Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Todd]

And your last point is spot on too.

How can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate?  In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict."  I guess the takeaway is that you fancy wild inconsistency in defense of reckless foreign policy. 

[Ken B]

How can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate?  In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict."  I guess the takeaway is that you fancy wild inconsistency in defense of reckless foreign policy.

You quite sure that's the last point in the bit I quoted? Quite sure? Because I think it was about the willingness to fight a hated aggressor, and I indicated that with my comment. Please check. I'd hate to have misquoted. 

[Rinaldo]

How can the post you quote and his last one both be accurate?  In the first, he mentions a "brief land battle" that cannot be sustained, and in the latter he mentions the possibility of "a major conflict."

Poor choice of words on my side: I meant the same thing. Even a 'brief land battle' would obviously be a major brouhaha, if it involved NATO troops.

[Ken B]

Seems relevant. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/05/29/if-i-understand-the-history-correctly/

I am no fan of Clinton as a person. I think he abused his powers as governor and president. I think he's a world class grafter. But overall I think his policies the best we've had in a while, and I hope either party can find a choice as capable and in that general part of the spectrum.
I am not holding my breath.

[Todd]

Because I think it was about the willingness to fight a hated aggressor

No, you most certainly were not misquoted.  That written, you most certainly did not mention anything like in the prior post.  I thought you were referring to how any war would be brief and that the whole world would turn against Russia.  (That is incorrect.)  You had to clarify yourself.  Now it seems that you are a warmonger overly swayed by emotion.  That's the only thing one can conclude when you expressly endorse and use language like "hated aggressor".  And do not try to argue that the language is reasonable.  Hatred is an emotion, pure and simple. 

Is that really what you meant?  I want to be clear.

Poor choice of words on my side: I meant the same thing. Even a 'brief land battle' would obviously be a major brouhaha, if it involved NATO troops.

An exceptionally poor choice of words.  Any war between Russia and the US - and let's be very clear about which nation would do most of the fighting in a war between NATO and Russia - is the very definition of serious.  Avoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.

[Rinaldo]

Avoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.

And European as well. But we were talking about a hypothetical Russian attack on a NATO country and I was elaborating on the kind of response I'd expect (and support) from the Alliance.

[Ken B]

No, you most certainly were not misquoted.  That written, you most certainly did not mention anything like in the prior post.  I thought you were referring to how any war would be brief and that the whole world would turn against Russia.  (That is incorrect.)  You had to clarify yourself.  Now it seems that you are a warmonger overly swayed by emotion.  That's the only thing one can conclude when you expressly endorse and use language like "hated aggressor".  And do not try to argue that the language is reasonable.  Hatred is an emotion, pure and simple. 

Is that really what you meant?  I want to be clear.




An exceptionally poor choice of words.  Any war between Russia and the US - and let's be very clear about which nation would do most of the fighting in a war between NATO and Russia - is the very definition of serious.  Avoiding such a war is, or at least should be, one of the paramount goals of US foreign policy.

Geez Todd. I say I would hate to have misquoted and you think I said I'd hate to be misquoted?

[Todd]

Geez Todd. I say I would hate to have misquoted and you think I said I'd hate to be misquoted?

I'm just trying clarify what you meant in your first response to Rinaldo.  I'm still not sure.  I'll just go with your support of emotional warmongering.  That does fit with prior posts.

[Ken B]

I'm just trying clarify what you meant in your first response to Rinaldo.  I'm still not sure.  I'll just go with your support of emotional warmongering.  That does fit with prior posts.

I regret ever thinking you worth discussing things with. You cannot, simply cannot, avoid attacking character and impugning motive. I have complained about that several times.
Now it is clear you have misread. I quoted in toto the points of Rinaldo I was seconding. You misread that as referring to some other damn post of his entirely.
Anyway, we are done. I do not respect you enough to reply to you ever again.

[lisa needs braces]

What's curious is the reluctance to address how disastrous and embarrassing the Iraq war has been for the U.S by both parties. In retrospect, Saddam's regime, which, despite being horrendous in some ways, was secular and protective of  Christians, seems like a godsend compared to the chaos and ugliness Saddam's removal has unleashed on that region. Somehow or other the people who urged the country towards that disastrous war are still confident and 95% of the Republican contenders are groveling in front of Zionist billionaires who for some reason or other appear eager about the U.S being endlessly hostile to countries Israel doesn't like. Chris Mathews has been on fire the past few weeks and has been calling out Neocon shamelessness.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643

[Ken B]

What's curious is the reluctance to address how disastrous and embarrassing the Iraq war has been for the U.S by both parties. In retrospect, Saddam's regime, which, despite being horrendous in some ways, was secular and protective of  Christians, seems like a godsend compared to the chaos and ugliness Saddam's removal has unleashed on that region. Somehow or other the people who urged the country towards that disastrous war are still confident and 95% of the Republican contenders are groveling in front of Zionist billionaires who for some reason or other appear eager about the U.S being endlessly hostile to countries Israel doesn't like. Chris Mathews has been on fire the past few weeks and has been calling out Neocon shamelessness.

http://www.msnbc.com/hardball/watch/fmr-cia-deputy-director-grilled-on-iraq-war-447888451643

Zionist billionaires controlling the world again huh?   

[lisa needs braces]

Zionist billionaires controlling the world again huh?   

The spectacle of the republican race so far has been these contenders groveling in front of Sheldon Adelson, who promised to do anything to block Rand Paul from winning (because Paul doesn't grovel to the Zionists.)

[Todd]

Anyway, we are done. I do not respect you enough to reply to you ever again.

Yep, it sure is hard for you to keep your emotions in check. 

Anyway, back to the real purpose of the thread: Another commoner dares to challenge Her Majesty.

[Ken B]

The spectacle of the republican race so far has been these contenders groveling in front of Sheldon Adelson, who promised to do anything to block Rand Paul from winning (because Paul doesn't grovel to the Zionists.)

Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!

As for Paul. I expect to support the gop nominee, and I rather dread president Hillary. But I will campaign for Hillary if Paul is the nominee.

[mc ukrneal]

Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!

As for Paul. I expect to support the gop nominee, and I rather dread president Hillary. But I will campaign for Hillary if Paul is the nominee.

It's a shame really, because there are a couple things where I really agree with him (and none of the other candidates support - like the recent filibuster), but there are just so many other ideas that are awful.

[lisa needs braces]

Another Jewish World Conspiracy exposed!

So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?

[lisa needs braces]

I guess Philip Weiss must be a loony anti-semite too nevermind that he's a Jew himself.

http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/facing-neocon-captivity

[Pat B]

So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?

Hey, at least you're not Neville Chamberlain.

[Ken B]

It's a shame really, because there are a couple things where I really agree with him (and none of the other candidates support - like the recent filibuster), but there are just so many other ideas that are awful.

This might worry you as much as it does me, but I agree.  He's also the only one who seems solidly anti-drug war. He's pro gay rights. He's good on a lot of issues.

[Ken B]

So this will always be your response to charges that the Neocons (who are overwhelmingly of the Hebraic persuasion) are motivated in part by a desire to protect and further Israel's interests?

Well since your charge goes way beyond that, this seems an odd question. You talked about republicans in general, and now you silently amed to neo-cons.
But yes you will always get a dismissive response from me to "it's the Jewzzzzzzz".