Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
It's definitely a concern, but I think that the true hard-line proponents of worldwide US hegemony (the usual neoconservative / neoliberal suspects) are Republicans who are not necessarily representative of either the Republican party or US conservatives in general (Pat Buchanan certainly has a bee in his bonnet about them*). Of course, neocons dominate foreign policy on the Right because other conservatives tend to be more inward looking...those on the left with neocon / neoliberal tendencies are less able to co-opt foreign policy.
EDIT: *of course, Pat Buchanan has quite a lot of bees in his bonnet...
Boy, that Buchana article is so vitriolic about his Not being Anti-semitic while also pointing out the 'connections between teh neo-con agenda and that of Israel that it is almost a case of "methinks thou doth protest too much"
The article, reading the lines and not even between them, reads like a screed from Neo nazis . . . .
From that article: there are terms thrown around that are directly from the aesthetic/hygenic project of fascist Germany: refering to jews as germs
Quote:
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, ?Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.?
or note teh notion of 'breed'
Quote:
support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed.
he also uses teh term 'Cabal' repeatedly, a term that has a long history of abuse.
the funniest thing is that he tries to make a connection with neoCons and, via dissaffected Liberals, the Communist-plague . .. in other words the whole thing seems to have a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda of paranoid schizo-analysis
But then again some of it is pretty convincing and goes along thesame lines as Sami-Jo stuff\
Buchanan is one of the last people who's opinions I would place value on (and I agree that there are anti-semitic undertones in that article which make it an uncomfortable read) but it is interesting to see how the neocons are percieved by some of the old school 'paleoconservatives' and how often Buchanan's complaints chime in with those of the left...apparently many Reaganite cons are less then fond of the neocons as well.
The article, reading the lines and not even between them, reads like a screed from Neo nazis . . . .
The question is: what do you do once both sides start "protesting too much"?
In fact I'm not sure he protested much at all but rather dismissed *their* protests that people who disagreed with them were merely anti-semitic.
Nothing I've heard about Pat Buchanan makes me think I would agree with him about much of anything. However, I just read that entire article and, in my opinion, it in no way seemed like a neo-nazi screed.
It all seemed very plausible, but that doesn't mean he's not anti-semitic anymore than him being anti-semitic means it's untrue.
Well, one quality of paranoid pamphleteering is that besides the sync points where it touches down to the 'cabals' and the revealing symptomatic terms of occassional racism ('breed') and the constant falling into the usage of 'They', besides all that it all seems so compelling.
Paranoia is a hallmark of rampant intelligence that has lost touch with the reference points of sense and the bodily reality that makes up the common life-world of 'meanings.' A paranoid tries to make meanings out of the phenomena that are at the edges of sensible reality: tries to draw conclusions from making networks out of the relationship of signs not grounded in the sensible world . . .. the parts all make sense but their being forced into an over-all coherent pattern is where the paranoid excells, its allways 'behind the scenes', its allways so obviouse as well, except that it is allways hidden . . .
Anti-Semitism has a special place in the paranoid schemata because of the history of Jews as a sub-culture in Europe never quite explainable in terms of the Life-world of common European discourse . . . they kept their world and culture despite the constant threat of violence, and since they could not be explained as an incorporated part of the life-world they became the Other within: the unexplainable agent
this, coupled with the fact that Jews historically were forbidden to work in many fields and were thus forced into fields considered taboo (travelling merchants, money-lenders, jewelers) they were seen as taking control of these realms. Because Jewish culture interfaced with Europeans pretty much exclusively at these areas Europeans created hysterical readings of just what jews were doing with those roles given them once they became successful with those roles.
this became the 'behind-the-scenes' kind of explanaition of the unexplainable (in European terms) . . .a behind the scenes which was also seen as within the very world of values of the common European
When Nihilism was unnavoidable due to the Industrial Revolution and the disenfranchisement of "God" (Death of God) as an intrinsic valuator(catch-all explanation) of the life world, Europeans looked for an explanation for their loss of control: their loss of self and the loss of all 'meaning' . . rather than accept that the forces came from the manner history unfolded, they looked at the most obviouse "Unexplanable" within their life-world: Jews became the scapegoat for Europe's loss of meaning .. . . .nevermind that Europe itself became 'Unexplainable' with the "Death Of God" (Historically/culturally speaking here you CHristians) the Jews became the paranoid defence mechanism Du Jour
and this residue persists, anti-Semitism is almost a default for paranoids as this historical dynamic is still under the surface as part of the history of Europe.
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
You may disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy but nontheless it was how it was seen from "old" europe. So that invalidates the "they wanted to keep Saddam in power" claim.
The effectiveness of the strategy belongs to another thread where I won´t participate
It is not whether I disagree with the strategy, but whether support of a non-strategy constitutes support.
I suppose that if you were holding a life jacket but wouldn't throw it to someone who was drowning then you could declare that you didn't support drowning because, hey you didn't push them under the water.
I thought at first the refusal to accept the nature of terrorism was just an affectation but it has slowly dawned on me that American hawks really do think that Europeans were "afraid to kick ass" and deal with "the terrorists" when it came to Iraq.
The continuing confusion between 'a country with an army' and 'terrorists' is the problem. As I said it will take more handfuls of unarmed people killing large numbers of civilians for the US to click that you can't invade terroristan and change the regime.
That is the modern reality and I wager your U.S. military machines will be as effective as they were the last time.
Likewise to believe that a government cannot clandestinely support terrorists and harbor terrorists while claiming they do not is even more gullable.
To say that the U.S. has abolished terrorism is not correct. However freezing funds, destroying training camps, and of course getting rid of governments that allow this does affect their ability to act. We can't stop someone from screaming fire in a theater but we can make sure the town has a fire truck, and that the theater has a fire alarm, sprinklers, and emergancy exits.
I'm not going to overrationalize and believe that we can account for every person everywhere. However the current actions do and will continue to have an effect.
They did all in their power to keep Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and war crimes.
This is absurd. There attempts at preventing us from making a mistake that would increase terrorism, and decrease our national security does in no way make them accessories to tyranny.
He also skips over the fact that we the United States of America sold Iraq weapons for their war against Iran. Guess we are accessories too.
In todays world having a super large army like what the United States posseses is of less importance than the past. A very small force can inflict horrible humanitarian, and economic damages apon a country (9/11.) Invading Iraq only angers more people and motivates them to assist/directly help such terrorist groups. Invading Iraq was a big mistake and I believe that is the years to come we will see the repurcussions of our actions. Liberated Iraqi's or not.
This is absurd. There attempts at preventing us from making a mistake that would increase terrorism, and decrease our national security does in no way make them accessories to tyranny.
He also skips over the fact that we the United States of America sold Iraq weapons for their war against Iran. Guess we are accessories too.
In todays world having a super large army like what the United States posseses is of less importance than the past. A very small force can inflict horrible humanitarian, and economic damages apon a country (9/11.) Invading Iraq only angers more people and motivates them to assist/directly help such terrorist groups. Invading Iraq was a big mistake and I believe that is the years to come we will see the repurcussions of our actions. Liberated Iraqi's or not.
Yeah and once we fought the British for our independence, and we nuked the Japanese. We went to war with Mexico and fought Germany. In fact we sold weapons to Britain to fight Germany even though we once fought...wait...uh...
Yeah it's called the past. This is called the present. If you would like to discuss it please feel free to chime in.
Comments
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
...getting Congress to crack down on this pork-barrel bonanza would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas.
Thanksgiving. We eat turkey for thanksgiving.
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Whatever, dude. Next time I'll remember to just agree with you no matter what you say.
Thanks for putting the entire photo in your quote so now this page of the thread will be too wide. Real considerate of you.
Originally posted by bunge
Thanksgiving. We eat turkey for thanksgiving.
I actually had that at first, but I didn't know if you used the "turkey voting" metaphor, so I stuck with the UK version, where turkey==christmas.
Originally posted by giant
Thanks for putting the entire photo in your quote so now this page of the thread will be too wide. Real considerate of you.
I'll bet this'll just destroy your week, huh?
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
I'll bet this'll just destroy your week, huh?
So you take the extra effort to be a dumbass rather than just fix it. What are you, 10?
Originally posted by giant
So you take the extra effort to be a dumbass rather than just fix it. What are you, 10?
This is a puzzler! I can't quite figure out why I'd want to make you happy.
Enough!
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
Originally posted by bunge
Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
It's definitely a concern, but I think that the true hard-line proponents of worldwide US hegemony (the usual neoconservative / neoliberal suspects) are Republicans who are not necessarily representative of either the Republican party or US conservatives in general (Pat Buchanan certainly has a bee in his bonnet about them*). Of course, neocons dominate foreign policy on the Right because other conservatives tend to be more inward looking...those on the left with neocon / neoliberal tendencies are less able to co-opt foreign policy.
EDIT: *of course, Pat Buchanan has quite a lot of bees in his bonnet...
The article, reading the lines and not even between them, reads like a screed from Neo nazis . . . .
Sunlight is the best disinfectant. As Al Smith used to say, ?Nothing un-American can live in the sunlight.?
or note teh notion of 'breed'
support of Israel as a defining characteristic of their breed.
he also uses teh term 'Cabal' repeatedly, a term that has a long history of abuse.
the funniest thing is that he tries to make a connection with neoCons and, via dissaffected Liberals, the Communist-plague . .. in other words the whole thing seems to have a hidden (or not so hidden) agenda of paranoid schizo-analysis
But then again some of it is pretty convincing and goes along thesame lines as Sami-Jo stuff
Originally posted by pfflam
"methinks thou doth protest too much"
The article, reading the lines and not even between them, reads like a screed from Neo nazis . . . .
The question is: what do you do once both sides start "protesting too much"?
In fact I'm not sure he protested much at all but rather dismissed *their* protests that people who disagreed with them were merely anti-semitic.
Nothing I've heard about Pat Buchanan makes me think I would agree with him about much of anything. However, I just read that entire article and, in my opinion, it in no way seemed like a neo-nazi screed.
It all seemed very plausible, but that doesn't mean he's not anti-semitic anymore than him being anti-semitic means it's untrue.
Paranoia is a hallmark of rampant intelligence that has lost touch with the reference points of sense and the bodily reality that makes up the common life-world of 'meanings.' A paranoid tries to make meanings out of the phenomena that are at the edges of sensible reality: tries to draw conclusions from making networks out of the relationship of signs not grounded in the sensible world . . .. the parts all make sense but their being forced into an over-all coherent pattern is where the paranoid excells, its allways 'behind the scenes', its allways so obviouse as well, except that it is allways hidden . . .
Anti-Semitism has a special place in the paranoid schemata because of the history of Jews as a sub-culture in Europe never quite explainable in terms of the Life-world of common European discourse . . . they kept their world and culture despite the constant threat of violence, and since they could not be explained as an incorporated part of the life-world they became the Other within: the unexplainable agent
this, coupled with the fact that Jews historically were forbidden to work in many fields and were thus forced into fields considered taboo (travelling merchants, money-lenders, jewelers) they were seen as taking control of these realms. Because Jewish culture interfaced with Europeans pretty much exclusively at these areas Europeans created hysterical readings of just what jews were doing with those roles given them once they became successful with those roles.
this became the 'behind-the-scenes' kind of explanaition of the unexplainable (in European terms) . . .a behind the scenes which was also seen as within the very world of values of the common European
When Nihilism was unnavoidable due to the Industrial Revolution and the disenfranchisement of "God" (Death of God) as an intrinsic valuator(catch-all explanation) of the life world, Europeans looked for an explanation for their loss of control: their loss of self and the loss of all 'meaning' . . rather than accept that the forces came from the manner history unfolded, they looked at the most obviouse "Unexplanable" within their life-world: Jews became the scapegoat for Europe's loss of meaning .. . . .nevermind that Europe itself became 'Unexplainable' with the "Death Of God" (Historically/culturally speaking here you CHristians) the Jews became the paranoid defence mechanism Du Jour
and this residue persists, anti-Semitism is almost a default for paranoids as this historical dynamic is still under the surface as part of the history of Europe.
THe same can be said for Gypsy's except that Gypsies never took to the taboo occupations and never succeeded monetarily . . . so they never became the 'behind the scenes' kind of scapegoat merely the 'pest' kind of scapegtoat explanation.
anyway . . . just some thoughts
Originally posted by Anders the White
Now thats another discussion altogether
You may disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy but nontheless it was how it was seen from "old" europe. So that invalidates the "they wanted to keep Saddam in power" claim.
The effectiveness of the strategy belongs to another thread where I won´t participate
It is not whether I disagree with the strategy, but whether support of a non-strategy constitutes support.
I suppose that if you were holding a life jacket but wouldn't throw it to someone who was drowning then you could declare that you didn't support drowning because, hey you didn't push them under the water.
Nick
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
I thought at first the refusal to accept the nature of terrorism was just an affectation but it has slowly dawned on me that American hawks really do think that Europeans were "afraid to kick ass" and deal with "the terrorists" when it came to Iraq.
The continuing confusion between 'a country with an army' and 'terrorists' is the problem. As I said it will take more handfuls of unarmed people killing large numbers of civilians for the US to click that you can't invade terroristan and change the regime.
That is the modern reality and I wager your U.S. military machines will be as effective as they were the last time.
Likewise to believe that a government cannot clandestinely support terrorists and harbor terrorists while claiming they do not is even more gullable.
To say that the U.S. has abolished terrorism is not correct. However freezing funds, destroying training camps, and of course getting rid of governments that allow this does affect their ability to act. We can't stop someone from screaming fire in a theater but we can make sure the town has a fire truck, and that the theater has a fire alarm, sprinklers, and emergancy exits.
I'm not going to overrationalize and believe that we can account for every person everywhere. However the current actions do and will continue to have an effect.
Nick
They did all in their power to keep Saddam Hussein in power, which makes them accessories to tyranny and war crimes.
This is absurd. There attempts at preventing us from making a mistake that would increase terrorism, and decrease our national security does in no way make them accessories to tyranny.
He also skips over the fact that we the United States of America sold Iraq weapons for their war against Iran. Guess we are accessories too.
In todays world having a super large army like what the United States posseses is of less importance than the past. A very small force can inflict horrible humanitarian, and economic damages apon a country (9/11.) Invading Iraq only angers more people and motivates them to assist/directly help such terrorist groups. Invading Iraq was a big mistake and I believe that is the years to come we will see the repurcussions of our actions. Liberated Iraqi's or not.
Originally posted by trumptman
It is not whether I disagree with the strategy, but whether support of a non-strategy constitutes support.
No side of the issue (except perhaps the Buchannonites who are complete isolationists) supported a non-strategy.
I have no place for Pat Buchanan
Fellowship
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Pat Buchanan is not a person I respect. His type are found too often in Europe and Pat is here in America trying to stir up anti-Israel feelings.
I have no place for Pat Buchanan
Fellowship
Could you explain that? Not that I like Buchanan or anything, but I'm not quite sure what you mean.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by Subarushian
This is absurd. There attempts at preventing us from making a mistake that would increase terrorism, and decrease our national security does in no way make them accessories to tyranny.
He also skips over the fact that we the United States of America sold Iraq weapons for their war against Iran. Guess we are accessories too.
In todays world having a super large army like what the United States posseses is of less importance than the past. A very small force can inflict horrible humanitarian, and economic damages apon a country (9/11.) Invading Iraq only angers more people and motivates them to assist/directly help such terrorist groups. Invading Iraq was a big mistake and I believe that is the years to come we will see the repurcussions of our actions. Liberated Iraqi's or not.
Yeah and once we fought the British for our independence, and we nuked the Japanese. We went to war with Mexico and fought Germany. In fact we sold weapons to Britain to fight Germany even though we once fought...wait...uh...
Yeah it's called the past. This is called the present. If you would like to discuss it please feel free to chime in.
Nick