather it be us than the Chicoms or the Rooskies or the Dot-not-Feather Injuns.
Anyone who thinks that there is anything at all wrong with [or even wrongheaded about the idea of] the free flow of oil could not possibly have any first-hand experience with the horror which we call "The 1970s".
I'd rather it be us than the Chicoms or the Rooskies or the Dot-not-Feather Injuns.
We pay for the cost of the free flow of oil, but don't get to buy it for any less. Sounds like a great deal to me!
Anyone who thinks that there is anything at all wrong with [or even wrongheaded about the idea of] the free flow of oil could not possibly have any first-hand experience with the horror which we call "The 1970s".
There is something wrong with it, though: that we have spent tens of trillions of dollars building homes, stores, businesses, and the roads to connect them based on the assumption of cheap oil. As the price of oil goes up America is suddenly locked into an economic model with higher fixed costs. Place two stores next to each other, selling the same things, equal in all respects, except that one has a lease twice as high as the other. Guess which store will have lower prices, and guess which one will soon be out of business?
Now, call one of those stores "China," and call the other "USA."
Another thing wrong with it: Americans have been accepting of mass immigration so long as they could easily escape "vibrant neighborhoods" for the 'burbs. Thanks to cheap oil, we can - but we still get stuck with the costs of letting in millions of uneducated peasants.
"In general, it's easier for a President to betray his base than to overcome his opposition, so often people wind up with the opposite of what they thought they voted for."
Maybe so, but it's more tricky in this case because the most powerful base for Obama is made up of liberal Zionists who don't wanna lose in Afghanistan either.
We should gone into Afghanistan with the intent to divide it up into several countries. Having set up 4 or 5 different ethnostates, it would have been easier to play divide and rule.
If British India split into Pakistan, Bangladesh, and India, and if French Indo-China split up into Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia--and if Yugoslavia split up into different countries, what would have been more natural for Afghanistan. And since we had been attacked, we had the support and leeway to do as we pleased. But we lost the opportunity.
If I ran these wars, they would all be great successes.
The movie ISHTAR may also teach us a thing or two about these wars.
Be sure to pronounce that "Pawkeestawn," and bow when you say it.
What's especially irritating is that there are plenty of people who think these sorts of "authentic" pronunciations are the hallmark of an educated man . . . when of course they are actually the sign of a pretentious ignoramus. They do sometimes come in for some mockery, but only from a populist direction (Limbaugh, Palin); and that just winds up reinforcing the perception that they're sophisticated.
We lost a lot when we lost the old upper class, which knew how to show disdain. Edith Wharton would have had a field day skewering the Obamas' vulgarity.
There's another movie, THE BOUNTY, which makes an interesting contrast to our problems in the Middle East. BOUNTY is about overly repressed and buttoned down British Imperialists unraveling on a tropical island inhabited by sexy naked tribes. They get horny and go crazy.
In the Middle East, the Americans are sex-loving, rock n rolling modern 'savages' stuck in a puritanical land where women cannot even show their faces and where men wear turbans, robes, and grow long beards even though it's hot as hell.
"If John McCain had been elected President, would we be out of Afghanistan by now?"
You are talking about Kristol's favorite politician. I think we would be at war with Iran under President McCain by now. We would also have millions of illegals filing for amnesty.
Fascinating review of a book on Churchill. An excerpt that mentions something new to me:
"his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire."
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/15/books/review/Hari-t.html?_r=1&ref=books&pagewanted=all
They do sometimes come in for some mockery, but only from a populist direction (Limbaugh, Palin); and that just winds up reinforcing the perception that they're sophisticated.
Sometimes. But if SNL is mocking it, as they were 20 years ago, you know they're not even convincing the left.
Nobody is more gung ho for Israel than John McCain. The man made up a song about bombing Iran ("bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb iran") and said we'd stay in Iraq for "100 years" to fight Al-Qaeda. You can't beat that.
Then again.... Maybe you can.... Huckabee said Palestinians should be ethnically cleansed from Israeli territory in the West bank......... and Giuliani said he'd think about using nuclear weapons used against the Iranian regime.
Compared to some of these guys, Obama is considerably less pro-Israel in his stances. His appointment of Rahm Emmanuel.... you know, the same Rahm Emmanuel that joined the Israeli Defense Force during the Persian Gulf War..... his appointment was meant to allay Jewish fears that he wasn't sufficiently committed to Israel's security.
By the way, betraying your base must be fun. It practically became a hobby for Mr. Bush during his 2 terms in office.
I gotta send you a few bucks after reading this, which is like your 500th or 600th post which made me completely laugh.
Plus, the first 20 comments here are practically all intellectually stimulating in different ways - even neocon Whiskey, who I like but normally disagree with.
In a sane world you'd be the editor of the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times.
I doubt you can learn anything from anyone's pronunciation of foreign names besides who they learned from and what languages they speak. It's no smarter done to Obama than when the left had so much fun laughing at w's pronunciation of nuclear. (Of course, that was even more obviously an affectation, rich ivy-leaguer playing at being a regular guy from Texas. And even his critics bought it.)
"I don't see how the Taliban taking back south/central Afghanistan is going to destroy our country."
-------------
By showing the US can be punked out by any group with AK-47's and IEDs and mortars. That's how. With a leadership in the ISI and Army of Pakistan that is deeply entwined (and runs) the Taliban and has come to think of the US as a weak target that can be attacked with impunity.
What happens if NYC gets nuked? Or NYC and DC?
Its a disaster, not only would we be facing about 7-8 million US dead, but everyone would know the US can be attacked with impunity. Its globalization. Cheap Chinese sneakers and Pakistani nukes (via shipping container) if we are weak.
Security does not come cheap. It takes will, force, and visibly killing people. The longer weakness goes on, the higher the toll in US forces to achieve security through strength and deterrence.
Had the US simply invaded and overthrown Khomeni, we would never have been attacked on 9/11. Had the US simply nuked Afghanistan and Pakistan to rubble, we'd never have this problem either.
The criticism of Steve and most of his readers is you all want a free lunch: security in a globalized world with other nations that are tribes with flags getting nukes -- WITHOUT ANY EFFORT.
You can't have it. Human nature is not built that way.
We're never going to throw Muslims out. We can't even build a border fence. Even if we did, fortress America is unfeasible, we can't keep Drug Cartels out much less a shipping container with a nuke not sneakers.
Blowing people up with UAV strikes is a GOOD thing. Since we are blowing up top AQ and Taliban leaders, the latter deeply connected and run by Pakistan's ISI. Since they have nukes, are ambitious, would like to run things, and figure attacking America is cost free -- KILLING THEIR BUDDIES PERSUADES THEM ITS NOT. That there can be a counterpart to Mohammed Atta coming at ya -- a hellfire missile up their tailpipe.
We have to broad choices: "Roman Peace" ala "they made it a desert and called it peace" by killing about 3/4 of Afghanistan and Pakistan, or constant attrition by Hellfire, UAV, Spec Ops and everything else which requires big bases and active patrols to get intel on targets.
America CANNOT fight like in WWII -- America was 89% White, 10% Black, 1% everything else. Demographics (America is 65% White, 12.5% Black, and 22.5% Hispanic) means we either do the Afghanistan / Iraq Model or surrender. There is zero possibility already that we can ever do anything else.
The Ground Zero Mosque will open on 9/11/2011 to the applause of Obama and Dems. If that is not dominance and defeat I don't know what it.
Aubrey -- Sure we get oil cheap. Its around the OPEC band of 70-80. Now imagine it at the price IRAN and RUSSIA want: around 200-300 a barrel. Imagine deciding to eat or go to your job.
Putin is a thug who can think two steps ahead but can't figure out the cost of a massive oil shock. Ahmadinejad believes the Mahdi will climb out of his magic well. Both need oil sky-high to pay off their growing thug army.
America cannot be Switzerland. We are too dependent on oil, and selling our food. Which requires naval dominance or massive tribute. We were spending 1/4 of the Federal budget in the early 1800's before Madison said to hell with it and destroyed the Barbary Pirates.
Muslims are America's oldest enemy after the British.
Since Blogger ate the other comment, here's why we need to stay in Afghanistan:
Deterrence. Getting punked out by guys with AK-47s and IEDs and Mortars, will lead hungry, ambitious men in the ISI and Pakistani military (or IRGC) to figure nuking America is a good deal -- take credit with no risk. Slotting their buddies visibly, with UAVs firing Hellfire missiles, is worth the cost (which means a heavy presence in Afghanistan). Yeah guys die.
Welcome to the globalized world where folks like Pakistan have nukes. This is what it costs.
We can't kick Mexicans out of this country, who are here illegally. McCain in AZ, ground Zero of Illegal onslaught, is crushing Hayworth, and openly backing Amnesty again. Even if we could, sneaking in nukes via shipping containers is as easy as the drugs smuggled in here (and would use the same folks).
America depends on imported oil, technology, cheap sneakers and clothing, and heck, car parts. Hermit North Korea Style America is about as realistic as jumping in a time machine to 1815. Even back then, America was an exporting and importing nation.
"What happens if NYC gets nuked? Or NYC and DC?"
Presumably the elites will rejoice and revel in another first for diversity.
You know..... The fact that our national political leadership and intelligentsia is so consistently wrong about everything is truly amazing. I wonder what the hell is gonna happen to this country.
If America were more like Israel, Steve probably would be editor of the WSJ - and Buchanan would be President.
"his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire."
I've seen an allusion to that before. Is there any evidence for it?
Iraq
Afganistan
Wall Street Bailouts
Corruption (See Malkin)
Incompetence
"That's not change, that's more the same."
Barack "Bush III" Obama
OT:
Canada: Tamil migrants in good condition
>
Public Safety Minister Vic Toews said the vessel was extensively renovated so that it could carry as many people as possible. He called it the work of a sophisticated criminal network – likely the Tamil Tigers – an organization Canada labeled a terrorist group in 2006
"This isn't any old sailing boat," Toews told CTV television. "The evidence continues to suggest that this is the work of a criminal enterprise."
"The Sun Sea itself was modified in order to maximize the number of persons and increase the profits in that way. For example it was modified with a sanitation system that would never have been installed in a vessel of this size," Toews said.
>
Thank goodness these oppressed Sri Lankans could seek refuge so easily in nearby Canada!
Do you think this episode could have been prompted by Canada's previous generosity in allowing refugees to settle there from all over the globe?
Do you suppose these 'migrants' will be migrating back to their home country once their situation improves a bit? How about next decade?... next century?
" (Of course, that was even more obviously an affectation, rich ivy-leaguer playing at being a regular guy from Texas. And even his critics bought it.)"
I just googled and found an article that says Eisenhower, Carter, Clinton, and Walter Mondale also said "nukular".
http://www.slate.com/id/2071155/
Betraying one's base seems to be the specialty of American politicians. Being able to deliver this "base", as just so many bargaining chips, seems to be what it's all about. Before the lambs are led to slaughter they are groomed and fattened by the farmer. He gets a better price for them that way. That's the role our politicians play.
Had the US simply nuked Afghanistan and Pakistan to rubble, we'd never have this problem either.
Is this guy serious?
@Whisky:
Why do you think that China is a bubble? Even if their ~30 year growth spurt does eventually lead to a large recession, they'll still come out of it with an economy as large as the United States. Surely you aren't arguing that their last few decades of development have been a "bubble"?
I'm not sure if I was using "Captain Jack Aubrey" or some other pseudonym at the time.
You mean, you're not really Cap'n Jack Aubrey? Sigh. Is there nothing to believe in anymore?
and they aren't willing to accept the policies needed to deport 12 million illegals
I don't believe that's true. I think Americans would be perfectly amenable to laws putting people who hire illegals out of business, which is all that would be needed to get rid of the illegal population.
Steve, did you support the war in Afghanistan in 2001? If yes, what changed?
I supported attacking Afghanistan, and would if I had it to do all over again. I never supported occupying the country, though. I just figured they needed to pay for hosting AQ.
1
Being weak (allowing massive 3rd world immigration) simply invites attack, again, and again, and again.
FTFY.
You have to make guys like Bin Laden, Mullah Omar, the ISI chiefs, Ahmadinejad, the IRGC leaders, unable to enter your territory
FTFY too.
If the problem you cared about was the possibility of terrorists from Afghanistan slipping into the us, you'd address this by controlling the borders and being really careful about issuing visas to folks from poorly governed Muslim parts if the world. Otherwise, you'd minimize your exposure to those places, avoid helping the terrorists recruit by refraining from blowing up weddings and such.
Rotgut? You paying attention?
The criticism of Steve and most of his readers is you all want a free lunch: security in a globalized world with other nations that are tribes with flags getting nukes -- WITHOUT ANY EFFORT.
Rotgut, you're on an HBD blog buddy. You can pretend to take advantage of a taboo on racial profiling here, but it just makes you look stupid. The fact that you refuse to roll closing off immigration of terrorist populations into your boilerplate totally undermines your whole position.
As a consequence, your position looks nothing like a security-first position, and very much like the typical "invade the world to protect Israel" neocon position.
Nothing new, Ashkenazis wrapping their interests in the interests of their audience and selling it as a bill of goods. But all you have to do is pull on one loose string and it all falls apart.
And the "without any effort" charge looks pretty lame when you dismiss out of hand any solution other than foreign adventurism. Oh no, we can't change our minds about anything, and simply stop importing terrorist populations, no, that's "impossible." But spending trillions on foreign wars, now that's doable. Sustainable too!
3
Hermit North Korea Style America is about as realistic as jumping in a time machine to 1815.
Indeed. The whole world is plotting to smuggle nukes into NK as we speak. Because, er, nuking North Koreans is its own reward. Just a matter of time.
Your plan just sucks. It's far more efficient as a recipe for bankruptcy and serving foreign interests than as a recipe for security. But apparently the elite loves it, so you have that in common. But it's infinitely less feasible than simply beefing up our security and doing what we can to stop pissing people off.
All of this is based on a single event, the 9/11 Twin Towers attacks. Does it really make sense to invade half of Asia based on that one event, which could have easily been averted given proper airline security standards, or even proper public awareness of the possibility of suicide attacks via airliner (the public was so ready for this awareness that it got the point before the attacks were even completed and averted the last attempt)?
Do you have any countries we should be invading that are of no strategic concern to Israel?
Are there any places on Earth filled with these born-to-kill-Americans types (who, of course, must be killed) that aren't of immediate strategic concern to Israel? Neocons are long on talk about North Korea, Venezuela (there's oil in them thar hills!), etc., but...no bombs are falling there. What gives? Why should we take you seriously? And why aren't Venezuelans and North Koreans suicide bombing us?
4
Rotgut's the guy who says we should go into bad neighborhoods and kill thugs, while at the same time deriding the feasibility of gated communities, neighborhood watch, police presence, fences, or even locks on our doors and windows. And strangely, he's only fascinated with certain thugs, who, coincidentally, threaten a neighborhood where many of his relatives live. He's got this whole "thugs must be taught fear" schtick, but he doesn't seem to care at all about thugs in other neighborhoods, far from his relatives. Meanwhile, his relatives are obsessed with gated communities, neighborhood watch, police presence, fences, locks on their doors and windows, and every other security measure they can get their hands on. But they don't seem to be doing much in the way of sallying forth into bad neighborhoods to kill thugs. (Oh, and they're also the ones working harder than anyone on keeping taboo any mention of gated communities, neighborhood watch, police presence, fences, or even locks on our doors and windows)
Division of labor, right Rotgut?
Sure, he can say his recommendations are all about our security, but why believe him? It just doesn't add up. Basically his whole argument amounts to Gecko-esque "globalism-is-good" characterization of the shyte the elite is serving us as "a healthy breakfast." I say that's a monumentally sucky argument. If the elite refuses to protect itself (and us) from terror, then they'll be the ones to reap the whirlwind, as terror threatens them more than it does the rest of us. All I have to do is stay away from NYC, LA, DC, and military service. If they want to play with fire, let them. Why should I smile while I sign over my checks?
The creepy thing is how many people here seem to think he's on the up and up.
Barack Mugabe said..."In a sane world you'd[Steve Sailer] be the editor of the Wall Street Journal or the NY Times."
In a sane world, there'd be no Wall Street Journal or NYT.
I doubt you can learn anything from anyone's pronunciation of foreign names besides who they learned from and what languages they speak.
Huh? How could anyone deduce from Obama's pronunciation of "Pakistan" how many languages he knows or who taught him? There's a standard English pronunciation, and he obviously chooses not to use it in order to sound more "sophisticated." And that's a sign of a pretty serious character flaw.
"Before 9/11 I was getting "pass this on to everyone you know" e-mails from my 'progressive' friends about how the Taliban were a bunch of misogynists and homophobes who destroyed old Buddhist statues -- and about how "something" had to be done about Afghanistan."
Same here, getting it from friends on both coasts. Crickets after 9/11. I'm not sure what they were expecting us to do about the Taliban - invoke sanctions, a boycott or something?? But it's always dooo something, dooo something, until we actually do. There are not a lot of tools in the diplomatic box to bend other cultures to our will.
Anonymous said..."We lost a lot when we lost the old upper class, which knew how to show disdain. Edith Wharton would have had a field day skewering the Obamas' vulgarity."
How true. And Henry James, while not upper-class, would have created a minor masterpiece, along the lines of "The Siege of London". Its aptly-named parvenu, Mrs. Headway, climbed the social ladder based on beauty, unlike Michelle, who ascended based on melanin, proving that even vulgarity is not what it used to be.
"Nobody loves the smell of napalm in the morning more than John McCain, but even I recognize this is an increasingly pointless war, so we're outta there."
Why do none of our presidents recognize that it's time to let S. Korea defend their own border. What the hell are we doing there 50 years later.
I wish a politician would say he'd remove our troops from Korea and put them on our own southern border.
Problem solved.
rich ivy-leaguer playing at being a regular guy from Texas. And even his critics bought it.
Dubya was a genuine redneck, in his soul if not his DNA or geographical origin.
Maybe it was the product of the Daddy Issues that Steve has examined, but Dubya genuinely enjoyed clearin' brush, swaggerin', and droppin' the Gs from the end of active verbs. These habits weren't put-ons.
Bad news: JD Hayworth is behind McCain by 20 points. Would've been nice to have JD in the Senate, but it looks like we're gonna get 6 more years of the Maverick.
You wouldn't believe all the false ads McAmnesty is running out here (and never a mention of amnesty or "comprehensive immigration reform". It's all border fence and more boots on the ground. Liar! Democrat Representative Giffords, same thing. No mention of amnesty. So fundamentally dishonest.
"Whiskey said...
The Ground Zero Mosque will open on 9/11/2011 to the applause of Obama and Dems. If that is not dominance and defeat I don't know what it."
And this would have happened even if McCain had been elected. What possible objection could McCain have raised to the GZM? Or any establishment republican for that matter? The only possible objection one can raise is the (quite proper) one that muslims DO NOT belong in this country, and shouldn't be here.
And on this point, you have already surrendered. What are you proposing we fight to defend? A nation of aliens, with strange and hostile ways? If we follow your advice, all those people will come over here anyway. What do we do then? Launch UAV attacks on Hamtramck Michigan?
Your strategy is to surrender where it counts, and fight on where it doesn't.
"The Irony of Victory" is a long understood concept in our Western tradition, i.e., your reward for solving the riddle of the Sphinx is to sleep with your mother. But we've seen to have completely loss any notion of hubris in favor of the Hebraic idea (a corruption, perhaps) that we're forever marching forward to redemption. Glory, glory, hallelujah!
There is a saying about the two parties:
In power, Democrats reward their friends, while Republicans reward their enemies.
For example, establishment Republicans like Bush and McCain constantly pander to those who will never vote for them.
The Awful Truth,
good points. The thing about O-bots is that Obama has to literally clobber them over their heads with a baseball bat before they realise he hates them. But even then they may continue voting for him. Giving up on their fancy dreams is impossible.
Nine year ago: Those who advocate that we stay in Afghanistan long after Osama bin Laden and the Taliban are dealt with...
Sounds like even Steve isn't ready to leave Afghanistan yet. Or have we dealt with Osama in some unpublicized manner?
Whiskey sez:
Germany has a temporary run-up of manufacturing exports.
I think Germany is much better positioned to compete in a post-US-hegemon world than the US.
Apart from that I agree that most western nations are broke, and most probably its a good thing. Since the elite are unable to come to their senses on their own acount, they have to go bankrupt and kicked in the ass before they comply with common-sense.
jody sez:as for aghanistan, the US is more likely to eventually give up there than in iraq, since there is no oil. the US will never be out of iraq
Jody, is there a possibility that the establishment wants to bring Iraq to the point where they can bail out on Saudi due to all the crap with the royals and Saudi being the largest sponsor of the islamisation of the West?
Or maybe coz Saudi has less reserves than they are making out?
Whiskey, how did us leaving Vietnam lead to ASIA coming after America?
Mercer sez: "his Kenyan grandfather, Hussein Onyango Obama, was imprisoned without trial for two years and tortured on Churchill’s watch, for resisting Churchill’s empire."
Which explains why Obama is so cold towards the British? Didn't he return that bust of Churchill or something?
Compared to some of these guys, Obama is considerably less pro-Israel in his stances.
Unless and until a president seriously demands a reduction in the ~$3 billion in foreign aid to Israel, he is not in any way, shape, or form "anti-Israel."
Has Obama done this? No. He's just making noises to placate certain radical elements of the Democratic base.
My opinion btw isn't anti-Israel - it's anti-sending tens of billions of dollars of taxpayer money abroad whilst neck deep in debt.
The thing about O-bots is that Obama has to literally clobber them over their heads with a baseball bat before they realise he hates them.
They may be beginning to realize it: this Gallup link, compliments of here is a great picture showing the proximity of the Ground Zero Mosque to the WTC.
Hayworth's problem is that the "maverick" got all these endorsements from establishment Republicans. When the time comes to stand with a genuine conservative, these establishmentarian guys choose McCain over JD. Seriously, why do these guys do this to us?
Same thing helped in Cali, when Poizner got shafted in favor of a pro-immigration Republican.
JD would've been awesome though. He's about as tough on immigration as Tancredo or Buchanan. Wants the moratorium, border fence, and repeal of the 14th amendment.
It'll be nice if we get Rand Paul and Angle in office. Both of them seem pretty solid.
Oh, by the way, the maverick now says he'd be opposed to changing the 14th amendment. So all this anti-immigration stuff was a facade.
Hayworth's problem is that the "maverick" got all these endorsements from establishment Republicans. When the time comes to stand with a genuine conservative, these establishmentarian guys choose McCain over JD. Seriously, why do these guys do this to us?
Same thing helped in Cali, when Poizner got shafted in favor of a pro-immigration Republican.
JD would've been awesome though. He's about as tough on immigration as Tancredo or Buchanan. Wants the moratorium, border fence, and repeal of the 14th amendment.
It'll be nice if we get Rand Paul and Angle in office. Both of them seem pretty solid.
Oh, by the way, the maverick now says he'd be opposed to changing the 14th amendment. So all this anti-immigration stuff was a facade.
I make a point to pronounce "Iraq" (e-rock) properly, because years ago I saw some Iraqi ambassador or somesuch making a big point of how to pronounce it. He seemed kinda pissed about it. Well, people from that part of the world are always pissed about something, but I figure, if we're going to invade their country, the least we could do is say the name right. I extend Iran the same courtesy in anticipation.
But Obama's pronunciation of Pakistan is a bit much for me, I think. The problem is, even Pakistanis sound like pretentious assholes when they say it, so it's really going to sound stupid coming from me.
"Unless and until a president seriously demands a reduction in the ~$3 billion in foreign aid to Israel, he is not in any way, shape, or form 'anti-Israel.'"
Yeah, he said "less pro-Israel" and you read it "anti-Israel". Probably because you're not a huge fan of Jews.
If we want to fight terrorism aggresively, we should....
1.) Stop Muslim immigration
2.) Buyout plan for American Muslims
3.) More aggressive, Israeli style security at airports
4.) Border fence on Canadian and Mexican borders, with sea patrol
5.) Have a quick strike force positioned in some friendly territory in Afghanistan, perhaps up north where non-Pathans live. If we see something bad about to happen (ie terrorists plotting to strike here), strike quickly and get out. Otherwise keep out.
A simpler, cheaper, and far more effective solution for diminishing terrorism in the U.S./New York would be to stop supporting Israel.
Thank you, Kylie. I stand corrected.
By the way, there is a Richard Spencer post on AltRight where Gerald Celente hilariously and accurately calls the NYT the "toilet paper of record!"
Hayworth's problem is that the "maverick" got all these endorsements from establishment Republicans. When the time comes to stand with a genuine conservative, these establishmentarian guys choose McCain over JD.
Bob Bennett in Utah had all the establishment endorsements, too - including from Mitt Romney, who is especially popular there. Didn't help him much though. If Hayworth loses it will be because of his own personal weaknesses, not because the establishment didn't back him.
This ad, though, is hitting McCain in all the right weak spots. He has 9 days left to make his case. McCain was leading Hayworth 54-34 three weeks ago. Don't know what they say now. McCain's duplicity on ending birthright citizenship - implying that he'd support it, then denying he would - won't help his image any.
Wants the moratorium, border fence, and repeal of the 14th amendment.
This is a big problem with these "anti-immigration" Republicans - they are intentionally framing the debate in the wrong way.
The 14th amendment does not need to be repealed. It is only a misinterpretation of it that is allowing the "anchor baby" law.
Changing the interpretation might be politically feasible. But a repeal of the 14th amendment has absolutely no chance of passing in this political environment.
Thus, JD Hayworth is actually doing the immigration restriction movement a great disservice by framing the issue in this way.
Steve, this is off-topic, but as you are a so-cal resident, do you have any insight into the Bell City Government scandal:
http://en.wikipedia.org
/wiki/2010_City_of_Bell_salary_controversy
This is one of the most shameless episodes of governmental corruption I've heard about recently, but it hasn't got much publicity outside of California, at least that I'm aware of.
Is this an anomaly, or is this sort of thing common in California?
"Step one, if you live in or near NYC, DC, or LA, move out. Step two, deter nuke production. Does deterring nuke production really require occupying half of Asia? If so, make the case, please."
I guess it's a matter of numbers and probability based on past actions, but I wouldn't be so sure that a dedicated AQ level organization would attack one of the big cities again. There is every reason to believe that if such a cell wanted to gain maximum advantage, they might make a point of attacking somewhere in the heartland to spread the fear that nowhere is safe.
Be sure to pronounce that "Pawkeestawn," and bow when you say it.
Even more hilarious when one finds out, as I did quite recently, that, strictly speaking, Pakistan isnt even a 'real' word in the first place.
Punjab, Afghania, KashmIr, Sindh and BalochisTAN.
"We lost a lot when we lost the old upper class. . ."
Who were they and what did we lose? (Besides disdain, which our present elite seem to possess in abundance)
I don't believe that's true. I think Americans would be perfectly amenable to laws putting people who hire illegals out of business, which is all that would be needed to get rid of the illegal population.
I believe that Americans would tolerate greater business enforcement, especially higher fines. And how could Democrats oppose that? Hit those bastard businesses where it hurts AND more revenues for government!
That would be what they'd find most acceptable. But we'd still need to do other things, like kick the kids of illegal aliens out of public schools and make Americans demonstrate legal residence to register their vehicles - mostly because Americans don't want to have to spend more time at a government office.
Mind you, I am all for advocating these and many more enforcement measures. But the press would roll out their standard sob stories and it'd all be over in 5 minutes.
This is all theoretical anyway. The GOP has absolutely no intention of enforcing our immigration laws. Even if in 2012 we get a Republican president and an overwhlemingly Republican congress, we will get no serious immigration bill. That's why in 4-6 years time control of Congress will flip yet again, this time back to the Dems. Mass/illegal immigration is a huge contributor to the problems we now face, yet it's nearly impossible to convince anyone of that.
There is every reason to believe that if such a cell wanted to gain maximum advantage, they might make a point of attacking somewhere in the heartland to spread the fear that nowhere is safe.
More likely because while those in flyover country are upset when New York is attacked, New Yorkers and San Franciscans wouldn't really give a shit if they killed 10,000 people in Nashville or Boise.
Regarding the theme of Obama as Bush III in how they are basically one and the same person:
* Both carelessly and massively ramped up of deficit spending without any sustainable or even recoverable plan to the longterm ruin of our economy
* Both led rapid expansions of unaffordable social benefits like drug benefits and universal health care
* Both happily overruled popular will on a number of issues like initiating and expanding foreign wars, illegal immigration, fatcat bailouts, etc.
* Both are arrogant without much real world accomplishment to support such (getting asbestos out of few apartments as the crowning accomplishment of a community organizing career, navel gazing in two books about an imaginary ROOT's like oppression in preppy paradise and the US, and finally succeeding in academia's PC hall of mirrors as the mythical black man including an UChi Law prof offer despite an unheard of 0 academic articles/books published and after apparently scraping through prep school and two undergrad colleges are not much to make claim to the POTUS)
* Lazy (Hasn't Obama played more golf in 1.5yrs than Bush in 8yrs? Has he surpassed Bush with more whitehouse parties and fancy vacations yet?)
* Incurious (Obama can feign the local accent for country names but apparently didn't learn a lick of Indonesian despite living there for several years as a child, appears to know nothing and take no interest in issues outside race, happily outsourcing issues like economic policy to special interest crooks and croonies)
The only major differences I can see between Bush II and Obama (Bush III) are:
(a) how the MSM breastfeeds and covers for Obama on the same issues it usually crucified Bush on like the costs and management of foreign wars, American GI body counts, etc.
(b) Bush's anti-White actions were more an indirect effect of his pro-Hispanic policies while Obama's anti-white policies are a direct and unashamed policy on par with his drive to help blacks first and foremost
(c) Obama has a far more personally corrupt background coming up the Chicago machine and the race hustling racket as a distrusted outsider without cred or connections (Rezko, Blaggo, Rev. Wright, Michelle's etherial $300k community outreach job, etc).
(d) In typical Republicrat kubuki style, Bush played down his blueblood fancy background while Obama (and his MSM enablers) plays his up to absurd levels.
(e) Bush frequently went slightly off script while Obama religiously stays on teleprompter (and had sounded idiotic at times when wandering: um, ah, um ah). Obama has the big advantage of a MSM infatuated with his skin color so one can only image the discarded outtakes that they used to make Bush look foolish.
If Obama were white his completely scripted, stiff and repetitious low brow platitudes would make Mitt Romney seem like improvisational genius and soul master.
"That's not change, that's more the same"
"We lost a lot when we lost the old upper class. . ."
Who were they and what did we lose?
I'm tempted to answer by saying, "If you have to ask, you shouldn't be asking." In a more helpful vein I'd suggest that you read the sociological studies of E. Digby Baltzell. Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia is especially good.
I'm tempted to answer by saying, "If you have to ask, you shouldn't be asking." In a more helpful vein I'd suggest that you read the sociological studies of E. Digby Baltzell. Puritan Boston and Quaker Philadelphia is especially good.
I asked because I figured you could not give me an answer as to why we should mourn their loss. Even Balzell admitted the "old upper class" were not that impressive. ''People talk about what Episcopalians have accomplished and their power, but what Jews have done in the United States since World War II is now the great untold story.''
"Jack Aubrey said...
More likely because while those in flyover country are upset when New York is attacked, New Yorkers and San Franciscans wouldn't really give a shit if they killed 10,000 people in Nashville or Boise."
I agree. Moreover, the terrorists audience back home have probably never heard of Nashville or Boise, but everyone's heard of New York and Washington. Although, nowadays, a lot of pakistanis probably have an uncle or cousin who runs a gas station in Nashville (maybe even Boise).
I asked because I figured you could not give me an answer as to why we should mourn their loss. Even Balzell admitted the "old upper class" were not that impressive. ''People talk about what Episcopalians have accomplished and their power, but what Jews have done in the United States since World War II is now the great untold story.''
Nice try. Baltzell isn't saying that Episcopalians didn't accomplish anything. (If you read his books, perhaps you'll realize that.) He's saying that since World War II (in other words, in the period when the old upper class went into eclipse) the Jews have risen enormously and that the story of their ascent is as yet untold.
What we should mourn, primarily, (and Steve has mentioned this before) is the disappearance of an elite that did not consider its interests to be separate from (or antithetical to) those of the country as a whole.
Anyone ever think that Whiskey's sexual frustration and advocacy of aggressive war are somehow interconnected? Or is a laser guided missile just a laser guided missile sometimes.
May I try to link the issue of staying in Afghanistan (and Iraq) to another concern of this blog?
1. The leadership of both parties seems to believe the armed forces of US and its allies can build a free democratic open Afghanistan that the Afghan people will be happy to live in.
2. Steve maintains that the influx of Mexican immigrants is a threat to the continued existence of the United States as it has been up to now.
3. Steve sometimes implies that that Mexican poor, indigenous mass emigration is the deliberate policy of the Mexican ruling class; at any rate it cannot be unrelated to the life that Mexico offers the emigrants.
If we accept all 3 propositions, it follows that the United States could (because of 1) and should (because of 2 and 3) occupy Mexico and build a nation its people wouldn't want to emigrate from. Send the army to the border? Hell, don't stop at the border!
While this is rather unlikely to be accepted, raising it might have advantages; firstly, as a way of challenging proposition 1; secondly in shifting the focus of the immigration debate from the immigrants to the Mexican ruling class. Currently Mexican immigrants are demonised by one side and idealised by the other; but everyone can agree we hate the Mexican oligarchy, and demands can combine effective control with serious US pressure on the Mexican government to do whatever it takes to make Mexico liveable for poor Mexicans.
There is a precedent. In 1971 India was burdened by an influx of refugees from the terror the (shamefully US-backed) Pakistan army was inflicting on East Bengal. India sent its army to the border, but not to stop the refugees, but to totally defeat the Pakistani occupiers and liberate Bangladesh. That fixed the reugee problem (and is why I think India is a real nation deserving respect).
"Whoops, OBAMA is the one who wanted war with Pakistan. Do your homework."
We'll see. If McInvasion gets re-elected i say he'll be one of the main neocon puppets used to talk up extending the war into Pakistan as well as carrying on talking up war with Iran. Time will tell.
"Betraying one's base seems to be the specialty of American politicians."
It's the same everywhere. Their true base is the small group of people who fund their campaigns. They don't betray those people. And those people want unlimited mass immigration and endless neocon wars.
The line the politicians all walk is how to give their funders what they want without angering the people who vote for them too much.
Pronunciation:
The way to embarass anti-whites over their pronunciation w**kery is to point out they only try and pronounce foreign words correctly when they feel superior to the people in question.
They don't do it with German or French or Japanese or Korean. They only do it to people they feel superior to because feeling superior makes them feel guilty and the silly pronunciation is to compensate.
What we should mourn, primarily, (and Steve has mentioned this before) is the disappearance of an elite that did not consider its interests to be separate from (or antithetical to) those of the country as a whole.
Well, selfishness has driven the world for much of its history. What we should really mourn is the fact that these elites have learned (or re-learned) how to convince the dumber members of the masses to support ideas entirely antithetical to their own self-interests, like open borders or the right of a judge to toss out laws not obviously un-constitutional and supported by a clear majority of voters.
A century ago people knew what the robber barons were doing when they imported Chinese and East European labor - they were undercutting their wages. And they were willing to demand that their politicians do something.
I guess some of these elites were better - politicians were willing to do it, and judges were willing to go along.
A century ago people knew what the robber barons were doing when they imported Chinese and East European labor - they were undercutting their wages. And they were willing to demand that their politicians do something.
I wouldn't disagree with your claim about the difference between then and now. I would point out, however, that the robber barons were (with a few exceptions; J.P. Morgan is an interesting case) NOT members of the upper-class. The upper-class a century ago looked down on the robber barons as vulgar upstarts. Think Theodore Roosevelt, or Henry Adams. And that, it seems to me, is exactly what is missing today, viz., an elite that, secure in its own position from birth, and deeply connected with the history of the country, can serve as a check on the excesses of the robber barons' modern-day equivalents.
What we should mourn, primarily, (and Steve has mentioned this before) is the disappearance of an elite that did not consider its interests to be separate from (or antithetical to) those of the country as a whole.
We agree on this much: I have no doubts Woodrow Wilson and FDR considered their interests identical with the country's as a whole when they sent farmboys off to die on the battle fields of Europe.
"(c) Obama has a far more personally corrupt background..."
Three pieces of advice:
1. Find the Jenna 6
2. Pay for their transportation to your hometown
3. Get them to hit you with repeated blows to the head and body before it is too late.
I make a point to pronounce "Iraq" (e-rock) properly, because years ago I saw some Iraqi ambassador or somesuch making a big point of how to pronounce it. He seemed kinda pissed about it.
It's not e-rock. The first letter is ayn, which is a consonant that doesn't exist in English. And if you're going to say it in Arabic you need the Al- prefix. And the "ck" is pronounced at the back of the throat. Really, it's not even worth trying to get right.
Truth,
I've noticed your impulse to post when you have nothing to say is getting worse recently.
You could at least try to feign thought by obsessing over strawmen or just making shyte up like Whiskey.
What was that convoluted Jena 6 gag? It doesn't get funnier with repetition.
I'm worried for you bro...
>everyone can agree we hate the Mexican oligarchy<
We do, but the Bushes don't. Nor the Clintons. Nor the Obamas. One of their most pleasant, least mentally demanding duties was and is fellating Vicente Fox.
I think you misunderstand, my friend. I was simply making the point that if you seriously think that the Obamas are more corrupt than the Bushes, you have obviously lost bloodflow to your head and need something to get it started again.
Boy George's granddaddy STARTED WORLD WAR II FOR CHRIST EFFING SAKES!
>Boy George's granddaddy STARTED WORLD WAR II FOR CHRIST EFFING SAKES!<
Put. The. Crack. Pipe. Down.
Good one, David.
Truth,
Your point was clear. It was just a typical thoughtless MSM-trained knee jerk reaction without any facts or reasoning put into it.
Even with a MSM and elite establishment that have vilified Bush II while canonizing Obama, I don't think you can match Obama's good friend and long time financial backer Tony Rezko, in addition to Michelle's phony job, Blaggo/Jarret, Andrew Romanoff, Blaggo, DOJ whistle blower, etc.
What do you think you have on Bush that dwarfs Obama's corruption? If you don't have anything, just continue to avoid discussion and sling personal insults - it seems to be your MO.
"Boy George's granddaddy STARTED WORLD WAR II FOR CHRIST EFFING SAKES!"
Truth, I'm going to agree with the opposition on this one. That statement of yours is false.
Old Prescott did not START WWII, he merely helped finance it....for the other side.
Thank you for reading, Pissed of Chinaman; you are truly one of the few people here who puts in the time.
The truth, however is even more ridiculous than that. It has been established that Prescott Bush, not only financed the Nazi Wermacht, but also was amongst Hitler's personal coterie BEFORE HE WAS ACTUALLY IN POWER. Upon the start of WWII, not only did he finance German, he also simultaneously financed the American side.
Joe: It really almost pains me to read stuff like yours, I'm sorry. People in their hatred are quick to insult the Obamas over trips to Spain, Homes in Chicago...Stuff an ambitious Alderman in St. Louis could wrangle, if he had the imagination.
Yes, presidents cheat and steal. You don't think that they live on $400,000 do you? Low level graft is a fringe benefit of the job.
Now compare that, on the other hand to Cheney and Haliburton; he is CEO and a major stockholder in the company (as is the Bush family) resigns his post when tabbed to run for vice president, (keeping his stock of course). Then starts two phony wars and give the company he used to run HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS of dollars of no-bid contracts.
Haliburton is now one of the 10 most significant companies in the world, has a personal army of at least 50,000, and Cheney, Bush and the group are now multi-billionaires (probably along with Cheney's third cousin, Barry).
And don't even get me started on Bandar Bush.
You'd better wake up, Buddy.
It's not e-rock. The first letter is ayn, which is a consonant that doesn't exist in English. And if you're going to say it in Arabic you need the Al- prefix. And the "ck" is pronounced at the back of the throat. Really, it's not even worth trying to get right.
Who to trust, the Iraqi ambassador, or anonymous? I'll have to sort this out and get back to you.
"Truth,
I've noticed your impulse to post when you have nothing to say is getting worse recently."
QFT.
1: Babble that 0gabe's corruption is OK because, well, he's 0gabe!
Nuff said.
2: Don't bother to explain Rezko, Ayers/Con Ed, ACORN, etc. You see, what Prescott McDuck did 70+ years ago is SO much more important than what the Head Noobie In Charge and his associates are doing at present.
3. Be sure to call everyone "sport" to prove you're really in the swing of things.
Kinda sad that our resident twoofer seems to be slipping - note that he failed to follow one of the guidelines above.
1. Never did it.
Alow me to encapsulate my feelings on Barack Obama for (conservatively) the 10th time: He's a shill and a clown, like every other U.S President of the last 40 years, nothing more, nothing less. I did not vote for him and don't think much of him.
2. The original article of discussion was, and I quote; "(c) Obama has a far more personally corrupt background..." (than Boy George). Rezko and the rest are in no humanly possible fashion more corrupt than the globalists who actually PRINT the money. That's plain and simple.
3. I did not use that word in this thread.
Hope that explains it, Sport.
"Truth said...
"It has been established that Prescott Bush, not only financed the Nazi Wermacht, but also was amongst Hitler's personal coterie BEFORE HE WAS ACTUALLY IN POWER. Upon the start of WWII, not only did he finance German, he also simultaneously financed the American side."
It has been established nowhere except in the diseased minds of idiots who believe everything they read on the web. Prescott Bush was director of a bank that did business with Thyssen. That's hardly "financing the Wehrmacht". And as to Bush being part of Hitler's coterie, well, he was pretty smart to keep out of all the home movies from Berchtesgaden.
And according to the Anti-Defamation League, not exactly a friend of nazis, nor probably of the Bushes, these allegations are bunkum:
http://www.adl.org/Internet_Rumors/prescott.htm
At least your post adhered to the rigorously low standards we've come to expect from you.
Truth,
Your doing that "projection" thing again when you accuse anyone raising legitimate criticisms of Dear Leader is a hater. Not that it pertains to the logic of the argument at hand, but I disliked Bush for many equally objective and factual reasons as I do dislike Obama. Does that that make me an equal opportunity white and black hater in your simple worldview?
In fact, your Pavlovian defense of your wealth transferring coethnicist shows an irrational hatred for the truth and racialist disregard for your non-coethnicist fellow citizen.
To the distractions you offered instead of a reply to my last direct question (about exactly what concrete corruptions Bush II had been involved in that eclipse Obama's):
* When exactly did President Cheney serve in office? And do you think VP Cheney unilaterally decided on war or was he preselected for office like Bush by our elites based upon this predisposition?
* Even for Cheney, I've never heard any concrete scandals like those of the blatant Obama-Rezko variety. This despite the MSM and their useful many idiots like yourself who have combed through his every arse-hair many times looking for stink. Stock prices rising or trips to Spain are not blatant corruption we are talking about here son.
My estimate is that Bush II will make a fraction of the money Clinton will post-POTUS. Obama, despite being impossibly worse than Bush II, will also probably rack up many more $$$ than Bush II.
Now, back to our topic. What specific examples of corruption does Bush II have that overshadow Obama's?
Joe, you're going to think that this answer is avoidance, and that's OK. But I've answered the question twice now, and it's as if I've never answered at all.
What you are asking me to do at this point is to take a moderately gifted welding student at Kansas City Trade-Tech, and teach him to write a dissertation in Ancient Greek. You spend your time listening to the mouth-breathing shills on AM radio, and you are so far from the necessary knowledge base, that there is no answer for your question that does not entail a 400 page book which starts at least at WWII, and probably closer to the civil war.
"Your doing that "projection" thing again when you accuse anyone raising legitimate criticisms of Dear Leader is a hater."
I though I made it perfectly clear; when it comes to Barry I AM A HATER. I don't know exactly how many other ways I can put this Joe. Please read this twice, OK? At the top level of the "US" government, there are no liberals, there are no conservatives, there are no blacks, there are no white, there are no Democrats, there are no republicans, there are, simply, globalists, and non-globalists. I realize that that past paragraph read like Mandarin Chinese to you, please young man, go forth and do your homework from here.
"* Even for Cheney, I've never heard any concrete scandals like those of the blatant Obama-Rezko variety."
Joe, please you are killing me here. there is no MSN media that hates Republicans, if there were, Bush, Cheney and the entire crime cabal (which is exactly what they are, the most powerful crime family in the history of the US) would have faced a firing squad for treason a month after 9-11.
Please Joe, do some constructive reading, and don't spend the rest of your life as a sucker, the red-white-and blue needs you.
Who to trust, the Iraqi ambassador, or anonymous? I'll have to sort this out and get back to you.
Since the Iraqi ambassador's first language almost certainly isn't English, he has no right to lecture English speakers on how to pronounce a word in the English language.
So we don't pronounce I-Rack correctly, according to an I-Rack-Ee. So what?
We don't pronounce "Germany" correctly, either. Germans pronounce it "Deutschland."
My estimate is that Bush II will make a fraction of the money Clinton will post-POTUS. Obama, despite being impossibly worse than Bush II, will also probably rack up many more $$$ than Bush II.
Oh, I've long predicted that Obama will become our first billionaire ex-president. Businesses know how to be subtle; how to pay pols off after the fact. And they pay off ex-politicians in order to keep current pols doing their bidding.
Obama has transferred hundreds of billions of dollars from the taxpayer's wallet to the finance, real estate, and auto industries, among others. I predict he'll deliver dozens of corporate speeches for millions each within months of leaving office. He'll also be offered dozens of board seats with insanely generous stock options.
That may be why he's not really aiming for re-election. The sooner he leaves office, the sooner he can really start living large - without actually having to work, and without having to be faithful to his wife.
Here you are Joe:
A gift from me to you that should help you immensely.
http://neithercorp.us/npress/?p=674
"3. I did not use that word in this thread."
Holy Soetoro. Go back and read my post again. Carefully. Even your subnormal [Affirmative] Action Hero Himself wouldn't have made a gaffe like the one you just did.
"when it comes to Barry I AM A HATER."
lol - thus, we get the rambling spewage about Prescott B's actions during WWII, and feverish fantasies about killing Republicans. Ample proof of a cultlike devotion to a dim-witted racial brother-in-arms (granted, twoof is at least intelligent enough to feign disgust from time to time).
"there is no MSN media that hates Republicans, if there were, Bush, Cheney and the entire crime cabal (which is exactly what they are, the most powerful crime family in the history of the US) would have faced a firing squad for treason a month after 9-11."
...So if a sitting president & various other people twoofer doesn't like aren't shot and killed, then that proves that NO ONE in the media hates Republicans. Uh...?? Did twoof figure that out on his own, or did someone help him? I demand an explanation!
Oh, and to keep up with the trendy twoofy, "pox on both ur houses" attitude, I don't deny that some hatred towards the Elephant Party may be rational. Nevertheless, fantasies about wholesale shootings of Republican pols are ... um ... a bit telling, IMHO.
So what you're saying is, if only we handled Afghanistan the way we handled Somolia, you'd be happier?
But you derided our completely Saileresque approach in Somolia!
I know this is an old point, but face facts, I won it.
"(granted, twoof is at least intelligent enough to feign disgust from time to time)."
Dude, I think you've made me understand why Whiskey writes the same post 300 times in a row now.
Post a Comment