#1
Not sure what planet these guys live on or where they went to business school. This is one of the most clueless things I have ever seen. These guys will sink with the rest of the dead tree media.
#11
after getting busted with their fauxtography, lies, propaganda stringers, they're smarting and want to shut down teh criticism.
Ace of Spades notes:
"The AP claims that it can revoke the license at any time if it feels you're saying something negative about the Associated Press: "Publisher reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publishers reputation.""
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/17/2008 19:53 Comments ||
Top||
#12
"Publisher reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time if Publisher or its agents finds Your use of the licensed Content to be offensive and/or damaging to Publishers reputation."
No problem, then - ya' can't damage what's already in the toilet and swirling 'round the drain.
Posted by: Barbara Skolaut ||
06/17/2008 21:43 Comments ||
Top||
#13
A reference, used for commentary, and less than 80 words is FAIR USE.
By their bullying treatment of Ireland, the powers that be in the European Union are openly threatening to breach the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
As Italy's finance minister said over the weekend, Europe risks degenerating into "fascism" in the next economic downturn. Indeed it does. Its actions over Ireland already smack of fascism.
It will be resisted. The outpourings of fury in eurosceptic press/blogs in France (I have never felt so much at one with the French Socialists, or indeed the Dutch hard-Left) and in Italy (yes it exists, one Italian minister even congratulated the Irish) - not no mention Scandinavia, or the Czech Republic - lead me to suspect that the EU political class has misjudged.
We may all have to tax our consciences very soon and decide whether to resist this Putsch by all possible means.
#1
The fact that some vomit-brained jackasses prefer to simmer in fascism rather than fry could thwart the freedom-minded opponents of this thug's bargain.
Spot the... well, let's just say dimwit, shall we? I like Rich Hall as a comedian, but when he brings his diagnostic powers to political matters he's less impressive. Hall is of the view that the Iraq war is the fault of... the western:
The western has shaped not just the way Hollywood thinks, but the way America thinks. And one of the country's big problems right now is that the man currently with the reins in his hands thinks he's in High Noon. Hall puts it better. "We're at war with Iraq because some bible-thumping, tongue-tied, pretzel-choking fuckwit of a president actually convinced enough people he was some kind of Gary Cooper hero come to bring justice against evil folks."
The thing about reductive thinking is that, while it purports to simplify the world, what it really reveals is the simple mind responsible for it. Opposing the war Hall, like the rest of the many Iraq-war smugwits in the camp of those who opposed the war, favoured the continuation, sine die, of a regime of torture and murder. This has induced in them no moderation, however, much less humility, only a kind of prancing contempt. That is the measure of their moral seriousness.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/17/2008 06:03 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[3 views]
Top|| File under: Iraqi Baath Party
#1
Have we not brought the swift sword of justice to several hundred thousand bad guys?
I think Richie should go to bed and let the grownups talk now.
#2
Sigh... once more confusing coincidence with causality. Has not Mr. Hall ever heard of the Jacksonian tradition in American life?
My sense is that the popularity of Western movies - and Bush taking on Iraq are two different expressions of the Jacksonian mind-set - not Westerns-caused-GBW to think he was in High Noon, as Mr. Hall seems to think.
#4
I conclude the lefties will never go to war, not to defend freedom, not even to defend themselves, so I propose we go to war against them. Now, soon, before they become the majority. (not that it matters, except they will legislate to outlaw conservatism.)
#5
Gee, has the punk ever seen "High Noon"? Its not a good analogy for Bush and Iraq. This was about a town marshal left on his own (Bush at least had a willing coalition including a pretty hefty well armed deputy in Blair) to face down a bunch of killers bent on saving their leader from the gallows. After quitting (which Bush did not do) and then coming back to reclaim his badge he takes on the killers and kills 2. But the gallow-bound bad guy takes his wife hostage and the marshal has to choose between her and the bad guy's justice. Then he takes him out and throws his badge in the dirt in disgust at the cowardly town and their reluctance to help him. Someone please show me the relevance here to Mr. Bright Guy Hall's comments?
Posted by: Jack is Back! ||
06/17/2008 13:35 Comments ||
Top||
#6
Actually she takes out the last bad guy. The Quaker lady the only one willing to stand by him even after she'd boarded the train out of town with the hussy her hubby knew too well.
And he didn't quit, he retired as a condition of getting married to the Quaker.
And I don't agree with with Hall, but I do think it is an apt analogy, because after he knocked off the first bad guy Bush did go to the UNSC to go after the second bad guy and nobody would stand up with him, except Blair. Even the Turks renegged after the energetic /sarc diplomacy of Colin Powell, in the Lloyd Bridges role.
Ultimately Bush did what had to be done. Now that victory is around the corner in Iraq, a thousand fathers are starting to emerge into the daylight. I wish that Bush would throw his star into the dirt on his way out of town, but first he has to finish the last bad guy. All Alone. Except for the Quaker Israelis.
Tell it to the Serbs, wxjames. For that matter, you ever speculated what would've happened to Israel if we didn't have a lot of mushrooms and a way to sow them in the Percian Gulf's oil fields.
I have another tip for the Obama Anti-Smear Site. We found another person alleging that Obama has terrorist ties Fred Hobbs, a Tennessee Democratic Party Executive Committee member, who said, "I'm not sure we know enough about him. He's got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."
It's not just that a Tennessee Democratic party official is making this horrific claim; the Huffington Post is repeating the claim in giant type on their web site. Best of luck in tracking down this nefarious malefactor and ensuring those statements are corrected.
And Obama doesn't have any connections to extremism or those who excuse terrorist violence... other than serving on the Woods Fund and giving $110,000 in grants to the Arab American Action Network, whose co-founder Rashid Khalidi has lamented the "media hysteria" about Palestinian suicide bombers. (He denies being a spokesman for Yassir Arafat's PLO in the past).
Other than that, there's just not much there.
Posted by: Mike ||
06/17/2008 13:25 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#2
I was about to say something that might have been taken out of context and had the guys in black suits showing up at my front door for a little chat regarding Presidential security.
On reading, I decided that the Dems themselves are throwing around enough dirt. It's enough to give one cause for hope for the Republicans after all.
And if Obama gets elected and turns out to have terrorist ties, theres this little thing called impeachment, which can get him removed from office, sedition, which can have him in prison, and treason which has even more dire potential consequences.
#3
FOTSGreg, nonsense. The Big O is a Democrat. Elected Democrats are above the law, and exempt from charges like that.
When the Monica Lewinsky story first broke, I said to myself that if Clinton could walk away from charges like that unscathed, he could do anything he wanted, including shooting someone in full public view, and get away with it. He did walk away (largely) unscathed. So far he hasn't shot anybody, but he could have.
Posted by: Rambler in California ||
06/17/2008 19:19 Comments ||
Top||
#4
Other than that, there's just not much there.
That sums up Obama completely - other than the suit and the connections, there's just not much there. Warren G. Harding had more going for him. Heck, even Franklin Pierce had more going for him.
Posted by: Old Patriot ||
06/17/2008 23:52 Comments ||
Top||
This is June 2008. That means it marks the ten-year anniversary of Osama bin Ladens indictment.
He was first charged by my old office, the U.S. Attorneys Office for the Southern District of New York, in June 1998. That was before the bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania (hundreds killed), before the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. members of the U.S. Navy killed), and before 9/11 (nearly 3000 Americans killed). So its fair to ask: How is that strategy of prosecuting him in the criminal-justice system working out?
Thats a question Sen. John McCain ought to be putting to Sen. Barack Obama every day. . . .
When an elitist lawyer like Obama claims the criminal-justice system works against terrorists, he means it satisfies his top concern: due process. And on that score, hes quite right: Weve shown we can conduct trials that are fair to the terrorists. After all, we give them lawyers paid for by the taxpayers whom they are trying to kill, mounds of our intelligence in discovery, and years upon years of pretrial proceedings, trials, appeals, and habeas corpus.
As a national-security strategy, however, and as a means of carrying our governments first responsibility to protect the American people, heavy reliance on criminal justice is an abysmal failure.
A successful counterterrorism strategy makes criminal prosecution a subordinate part of a much broader governmental response. Most of what is needed never happens in a courtroom. It happens in military operations against terrorist strongholds; intelligence operations in which jihadists get assassinated without trial; intelligence collections in which we cozy up to despicable informants since only they can tell us what we need to know; and aggressive treasury actions to trace terror funds.
That is how you stop the homeland from being attacked, which is what we have done for the last seven years. And it is that from which Obama wants to move away.
Obama would bring us back to September 10th America. And September 10th is sure to be followed by September 11th .
Posted by: Mike ||
06/17/2008 12:27 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
Note the disdain for Karzai, the current (actually a few years old) myth regarding which is that his writ goes no further than the limits of Kabul.
Six years of Pakistani appeasement in the face of gradual loss of our legitimate security interests in the region
That'd be the Talibs to the west and Hizbul Mujaheddin to the eat...
have come down to this: the weakest leader in modern Afghan history warns Islamabad he will not only invade Pakistan but will also "rescue" the Pakistani Pashtun population--a thinly veiled threat to claim our northwestern regions as part of Afghanistan.
The Afghans having been liberated from the choking yoke of the Talib holy men, the government of Pakistain presumes to assist in the process of reimposing it. To do that they attempt to ride the tiger of tribal politix. Whenever they attempt to assert any actual control the Mighty Pak Army gets its nose bloodied and some Punjabi families get Sonny home in a body bag.
Hamid Karzai should not be blamed for making statements that far exceed his status as a weak ruler propped up by warlords and a foreign power, and whose authority hardly surpasses the city where he is bunkered.
You knew he'd get back to that meme. It was pretty much true in 2002, less so in 2003. This is [looks closely at watch to make sure] 2008. Despite multiple attempts on his life Karzai is not dead. The warlords with talent like Mohammad Fahim, Ismail Khan, and Abdurrashid Dostum have been moved from their feifdoms to positions where they can make a contribution to the government without posing a danger -- or at least as much of a danger -- to it. Gul Agha Sherzai no longer rules in Kandahar, and while he is oppressing someone else it's someone else with less strategic importance. Younus Qanouni is in the opposition and he's a capable enough man that I wouldn't worry if he won the next election. Karzai's proven himself to be a much more capable politician than many gave him credit for, and Afghanistan outside the Pashtun areas bordering Pakistain is coming along fairly nicely for a country that remains under external attack.
Islamabad's real problem lies not with Karzai. It's with Washington, whose military sided last week with Mr Karzai's rag-tag army in a border dispute where it used massive aerial power to pound a Pakistani border post and kill eleven of our soldiers. This disproportionate use of power was so senseless it could only be a deliberate hostile act against Pakistan.
Islamabad's real problem lies not with him.
Sure it does. Afghanistan freed from Pak interference and counterweighting Pak influence with India, the U.S. and -- yes -- Russia stands a chance of subordinating the holy man to the businessman. The 60 percent of the population that isn't Pashtun, which is the 60 percent that's not in a continual state of warfare now, stands a good chance of highlighting the ineptitude of the mostly Punjabis running the Land of the Pure.
It's with Washington, whose military sided last week with Mr Karzai's rag-tag army in a border dispute where it used massive aerial power to pound a Pakistani border post and kill eleven of our soldiers.
The rag-tag Afghan army clobbers the feared Taliban every time the feared Taliban is dumb enough to engage them. Every time. That's why the Talibs stick to attacking policemen and, even better, civilians.
This disproportionate use of power was so senseless it could only be a deliberate hostile act against Pakistan.
It could have been an act of legitimate self defense. It could also have been an act of contempt toward an ally-in-name-only whose duplicitousness is so poorly concealed that they trip over it twice in the course of a single sentence.
The explanation given by Dr Condoleezza Rice to our foreign minister whom she tried to convince this was a case of friendly-fire has no buyers in Pakistan.
No. I don't think it was friendly. I think we were killing Taliban. The Taliban were also members of the Pak Frontier Corps. That tells me an awful lot. If Pakistain was a civilized country, like for instance Guatamala or Samoa or Dahomey, they'd drop the subject now because there's egg on their collective face.
If a war is being imposed on Pakistan and all indications are that this is the case then Islamabad should retaliate.
Islamabad is "retaliating" by allowing primitives to swarm across the border with the intent of killing infidels or anybody else who doesn't agree with them.
To regain respect, Pakistani military should henceforth hold the government in Kabul and the Afghan military directly responsible for any act of aggression emanating from Afghan soil. In last week's case, Pakistani military should have launched a retaliatory strike targeting the nearby Afghan army posts.
I'd love to see that. We'd all love to see that show: The Mighty Pak Army launched against a trained Afghan army and NATO. That'd be better'n sex. Or maybe nearly as good. I can't remember...
The prime minister could have sanctioned the attack after seeking, and receiving, parliament's consent on urgent basis, even after the operation.
Then he could have handed out medals to the survivors, if any.
A Pakistani counterstrike would have tested and exposed the intentions of the American-led NATO troops. A subsequent attack on Pakistan would have confirmed this was no misunderstanding.
And what would have been the Pak interpretation of us tossing their bullet-riddled carcasses back across the border without invading?
The Americans have been saber-rattling for months now and the June 10 attack fitted a pattern of US official statements, media leaks, and cross-border violations.
Oh. I understand now. He's been mistaking warnings for the sort of saber-rattling and face-making the Paks are fond of.
In every sense of the word, an undeclared war is being waged against Pakistan from the Afghan soil since 2004.
We've watched with something between bemused interest and awe as the Pak "government" has lost all its sovreignty, not to us or the Afghans or Indian invaders or tentacled nematodes from Arcturus XIV, but to a passle of unwashed bandidos with a veneer of religion.
Islamabad is in possession of plenty of real and circumstantial evidence to this effect.
Such as the ruins of Damadola and the bones of a fairly large number of Arabs.
The purpose of this war is to set off ethnic and religious wars inside Pakistan to weaken the country and precipitate its disintegration. In the past four years, separatist activity in the entire Pakistani region next to Afghanistan jumped from nil to levels not seen since the 1980s, when the Soviets used Afghan soil for the same purpose.
He's making the assumption that Pakistain is important enough on the world stage that we'd bother to plot and plan its disintegration when it's pretty obvious that disintegration's what happens naturally to states like Pakistain. This is known in the psychology game as "delusions of adequacy."
Afghanistan has a political problem that the US and its puppet regime in Kabul have been unable to resolve for the past seven years. This failure is destabilizing Pakistan, not the other way around. The Pakistani foreign minister should have used the Afghan donor conference in Paris last week to make it clear that Islamabad and NATO for that matter cannot be held responsible for Washington and Kabul's inability to end the Afghan civil conflict.
I think that after nearly seven years we've got a pretty good idea of where the roots of the problem lie.
It's also time to turn the tables. Pakistan should issue a list of demands to the regime in Kabul. The list should ask for a halt in all cross-border terrorism originating from Afghan soil into Pakistan. This includes the closure of training camps for terrorists who are sent into our provinces of Balochistan and NWFP and the expulsion of all terrorist elements recruited from Pakistan and sheltered at safe houses provided by the Afghan government. Failure to meet these legitimate demands should result in punitive measures; including restricting both Afghanistan's overland trade and US fuel supplies through Pakistani land and airspace.
That's the key, isn't it? Afghanistan's landlocked. It can only be gotten to by way of Pakistain, Central Asia or Iran. Of these, Pakistain was the easiest nut to crack. At the time, I don't think we realized just how much a part of the problem they were. And they don't understand that problems are made to be solved.
Washington has been double-crossing Pakistan from the moment Islamabad joined America's war on terror.
Actually, Pakistain didn't "join" the war on terror. George Bush frightened Perv into giving us what we wanted at the time. What the Paks have given has been reluctant and it's been constrained by their internal politix, which they think are Byzantine but which are merely duplicitous.
In the seven years since 9/11, Washington has deliberately ignored Pakistan's legitimate security needs and concerns in Afghanistan on every count.
"Strategic depth" is a case in point, in fact...
Under American watch, rabidly anti-Pakistan warlords and exiled elements with Indian connections going back to the days of the Soviets have been encouraged to wield influence in Kabul.
Perhaps there are good reasons for the rabidly anti-Pak stance of the warlords. India, the width of an entire country removed, makes a good counterweight to the bully next door.
The narcotic trade has been allowed to recover from near-total eradication under the previous regime, giving a boost to organized crime affecting both Pakistan and Iran.
We notice that the vast majority of the opium fields are in the Pashtun belt adjacent to Pakistain, where the bulk of the drug is exported.
Pakistani officials have long been suspecting that some Indian and Afghan elements operating in Afghanistan have an interest in inciting a confrontation between Pakistan and the United States. But it is also true that Washington has accorded little importance, by design or by coincidence, to the legitimate security and strategic interests of its Pakistani ally. We should win together in Afghanistan. Washington's victory should not become a Pakistani loss.
Just think of Pakistain as our version of "strategic depth." And cough up Binny.
Posted by: john frum ||
06/17/2008 00:00 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[4 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Ahmed Quraishi is doing some pretty good drugs!
Damn! Must make LSD look weak.
He wants a war with the USA?
Has he looked closely at the neighborhoods in Iraq or Afghanistan?
#2
Big talk is just part of living in that part of the world. After watching the mighty pak army get routed again and again by tribals and criminal gangs, not withstanding their lack of 20th century military gear. I don't think they should mention the words America and War in the same sentence.
#4
Openly offer Turkmenistan everything we give to Pakland and pledge to shut off all imports and immigrants from that Pak shithole...and yes, I'm serious
Posted by: Frank G ||
06/17/2008 20:06 Comments ||
Top||
Posted by: Steve White ||
06/17/2008 00:18 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[1 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
Faith in Christ means: rejection of the concocted pseudo religion - islam - as an elite tool, created to externalize the personal sexual depravities and booty needs of its perverse founder.
Then again, meaning is personal and our elites insist on including practise of the arab murder cult, within the "freedom of religion" framework. To me, Islam is the exact equivalent of ritual Aztec cannibalism. A jihadi should be given a social value equal to a cockroach.
#2
Muslims are in dialogue with a pope who evidently does not merely want to exchange pleasantries about coexistence, but to convert them. This no doubt will offend Muslim sensibilities, but Muslim leaders are well-advised to remain on good terms with Benedict XVI. Worse things await them. There are 100 million new Chinese Christians, and some of them speak of marching to Jerusalem - from the East.
Islam is in danger for the first time since its founding. The evangelical Christianity to which George W Bush adheres and the emerging Asian church are competitors with whom it never had to reckon in the past. The European Church may be weak, but no weaker, perhaps, than in the 8th century after the depopulation of Europe and the fall of Rome. An evangelizing European Church might yet repopulate Europe with new Christians as it did more than a millennium ago.
Spengler errs in ignoring the even greater African Christian populace. A group with even older and greater grievances against muslims, particularly arabs. They have large scores to settle.
Bush was magnificently right to conduct a punitive expedition against Saddam, but horribly wrong to wade into the mire of nation-building. He should have found a cooperative dictator to replace Saddam and marched out
Spengler misunderstands that Bush's ambition is as great as the Pope's and that they are mutually supportive. Had we left we would have only left a new boss to go as bad as the last boss. But to introduce liberal pluralism is to threaten islam at its core by creating a political structure that values each individual and to offer each individual the opportunity to live the life they wish, unconstrained, if they choose, by the rantings of an 7th century megalomaniac. Obama does not understand this, or if he does, wishes to subvert it. The Pope understands and that is why he does not try to subvert it.
#5
Christians threten the very existence of Islamby insisting that people can and do have a direct, personal relationaship with God. This demolishes the "top down" power structure built into Islam, by destroying the ability of the Imamns to command ruthless obedience under pain of direct worldly punishments.
Christianity calls for people to love their neighbor and themselves as children of God. It calls for Love to be held as the highest value.
Islam, concerned as it is with power, hatred, and fear, cannot survive for long if Christian ideals are allowed to flourish.
And that, my dear McZoid, is why they are so afraid. They may be Lions of Islam, but Christianity has faced and defeated lions long ago. And apparently under Pope Benedict, the Catholic Church, is remembering how - and the evangelicals never forgot.
#7
Excellent read. Thanks for the post. At the beginning of the war in Iraq, I told someone that WMD was just a pretext. I thought from the beginning, that GW was different. He saw, in 9/11, the failures of the realpolitics we had been engaged in for so many years. The invasion of Iraq was nothing less than a leap of faith, an attempt to change the status quo of the region. And slowly, but surely, it is working.
Lately, the Iraq war has looked more and more like another Vietnam not for us, but for al-Qaeda.
CIA Director Michael Hayden says the terror group has suffered near-strategic defeat in Iraq. It has been routed from Anbar, Diyala, and Baghdad provinces, and now is getting a beating in its last stronghold of Mosul, in the north. It is reviled by the Iraqi populace, and its downward trajectory began with indigenous uprisings at its expense.
When the United States lost Vietnam, it lost credibility and saw an emboldened Marxist-Leninist offensive around the third world. Al-Qaeda is a global insurgency and not a nation-state and thus its circumstances are radically different from ours 40 years ago but it has suffered a similar reputational loss.
The Iraq war had been a powerful recruiting tool for al-Qaeda when it was winning. No more. Osama bin Laden rendered what is called the bandwagon effect in international relations the tendency of states to go along with the dominant power in his homespun Arabic analogy of people liking the strong horse over the weak horse. In Iraq, al-Qaedas proverbial horse is a broken-down nag. . . . A group devoted to overthrowing secular Arab rulers and fighting America has overwhelmingly identified itself with the mass slaughter of Muslim innocents. Its methods might not have produced revulsion in the broader Muslim world if they were succeeding. Instead, in Iraq, its been wanton murder in a losing cause.
Like we did in Vietnam, al-Qaeda in Iraq has run afoul of nationalism and local culture, although in spectacular fashion. It has trampled on the prerogatives of tribal sheiks and issued lunatic decrees, like its banning of the local bread in Mosul sammoun because it did not exist at the time of the Prophet.
Like we did in Vietnam, it overrelied on favored tactics even after they proved ineffective or counterproductive; with us, it was ever more bombing runs in the North and search-and-destroy missions in the South, while in al-Qaedas it has been mass-casualty suicide bombings. . . .
Posted by: Mike ||
06/17/2008 12:37 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[0 views]
Top|| File under: al-Qaeda in Iraq
#1
While it makes me a little queasy to compare al-Qaeda scum with US military personnel, I think the current state of al-Qaeda is much like that of the crew of the USS Indianapolis, after they were torpedoed.
#2
Lately, the Iraq war has looked more and more like another Vietnam not for us, but for al-Qaeda.
People keep trying to draw analogies between Vietnam and our efforts against AQ terrorists. I just don't see the analogy regardless of the point trying to be made. We won the battles in Vietnam. We had the enemy on the run. Vietnam fell two years after we left. and that resulted in the deaths of a couple of million innocents as the result of Pol Pot's Kher Rouge.
I do agree with a couple of similarities: 1. the left has tried to establish an influence in this war as they did domestically during the Vietnam War, and 2. the press (MSM) has supported this position and been against this war from the beginning. Should we pull out of Iraq because of the left, we could expect to see Iran dominate the region. Sunni and Kurds would suffer.
#4
2008 - 2012 POTUS Period > IMO, its more correct to say LOOMING NEAR/GEOSTRATEGIC STALEMATE vv November victory for Dem Barack Obama. The USA has been successful in entrenching itslef REGIONALLY-GLOBALLY in the ME-World - HOWEVER, its FORMAL = OFFICIAL = OVERT CONTROL AND DOMIN OF FUTURE OWG-NWO IS NOT YET ASSURED. On RADICAL ISLAM'S PART > SUCCESSFUL US ENTRENCHMENT HAS NOT YET STOPPED THE W-I-P KNOWN AS NUCLEAR ISLAMISM + NUCLEAR RADICALISM + PAN-ISLAMIST NUCLEARIZATION, nor even BUDDING NUCLEAR ASIA. Many Muslim and Non-Muslim nations [e.g. MYANMAR, VIETNAM, PHILIPPINES, etc.] from the ME thru ASIA are desirous of dev INDIGENOUS NUCPROGRAMS which in LT will likely also include NUCWEAPONS + DELIVERY SYSTEMS.
2008-2012/13 [various Net] > IMO, while IRAN + MILITANTS NUCLEARIZE, etc = STRATEGIC EMPHASIS IS MORE POLITICS = PCorrectness than per se Militant Violence although the latter will still occur
[ACTIVE DEFENSE/LIMITED OFFENSE]. NO US-IRAN WAR before Jan 2009 [espec 2008-2010] > AS long as the US = US-Allies stays put militarily in Iraq-Afghanis, or in the altern WITHDRAW-REDUX VV POTUS OBAMA?, IRAN + MILITANTS CAN STILL EFFEC NUCLEARIZE TO SALVAGE + IMPROVE THEIR JIHAD. IMO, THE NEW ISLAMIST "COUNTERSURGE" IN IRAQ, LEBANON, + AFRICA, etc. IS ABOUT KEEPING THE US-ALLIES MIL AT BAY + AS FAR AWAY LINEARLY/GEOGRAPHICALLY AMAP AFAP FROM IRAN + CENTRAL ASIA/ASIAN INTERIOR.
At this point in time, THE US HASN'T WON TOTAL VICTORY, BUT NEITHER HAS OSAMA + RADICAL ISLAM BEEN TOTALLY DEFEATED.
Lastly, lest we fergit, PRE- AND POST-9-11 > FOR ANTI-US AGENDISTS, LEFTISTS, GLOBALISTS, etal. = THE ULTIMATE "BATTLEFIELD" IS FOR CONTROL OF THE HALLS AND MINDS/ACTIONS OF THE US GOVT.-NPE + CONGRESS, etc. IN WASHINGTON DC. Ditto as per Radical Islam.
Iff one looks at the NET > its 1930 andor "PRE-MUNICH/MUNICH", or in the altern POST-NIXON/WATERGATE SOUTH VIETNAM, COMMIE forces had been left "IN PLACE" in SOUTH VIETNAM as per US-NVN TREATY OF PARIS, and NVN IS PREPPING NEW PLANS TO ATTACK SOUTH VIETNAM INCLUD FROM NVA-VC ENCLAVES WITHIN SVN ITSELF [SVN = Iraq]???
That leaves ISRAEL...
DER SPEIGEL/OTHER > ISRAELI LEADERS MULL PLANS FOR MILITARY STRIKES AGZ IRAN, and similar News.
Israel is repor seriously considering mil options to strike Iran's NucFacs/Nucprogs while pro-Israel Dubya is still POTUS [read - ISRAEL is UNCERTAIN about POTUS OBAMA, POTUS MCCAIN].
Lest we fergit, IRAN has already said ANY ISRAELI ATTACK AGZ IT WILL BE INTERPRETED AS A US STRIKE AGZ IRAN, AND CAN JUSTIFY AN IRANIAN MIL RESPONSE AGZ ISRAEL ANDOR US INTERESTS ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD, includ WITHIN CONUS-NORAM, BY ANY AND ALL MEANS NECESSARY, i.e. via PROXY WARFARE [Terror Opers = "AMERICAN HIROSHIMA(S)"].
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
