Saturday, March 24, 2007
Brzezinski on the "wot"
In the meantime, the "war on terror" has gravely damaged the United States internationally. For Muslims, the similarity between the rough treatment of Iraqi civilians by the U.S. military and of the Palestinians by the Israelis has prompted a widespread sense of hostility toward the United States in general. It's not the "war on terror" that angers Muslims watching the news on television, it's the victimization of Arab civilians. And the resentment is not limited to Muslims. A recent BBC poll of 28,000 people in 27 countries that sought respondents' assessments of the role of states in international affairs resulted in Israel, Iran and the United States being rated (in that order) as the states with "the most negative influence on the world." Alas, for some that is the new axis of evil!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
17 comments:
We're supposed to listen to Jimmy Carter's National Security Advisor on National Security!?! Next thing you'll tell me is that we should listen to Jimmy himself on leadership.
ad-hominem alert?
Be serious, Pepe. Brz parrots all the wacko nonsense from the angry left a la Bushitler without coming right out and saying it. He treats Islamic extremism as if it were a sociolinguistic construct instead of a worldwide phenomenon that is killing lots of people all over the world.
It's not an ad hominem if the guy is wrong and you note than he has tight associations to the wrongest of the wrong.
an ad hominem is an ad hominem, redgardless of whether the guy is right or wrong.
He treats Islamic extremism as if it were a sociolinguistic construct instead of a worldwide phenomenon that is killing lots of people all over the world.
did you read it? that is not what he is saying. He is criticizing the US response to islamic extremism (and, among other things, contrasting it with the european approach).
Pepe. I read the whole thing before you posted it and after also. I waas disappointed you would bother. It was trash.
We are now divided, uncertain and potentially very susceptible to panic in the event of another terrorist act in the United States itself.
That is the result of five years of almost continuous national brainwashing on the subject of terror, quite unlike the more muted reactions of several other nations (Britain, Spain, Italy, Germany, Japan, to mention just a few) that also have suffered painful terrorist acts. In his latest justification for his war in Iraq, President Bush even claims absurdly that he has to continue waging it lest al-Qaeda cross the Atlantic to launch a war of terror here in the United States.
Sounds right on the money to me.
And while we're on topic, this was hilarious.
Not a bad cartoon. I don't feel terrorized by the war, though, and don't know anyone that is. I simply think it ought to be fought. If you don't that's your view, but I think THAT'S dangerous.
Brz puts some shit in there about AQ being non first-rate like the Germans were and the Russians were. Spoken like a true polack! The krauts and russkies wiped their asses with the poles consecutively. How is it that the Brits and US prevailed against the two and Japan to boot? By taking the enemy seriously and acting decisively. When the US failed in Vietnam it was due to complacency (the russians aren't that bad if they keep their workers' paradise over there) and interneal divisions led by those sympathizing with communism. Like Cato, I don't tire of reminding you that a hell of a lot more SE Asians suffered our chickening out than Americans did.
Also, terrorism won't bring down the US as it is, but it can take over any number of teetering dictatorships and accumulate serious and dangerous strength.
Pakistan and Egypt come to mind. Also, good luck to France, Germany, and the UK where sharia is taking hold.
Brz puts some shit in there about AQ being non first-rate like the Germans were and the Russians were.
Is that disputable? As far as i know the aq & cie arsenal doesn't quite compare with the ussr's.
Also, good luck to France, Germany, and the UK where sharia is taking hold
hey, you used to tell me I looked beautiful in my chador, you hypocrite.
"an ad hominem is an ad hominem, redgardless of whether the guy is right or wrong"
The beauty of relying on a tautology is that whether A is or is not so in no way changes A from being A. A failsafe little platform when the Duke d"Ironie dares dabble in a little logic.
Now, D of PP, is this an 'ad hominem"?. X is a Constant Liar. X says "Pepe Planet is as Gore as it is Chunder". Hence we cannot trust that " Pepe Planet is as Gore as it is Chunder"??
How about this: The D of PP, over many many years, has never met a "Neocon" he could like. The D of PP meets Wolfie the "Neocon" and tells us "This man is not likeable". It would be "ad hominem" to take your estimation with a huge grain of salt?
As you know, D of PP, a probability conditioned on information can be radically higher than when that information is absent. Are you saying JJ cannot make use of information he has on the Brezinator in calculating the probability that truth be spoken???
It would be very interesting to see what use you made of statistics and probability in that scientific toil of your Berkeley daze.
aa. could your pompous interjections be a little more boring? I'm dozing off but not quite sound asleep.
thanks
Poor Le Pew, each and every time his pose becomes too obviously pathetic he must perforce lash back with that oh so dreaded "pompous". As if pumped up and primly pompadoured to rival a Pompidou would dissolve the ironic bonds of Versaillian misreason.
aa - i was just referring to the fact that you invariably seem to be concealing the shallowness of your arguments behind long-winded sentences and elaborate vocabulary dug out of the thesaurus. In that way, you remind me of a certain breed of narcissistic academic speakers who no longer have much to convey but who enjoy so much the sound of their own voice that you can never get them to shut up.
ok, you are better than that: I can cut you off whenever i please.
For being "shallow" arguments you are thoroughly incompetent at arguing against them, to the extent you are able argue at all. As for "long winded sentences and elaborate vocabulary", it is so very sad you find anything longer than a handful words, beyond the level of Strapontin, taxing of your intellect. And yet you, like all good unthinking Versaillians, you wave your crabbed dick proudly to honor the "prose" of your Baudrillards, Derridas, and the awesome poetry that is Vile-Pains.
Now, quick, back to your posing and sneering before you are blinded by thought.
aa - i wouldn't dare entering a sneering contest with you: it's just about the only thing you do well.
sneezing contests, anyone? Spring has arrived in Boston. Goddamned season.
But seriously, Poland did get rid of the russians though as I understand the Cold War, they didn't have an arsenal to match the Soviets'.
Arsenal isn't all there is to it, as Stalin could now attest after his famous slobber about how many tanks the Pope having.
Pepe said: " aa - i wouldn't dare entering a sneering contest with you: it's just about the only thing you do well.
This is like Lous XIV telling Huygens he won't enter into a political contest with him, because politics is just about the only thing Huygens does well.
Post a Comment