In contrast to Bryan Caplan's advice to the GOP to make itself more popular by bending over backward to mollify the sensitivities of newcomers, the state of Israel, and Israel hobbyists in the U.S., follow a strategy of constant strident self-assertion.
As the Hagel debate showed, the essential problem for the GOP is this: You know how T. Boone Pickens has spent a couple of hundred million dollars building his alma mater, Oklahoma State, into a college football powerhouse? Does T. Boone Pickens want to negotiate peace on the football field, to sit down with Oklahoma's backers and call the whole game off? Of course not. What would be the fun of that? He wants to WIN.
As the Hagel debate showed, the essential problem for the GOP is this: You know how T. Boone Pickens has spent a couple of hundred million dollars building his alma mater, Oklahoma State, into a college football powerhouse? Does T. Boone Pickens want to negotiate peace on the football field, to sit down with Oklahoma's backers and call the whole game off? Of course not. What would be the fun of that? He wants to WIN.
Well, a lot of the big money behind the GOP (and behind the Democrats, too -- e.g., Hillary's main money man Haim Saban) feels toward Israel the way Pickens feels toward the Oklahoma State Cowboys. Pickens doesn't want peace on the football field, he wants victory. Similarly, much of the big money and the big media don't really want peace in the Middle East. They want their favorite country to win, to crush its foes, or, at minimum, for the game of nations to go on and on to give them something to talk about. It's their hobby. It's a perfectly natural male rooting urge.
But, here's the GOP's problem: You can't mention this. You can joke about Pickens's obsession with OK St. winning, but you can't joke about, say, Sheldon Adelson's obsession with his wife's native country crushing their foes.
Poor Chuck Hagel vaguely alluded skeptically to this massive phenomenon a couple of times over the last couple of decades, and got roasted alive for it to, as Voltaire would say, "encourage the others."
The problem is that what goes unsaid, eventually goes unthought, enstupefying the Party.
The problem is that what goes unsaid, eventually goes unthought, enstupefying the Party.
So, the first thing Republicans need is the freedom to joke about the neocons' infatuation with Israel.
Is that too much to ask?
At present, yes.
Posts
51 comments:
Of all the major political figures in America, Chuck Hagel has the most Israeli-sceptic political capital amassed. But politicians sporting political capital aren't chosen for cabinet positions so that they can retain their capital. They are picked so the President can use this capital to achieve his goals.
Colin Powell is a good example. He built up a lot of “fighting war the right way” political capital with his Powell Doctrine of overwhelming force. But George Bush spent this capital (and then some) getting into a war he would fight the wrong way.
It’s almost a cliché now but Richard Nixon spent his career building up anti-communist capital only to blow it all on a trip to Peking to visit with Chairman Mao.
So what could Obama accomplish with Hagel’s Israeli-sceptic political capital, which only increased as the rough nomination process has forced the anti-war crowd to further embrace Hagel. Israel has been wanting the US to attack Iran for nearly a decade. With Hagel leading the charge, Obama may just be able to neutralize enough of the Israeli-sceptic people out there to launch a war against Iran.
Great point Steve. People whose country is America need to learn to ridicule Israel Firsters through sarcasm, parody, and satire. Better to do it with humor than direct criticism, although direct criticism is better than none. And both is better than one.
We should recruit Jewish humor for the cause of the United States.
@Steve
Could you provide some background for the Voltaire reference?
as Voltaire would say, "encourage the others."
Why not be direct and call them out for being foreign loyalists? Do you see humor as being more effective?
True, the Jewish neo-cons and evangelicals is why Hagel had such a hard time. Some evangelicals are getting away from the end times and pro Isreal stand, Personality, I like the Jews in Isreal but the Hagal affair was too far.
Israel's supporters do not want it to take over the Middle East. Its enemies want to wipe it off the map and kill its Jewish residents.
Israel's supporters and enemies both want to "win", but their definitions of victory are not morally equivalent.
"He who pays the piper calls the tune."
Peace in the Middle East cannot occur unless and until one side scores a crushing victory.
The so-called "peace process" merely drags things out and ensures that there cannot be peace.
I disagree. I think the majority of Jewish funders of both parties would be overjoyed at peace in the Middle East, because that would essentially represent victory for the idea of Israel.
Here’s a better analogy, from aviation history: Chuck Hagel is the Wrong-Way Corrigan of ethnic paranoia. He picks the one issue on which Jewish influence probably makes American policy more realistic, that is, in dealing with Arab and Islamic violence, which is not spurred by remediable grievances but rooted in religious and cultural pathologies. One could make a much better case that Jewish influence is both disproportionate and, on balance, damaging in such areas as, oh, to pick a few, Constitutional law, the criminal justice system, the welfare system, the educational system, abortion law, and so forth.
Hagel’s other problem is that he is, like John Kerry, a mediocre windbag, but he lacks the three years of high-school debating and three years of law school that make Kerry an articulate, confident mediocre windbag. And who really cares who the Secretary of State is? Since the end of the Cold War it has become largely a therapy program for aging female bureaucrats and politicians.
First Obama's re-election and now Chuck Hagel; while no one was looking AIPAC/Israel just had their collective ass handed to them. Let us enjoy the lamentations of their women and children over at the Standard.
Too bad it takes a president with an ambiguous relationship to the historical US to stand up to those who treat it like a condom--good for one use and otherwise distasteful. But I'll take it.
Still, the response has been crickets. I don't think I've seen anyone outside of the anti-war Internet analyse this remarkable development.
A lot of people who might otherwise rejoice can't stand giving Obama credit for anything.
We need to pry policy away from personality. Dream on...
The Commentary magazine mission statement:
"COMMENTARY is America’s premier monthly magazine of opinion and a pivotal voice in American intellectual life. Since its inception in 1945, and increasingly after it emerged as the flagship of neoconservatism in the 1970s, the magazine has been consistently engaged with several large, interrelated questions: the fate of democracy and of democratic ideas in a world threatened by totalitarian ideologies; the state of American and Western security; the future of the Jews, Judaism, and Jewish culture in Israel, the United States, and around the world; and the preservation of high culture in an age of political correctness and the collapse of critical standards."
Neocons can say that necons are hung up on the question of Jews and Israel, but nobody else can say it about them.
Oh gosh, who ever want a Western state with a highly developed economy to win over a bunch of third world mafiosos who's culture is based on a 10th century caliphate and economy is completely dependent on foreign aid?!
Steve-ers freak out about a 5% increase of relatively docile Central American fieldworkers, diluting American culture. Yet somehow are sympathetic to a group of thuggish, ultra-violent, stone-age neanderthals who's explicitly stated goal is to wipe a Western, developed, peaceful country off the map.
On iSteve if you express support for the UK cutting off a small flow of Pakistani immigrants that's definitely okay. But somehow iSteve supports the Palestinian cultural and genetic cousins of those people taking over wide swathes of Israel?
Just the other day there was a post on Mangans about how Western civilization can survive if it has no interest in defending itself. If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away.
"Well, a lot of the big money behind the GOP (and behind the Democrats, too -- e.g., Hillary's main money man Haim Saban) feels toward Israel the way Pickens feels toward the Oklahoma State Cowboys."
Yes, it's about power. Good advice isn't what matters in politics. It's powerful advice.
If Sailer and others like him were billionaires and owned much of the media, the GOP--and even many in Democratic Party--would be listening to them. Whether his advice is good or bad would be of secondary importance. Since Sailer and others like him own the media, they would create the perception of reality, especially among the crucial elite class. After all, most 'intelligent and educated' people don't do research for themselves and think on their own but rely on Slate and Ny Times and Jezebel and Salon do all the research and thinking for them. Also, higher status can lead to more conformism in thought. If you got more to gain and more to loss according to your beliefs in a certain social setting, you wanna get along and go along. If Sailer had a gig at NY Times, he would be--even if unconsciously--much more careful about what he wrote. He would have more to lose if he rocked the boat too much. And privilege, like power, is addictive. Once you have it--and is one of the players--, you don't wanna lose it. It's like black ballplayers will even swallow their pride and apologize to gays just to keep playing in the NBA.
In some ways, intellectual climate is worse now than before. In the past, most rich folks were not intellectual or socially conscious--they were more class conscious and culturally correct. Many of them went from rags to riches and were fixated on money and status. As for the old rich, they were well-educated but mostly not intellectual and 'radical'. Because of such lack of intellectualism and activism among the rich, the privileged children of the rich rebelled against their parents; they didn't want to be as crass and culturally conformist like their parents. They felt guilty about their own privilege and used their privilege to be social critics--like the Jed Leland character in CITIZEN KANE. John Reed also came from a rich family.
Thus, having privilege in the past could lead to cultural and intellectual dissent by the young against the old. This was certainly true among the young rich in Hollywood against the old rich in the late 60s and early 70s. The young rich were more idealistic.
A rich kid born to rich parents might use his privilege of education and access to rebel against his crass and uncaring piggish parents.
But today, rich kids are born to rich intellectual parents(with 'radical' and 'progressive' posturing)who drum their kids with the dogma of PC and 'social justice'. Thus, rich kids don't see their parents as immoral and oppressive forces to rebel against and dissent with but as 'progressive' forces to obey and follow. Especially with the boomer generation having hyped itself as the best of all generations from which all wisdom springs, younger generations since then have been playing teacher's pet or parents' pet. In the 60s, college students rebelled against their professors and college administrators. Today, the most radical college students do as their professors indoctrinate and order them.
Anyway, we really can't blame the GOP and the likes of Rubio. Politicians live or die depending on money and publicity. What we call reality isn't so reality-reality but reality-as-disseminated-by-publicity. And those with control of publicity are those who control the media, and those who control the media are those who have lots of money and have close ties with those who control finance.
WE may have a better grasp of reality, but we don't have control over publicity and media, so most Americans--even conservatives--disagree with us. Both libs and cons worship MLK as god, believe in 'white guilt', use terminology such as 'racist' and 'homophobia', and etc.
So, even though Sailer makes a lot of good point about who is right and who is wrong, it's all secondary to who has the money and the power over publicity.
You don't win in politics by being right about reality. You win by being tight with the those who control the mass perception of reality.
Indeed, suppose a Republican politician or mainstream conservative pundit on TV mentioned Sailer and his ideas and said they are worth considering. You know what would happen to him? He'd be blacklisted in no time. They will to do him what the powers-that-be did to John Doe in Frank Capra's movie. Instantly turn everyone against him. Capra showed how such things can happen even in a democracy. It's no different now than it was then.
Given the nature of politics, GOP is what it is because it must bend to power. And unless we have the power or find more effective means to wield it, we won't be heard.
As if to prevent us from realizing the truth of power, Jonah Goldberg urges gentile conservatives not to work toward creating their own media network. It seems Goldberg prefers Jewish liberal media domination over any form of gentile conservative counter-force against it.
On the other hand, given the lack of talent among gentile conservatives, their own media outlet would probably be something like the 700 Club.
Hagel is bad news for America. Not because he was critical of Israel in the past but because of how the Zionist powers-that-be will use that aspect of Hagel--plus his Republican-ness--as cover for Zionist policies.
Because Hagel said some unkind words about Israel, the impression is that he is no tool or puppet of Israel. Thus, it gives the impression that US foreign policy is NOT controlled by Zionists. But if Hagel has to choose between principle and privilege, he will go with the latter since politicians are addicted to the privilege of power. (It's like Buchanan swallowed his pride and principles and followed his boss Nixon to Red China.)
Thus, if anything drastic happens with US foreign policy in the Middle East, Hagel will be compelled to go along with Obama and the Zionists. Since a critic of Israel went along, the impression will be that there was no Zionist control of foreign policy.
The most disgusting thing about the confirmation thing was that the most hostile critics of Hagel were all gentile Republicans. Jews play a very clever game. If Jews themselves jumped on Hagel, the impression would be POWERFUL JEWS ATTACK AND INTIMIDATE A CRITIC OF ISRAEL. So, Jews go relatively easy on Hagel while pulling the strings to set their goy attack dogs on Hagel. Since Republicans are desperate for Jewish money and media favoritism, they will stoop to any level to seem more pro-Jewish than others, but all they're doing is playing into the machinations of Jews. It's a pathetic sight really. Republican gentile groveling before the very people who've done most to undermine white conservative power.
No matter how loud they bark, they can't hide the fact that they are nothing but running dogs of their Zionist masters.
(sorry if a double post- stupid Blogger double CAPTCHA system)
Steve, I get the hyperbole, as Israel hobbyists (nice coinage) need to seriously be put in their place by Citizenists.
But crushing their enemies? C'mon. Remember the Gaza withdrawal and the smashing of those greenhouses? Ah, those beautiful greenhouses. Nothing like one of these poignant, literary-fiction-brought-to-life moments to convince even SWPL's to bring out the napalm and daisy cutters.
Steve OT but just had to bring this to your attention:
Businessweek Warns That Minorities May Be Buying Houses Again
Just the other day there was a post on Mangans about how Western civilization can survive if it has no interest in defending itself. If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away.
The Asiatic hordes are the ones that crushed the Soviet empire in Afghanistan, and provided most of the world with cheap oil. Of course, if Western Civilization is too gutless to rely on nuclear power instead of oil, then I can't see it defending itself.
That Bloomberg cover is a hoot, looks like the cover of Miles Davis' "On The Corner".
"Could you provide some background for the Voltaire reference?"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng
"Byng's execution was satirized by Voltaire in his novel Candide. In Portsmouth, Candide witnesses the execution of an officer by firing squad; and is told that "in this country, it is good to kill an admiral from time to time, in order to encourage the others" (Dans ce pays-ci, il est bon de tuer de temps en temps un amiral pour encourager les autres)."
To the perpetual Disgrace
of PUBLICK JUSTICE
The Honble. JOHN BYNG Esqr
Admiral of the Blue
Fell a MARTYR to
POLITICAL PERSECUTION
March 14th in the year 1757 when
BRAVERY and LOYALTY
were Insufficient Securities
For the
Life and Honour
of a
NAVAL OFFICERTo the perpetual Disgrace
of PUBLICK JUSTICE
The Honble. JOHN BYNG Esqr
Admiral of the Blue
Fell a MARTYR to
POLITICAL PERSECUTION
March 14th in the year 1757 when
BRAVERY and LOYALTY
were Insufficient Securities
For the
Life and Honour
of a
NAVAL OFFICER
Peace in the Middle East cannot occur unless and until one side scores a crushing victory.
Wrong. Israel has scored a crushing victory. That is why there is no peace--victory and power are so lopsided there is no incentive for the Jews to negotiate.
If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away.
Tel Aviv is already in the hands of hyper-ethnocentric Middle Easterners ("Asiatic hordes").
"I disagree. I think the majority of Jewish funders of both parties would be overjoyed at peace in the Middle East, because that would essentially represent victory for the idea of Israel."
The issue isn't peace but power. Peace, as we know, is never permanent. Peace today doesn't mean peace forever. After all, from 1933 to 1939, Hitler was ever so peaceful. And even with taking the Rhineland, he was ever so cautious. But during that peace, Hitler built a war machine that eventually brought Europe to ruins.
From the end of the Russian Civil War to late 30s, USSR was mostly at peace, but during that time remade itself into a war machine--that would even defeat Nazi Germany and kick Japan's ass in the Northeast.
So, peace is not the issue. Jews are worried about 'what will happen in the Middle East' under peace? What if Iran builds atomic bombs in peacetime? What if Hussein had remained in power and sanctions against Iraq had ended? What if Iraq then made a lot of money and built up a huge arsenal and even planned on nukes in the future, all under peacetime? Indeed, what if several Arab nations gain their own nukes during peacetime? Then, Israel would no longer be able to threaten them with conventional weapons. (nukes are the great equalizer.)
Peace can hatch wars in the future. China has been at peace for a long time, but in that peace time, its economy has been growing bigger and its military has been expanding. So, it's peace that is making China a formidable power that may one day challenge US in the Pacific.
Peace isn't just peace. It could also be a peaceful preparation for future wars.
If the Middle East were finally stable and peaceful, Arabs might be able to use the peace to build economies and armaments to challenge Israel. So, Israel prefers a state of crisis in the the Middle East that pits Arabs against Arabs, Christians vs Muslims, factions vs factions. China during the era of civil war was weaker than during times of peace. Russia during civil war was a mess. It was peace under Stalin that made it into such a scary power.
Great point Steve. People whose country is America need to learn to ridicule Israel Firsters through sarcasm, parody, and satire. Better to do it with humor than direct criticism, although direct criticism is better than none. And both is better than one.
We should recruit Jewish humor for the cause of the United States.
Can some of Steve's Jewish readership help out here?
The sad truth is that the Jewish lobby pretty much owns the USA. The USA doesn't need Israel at all. The relationship is that of parasite to host.
Most Jews vote Dem but the GOP is more strident with pro Israel rhetoric.
This is because some Jewish billionaires pump vast sums of money in to the GOP to ensure that it has a Zionist foreign/military policy.
If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away.
Please explain the basis for this argument.
First Obama's re-election and now Chuck Hagel; while no one was looking AIPAC/Israel just had their collective ass handed to them
Not really. Jews control the Democrats just as much as they control the Republicans. The Democrats just pretend to be more evenhanded but essentially pursue Zionist policies that are similar to those of the GOP.
The football simile is lame. Israel doesn’t have a choice between “winning” and “peace.” Maybe winning and murder. When there is even a glimmer of sham peace, the Israeli marketplace of ideas swings even “hardliners” like Begin and Sharon to take a stab. The Arabs have zero interest in peace, it’s a sure way to get dead. Defending Hagel rots out any analysis, it’s just for glib “contrarians.”
Hillary's main money man Haim Saban...
Main money men Haim are an old American tradition.
And you'd be surprised how American 'Saban' sounds, too.
If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away
The hordes have arrived. Where have you been? It's the progressive elite that's opened the gates. And those hordes aren't impressed by the American neocon mantra--that the European left is "anti-Semitic" in their "support for Palestine"--they make the same distinction between backward Muslims and enlightened Israelis we make, only they see it as the powerful abusing the weak. Meanwhile our praise of Jewish achievement and civilization wins us nothing but disdain and paranoia. I think I understand what Uncle Tom must have felt like.
The problem with American Jewry is the same problem we have with American blacks--no one outside the group is allowed the slightest criticism of it, while they identify primarily as living in opposition to us hostiles. Enough.
Considering his prideful anti-Republican metier it's no shock that the relevant super-liminal quality of "Real Man of Genius" Hagel sailed over Sailer's head. In the case of someone famous for nothing else except criticizing them, it wasn't too surprising that the party caucus was quite open to any mudslinging that might stick. Then Chucky showed himself to be a garden-variety senatorial buffoon in the plum-easy role of sitting through a confirmation hearing--or was that all another Mossad set-up...
Speaking of sense of humor, when's Steve Sailer ever going to admit that he may not be suffering from perpetual persecution by Every Jew In The World (maybe just 95% of them are actively sabotaging him)
Steve's the master of analogy, but we all knew that. Linked and riffed on a little here:
http://ex-army.blogspot.com/2013/02/middle-east-peace.html
Jewish power is actually interesting in terms of making us understand the true nature of power.
When US was led by white gentiles, it was less easy to tell in what components of society the key levers of power was located. Was it the white elites, white middle class, white working class, white farming class, etc? Did white elites rule society because of support of white middle classes? Did Democrats gain power as the result of white working class? Since it was white at top, white in middle, and white on bottom, it wasn't easy to pinpoint the true locus of power.
But it's become clear with Jews. Jews don't have the numbers. There has never been a Jewish president or even vice-president. Most middle class are not Jewish. Even most upper middle class are not Jewish. Most working class are not Jewish.
Instead, Jews dominate in elite circles and have control over finance, media, and academia--and through them, the government. With control over those things, Jews have control over most of society. So, we better understand the true nature of power and the things one needs to control society.
It's like a machine may be very elaborate and complex, but what really controls it is the person who has access to the button. That's all you need. Jews got the buttons. If a hundred people work on the machine, but one person has access to the button, that one person controls the machine, not the 100 who work on it.
GOP had Mittens, but Jews got the buttons.
" Israel has 100+ hydrogen bombs that the Palestinians are going to have to get through en route to their conquest of Tel Aviv."
South Africa had 100+ hydrogen bombs too. Whoops guess that didn't stop the savages from conquering the civilized state there. Actually more like it didn't stop the "international community" from handing power from the civilized government to a bunch of thuggish mafiosos and criminals.
The "international community" now has its sites on Israel. The civilized forces in South Africa had bombs and the savages had "necklacing." Didn't matter, because in the end civilization was forced to concede South Africa without even lifting a finger in defense.
Defending Israel against the "international community" and its anti-Western, PC, pro 3rd world stalwarts is what any right-thinking person should do.
Give Tel Aviv to the people that run Gaza City and without a doubt Tel Aviv will look like Gaza City. Just like glorious Cape Town now looks like Natal. From there it's only be a short historical step until Mogadishu absorbs Copenhagen.
when's Steve Sailer ever going to admit that he may not be suffering from perpetual persecution by Every Jew In The World
The Society the Prevention of Cruelty to Strawmen would like a word with you ..
http://siskelandebert.org/video/8R52X9UUUHXO/Sneak-Previews--Mel-Brooks-or-Woody-Allen-1980
Wow. we're getting an invasion of poorly-informed pro-Israel sockpuppets. I mean, I know reading is hard and all, but isn't it kind of pointless to try to convince people of anything when yu just make crap up and say stuff that doesn't make any sense?
I'm an American. Israel is an ally of ours very far away, with disproportionate and unhealthy influence over US politics for reasons of ethnic identity and a particular political marriage of convenience between fundamentalist Christians and strongly pro-Israel Jews. I would like to see that influence greatly diminished, because I think when we're considering someone for an important post in our government, the issues to consider should not mainly be whether he is sufficiently committed to a foreign country's interests.
The Hagel fight really focused a spotlight on this unhealthy influence. GOP congressmens' falling all over themselves to put support for Israel ahead of talking about, say, the war in Afghanistan or the endless drone war, became a national joke. My hope is that this, along with several other recent attempts for pro-Israel activists to exert undue power in the US, will lead to a whole lot of that power going away. That will be a big win for the US, which as I may have mentioned, is my country. I rather suspect Israel, armed only with a first world economy and military, regional dominance, and a large nuclear deterrent, will survive the loss of this influence just fine.
Steve-ers freak out about a 5% increase of relatively docile Central American fieldworkers, diluting American culture. Yet somehow are sympathetic to a group of thuggish, ultra-violent, stone-age neanderthals who's explicitly stated goal is to wipe a Western, developed, peaceful country off the map.
DR, first it is not an increase of 5%. Trends point to Mexicans and Central Americans moving eventually toward 40% or more of our entire population!
Second, I understand that you are upset with people on iSteve and Mangans. But why should they bend over backwards to help Israel, when Israel's co-ethnics in the USA are so fervent in their support of our demographic demise? It's tough to want to help someone when that someone's main supporters are so hellbent against you.
The people you should be angry with are neocons and other Zionists who promote policies for the USA that they would never promote for Israel. If they used their power and position to work on our pet cause, maybe we'd be more interested in theirs.
I would hope you spend as much effort on their blogs trying to show them the folly of their ways for supporting open borders in the USA as you do on our blogs trying to bash us for not supporting the lone, Western outpost in the Middle East.
"DR said...
If Tel Aviv falls to the Asiatic hordes then Vienna isn't too far away."
The same was said about Vietnam. Why, if Vietnam falls to the communists, we'll be fighting them off at the Golden Gate.
It wasn't true then, either.
DR said...
South Africa had 100+ hydrogen bombs too."
I don't believe that - because it isn't true. SA had, maybe, half a dozen.
"Defending Israel against the "international community" and its anti-Western, PC, pro 3rd world stalwarts is what any right-thinking person should do."
Defending Israel is certainly what any right-thinking Israeli should do. Perhaps it's what any right-thinking Jew should do. For the rest of us, it's someone else's country. I wish it no harm, but neither do I think we should twist ourselves around in knots serving it's every whim.
If it's a big deal to you, then emigrate and join the IDF. Leave other people out of your fight.
who really cares who the Secretary of State is? Since the end of the Cold War it has become largely a therapy program for aging female bureaucrats and politician
It's almost as if the Sec of State is now considered a woman's job by the elite. Albright, Rice, Hillary, Colin Powell (I know, but after his performance in the office he's an honorary vagina--and have you seen him lately? Grandma, is that you?), and nearly another Rice--all mediocrities by the way (oh right, Hillary racked up all those frequent flier miles--who cares if Lavrov wouldn't take her calls, let's put her on Rushmore!).
John Kerry, who at least looks like a figure of substance, only got in when Rice's lack of fitness became impossible to disguise any more. We've been sending women out to harry a patriarchal world about women's rights, international relations be damned.
Not a serious country.
Steve, here's where you are as wrong as say, Neville Chamberlain and Charles Lindbergh. Peace is not found through isolationism or abandonment of key allied, even if you don't like them very much, (example: The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia).
The objection to Hagel is that he embodies the failure of Pat Buchanon and Barack Obama to project military power and viewing America as the source of all conflict and badness in the world. Hagel knew nothing of Iran, was ENDORSED by Iran, and gave away the ill-concealed secret, that Obama was ready to accept a nuclear Iran.
Israel is useful as a counterpoint to Russia's gas exports to Europe, if they can develop them European carping will cease as the Europeans eagerly buy Israeli natural gas; Turkey and Egypt covet the gasfields but they are anti-American and riven by internal fighting.
But the main conflict in the ME is between the Sunni Gulf hereditary kingdoms, the Muslim Brotherhood/AQ, and the Shia powers of Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Israel has nothing to do with that.
We will find out how much a failure isolationism and ally-abandonment really is: nuclear Iran (they want to nuke Israel as a demonstration to Saudi/UAE/Kuwait) and ever higher oil prices. Iran, Russia, Iraq all want sky high oil prices. The US, the Gulf States, want them more moderately priced. Even unconventional oil/fracking depends economically on oil at $100-120 a barrel.
You happy with the economy? Imagine 4% unemployment, rising real incomes, with oil at say, $40 a barrel, the social stress of grabbing ever more money from the Married White middle class to fund the non-White underclass and elite hereditary "mandarins" largely disappears. America is not isolated and has not been since the Spanish fought the French in Florida.
Steve --
Above (isolationism comment) was me, Whiskey. Google blah!
Mr Anon:
Just as an aside, H-bomb implies a fusion bomb, a much harder prospect than a fission bomb. SA was widely reported to have made a few fission bombs by cleverly designing ways to more efficiently separate out isotopes of Uranium. I don't know enough physics to evaluate those claims, but I've never heard any suggestion that they were anywhere close to fusion bombs.
Words mean things, and it pays to use the right words for what you're trying to say.
"NOTA said...
Mr Anon:
Just as an aside, H-bomb implies a fusion bomb, a much harder prospect than a fission bomb. SA was widely reported to have made a few fission bombs by cleverly designing ways to more efficiently separate out isotopes of Uranium. I don't know enough physics to evaluate those claims, but I've never heard any suggestion that they were anywhere close to fusion bombs."
Yes, you are right. South Africa probably only had fission bombs. I used the term "H bomb" as I was replying to someone who used that term, but what I meant was simply "nuclear weapons".
By the way, there were rumors at back in the 1980s, that South Africa and Israel (and perhaps Taiwan) had collaborated on nuclear weapons development. Perhaps SA got some uranium, or plutonium, from Israel.
"Anonymous said...
The objection to Hagel is that he embodies the failure of Pat Buchanon and Barack Obama to project military power..."
Perhaps Pat Buchanan's (not Buchanon) fault in failing to project military power is that he is a newspaper columnist, and not some kind of generalissimo. And for christ's sake, Whiskey, learn to spell the man's name already.
"Whiskey said...
Steve --
Above (isolationism comment) was me, Whiskey. Google blah!"
Yeah, we could tell. Certain things gave it away: like the casual labeling of the act of simply minding one's own business with that evil appelation "isolationism", or the mispelling of Pat Buchanan's name, or the general stupid armchair warrior bravado of the whole post.
By the way, Whiskey, has that vast seaborne invasion of al-quaeda warriors in speed-boats that you predicted materialized yet? I gather you live on the west coast, so I thought maybe you had heard something. So, what's the scoop? Has that fleet of zodiacs with AK-47 toting jihadists landed on the Ventura beaches yet?
Above (isolationism comment) was me, Whiskey. Google blah!
I love how people throw the term isolationism around. If you want to see what isolationism is, check Hoxhas's Albania or the present regime of North Korea. There you will find nations whose inhabitants are not free to travel and outsiders face strict barriers to entry. Throw in a ban on foreign media and other cultural exchanges for good measure.
When has the USA ever been like that?
What you are really trying to say is you are not happy unless America is actively intervening in other nations' affairs.
Let's look at what intervening has wrought. The poster child of this interventionism gone wrong was WW1 in which nations, including us, were dragged into war unnecessarily. That war was a disaster, spawned the bloodiest century in history, and we continue to deal with it to this day.
Yet you want more, not less intervention. So following your advice we invaded Iraq and toppled Saddam. Now you write:
But the main conflict in the ME is between the Sunni Gulf hereditary kingdoms, the Muslim Brotherhood/AQ, and the Shia powers of Iran, Iraq, and Syria. Israel has nothing to do with that.
Forgive me for noticing, but when was Iraq a Shia power? Oh, that's right toppling Saddam, who was a counterweight to Iran, and replacing him with a Shia goverment was OUR idea, and thus, our creation. So we created Shia dominated Iraq, and now we lament that Iraq is Shia dominated.
What does it take for you to realize that your interventionism is the problem? Yet you still attack those who won't march to your beat and suggest they fail to project military power.
The only attack we have had on American soil in this century was not a result of failing to project military power. It was a result of not maintaining immigration controls. And let's not forget that it is the leaders of the interventionists movement who have fought tooth and nail to dismantle America's immigration controls and seek to effectively have open borders. After all, if we don't have open borders, we will become isolationists, and we can't have that.
Post a Comment