Not sure what the difference is? Is killing brown people for politicians and their corporate interests, 6,000 miles away, somehow more honorable than smoking a cigarette?
These images are a metaphor for where these men are RIGHT NOW. What came before is a straight line to where they are.
One is the defender of his people, with a set of rules that are agreed on by all "stakeholders". Sacrifice, risk-taking, long hours, hard decisions to make where all directions are variations on pits of vipers and he is standing in a bucket of acid. A hard man, but a good leader during troubled times.
The other is a risk-avoider, comfort-seeker. Educated in Marxism and dope-smoking, then the sale of flesh for favors, he found the perfect base in Chicago dependent classes. He seeks security in his addictions and the praise of bad men and bad ideas. A waffler, looking for the "safe" route for himself, and busses to throw his charges under.
Not sure what the difference is? Is killing brown people for politicians and their corporate interests, 6,000 miles away, somehow more honorable than smoking a cigarette? end of quote
Am I correct in assuming that Shogun is looking at the picture of Bibi and wrongfully making a reference to Viet Nam? The level of ignorance displayed is at the "laugh or you'll cry" stage.
Netanyahu was probably gearing up to defend his country (Israel) from Muslim extremists during the '67 War, while BHO was sitting in grade school somewhere. Or maybe it was during the Yom Kippur War in '73. BHO would have still been in middle school. By the time BHO would have had to register for the draft (anomalies in his draft registration card are on par with those of his birth certificate), Israel had fought six wars and several "operations". There is no way to compare these two men.
Ranamacar, welcome to the state of education in the US of A. Total lack of awareness of history, background or even current events. Nothing but ideological bleating.
Throw in the fact that "politicians" are elected by the people and not self-appointed along with the elemental truth that "corporate interests" are the concern of shareholders, owners, workers, customers, suppliers and related free enterprise agents.
I guess Shogun (ironic choice of nom de plume) would rather sit at home waiting for lesser persons to defend his sorry butt.
I actually did notice the UZI, and the name "Bibi." Did I miss something? Was he not killing brown people 6000 miles away at the behest of politicians? It certainly appears that he did not purchase that equipment for himself when he saw the imminent danger his country wasn't in.
I will not give the title "hero" to someone who bravely throws a bucket of water on a grease fire.
Another feature you'll notice in the Middle East: the tribe of Saud was just one of many in Saudi Arabia. The British State supplied them with power, so that they would sell them oil at a cheap price.
Another point: do you notice where Kuwait is? Has it ever crossed your mind why a tiny little State was carved out of Iraq, at a port, in one of the more ridiculously oil-rich parts of the world? Do you think there were real ethnic differences that led to some separation? There wasn't. Again, Britain carved it out for oil.
The State of Israel (not to be confused with Jews, with whom I have no problem) has caused much trouble since its political borders were sliced onto a map, as well.
But I know. "Israel is 'our' best ally in the Middle East, is necessary for stability, has some right to be there," etc., etc. Your minds won't be changed on the subject. But I do hope you think about what you believe and why you believe it.
And of course, picking up a rifle at the behest of the State is the highest goal any man can accomplish, as long as that man is told his country is under attack from outside forces. Like the Viet Cong, who were going to land on Redondo Beach, screaming "You die, Americans!" waving their AKs, carrying duffel bags full of crap-tipped punji-stakes, which, when they had emptied the duffel bags onto American soil, they would have used to steal American freedoms.
I'm not sure where to start. Netanyahu is Israeli. He was in the service of Israel and I'm unable to come up with any deployments of IDF elements 6000 miles away from their home to kill any "brown" people.
The State of Israel was established by UN mandate in 1947. So, the right to exist as a nation-state seems fundamental.
Israel was attacked in 1967 simultaneously by Syria from the North, Jordan from the East and Egypt from the South. The battle was for survival of the country and it wasn't fought on foreign soil. Surprisingly the badly outnumbered IDF won and in the process captured Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Not a bad six days work.
In the quest for peace, Israel has ceded Sinai back to Egypt and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (and Hamas)
What the "tribe of Saud" has to do with going 6000 miles to kill brown men escapes me, but if that tribalism is relevant, it then dismantles your next statement about Kuwait not being a tribal entity.
Southeast Asia is a different topic also. (Dan, it wasn't a SEATO action) SEA was an implementation of the Truman Doctrine of "containment", i.e. denying Communist expansionism anywhere in the world. Not surprisingly the outcome was exactly as George Kennan had predicted: without expansion Communism was not viable and would collapse of its own weight. By containing we could avoid nuclear war and preserve capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a political one.
In the middle east and Arab states, it is difficult to find an example of a democratic republic and equally difficult to find a stabilizing influence outside of Israel. Apparently the Arab peoples throughout the region are noticing that as well.
Pacifism is great and certainly noble in a warped way. I'm of the contrary belief that there are some things worth defending and fighting for. But, that's just me.
Was Netanyahu not killing brown people 6,000 miles away from us?
A dictate of the UN is "fundamental?" A dictate of the UN is laughable, and carries no moral authority whatsoever. You won't be calling it "fundamental" if a UN declaration outlaws civilian ownership of firearms. Another thing they have no moral authority to do.
The State of Turkey contains a rather secular culture, and is far more of a democracy than socialist Israel.
The State of Israel being created by outside forces is reminiscent of the Sudetenland, where the fate of tens of thousands of people (in the case of what is now called "Israel") was decided by a foreign power who had no right to make the decision.
I'm not a pacifist, Ed. I believe every human being has the right to own any weapon that can reasonably be used to defend himself, his family, or his community, up to and including an M240G or an M1A2 Abrams. As for nuclear weapons? I'd trust my neighbor with those before I trusted any State. Would you trust your neighbors with M1A2 Abrams or SMAWs, Ed? If you don't, how can you possibly trust them to vote a responsible person into a position of power? Whose only real oversight comes in the form of . . . his colleagues, who are also voted in? Power corrupts. It's what it does. People are foolish and irresponsible to concentrate so much power in the hands of their fellow man. As Acton said, the office does not sanctify the officeholder.
No, not a pacifist. I just can't get myself to choke down the lies the State keeps vomiting up for the citizens to eat. The worst threat to American freedoms has not been foreign enemies. The worst threat to American freedoms has been the United State (not a typo) itself, and its own standing army. That's what the Founding Fathers said, and that's what I say.
I believe violence is a last resort, and must only be used to defend oneself or one's loved ones from direct or imminent attack. The State always lies about how the American people are always under attack from some bogeyman or other. I don't love violence, Ed. A lot of Americans do. They love the idea of killing. I don't. When it's truly time for violence, it should be devastating. But it's never time for violence when the State tells the gullible Americans it is. And they're certainly not actually sent overseas for the reasons they're told they're fighting.
Still throwing a lot of stuff against the wall hoping to get some to stick.
Mao and Chaing fought a civil are, so somehow we must be equally linked as ten thousand miles away they were killing yellow men? Netanyahu was fighting for Israel. Our politicians and corporate interests had nothing to do with that.
You believe in violence as a last resort to defend your self and love ones against direct attack, but find Netanyahu's efforts defending his country against a simultaneous and coordinated attack from three nations to be reprehensible?
What the hell does the Sudetenland have to do with this? As for Turkey, I've got sixteen months living in Turkey and while it is a democratic republic and Kemal established it as a secular state, it is considerably less secular than you seem to believe.
You seem to be saying you aren't a believer in democracy because people cannot be trusted to vote someone into power? So, are you into dictators or kings or just anarchy?
As for the standing army, the Founding Fathers very specifically established the Constitutional right to raise an army. They had tried it without in the Articles of Confederation, but determined that was unworkable.
You don't find any external threats against the US? Did you notice 9/11?
Were I an unbiased observer watching this 'debate' unfold, I would have to score this one for the post's author.
Mr. Shogun's argument, while possessing some logical elements, is much burdened with non-linearity, disjointedness, to wit:
· What bearing does Israel's being 6000 miles from the U.S. have to do with the argument. Bibi was not fighting for the 'corporation nation state' - it was on his home soil, for survival.
· VC landing in SoCali? A bit of an outlandish straw man, no?
· The House of Saud. While this may be an interesting study unto itself (yes, I've read Perkins' Confessions of an EHM), the inclusion of SA into this discussion simply isn't germane.
· Sudetenland, Turkey, neighbors driving Abrams tanks? OK, let's get back on track here, and not throw in everything but the kitchen sink.
Dude, as a conservative [small-l] libertarian, or libertarian conservative (take your pick) I can relate to your distrust of the State. Point taken.
But the point of the intial blogpost was simply to point out the difference between two leaders (or at least one leader): One, a warrior who would fight tooth-and-nail for his country - the other a self-absorbed, cool dude, who would give his country away in pursuit of adoration.
I sure as hell want the CIC of my country to exhibit the former characteristics.
"Bibi" - and Men like him - will stand between The Enemy and his women and children, in the hope that he can protect them - even if he dies in the effort.
"Barry" - and MALES like him (they're NOT "Men") will put the women and children between him and The Enemy, in the hope that The Enemy will not kill them and thus they can protect HIM - even if they die in the effort.
The America I grew up in wasn't perfect, but it was a damn sight better than anyplace else.
I don't recognize this "Amerika" any more - I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!
Shogun, no doubt you've got a lot data kicking around upstairs, but your scattered, fervent delivery prompt me to categorize you in the faction of ideological bleaters (as Ras mentions earlier).
The Donald summed it up nicely; score this one for Ras.
20 comments:
That picture is worth well over 1,000 words!
Not sure what the difference is? Is killing brown people for politicians and their corporate interests, 6,000 miles away, somehow more honorable than smoking a cigarette?
Keep on brewin' that fresh hot black tea there, Shogun! It looks so quaint dribblin' down your chin like that.
Uhhhh, Shogun doesn't get it.
These images are a metaphor for where these men are RIGHT NOW. What came before is a straight line to where they are.
One is the defender of his people, with a set of rules that are agreed on by all "stakeholders". Sacrifice, risk-taking, long hours, hard decisions to make where all directions are variations on pits of vipers and he is standing in a bucket of acid. A hard man, but a good leader during troubled times.
The other is a risk-avoider, comfort-seeker. Educated in Marxism and dope-smoking, then the sale of flesh for favors, he found the perfect base in Chicago dependent classes. He seeks security in his addictions and the praise of bad men and bad ideas. A waffler, looking for the "safe" route for himself, and busses to throw his charges under.
Cheers.
What a contrast.
+2 for pdxr13!
Bibi and the baby. Nothing's changed
Hippo to Israel. We need new leadership. Wanna trade? Prolly not (sigh).
Shogun said...
Not sure what the difference is? Is killing brown people for politicians and their corporate interests, 6,000 miles away, somehow more honorable than smoking a cigarette?
end of quote
Am I correct in assuming that Shogun is looking at the picture of Bibi and wrongfully making a reference to Viet Nam? The level of ignorance displayed is at the "laugh or you'll cry" stage.
Netanyahu was probably gearing up to defend his country (Israel) from Muslim extremists during the '67 War, while BHO was sitting in grade school somewhere. Or maybe it was during the Yom Kippur War in '73. BHO would have still been in middle school. By the time BHO would have had to register for the draft (anomalies in his draft registration card are on par with those of his birth certificate), Israel had fought six wars and several "operations". There is no way to compare these two men.
ranamacar
Ranamacar, welcome to the state of education in the US of A. Total lack of awareness of history, background or even current events. Nothing but ideological bleating.
Throw in the fact that "politicians" are elected by the people and not self-appointed along with the elemental truth that "corporate interests" are the concern of shareholders, owners, workers, customers, suppliers and related free enterprise agents.
I guess Shogun (ironic choice of nom de plume) would rather sit at home waiting for lesser persons to defend his sorry butt.
I actually did notice the UZI, and the name "Bibi." Did I miss something? Was he not killing brown people 6000 miles away at the behest of politicians? It certainly appears that he did not purchase that equipment for himself when he saw the imminent danger his country wasn't in.
I will not give the title "hero" to someone who bravely throws a bucket of water on a grease fire.
Another feature you'll notice in the Middle East: the tribe of Saud was just one of many in Saudi Arabia. The British State supplied them with power, so that they would sell them oil at a cheap price.
Another point: do you notice where Kuwait is? Has it ever crossed your mind why a tiny little State was carved out of Iraq, at a port, in one of the more ridiculously oil-rich parts of the world? Do you think there were real ethnic differences that led to some separation? There wasn't. Again, Britain carved it out for oil.
The State of Israel (not to be confused with Jews, with whom I have no problem) has caused much trouble since its political borders were sliced onto a map, as well.
But I know. "Israel is 'our' best ally in the Middle East, is necessary for stability, has some right to be there," etc., etc. Your minds won't be changed on the subject. But I do hope you think about what you believe and why you believe it.
And of course, picking up a rifle at the behest of the State is the highest goal any man can accomplish, as long as that man is told his country is under attack from outside forces. Like the Viet Cong, who were going to land on Redondo Beach, screaming "You die, Americans!" waving their AKs, carrying duffel bags full of crap-tipped punji-stakes, which, when they had emptied the duffel bags onto American soil, they would have used to steal American freedoms.
I'm not sure where to start. Netanyahu is Israeli. He was in the service of Israel and I'm unable to come up with any deployments of IDF elements 6000 miles away from their home to kill any "brown" people.
The State of Israel was established by UN mandate in 1947. So, the right to exist as a nation-state seems fundamental.
Israel was attacked in 1967 simultaneously by Syria from the North, Jordan from the East and Egypt from the South. The battle was for survival of the country and it wasn't fought on foreign soil. Surprisingly the badly outnumbered IDF won and in the process captured Gaza, the West Bank, Golan Heights and the Sinai peninsula. Not a bad six days work.
In the quest for peace, Israel has ceded Sinai back to Egypt and Gaza to the Palestinian Authority (and Hamas)
What the "tribe of Saud" has to do with going 6000 miles to kill brown men escapes me, but if that tribalism is relevant, it then dismantles your next statement about Kuwait not being a tribal entity.
Southeast Asia is a different topic also. (Dan, it wasn't a SEATO action) SEA was an implementation of the Truman Doctrine of "containment", i.e. denying Communist expansionism anywhere in the world. Not surprisingly the outcome was exactly as George Kennan had predicted: without expansion Communism was not viable and would collapse of its own weight. By containing we could avoid nuclear war and preserve capitalism as an economic system and democracy as a political one.
In the middle east and Arab states, it is difficult to find an example of a democratic republic and equally difficult to find a stabilizing influence outside of Israel. Apparently the Arab peoples throughout the region are noticing that as well.
Pacifism is great and certainly noble in a warped way. I'm of the contrary belief that there are some things worth defending and fighting for. But, that's just me.
Ed,
Was Netanyahu not killing brown people 6,000 miles away from us?
A dictate of the UN is "fundamental?" A dictate of the UN is laughable, and carries no moral authority whatsoever. You won't be calling it "fundamental" if a UN declaration outlaws civilian ownership of firearms. Another thing they have no moral authority to do.
The State of Turkey contains a rather secular culture, and is far more of a democracy than socialist Israel.
The State of Israel being created by outside forces is reminiscent of the Sudetenland, where the fate of tens of thousands of people (in the case of what is now called "Israel") was decided by a foreign power who had no right to make the decision.
I'm not a pacifist, Ed. I believe every human being has the right to own any weapon that can reasonably be used to defend himself, his family, or his community, up to and including an M240G or an M1A2 Abrams. As for nuclear weapons? I'd trust my neighbor with those before I trusted any State. Would you trust your neighbors with M1A2 Abrams or SMAWs, Ed? If you don't, how can you possibly trust them to vote a responsible person into a position of power? Whose only real oversight comes in the form of . . . his colleagues, who are also voted in? Power corrupts. It's what it does. People are foolish and irresponsible to concentrate so much power in the hands of their fellow man. As Acton said, the office does not sanctify the officeholder.
No, not a pacifist. I just can't get myself to choke down the lies the State keeps vomiting up for the citizens to eat. The worst threat to American freedoms has not been foreign enemies. The worst threat to American freedoms has been the United State (not a typo) itself, and its own standing army. That's what the Founding Fathers said, and that's what I say.
I believe violence is a last resort, and must only be used to defend oneself or one's loved ones from direct or imminent attack. The State always lies about how the American people are always under attack from some bogeyman or other. I don't love violence, Ed. A lot of Americans do. They love the idea of killing. I don't. When it's truly time for violence, it should be devastating. But it's never time for violence when the State tells the gullible Americans it is. And they're certainly not actually sent overseas for the reasons they're told they're fighting.
Still throwing a lot of stuff against the wall hoping to get some to stick.
Mao and Chaing fought a civil are, so somehow we must be equally linked as ten thousand miles away they were killing yellow men? Netanyahu was fighting for Israel. Our politicians and corporate interests had nothing to do with that.
You believe in violence as a last resort to defend your self and love ones against direct attack, but find Netanyahu's efforts defending his country against a simultaneous and coordinated attack from three nations to be reprehensible?
What the hell does the Sudetenland have to do with this? As for Turkey, I've got sixteen months living in Turkey and while it is a democratic republic and Kemal established it as a secular state, it is considerably less secular than you seem to believe.
You seem to be saying you aren't a believer in democracy because people cannot be trusted to vote someone into power? So, are you into dictators or kings or just anarchy?
As for the standing army, the Founding Fathers very specifically established the Constitutional right to raise an army. They had tried it without in the Articles of Confederation, but determined that was unworkable.
You don't find any external threats against the US? Did you notice 9/11?
Were I an unbiased observer watching this 'debate' unfold, I would have to score this one for the post's author.
Mr. Shogun's argument, while possessing some logical elements, is much burdened with non-linearity, disjointedness, to wit:
· What bearing does Israel's being 6000 miles from the U.S. have to do with the argument. Bibi was not fighting for the 'corporation nation state' - it was on his home soil, for survival.
· VC landing in SoCali? A bit of an outlandish straw man, no?
· The House of Saud. While this may be an interesting study unto itself (yes, I've read Perkins' Confessions of an EHM), the inclusion of SA into this discussion simply isn't germane.
· Sudetenland, Turkey, neighbors driving Abrams tanks? OK, let's get back on track here, and not throw in everything but the kitchen sink.
Dude, as a conservative [small-l] libertarian, or libertarian conservative (take your pick) I can relate to your distrust of the State. Point taken.
But the point of the intial blogpost was simply to point out the difference between two leaders (or at least one leader): One, a warrior who would fight tooth-and-nail for his country - the other a self-absorbed, cool dude, who would give his country away in pursuit of adoration.
I sure as hell want the CIC of my country to exhibit the former characteristics.
There's a bigger difference.
"Bibi" - and Men like him - will stand between The Enemy and his women and children, in the hope that he can protect them - even if he dies in the effort.
"Barry" - and MALES like him (they're NOT "Men") will put the women and children between him and The Enemy, in the hope that The Enemy will not kill them and thus they can protect HIM - even if they die in the effort.
The America I grew up in wasn't perfect, but it was a damn sight better than anyplace else.
I don't recognize this "Amerika" any more - I WANT MY COUNTRY BACK!
Shogun, no doubt you've got a lot data kicking around upstairs, but your scattered, fervent delivery prompt me to categorize you in the faction of ideological bleaters (as Ras mentions earlier).
The Donald summed it up nicely; score this one for Ras.
Kevin,
You say "ideological" as though you were speaking of a wet rat.
What comes first for you? An idea, or an action? Does sound reason precede effective action, or do you let your emotions guide your action?
Boy, that brave General Custer. Fighting for his country. I mean, that brave Bibi. Fighting for his country.
You know what I meant, Shogun. And I'm not gonna be tempted into a pissing contest.
Post a Comment