Originally Posted by radind

It does not appear to me that we can negotiate with IS.

Not at present, I agree.

I thought that the US and Israel shared intelligence information. It is not clear to me that Israel is the primary guilty party. The radical islamic opposition seem to deny the right of Israel to exist. I would had difficulty negotiating with someone whose stated goal is to kill me.

I still would like to see Israel exist. But it's policy of conquest angers Arabs and Muslims. It's behavior is not defensible. I'm not sure alliance with Israel offers any benefit to the USA other than protecting Israel. Does intel benefit the USA in any other context? If so perhaps that is a point.

So far, I am not happy with the Iran deal. ( I have not been happy with Iran and the US response for the past 35 years).

It is not perfect. But I am very happy with it because it's a good start toward negotiating rather than threatening war over their possession of nuclear weapons. It's up to the people there to gradually transition to democracy, but that's something Iran has never had to my knowledge. Iran's support of Assad and other terror groups remains a problem, as does their influence in Iraq. We don't need to be happy with Iran. But we can be thankful for steps forward for peace.

The key thing that IS has in common with Nazis is evil. It is not clear to me how the territorial base will be destroyed.

It is being destroyed; just too slowly.

The radical Islamic terrorists attacks are way past sad, they are tragic and horrible. It appears to me that they are waging a form of 'war' to advance their cause. How long can we wait to defend ourselves? I don't care whether we call it 'war' or not, but when such attacks continue, a response is justified. This is not the time for semantics. The timeframe for significant progress may be measured in centuries.

I was thinking today, in response to Mordecai, that the "war on terror" has been going on for decades now, especially since 9-11. The war on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant may not go on for more than a year or two, but the "war on terror" will go on for decades. Civilization often faces ongoing threats like this. In the Middle Ages, there were pirates and brigands and castles were built. That threat is now gone, and castles are quaint tourist attractions. In the 20th century we had the war on crime, especially organized crime. Both kinds have been reduced now in the 21st. But now we have the war on terrorists. They are just a new kind of criminal, whose actions do nothing to further a cause that they profess, but are just murder and gangsterism. So, they have to be fought against, defended against, arrested; just like earlier ongoing threats to civilization. Like pollution, and alienation of various kinds, it's just part of the price we pay for it. If we don't, we just cower in fear and do not live a decent life.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The same country that thought it would be cool/nice to elect a community organizer who hung out with equally vulgar, flaming assholes who exist on the progressive side.

A sure sign that someone is too far gone when they find equivalency in a community organizer and a real estate developer.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

... the future of the Republican party is dedicated to the preservation of THE US CONSTITUTION and its capitalistic system. I'm tired of having political pawns for president.

Hypocritical horse pucky. The Constitution is great when used by ammosexuals to intimidate their communities but ignored when deciding what a woman can do with her uterus.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

...It is not perfect. But I am very happy with it because it's a good start toward negotiating rather than threatening war over their possession of nuclear weapons. It's up to the people there to gradually transition to democracy, but that's something Iran has never had to my knowledge. Iran's support of Assad and other terror groups remains a problem, as does their influence in Iraq. We don't need to be happy with Iran. But we can be thankful for steps forward for peace.

This one will take time to evaluate, but I am not hopeful yet.

I was thinking today, in response to Mordecai, that the "war on terror" has been going on for decades now, especially since 9-11. The war on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant may not go on for more than a year or two, but the "war on terror" will go on for decades. Civilization often faces ongoing threats like this. In the Middle Ages, there were pirates and brigands and castles were built. That threat is now gone, and castles are quaint tourist attractions. In the 20th century we had the war on crime, especially organized crime. Both kinds have been reduced now in the 21st. But now we have the war on terrorists. They are just a new kind of criminal, whose actions do nothing to further a cause that they profess, but are just murder and gangsterism. So, they have to be fought against, defended against, arrested; just like earlier ongoing threats to civilization. Like pollution, and alienation of various kinds, it's just part of the price we pay for it. If we don't, we just cower in fear and do not live a decent life.

Some wars( such as wars on crime, drugs,etc) are more for political show than any attempt at war. We are still dealing with crime and we are dealing badly with drugs. Legalizing drugs would at least be a war on drug dealers.
I definitely don't advocate cowering in fear and don't have the patience for the terrorists to get weary and fade away. I would prefer more direct action toward the radical terrorists( of all stripes). The radical Islamic terrorists seem to be very active in the Middle East, in Europe, and to a lesser extent here( with the exception of 911). I hear the words "war on terror" , but I don't see much action , only hear too much talk.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I'm sure that the Right Reverend Jeremiah Wright will be invoked.

However, whatever you think about Wright's rhetoric, Trump's vulgarity is a completely different animal.

And now for a very personal demonstration of what a false equivalency that would be if trotted out by the Trumpzis.

You can count me among those who were upset about "God Damn America" ... and I actively opposed Obama in '08. But I was not a Birther, I had certain limits, etc.

Fast forward to now. Here's Trump spewing all sorts of offensive BS. The thing is, he's the actual candidate, not a past pastor of the candidate. YUGE difference! There is no equivalence here.

[QUOTE=Eric the Green;553937]Not at present, I agree.

I still would like to see Israel exist. But it's policy of conquest angers Arabs and Muslims. It's behavior is not defensible. I'm not sure alliance with Israel offers any benefit to the USA other than protecting Israel. Does intel benefit the USA in any other context? If so perhaps that is a point.

It goes a lot deeper than that, Eric. Israel's very existence is a challenge to the validity of the Islamic faith as it has developed since the 7th Century. Granted there are certainly passages in the Q'uran and Hadith and even parts of Sharia that can be found to sanction an independent Jewish state but the only religious authorities in Islam with the authority to decide in favour of those passages are the Shia.
Nor does it help that many Middle Eastern Christians, who still believe in Exile Theology, the idea that Jews lost their Chosen status after the Crucifixion would rather either be subordinate to Muslims or go into exile into Western nations than make common cause with Jews. Or that Western policy toward a Jewish State has been decidedly ambivalent at best ever since the 1920s British Mandate Accords. Western nations treated the possibility of a Jewish state with the same mixture of abhorrence and disbelief that many Americans are showing toward the possibility of a Trump or Sanders presidency during the Inter-War Period and right up until 1948. And there were doubts about Israel's viability right up until 1967. These doubts have been institutionalised in organisations like United Nations Relief Works Agency.
So the biggest problem with peace between Israel and the Palestinians is that Palestinians have enough institutional and grassroots support in the UN and Europe from people who believe the existence of Israel to be a historical mistake if not an outrage that they do not believe that they HAVE to make peace with a Jewish State. And Islam, plus the example of the Crusader kingdoms gives even more sanction to this belief. This is why pressure on Israel (which let's face treats Palestinians quite well compared to how it's neighbours treat THEIR minorities) is counterproductive. What is needed is to finally disabuse Muslims of the idea that Israel can be destroyed and that there is any support outside of Islam for the destruction of the State of Israel.

It is not perfect. But I am very happy with it because it's a good start toward negotiating rather than threatening war over their possession of nuclear weapons. It's up to the people there to gradually transition to democracy, but that's something Iran has never had to my knowledge. Iran's support of Assad and other terror groups remains a problem, as does their influence in Iraq. We don't need to be happy with Iran. But we can be thankful for steps forward for peace.

Iran IS a democracy. Iran is a very authoritarian democracy. But Iran IS a functioning democracy, as much as we refuse to admit it. Iran HAS a democratically elected government. The Ulema and the Supreme Leader have veto power over policy and vets political leaders (and do many Americans NOT wish that SOMEONE would vet who has and has not the qualifications to be POTUS these days?) but it does not control day to day policy in Iran. We are at odds with Iran because after decades of preventing Iran from becoming a developed nation because it can overshadow Western control of Mideast oil, Iran has systematically excluded the West from Iran.

It is being destroyed; just too slowly.

The original Islamic State, Saudi Arabia is not being destroyed. And Saudi Arabia is becoming more like IS as the Idealist children of the Civic Generation of Abd al Aziz's sons moves into power. Saudi Arabia stands out to Muslims as an example that a Salafist Islamic Wahabi state CAN work. And Saudi Arabia spreads the meme of Wahabism across all of Sunni Islam. At some point, a King will come to power in Riyadh who will want to be a Caliph--and set about becoming one.

I was thinking today, in response to Mordecai, that the "war on terror" has been going on for decades now, especially since 9-11. The war on the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant may not go on for more than a year or two, but the "war on terror" will go on for decades.

Back in the early 2000s I heard a wag on NPR say that since terror is an emotion, a "war on terror" requires an army of psychiatrists. Which shows us the absurdity of a "war on terror". It is a vague term that can be applied to almost anything. Terrorism is best defined as whatever terrifies those in power. Any form of direct action can be treated as terrorism. Domestically, the definition of domestic terrorism is being expanded from Earth Liberation Front "monkeywrenching" and arson to encompass blockading even as we speak. And this in the Obama Administration. We have already criminalised some forms of sedition under the rubric of "terrorism support".

[QUOTE]Civilization often faces ongoing threats like this. In the Middle Ages, there were pirates and brigands and castles were built. [/QUOTE
And those castles and knight classes quickly evolved from defenders of yeomen peasantry into a parasitic nobility that especially in France and Germany and Italy, forced peasants into serfdom in the 1000s.

]That threat is now gone, and castles are quaint tourist attractions. In the 20th century we had the war on crime, especially organized crime. Both kinds have been reduced now in the 21st.

Organised crime is not reduced. It has simply gone online where it is a lot less visible. Or into the actions of the "banksters"

But now we have the war on terrorists. They are just a new kind of criminal, whose actions do nothing to further a cause that they profess, but are just murder and gangsterism.

When it comes to gangsterism, a gang can go a lot farther if it has an ideology, civil or religious to bond the gang together. The Chinese Triads are a good example. So was the way the Sicilian Mafia evolved out of elements of Sons of Italy. And the KKK's control of vice in the South and Great Plains States, particularly in the rural areas.

So, they have to be fought against, defended against, arrested; just like earlier ongoing threats to civilization.
Like pollution, and alienation of various kinds, it's just part of the price we pay for it. If we don't, we just cower in fear and do not live a decent life.

The Russians have been fighting Salafist Islam since the Byzantine Empire fell in 1453. Maybe even earlier. At first Russians did cower in fear of Crimean Kipchak Tatar slave raiding in the forests around Moscow (as did the Poles). The Russians lost an estimated one million people to slave raiding. see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGBkR-ygwhQ and http://mikedashhistory.com/2015/01/1...dieval-crimea/ --in numbers relative to population similar to sub-Saharan Africa. And in numbers sufficient to keep Russia's population a stable 8 million--and keep Russians out of the fertile "black earth" region well into the 18th Century.
It was at that point, with Peter the Great's "New Model Army" and later Catherine the Great and later Tsars that Russia finally turned the tables on the Crimean Tatars and the Ottoman Empire and began to conquer Muslims, culminating in the conquest of Central Asia and Caucasian peoples like the Chechens.
Donald Trump's Big Idea, quite frankly, is to forge an alliance with Russia against China and Islam the way Nixon did with China against Russia. And the rationale for this makes a certain sense, especially from a Republican perspective. Are we to continue to oppose the Russians because they are the Russians? When the Russians are no longer Communists? When we need allies with some strength instead of disarmed, pacifist vassals?
Russia today is an Eastern Orthodox nation with the kind of traditional values (including homophobia) that conservative Republicans should be very comfortable with. And essential to containing China, if China can be contained. And containing or destroying Salafist Islam. American policy today, institutionalised as neo-conservatism and rooted in Eastern European and Cuban emigre constituencies is forcing Russia into alliance with China? Is this good for America? Is this good for the security of the World?
I don't blame Trump at all for asking these hard questions even if I do prefer Bernie Sanders (who also questions interventionist orthodoxy).

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

It goes a lot deeper than that, Eric. Israel's very existence is a challenge to the validity of the Islamic faith as it has developed since the 7th Century. Granted there are certainly passages in the Q'uran and Hadith and even parts of Sharia that can be found to sanction an independent Jewish state but the only religious authorities in Islam with the authority to decide in favour of those passages are the Shia.
Nor does it help that many Middle Eastern Christians, who still believe in Exile Theology, the idea that Jews lost their Chosen status after the Crucifixion would rather either be subordinate to Muslims or go into exile into Western nations than make common cause with Jews. Or that Western policy toward a Jewish State has been decidedly ambivalent at best ever since the 1920s British Mandate Accords. Western nations treated the possibility of a Jewish state with the same mixture of abhorrence and disbelief that many Americans are showing toward the possibility of a Trump or Sanders presidency during the Inter-War Period and right up until 1948. And there were doubts about Israel's viability right up until 1967. These doubts have been institutionalised in organisations like United Nations Relief Works Agency.
So the biggest problem with peace between Israel and the Palestinians is that Palestinians have enough institutional and grassroots support in the UN and Europe from people who believe the existence of Israel to be a historical mistake if not an outrage that they do not believe that they HAVE to make peace with a Jewish State. And Islam, plus the example of the Crusader kingdoms gives even more sanction to this belief. This is why pressure on Israel (which let's face treats Palestinians quite well compared to how it's neighbours treat THEIR minorities) is counterproductive. What is needed is to finally disabuse Muslims of the idea that Israel can be destroyed and that there is any support outside of Islam for the destruction of the State of Israel.

Yassar Arafat already agreed to the Jewish state. What is needed is pressure on Israel to behave. If Israel behaves then Israel will have peace. Most Arabs and Muslims don't care all that much if Israel exists or not. But Israel's behavior is one good propaganda tool for terrorists to use against the USA and The West.

Iran IS a democracy. Iran is a very authoritarian democracy. But Iran IS a functioning democracy, as much as we refuse to admit it. Iran HAS a democratically elected government. The Ulema and the Supreme Leader have veto power over policy and vets political leaders (and do many Americans NOT wish that SOMEONE would veto who has and has not the qualifications to be POTUS these days?) but it does not control day to day policy in Iran. We are at odds with Iran because after decades of preventing Iran from becoming a developed nation because it can overshadow Western control of Mideast oil, Iran has systematically excluded the West from Iran.

And that has not affected us. No, Iran is not a democracy according to those who measure those things. Holding elections is not democracy.

The original Islamic State, Saudi Arabia is not being destroyed. And Saudi Arabia is becoming more like IS as the Idealist children of the Civic Generation of Abd al Aziz's sons moves into power. Saudi Arabia stands out to Muslims as an example that a Salafist Islamic Wahabi state CAN work. And Saudi Arabia spreads the meme of Wahabism across all of Sunni Islam. At some point, a King will come to power in Riyadh who will want to be a Caliph--and set about becoming one.

Someday. More speculation. As of now, Saudis support moderate policies outside the kingdom, and are good allies of the rebels against Assad and the IS.

Back in the early 2000s I heard a wag on NPR say that since terror is an emotion, a "war on terror" requires an army of psychiatrists. Which shows us the absurdity of a "war on terror". It is a vague term that can be applied to almost anything. Terrorism is best defined as whatever terrifies those in power. Any form of direct action can be treated as terrorism. Domestically, the definition of domestic terrorism is being expanded from Earth Liberation Front "monkeywrenching" and arson to encompass blockading even as we speak. And this in the Obama Administration. We have already criminalised some forms of sedition under the rubric of "terrorism support".

True. I think my definition might be a better clarification that applies to what the IS and Al Qaeda do. Terrorists kill innocent people who have no connection to the cause they are fighting for. That has no relation to the ELF or the ALF who burn places that do things they are opposed to.

And those castles and knight classes quickly evolved from defenders of yeomen peasantry into a parasitic nobility that especially in France and Germany and Italy, forced peasants into serfdom in the 1000s.

Castles continued to be built in the next half millennium (when most of them were built). They helped protect the nobles from their fights with each other, but also against raiding pirates and brigands.

Organised crime is not reduced. It has simply gone online where it is a lot less visible. Or into the actions of the "banksters"

Yes, it's been almost eliminated, as we knew it in the 20th century. But it's true the crimes of the financial gamblers are a threat to civilization too, but we have not declared "war" on them but allowed them to go almost scot free.

When it comes to gangsterism, a gang can go a lot farther if it has an ideology, civil or religious to bond the gang together. The Chinese Triads are a good example. So was the way the Sicilian Mafia evolved out of elements of Sons of Italy. And the KKK's control of vice in the South and Great Plains States, particularly in the rural areas.

That's true; a code and ideology of hatred can help get people swept up in the gang, although the actions of the terrorists don't have the slightest thing to do with actually accomplishing anything on behalf of their slogans. They just kill, pillage and rape. The KKK and the IS and their ilk are just criminals, which civilizations must contain and try to destroy; not just with war, but with progress and education.

Donald Trump's Big Idea, quite frankly, is to forge an alliance with Russia against China and Islam the way Nixon did with China against Russia. And the rationale for this makes a certain sense, especially from a Republican perspective. Are we to continue to oppose the Russians because they are the Russians? When the Russians are no longer Communists? When we need allies with some strength instead of disarmed, pacifist vassals?

Nixon and certainly Trump had no such ideas; those are your ideas.

The Russians are terrible to have attacked and killed the Syrian rebels, and to foment civil war in Ukraine; among other crimes. But I suppose The West has to work with the Russian Oligarch when he can be useful, as he sometimes is. Hardly an ally though.

Russia today is an Eastern Orthodox nation with the kind of traditional values (including homophobia) that conservative Republicans should be very comfortable with. And essential to containing China, if China can be contained. And containing or destroying Salafist Islam. American policy today, institutionalised as neo-conservatism and rooted in Eastern European and Cuban emigre constituencies is forcing Russia into alliance with China? Is this good for America? Is this good for the security of the World?
I don't blame Trump at all for asking these hard questions even if I do prefer Bernie Sanders (who also questions interventionist orthodoxy).

You are asking those questions, not Trump who is too stupid to ask them. As with Israel and Iran, it is not who they are that is the problem with Russia; it's their behavior. Or in this case, mainly HIS behavior, since Magister Putin practically owns as well as runs his country.

Originally Posted by MordecaiK

.... Israel's very existence is a challenge to the validity of the Islamic faith as it has developed since the 7th Century. Granted there are certainly passages in the Q'uran and Hadith and even parts of Sharia that can be found to sanction an independent Jewish state but the only religious authorities in Islam with the authority to decide in favour of those passages are the Shia.
Nor does it help that many Middle Eastern Christians, who still believe in Exile Theology, the idea that Jews lost their Chosen status after the Crucifixion would rather either be subordinate to Muslims or go into exile into Western nations than make common cause with Jews. Or that Western policy toward a Jewish State has been decidedly ambivalent at best ever since the 1920s British Mandate Accords. Western nations treated the possibility of a Jewish state with the same mixture of abhorrence and disbelief that many Americans are showing toward the possibility of a Trump or Sanders presidency during the Inter-War Period and right up until 1948. And there were doubts about Israel's viability right up until 1967. These doubts have been institutionalised in organisations like United Nations Relief Works Agency.
So the biggest problem with peace between Israel and the Palestinians is that Palestinians have enough institutional and grassroots support in the UN and Europe from people who believe the existence of Israel to be a historical mistake if not an outrage that they do not believe that they HAVE to make peace with a Jewish State. And Islam, plus the example of the Crusader kingdoms gives even more sanction to this belief. This is why pressure on Israel (which let's face treats Palestinians quite well compared to how it's neighbours treat THEIR minorities) is counterproductive. What is needed is to finally disabuse Muslims of the idea that Israel can be destroyed and that there is any support outside of Islam for the destruction of the State of Israel.

I really appreciate your comments. At this point , I strongly support Israel's right to exist, although I would have preferred that the Jews had been given part of Germany.

Iran IS a democracy. Iran is a very authoritarian democracy. But Iran IS a functioning democracy, as much as we refuse to admit it. Iran HAS a democratically elected government. The Ulema and the Supreme Leader have veto power over policy and vets political leaders (and do many Americans NOT wish that SOMEONE would vet who has and has not the qualifications to be POTUS these days?) but it does not control day to day policy in Iran. We are at odds with Iran because after decades of preventing Iran from becoming a developed nation because it can overshadow Western control of Mideast oil, Iran has systematically excluded the West from Iran.

My problem with Iran is that I still see potential danger if Iran persists in developing nuclear weapons. I have no confidence in the paper we signed.

The original Islamic State, Saudi Arabia is not being destroyed. And Saudi Arabia is becoming more like IS as the Idealist children of the Civic Generation of Abd al Aziz's sons moves into power. Saudi Arabia stands out to Muslims as an example that a Salafist Islamic Wahabi state CAN work. And Saudi Arabia spreads the meme of Wahabism across all of Sunni Islam. At some point, a King will come to power in Riyadh who will want to be a Caliph--and set about becoming one.

This is a scary thought.

Back in the early 2000s I heard a wag on NPR say that since terror is an emotion, a "war on terror" requires an army of psychiatrists. Which shows us the absurdity of a "war on terror". It is a vague term that can be applied to almost anything. Terrorism is best defined as whatever terrifies those in power. Any form of direct action can be treated as terrorism. Domestically, the definition of domestic terrorism is being expanded from Earth Liberation Front "monkeywrenching" and arson to encompass blockading even as we speak. And this in the Obama Administration. We have already criminalised some forms of sedition under the rubric of "terrorism support".

The debates on terrorism are mostly useless with more posturing than dialogue.

Organised crime is not reduced. It has simply gone online where it is a lot less visible. Or into the actions of the "banksters"
When it comes to gangsterism, a gang can go a lot farther if it has an ideology, civil or religious to bond the gang together. The Chinese Triads are a good example. So was the way the Sicilian Mafia evolved out of elements of Sons of Italy. And the KKK's control of vice in the South and Great Plains States, particularly in the rural areas.

Good points.

Donald Trump's Big Idea, quite frankly, is to forge an alliance with Russia against China and Islam the way Nixon did with China against Russia. And the rationale for this makes a certain sense, especially from a Republican perspective. Are we to continue to oppose the Russians because they are the Russians? When the Russians are no longer Communists? When we need allies with some strength instead of disarmed, pacifist vassals?

I had some faint hope that the USA would form an alliance with Russia. So far, we have made no progress on this front.

Russia today is an Eastern Orthodox nation with the kind of traditional values (including homophobia) that conservative Republicans should be very comfortable with. And essential to containing China, if China can be contained. And containing or destroying Salafist Islam. American policy today, institutionalised as neo-conservatism and rooted in Eastern European and Cuban emigre constituencies is forcing Russia into alliance with China? Is this good for America? Is this good for the security of the World?

My view is based simply on the fact that we need a strong ally for national survival. I am not interested in their internal values at all.

Originally Posted by TnT

Wow. I don't envy your having to be a Trump apologist. I'd be interested in your naming three individuals on "the progressive side" that exhibit the kind of sheer vulgarity evidenced by your guy.

I'm not a Trump apologist. LW politics ain't exactly clean or love dovish in their nature. I should know, I've been taking them on, getting down and dirty with its members here for a long time. I don't apologize for whatever I choose to dish out on some LW progressive or dip shit LW activist who is clueless as to how ugly this world or their life can get in comparison to sheltered lives that they're living now. The left is loaded with losers living the fake lives of being winners on the left side. I'm not saying that Trump is a winner. He comes across as a bit to shallow and thin skinned to be viewed as a natural winner. I doubt Trump would've lasted very long of the show Survivor. But then again, politics isn't considered to be as serious/real life and as ruthlessly as Survivor either. Trump is a wild card. The dude has nothing of significance to either gain or lose in the game of politics. Hilary on the other hand, she and her party needs this victory to maintain control over a dying political relic of the industrial age and big government cash cow that sustains it lively hood.

Originally Posted by playwrite

A sure sign that someone is too far gone when they find equivalency in a community organizer and a real estate developer.

There is no equivalency between a community organizer and a real estate developer. One has significantly more financial risks involved being one than the other.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Hypocritical horse pucky. The Constitution is great when used by ammosexuals to intimidate their communities but ignored when deciding what a woman can do with her uterus.

I don't care about what a woman does with her uterus. Why are you so concerned about it? Are you a woman or a political/financial ride along who bows down to women's issues? You're such a chump.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yassar Arafat already agreed to the Jewish state. What is needed is pressure on Israel to behave. If Israel behaves then Israel will have peace. Most Arabs and Muslims don't care all that much if Israel exists or not. But Israel's behavior is one good propaganda tool for terrorists to use against the USA and The West.

I remember an interview back in 2008 on NPR (either Fresh Air or WUNC The Story) of Yasser Arafat's bodyguard. The bodyguard said amongst other things that when Israel agreed to give up almost all disputed territory Arafat agreed initially, then backpedaled on the Right of Return issue and finally launched the Second Intifada. Why? Because otherwise he would have been assassinated like King Abdullah I of Jordan and Anwar Sadat. From that point on it was all or nothing. Israel will not agree to a Palestinian State that will mean it's eventual dissolution. And the current Palestinian Authority or Hamas cannot agree to a Palestinian State that DOSEN"T mean the eventual dissolution of the State of Israel.

And that has not affected us. No, Iran is not a democracy according to those who measure those things. Holding elections is not democracy.

If Iran is not a democracy with it's limitations, our vote suppression and more importantly our party structure which rigs elections and manufactures consent may not be a democracy either.

Someday. More speculation. As of now, Saudis support moderate policies outside the kingdom, and are good allies of the rebels against Assad and the IS.

Saudi supported IS in the past. And supported and supports the Taleban now. And financially supports Wahabi mosques in the West that teach Salafism and radicalisation. These are not moderate policies.

True. I think my definition might be a better clarification that applies to what the IS and Al Qaeda do. Terrorists kill innocent people who have no connection to the cause they are fighting for. That has no relation to the ELF or the ALF who burn places that do things they are opposed to.

And spike trees causing grievous bodily harm to lumberjacks when their saws run into those spikes. We kill innocent people with no connection to Taleban or ISIS when we drop our bombs too. Which radicalises people who see no moral distinction between bombers who have multimillion dollar airplanes and drones and bombers who do not and use themselves.

Castles continued to be built in the next half millennium (when most of them were built). They helped protect the nobles from their fights with each other, but also against raiding pirates and brigands.

And finally against the centralising power of kings. Which is why Louis XIV forced France's nobility to a) spend all their time at Court and b) cut windows into their chateaux.

Yes, it's been almost eliminated, as we knew it in the 20th century. But it's true the crimes of the financial gamblers are a threat to civilization too, but we have not declared "war" on them but allowed them to go almost scot free.

Tell that to the Mexicans and Colombians who continue to suffer the depradations of the cartels.
And to the extent that organised crime HAS been eliminated it has been due to legalisation of their funding source. (Think gambling).

That's true; a code and ideology of hatred can help get people swept up in the gang, although the actions of the terrorists don't have the slightest thing to do with actually accomplishing anything on behalf of their slogans. They just kill, pillage and rape. The KKK and the IS and their ilk are just criminals, which civilizations must contain and try to destroy; not just with war, but with progress and education.


Nixon and certainly Trump had no such ideas; those are your ideas.

It shows the utter poverty of both our foreign policy elite and our academic schools of international relations that these ideas are not being discussed and debated in print with reputable foreign policy specialists advocating them. Instead we have a foreign policy establishment that is as monolithic and inbred as we saw in Russia under the Soviet Union. Instead our schools basically teach that there's only one right way to do foreign policy. Which isn't surprisng since universities are becoming hedge funds with schools attached. See http://www.thenation.com/article/uni...ools-attached/

The Russians are terrible to have attacked and killed the Syrian rebels, and to foment civil war in Ukraine; among other crimes. But I suppose The West has to work with the Russian Oligarch when he can be useful, as he sometimes is. Hardly an ally though.

We were able to treat Stalin as an ally when he was doing worse things to his and other people. We take on allies when allies are needed. Which now we do.


You are asking those questions, not Trump who is too stupid to ask them. As with Israel and Iran, it is not who they are that is the problem with Russia; it's their behavior. Or in this case, mainly HIS behavior, since Magister Putin practically owns as well as runs his country.

On the contrary, through his America First idea, Trump IS asking these questions. Hopefully we shall be getting a lot more detail about his answers.
And by asking these questions, should he start to fall short soon, Trump may be opening American's ears to Bernie Sander's answers to these questions.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is no equivalency between a community organizer and a real estate developer. One has significantly more financial risks involved being one than the other.

With Trump, you mean daddy's money, right?

And while The Donald was risking his daddy's money, this is what Obama was up to -

Obama's main assignment as an organizer was to launch the church-funded Developing Communities Project and, in particular, to organize residents of Altgeld Gardens to pressure Chicago's city hall to improve conditions in the poorly maintained public housing project. His efforts met with some success, but he concluded that, faced with a complex city bureaucracy, "I just can't get things done here without a law degree." In 1988, Obama enrolled at Harvard Law School, where he excelled as a student, graduating magna cum laude and winning election as president of the prestigious Harvard Law Review for the academic year 1990-1991. Although Obama was a liberal, he won the election by persuading the journal's outnumbered conservative staffers that he would treat their views fairly, which he is widely acknowledged to have done. As the first African American president in the long history of the law review, Obama drew widespread media attention and a contract from Random House to write a book about race relations. The book, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance (1995), turned out to be mostly a personal memoir, focusing in particular on his struggle to come to terms with his identity as a black man raised by whites in the absence of his African father.
During a summer internship at Chicago's Sidley and Austin law firm after his first year at Harvard, Obama met Michelle Robinson, a South Side native and Princeton University and Harvard Law School graduate who supervised his work at the firm. He wooed her ardently and, after a four-year courtship, they married in 1992. The Obamas settled in Chicago's racially integrated, middle-class Hyde Park neighborhood, where their first daughter, Malia Ann, was born in 1998 and their second daughter, Natasha (called Sasha), was born in 2001.
After directing Illinois Project Vote, a voter registration drive aimed at increasing black turnout in the 1992 election, Obama accepted positions as an attorney with the civil rights law firm of Miner, Barnhill and Galland and as a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School.

If you're all-about-the-Benjamins, as you evidently are, then I can see you placing a much higher value on The Donald putting his daddy's money at risk. But those of us who actually give a shXt about our society see it the other way.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't care about what a woman does with her uterus. Why are you so concerned about it? Are you a woman or a political/financial ride along who bows down to women's issues? You're such a chump.

The point was that it was completely ludicrous of you to state the GOP is about preserving the Constitution when they treat women as second class citizens. You have made clear you disagree with the GOP on this point, and I applaud you for that. But you are suffering from cognitive dissonance if you hold that opinion and still put forth the GOP is about preserving the Constitution. Comprende?

I remember an interview back in 2008 on NPR (either Fresh Air or WUNC The Story) of Yasser Arafat's bodyguard. The bodyguard said amongst other things that when Israel agreed to give up almost all disputed territory Arafat agreed initially, then backpedaled on the Right of Return issue and finally launched the Second Intifada. Why? Because otherwise he would have been assassinated like King Abdullah I of Jordan and Anwar Sadat. From that point on it was all or nothing. Israel will not agree to a Palestinian State that will mean it's eventual dissolution. And the current Palestinian Authority or Hamas cannot agree to a Palestinian State that DOSEN"T mean the eventual dissolution of the State of Israel.

I don't know why you insist on misSpelling DOESN'T. Misspellings just make things harder to read, that's all. I think XYMOX was speculating that this is an Austrailian spelling. It still makes no sense. DOESN'T is a contraction of DOES NOT; not DOSE NOT. So, are you dosing off when you misspell doesn't? And in any case, the word does not have a quote mark, but an apostrophe.

The Palestinian Authority has already agreed to that. The problem is that Israel keeps grabbing Palestinian land, all the time.

If Iran is not a democracy with it's limitations, our vote suppression and more importantly our party structure which rigs elections and manufactures consent may not be a democracy either.

It DOES have it's limitations too.

Saudi supported IS in the past. And supported and supports the Taliban now. And financially supports Wahabi mosques in the West that teach Salafism and radicalisation. These are not moderate policies.

But it supports Israel's right to exist, and supports moderate rebels in Syria. It has not supported the IS in the past. I'm not sure about supporting Wahabi mosques in The West.

And spike trees causing grievous bodily harm to lumberjacks when their saws run into those spikes. We kill innocent people with no connection to Taleban or ISIS when we drop our bombs too. Which radicalises people who see no moral distinction between bombers who have multimillion dollar airplanes and drones and bombers who do not and use themselves.

See, there's the difference. The spikes in the trees not only will not kill the lumberjacks, but the lumberjacks are doing harm to the cause that Earth First is fighting for. Not the same as the Muslim terrorists at all. And you are correct about bombing, but at least the bombs are aimed at the IS and the Taliban and other radical jihadists; civilian deaths in that case is collateral damage. The people killed in Paris and Brussells or in Pakistan this week were not collateral damage; they were the target. But they were not the enemies ofthe Islamists who attacked them.

Tell that to the Mexicans and Colombians who continue to suffer the depradations of the cartels.
And to the extent that organised crime HAS been eliminated it has been due to legalisation of their funding source. (Think gambling).

So how do we apply that kind of remedy to the 21st century scourge of Islamic terrorism?

On the contrary, through his America First idea, Trump IS asking these questions. Hopefully we shall be getting a lot more detail about his answers.
And by asking these questions, should he start to fall short soon, Trump may be opening American's ears to Bernie Sander's answers to these questions.

Maybe, I doubt it. Republicans don't have very good ears, and Trump is lousy on details. And I doubt that Trump's America First ideas imply your questions. Trump is just using his ideas to arouse the people to vote for him. He has little idea how to implement his proposals. He is offering his superior "deal-making" ability, but I doubt his "deals" would be much better than what we've got. But I do think Hillary is going to continue to shift her positions on trade, though not on alliances or on restraining Putin. I doubt if she would try to re-negotiate NAFTA though. It was a horrible mistake her husband made. But now it's too entrenched, probably. We'll see.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

There is no equivalency between a community organizer and a real estate developer. One has significantly more financial risks involved being one than the other.

Although today's American conservatives don't think so, a legislator and senator is a worthy job that deserves payment by the people to support it. And being the leader of Harvard Law Review and then a constitutional lawyer, teacher and scholar gave evidence of Obama's skill with the law, which is what the presidency deals with. Obama had the talent and background to do the job of president, and he did it pretty well; unlike his Republican predecessor, who was less qualified and did his job poorly.

Trump has none of that legal or political background; even less than Dubya Bush. The only qualification Trump has, which he shares with Obama, is the charismatic skill to speak and inspire the people. Real estate speculation is not a qualification to be president, and neither is financial risk-taking in general. Conservatives in the USA today agree with Ronald Reagan and Calvin Coolidge that the business of America is business, and therefore we need our government to be run like a business (although neither Reagan nor Coolidge were businessmen, and had political backgrounds). But in fact, the scourge of America is business, and what we need today are politicians who understand that their business in America is often to restrain business, as well as to stimulate it. The USA government is not a business; it is a non-profit organization. Therefore, being a community organizer, a non-profit enterprise, is a better qualification and background to lead another non-profit enterprise-- the federal government of the USA.

Has it been resolved that Mr. Trump is the Gray Champion?

Originally Posted by bosboreas

Has it been resolved that Mr. Trump is the Gray Champion?

Has it been resolved that Hillary is? Or Bernie?

No, we'll only know in the 2020s, when the 4T revs up.

But demagogues like Trump are gray champions only in states or nations that are due to fail in their 4T, like Germany and Italy in the 1940s. I'm not ready to write off the USA just yet. Our saeculum has been the peak of American power and success. Can we really go from there to a failed state in just one decade?

In the latest Wisconsin poll, Kasich has surged to a close second, Trump back into the lead, and Cruz slipped to third, in a close 3-way race for all the state's delegates. So this should be exciting on April 5! It could decide whether Trump can be stopped. Meanwhile Trump is still rolling in NY, and Sanders still doesn't top Hillary in most national polls. Sanders needs a win to give him a chance to pull even nationally, but it's not winner-take-all on the Dem side.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

... If you haven't figured out yet, the future of the Democratic party is more in favor of socialism and the future of the Republican party is dedicated to the preservation of THE US CONSTITUTION and its capitalistic system. I'm tired of having political pawns for president.

The Constitution is not allied with capitalism, unless you wish to consider Alexander Hamilton as one, true constitutionalist. The document was written almost entirely by the cavaliers of Virginia; it was intended to validate of the landed gentry. The capitalists came later.

Originally Posted by bosboreas

Has it been resolved that Mr. Trump is the Gray Champion?

No, he's The Grey (turned Yellow / Orange / what have you) Dickhead.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

No, he's The Grey (turned Yellow / Orange / what have you) Dickhead.

Yeah, I guess orangutans come in both colors!

https://youtu.be/vuP1e0RNF-0

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Has it been resolved that Hillary is? Or Bernie?

Curious -- can a SILENT (Sanders) be a Gray Champion according to the 4T Theory? Do any of you have any thoughts about the fact that Sanders is a War Baby Silent?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Curious -- can a SILENT (Sanders) be a Gray Champion according to the 4T Theory? Do any of you have any thoughts about the fact that Sanders is a War Baby Silent?

That would seem to be a disqualification. The Gray Champion can be a prophet/nomad cusper or hybrid, evidently, or even a nomad like George Washington, but not an artist/adaptive.

But that could change I suppose, since people are living longer. Sanders would be the oldest candidate ever nominated.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I'm not a Trump apologist. LW politics ain't exactly clean or love dovish in their nature. I should know, I've been taking them on, getting down and dirty with its members here for a long time.

I play hard, but I don't drag anyone into the gutter.

I don't apologize for whatever I choose to dish out on some LW progressive or (profanity excised) LW activist who is clueless as to how ugly this world or their life can get in comparison to sheltered lives that they're living now.

For things to get really ugly, just let the moneyed elites, a/k/a the economic royalists, get complete power over us. Then things will get really nasty. That is what the Right has to offer -- a race to the bottom for wages, a bidding war among the masses for necessities, and war for profit. Leave it to the brokers of superstition and we will have a realm of mass ignorance and helplessness.

Do you distrust people with economic or bureaucratic bureaucratic power who act as if the first duty of a leader is to himself? I hope so, for if you don't you are a fool.

The left is loaded with losers living the fake lives of being winners on the left side.

People are losers for reasons other than their place on the political spectrum -- for having little talent, for being brought up resentful and untrusting, for making poor career choices, for making horrid personal choices, for being misfits where they are, for misusing their talents, and for wasting their assets -- and that has nothing to do with politics. I can tell you what went wrong with me -- failure to get a focus when I was young. Raw talent is worthless in itself; one must cultivate it.

Fake lives? Do things convincingly enough, and until you are caught you might get away with it if it is a bit shady.

I'm not saying that Trump is a winner. He comes across as a bit to shallow and thin skinned to be viewed as a natural winner.

I suggest that you read Outliers by Malcolm Gladwell. For any extraordinary achievement, whether acting, musical performance, professional athletics, artistic or literary creation, or the most respected professions there is no "natural" at the task. One needs above-average aptitude, but surprisingly not especially far above average -- and about 10,000 hours of honing one's mind and talent to be a master at what one does. That has nothing to do with the free market; indeed such achievement transcends the market. Just think of how many great chess masters, mathematicians, physicists, and classical musicians the old Soviet Union churned out even if the overall economic order was a failure.

If anything I trusted the market too much. The market is full of snares, often a fool's paradise where one can waste time easily and have nothing to show for it. The market does a good job of rewarding success and punishing failure -- but it does not create successes in itself.

10,000 hours? That's not how long it takes to learn to drive a truck. 10,000 hours of driving a truck is 450,000 miles at an average of 45 mph... and it is a good thing that one can master driving a truck after about 200 hours because if it were more treacherous it would be too dangerous. But get through pre-med, med school, and the internship and one is a top-notch physician. 10,000 hours is about the time needed for a PhD or becoming a master craftsman in a skilled trade. That's about how long the Beatles took before they were confident of their success as (at that point) the most polished and successful pop music group ever. If you wonder why the Hollywood product almost always looks good it is because of very long apprenticeships in practice.

When it came to violinists at a German conservatory, the low end had about 2000 hours of preparation; they would largely end up teaching kids in the equivalent of American K-12 education. There's much need for that; in fact people of that limited level of preparation might better relate to beginners than would the masters. The middle group had about 5000 hours of preparation. They would be good enough to play in orchestra pits for musical theater or play in small regional orchestras -- maybe teach at the college level. The top ones had about 10,000 hours... and those few might be the sorts who end up in the top-notch symphony orchestras or have solo careers (and I don't mean playing Ach, du lieber Augustin or Du, du liegst mir im Herzen upon request in some overpriced restaurant).

So what does 10,000 hours of preparation imply? First, that one gets an early start. Age 5 is optimal; 8 is shaky; 10 is too late. One needs to do much practice, especially in one's teen years. Think of all the temptations in the teen years. One can learn much about playing a violin in about 1000 hours. After that it is far more subtle. It's the very slow progress as a violinist between 1000 and 9000 or so hours of practice and performance that gets one on the brink of mastery of the instrument. Being able to recognize results is part of it. Avoiding temptations (dating, paid work, TV, video games, cars, etc.) is tricky. Being around people who will put up with three hours of repetitive practice may be the really-hard part. Above all this must begin when one is a child so that it is more indelible as a part of one's intellectual growth (people stop developing intellectual power around age 20).

That has nothing to do with the market. Dating, paid work, TV, video games are made available on the market.

I doubt Trump would've lasted very long of the show Survivor.

Did you ever notice that Survivor is staged exclusively in places with warm climates? That's so that people can show more bare flesh. For good reason there is no Survivor: Edmonton, Survivor: Stockholm, Survivor:Novosibirsk... or even Survivor: San Diego (San Diego is almost tropical, but not quite).

Participants are young, and not very cerebral.

But then again, politics isn't considered to be as serious/real life and as ruthlessly as Survivor either.

We had better take politics seriously, lest we end up with some disaster -- like a military or diplomatic debacle or an economic meltdown. I doubt that Barack Obama would have fared well on Survivor, either... he's just too much of a spit-and-polish type. But he can learn from historical precedent. The difference between him and his failed predecessor was that he is far more careful. He knows that failure is always possible and acts to avoid calamity.

Trump is a wild card. The dude has nothing of significance to either gain or lose in the game of politics.

He could win fame if things generally go right. He can also get infamy if he does wrong.

Hilary on the other hand, she and her party needs this victory to maintain control over a dying political relic of the industrial age and big government cash cow that sustains it lively hood.

Economic reality is changing. The old models of industrial capitalism may be becoming relics, and those who have long commanded them are trying to squeeze as much out of those relics as is possible before those relics become irrelevant. I can't say what economic and political choices will get the optimal results. Donald Trump is too hollow to seem right.

Originally Posted by bosboreas

Has it been resolved that Mr. Trump is the Gray Champion?

That was really really funny! Thanks!

It's pretty evident who you are. Welcome back!

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Curious -- can a SILENT (Sanders) be a Gray Champion according to the 4T Theory? Do any of you have any thoughts about the fact that Sanders is a War Baby Silent?

Thoughts? Yes.

He will not be the nominee.

Maybe HUD Secretary? Not exactly Grey Champion stuff.

Here is the left brain failsafe reason that will stop Trump from occupying the WH -



And here's the right brain failsafe reason (ladies, steel yourselves before watching this) -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkSRJSUY0vs

He's losing Ann Coulter, f'n Ann Coulter, and I'm not even sure Ann is a woman!

http://thefederalist.com/2016/03/29/...ump-is-mental/

Ann Coulter Worries Donald Trump Is Mental

...“For Coulter, Trump’s attacks on Cruz’s wife may have crossed a line, and she wished he, “would be a teensy bit less low-brow.” “This is the worst thing that he has done,” she said as her host laughed. “Everything else I could probably defend.”