Freedom4um

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Israel/Zionism
See other Israel/Zionism Articles

Title: Pity the Palestinians? Count Me Out
Source: WSJ
URL Source: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles ... 3Fru%3Dyahoo%3Fmod%3Dyahoo_itp
Published: Apr 9, 2014
Author: Norman Podhoretz
Post Date: 2014-04-11 16:36:40 by X-15
Keywords: None
Views: 116
Comments: 15

Provoked by the predictable collapse of the farcical negotiations forced by Secretary of State John Kerry on the Palestinians and the Israelis, I wish to make a confession: I have no sympathy—none—for the Palestinians. Furthermore, I do not believe they deserve any.

This, of course, puts me at daggers drawn with the enlightened opinion that goes forth from the familiar triumvirate of the universities, the mainstream media and the entertainment industry. For everyone in that world is so busy weeping over the allegedly incomparable sufferings of the Palestinians that hardly a tear is left for the tribulations of other peoples. And so all-consuming is the universal rage over the supposedly monumental injustice that has been done to the Palestinians that virtually no indignation is available for any other claimant to unwarranted mistreatment.

In my unenlightened opinion, this picture of the Palestinian plight is nothing short of grotesquely disproportionate. Let me leave aside the Palestinians who live in Israel as Israeli citizens and who enjoy the same political rights as Israeli Jews (which is far more than can be said of Palestinians who live in any Arab country), and let me concentrate on those living under Israeli occupation on the West Bank.

Indeed, the best that can be said of both Palestinian leaders and led is that many of them no longer imagine—as did Gamal Abdel Nasser, the former president of Egypt—that they have the power to drive the Jews of Israel into the sea. Therefore they are now willing to give up pursuing the goal of genocide and to settle for the more modest objective of politicide—that is, to get rid of the Jewish state by transforming it, through various "peaceful" means like the "right of return," into a state with a Palestinian majority.

I for one pray that a day will come when the Palestinians finally let go of the evil intent toward Israel that keeps me from having any sympathy for them, and that they will make their own inner peace with the existence of a Jewish state in their immediate neighborhood. But until that day arrives, the "peace process" will go on being as futile as it has been so many times before and as it has just proved once again to be. Another thing that never changes: When John Kerry testified on Capitol Hill on Tuesday, it was the Israelis he blamed for this latest diplomatic fiasco.

Click for Full Text!

Poster Comment:

I wonder if this jew believes an increasingly diverse America and Europe is evil in the same way he seems to be getting at here. Somehow I highly doubt it. So which is it, is diversity a wonderful gift or is it not?

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest

#1. To: X-15 (#0)

The Pod has it all ass-backwards, imo.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-04-11   16:41:26 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#2. To: X-15 (#0)

I wish to make a confession: I have no sympathy—none—for the Palestinians. Furthermore, I do not believe they deserve any.

Not very Christianity of him... Forgive everyone. Even your enemies.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2014-04-11   16:41:52 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#3. To: titorite (#2)

I believe that makes him an anti-semite.

Support bacteria.

(The world needs more culture)

Obnoxicated  posted on  2014-04-11   16:55:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#4. To: X-15 (#0)

Where is Hitler when we need him????

Cynicom  posted on  2014-04-11   16:56:58 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#5. To: Obnoxicated (#3)

I believe that makes him an anti-semite.

LOL ownage.

______________________________________

Suspect all media / resist bad propaganda/Learn NLP everyday everyway ;) If you don't control your mind someone else will.

titorite  posted on  2014-04-11   17:30:31 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#6. To: X-15 (#0)

rense.com/general86/talmd.htm

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2014-04-11   19:25:39 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#7. To: All (#6)

Yebamoth 98a. All gentile children are animals.

Berakoth 58a. In addition to having Elijah float down from heaven to deceive the gentile court, the Talmud teaches that gentiles are actually animals, hence Rabbi Shila (and Elijah) did not really lie at all. It also teaches that anyone (even a Jewish man) who reveals this Talmudic teaching about non-Jews deserves death, since revealing it makes gentiles wrathful and causes the repression of Judaism.

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2014-04-11   19:29:57 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#8. To: All (#7)

We are Talmudic Jews, and so are all religious Jews today. Let me explain the relationship of the Torah and the Talmud, so you understand that they are both equally revered by all Orthodox Jews without exception. When G-d gave us the Torah, He also gave us an explanation of its laws, to be transmitted orally from generation to generation. For example, the Torah prohibits work on the Sabbath, but does not say exactly what "work" means. G-d explained to Moses orally that it means carrying objects in the street, lighting fires, tying knots, slaughtering animals and so on. The Torah says to take the fruit of the goodly trees on Succoth, but does not say which fruit. Oral tradition explains that it is the ethrog or citron. If you think about it, most of the laws in the Torah are impossible to observe without more explanation.

These explanations were passed down from teacher to student for about 1500 years, until around the year 200 of the common era. At that time the Sages became afraid that the laws would be forgotten, and they decided to write them down. This written work was called the Mishnah, and is the backbone of the Talmud. Even this Mishnah was written in a concise style and left much room for oral explanation, which went on being passed down for another 300 years. At that time it was written down, again out of fear of being forgotten, as the Talmud. All of Jewish law today is based on the Talmud, and is kept by all observant Jews. There have been breakoff sects in history - once in about 300 BCE and another in about 700 CE - who rejected the orally transmitted laws. But they are almost non-existent today.

Zionism is a political movement founded more than 100 years ago by Jews who had already turned their backs on the entire Jewish religion, Torah and Talmud alike. They were joined by some religious Jews who wanted join them in building a state, while at the same time retaining the beliefs and practices of Judaism. Understandably, this required a good deal of manipulation of the texts to suit their purposes.

They use the pieces of the Bible and Talmud they want, and ignore the rest. There was a period in ancient history when Jews were permitted to fight wars, for example the period of Joshua, King David etc. The Torah has laws relating to war, and the Talmud, just as it explains all the laws of the Torah, explains these laws as well. The Zionists see these wars as their precedent. But they are ignoring the fact that these wars were fought by Divine command. From the year 69 and onward, when the Temple was destroyed and our exile began, Jews have been forbidden to fight any wars. The Talmud says that explicitly, but the Zionists ignore it. The Talmud says explicitly that Jews may not reconquer the land of Palestine. The Zionists ignore that too.

The Bible and Talmud have a lot of material on the final redemption, when G-d will bring peace to the world and restore the Jews to their ancestral land. The Zionists, through their ignorance of the sources, have misconstrued this as a political or military effort. However, the true Jewish belief, which Jews have held throughout the centuries, is that first G-d will send the messiah, a Jewish leader who will bring all the Jews to keep the laws of the Torah and will be recognized by the entire world as the messiah. Then the process of gathering the Jewish exiles will begin, peacefully, since the non-Jews will also agree that this messiah is a messenger of G-d. No one will be killed or forcibly expelled.

In short, secular Zionists have no respect for any Jewish text. Religious Zionists have respect for all the same Jewish texts that we respect, only they have perverted their meaning and ignored key passages. One of the major goals of Jews Against Zionism is to reach our fellow Jews who are ignorant about the subject and have been confused by Zionist interpretations of Jewish texts, and to show them the true meaning of those texts.

We don't support the State of Israel, and that is precisely because of our concern for the nation of Israel, that is the Jewish people and their historic religion and belief system. We don't want Jews to be in danger in the Middle East or anywhere else, and we believe that the State endangers them. We don't want the Jewish belief system to change, and we believe that Zionism is changing it. www.truetorahjews.org/qanda/talmud4

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2014-04-11   19:39:01 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#9. To: X-15 (#0)

Peace, Propaganda, and the Promised Land

To question is to value the ideal of truth more highly than the loyalties to nation, religion, race, or ideology.

christine  posted on  2014-04-11   19:42:28 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#10. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#8)

Galatians 3:28

New International Version (NIV)

28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The "jews" today are a fake, a joke, and a hoax.

They know it, and most all the awake world knows it.

“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken

Lod  posted on  2014-04-11   20:03:29 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#11. To: christine Lod (#9)

THE PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION


source:http://www.destroyzionism.com/protocols/

A one page summary…

Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can’t run their nations properly. For their sake and ours, we need to abolish their governments and replace them with a single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it’s for a good cause. Here’s what we’ll need to do:

  • Place our agents and helpers everywhere
  • Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
  • Start fights between different races, classes and religions
  • Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
  • Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
  • Appeal to successful people’s egos
  • Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
  • Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism
  • Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
  • Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
  • Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
  • Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
  • Rewrite history to our benefit
  • Create entertaining distractions
  • Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
  • Encourage people to spy on one another
  • Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
  • Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold
  • Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
  • Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
  • Replace sound investment with speculation
  • Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
  • Give bad advice to governments and everyone else
Eventually the Goyim will be so angry with their governments (because we’ll blame them for the resulting mess) that they’ll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be king of the world, and the remaining Goyim will bow down and sing his praises. Everyone will live in peace and obedient order under his glorious rule.




__________________

Itistoolate  posted on  2014-04-11   20:48:06 ET  (2 images) Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#12. To: Itistoolate (#11)

www.breakingthesilence.org.il/

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2014-04-11   23:18:08 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#13. To: X-15 christine, bush_is_a_moonie, Lod, titorite, All (#0)

Norman Podhoretz

Michael Scheuer has a few choice words to say about Norman:

www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=11670

Norman Podhoretz's new book, World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism, is a hate-filled, anti-American book of the first order. Podhoretz hates every American who does not support the neoconservatives' views, the foreign policy they have devised, and the military and national security disasters to which they are leading America. Patrick Buchanan, Andrew J. Bacevich, Sir John Keegan, Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samuel Huntington, Francis Fukuyama, and many others are all targets of Podhoretz. These men are variously characterized as anti-Semites, isolationists, recanters from the true creed, or simply as small men who fear the neoconservative utopia is about to arrive, discredit their views, and cost them their jobs or prestige. Podhoretz is particularly vicious toward Buchanan because he knows that Buchanan sees through the neoconservative fantasy with the most unrelenting acuity. Buchanan's frank voice and non-interventionism – not isolationism – are genuinely American characteristics, so Podhoretz must go all out to discredit Buchanan as an anti-Semite, lest Americans listen to Buchanan's advice not to get their children killed fighting other peoples' wars, be they wars for Israelis or Muslims or anyone else.

And who are the heroes of the story? Why, Podhoretz and the familiar roster of the only real Americans and Israel-firsters, of course: Paul Wolfowitz, R. James Woolsey, Charles Krauthammer, Douglas Feith, Victor Davis Hanson, John R. Bolton, Joseph Lieberman, Richard Perle, Robert Kagan, Max Boot, Steve Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Michael Rubin, Michael Ledeen, Kenneth Adelman, Frank Gaffney, and a few others who have battled so long and hard to ensure that America fights an endless war against Muslims in Israel's defense. Podhoretz and his chums are the men responsible for the lethal mess America now faces in the Muslim world, and they have also done more than any other group – Hamas and Hezbollah included – to undermine Israel's long-term security. In short, the influence and arrogance of this gang has been an unmitigated and accelerating disaster for the two nations they claim to love most. I will leave it up to those who read the book to decide which country they obviously love best, but I bet you can guess before turning a page.

Podhoretz is big on pinning the Islamofascist label on our Islamist enemies. The phrase has nothing to do with reality, of course, as the Islamists are far from fascists, though they clearly are the most dangerous threat America now confronts. But Podhoretz does not care about understanding the enemy's real motivation and attributes in order to annihilate him as quickly as possible. By using the term Islamofascist he seeks only to block any debate on the neoconservative agenda by ensuring that its critics are identified as pro-fascist, therefore anti-American, therefore pro-Nazi, and therefore anti-Semitic. Other notable men have described this tactic as the Big Lie, and it is a neocon specialty and trademark.

And if this Big Lie is not enough for you, try another of Podhoretz's on for size. This one is so ahistorical and deliberately misleading that it is hard to even begin to comment on its mendacity. Podhoretz focuses on one of the terrorist Yasser Arafat's rants damning the United States as "the murderers of humanity," considering it divine revelation that Arafat did not mention Israel in the single paragraph quoted in the book. "The absence of even a word here about Israel," lectures Podhoretz to Americans he obviously sees as mindless cattle who will believe any lie thrown their way, "showed that if the Jewish state had never come into existence, the United States would still have stood as the embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs considered evil. Indeed, the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse." (91) How many major American military conflicts with Arabs can Podhoretz name that occurred prior to Israel's establishment?

Clearly, Podhoretz and his heroic band want the Islamist enemy to stay in the field so that the war he and the Israel-firsters wanted and now have will go on and on and on. Like the sickest are the most dangerous threat America now confronts. But Podhoretz does not care about understanding the enemy's real motivation and attributes in order to annihilate him as quickly as possible. By using the term Islamofascist he seeks only to block any debate on the neoconservative agenda by ensuring that its critics are identified as pro-fascist, therefore anti-American, therefore pro-Nazi, and therefore anti-Semitic. Other notable men have described this tactic as the Big Lie, and it is a neocon specialty and trademark.

And if this Big Lie is not enough for you, try another of Podhoretz's on for size. This one is so ahistorical and deliberately misleading that it is hard to even begin to comment on its mendacity. Podhoretz focuses on one of the terrorist Yasser Arafat's rants damning the United States as "the murderers of humanity," considering it divine revelation that Arafat did not mention Israel in the single paragraph quoted in the book. "The absence of even a word here about Israel," lectures Podhoretz to Americans he obviously sees as mindless cattle who will believe any lie thrown their way, "showed that if the Jewish state had never come into existence, the United States would still have stood as the embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs considered evil. Indeed, the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse." (91) How many major American military conflicts with Arabs can Podhoretz name that occurred prior to Israel's establishment?

Clearly, Podhoretz and his heroic band want the Islamist enemy to stay in the field so that the war he and the Israel-firsters wanted and now have will go on and on and on. Like the sickest are the most dangerous threat America now confronts. But Podhoretz does not care about understanding the enemy's real motivation and attributes in order to annihilate him as quickly as possible. By using the term Islamofascist he seeks only to block any debate on the neoconservative agenda by ensuring that its critics are identified as pro-fascist, therefore anti-American, therefore pro-Nazi, and therefore anti-Semitic. Other notable men have described this tactic as the Big Lie, and it is a neocon specialty and trademark.

And if this Big Lie is not enough for you, try another of Podhoretz's on for size. This one is so ahistorical and deliberately misleading that it is hard to even begin to comment on its mendacity. Podhoretz focuses on one of the terrorist Yasser Arafat's rants damning the United States as "the murderers of humanity," considering it divine revelation that Arafat did not mention Israel in the single paragraph quoted in the book. "The absence of even a word here about Israel," lectures Podhoretz to Americans he obviously sees as mindless cattle who will believe any lie thrown their way, "showed that if the Jewish state had never come into existence, the United States would still have stood as the embodiment of everything that most of these Arabs considered evil. Indeed, the hatred of Israel was in large part a surrogate for anti-Americanism, rather than the reverse." (91) How many major American military conflicts with Arabs can Podhoretz name that occurred prior to Israel's establishment?

Clearly, Podhoretz and his heroic band want the Islamist enemy to stay in the field so that the war he and the Israel-firsters wanted and now have will go on and on and on. Like the sickest and most addled of bloodletting Wilsonian interventionists, Podhoretz quotes the puerile position of George W. Bush that U.S. security depends on building mirror images of America abroad: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know that the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we will stand with you." (182) And what is the endgame of standing with those who stand for liberty? Quoting President Bush again, Podhoretz says U.S. military forces must "drain the swamps" of the Islamofascist world and replace incumbent regimes with elected governments that will "fulfill the hopes 'of the Islamic nations [who] want and deserve the same freedoms and opportunities as people in every nation.'" (135) This effort, Podhoretz adds, is "marked by more than a touch of nobility." (212)

In Podhoretz's hateful prose we find the true crusader spirit bound up with the con-man's willingness to distort history for political advantage. Again using the rhetoric of George W. Bush, Podhoretz argues "that history had called America to action and that it was both 'our responsibility and our privilege to fight freedom's fight.'" (215) Taken to its logical bottom line, this assertion means that American parents should be delighted to nobly spend the lives of their children so Iraqis and Afghans can vote and have parliaments. Implicit in this absurd argument is that somehow U.S. national security requires that other people – not all others, of course, only Muslims – vote, behave democratically, and become secular. This is truly analysis by assertion. Can anyone really imagine that American society is automatically safer because Mrs. Mohammed votes and wears mascara? Or, alternatively, that U.S. national security is threatened if the Pashtun tribal leaders of southeastern Afghanistan do not appoint precinct captains to get out the vote in parliamentary elections? Clearly, Podhoretz is running a con here, and the price will be paid not in cash but in the blood of American kids. Indeed, Podhoretz can only lecture the grieving parents of the young Americans who have already died in Iraq : "By any historical standard, our total losses were still, and would remain, amazingly low." (110)

History also gets in the way of Podhoretz's worldview, so we get another con. We are not, he argues, trying to impose democracy and neuter the religion of a 14-century-old Islamic civilization and 1.4 billion Muslims, but merely trying to repair a political order that was inappropriately arranged by the Western powers a hundred years ago. "But here again," Podhoretz argues,

"[T]he so-called realist [view of U.S. foreign policy that opposed the Iraq war] ignored the reality, which was that the Middle East of today was not thousands of years old, and was not created in the seventh century by Allah or the Prophet Mohammed. … Instead, the states in question had all been conjured into existence less than one hundred years ago out of the ruins of the defeated Ottoman Empire in World War I. Their boundaries had been drawn by the victorious British and French with a stroke of an often arbitrary pen, and their hapless peoples were handed over in due course to one tyrant after another." (144-145)

This is another absurd argument that again reduces to nonsense, to wit: The French and British tried to dictate the organization and political system of an ancient Islamic civilization and cocked it up, but we are much smarter – and implicitly purer – than they were, so we can build the perfect Muslim world. This smug attitude does capture in a nutshell, however, a good part of the basic un-Americanism of the neoconservatives; they are a foreign and, I think, malign influence in our body politic. America is a republic founded on the principles and insights derived from what Gertrude Himmelfarb has described in her brilliant work The Roads to Modernity as the American Enlightenment, fundamental to which is a profound belief in the utter imperfectability of man. Podhoretz and his all-knowing and stern-minded gang of neoconservative warmongers, on the other hand, are the heirs of the French Enlightenment's faith in man's perfectibility, the principles of which have brought the world the bloody horrors and mass murder conducted by the French revolutionaries, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and any number of others who attempted to create a perfect society. There is no sane reason to believe that neoconservative-led efforts to "perfect" Muslim society would yield less bloodshed, much less to imagine that it would increase security for the United States.

The other part of the fundamental un-Americanism of Podhoretz and his brothers lies in their use of the ideas and heroes of American history only if they further their "enlightened" foreign policy; all others they ignore or misrepresent. Picking and choosing from the words of Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John Kennedy, Podhoretz tries to infer that fighting a "world war" against the Islamofascists is identical to fighting world wars against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, and then the Soviet Union. This sounds good if you say it fast, but the selective use of our presidents' words by Podhoretz is just another of his inaccurate assertions.

Germany, Japan, and the USSR were modern industrial nation-states that posed direct, tangible, and sustainable military threats to the survival of the United States. The Islamofascist enemy is a specious conjuring of the neoconservatives that does not exist. The Islamist threat personified and led by Osama bin Laden is a direct, tangible, and enduring national-security threat to the United States, but it does not now amount to a world war, and it will not unless the neoconservatives continue to hold sway. We are fighting a war with the Islamists that is ours to lose, and at the moment we are successfully losing it because President Bush and 17 of the 19 individuals in the current crop of presidential candidates buy Podhoretz's lethal lie that the Islamists are "the latest mutation of the totalitarian threat to our civilization" and are, "like the Nazis and the Communists before them … dedicated to the destruction of the freedoms we cherish and for which Americans stand." (14-15) Actually, America's war with the bin Laden-led Islamists is fueled by the impact of U.S. and Western interventionist foreign policies in the Islamic world, not, as Podhoretz claims, by "our virtues as a free and prosperous country." (102) To the extent that America combines reduced interventionism with military action against genuine threats, we will defeat the Islamists. The increased interventionism of Podhoretz and his coterie will lead to endless war abroad and eventually between Muslim Americans and their countrymen at home – and America's defeat.

Podhoretz's final con comes at the expense of the late George Kennan. Podhoretz takes some of Kennan's words and twists them in a way that makes him seem like a supporter of the neoconservatives' endless overseas interventionism and war-for-perfection agenda. At the end of his book, Podhoretz quotes Kennan: "To avoid destruction the United States need only to measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation." (215) With this passage he leaves the reader to believe that Kennan would have supported the neoconservative crusade "to beat back the 'implacable challenge' of Islamofascism as the 'greatest generation' of World War II in taking on the Nazis and their fascist allies, and as its children and grandchildren ultimately managed to do in confronting the Soviet Union and its Communist empire in World War III." (217)

This is an intolerable and deliberately misleading attempt to make Kennan appear to be an arch-interventionist. Toward the end of his long life, Kennan wrote something of a valedictory essay for his fellow citizens in Foreign Affairs (March/April 1995), "On American Principles." In this essay Kennan praised John Quincy Adams's noninterventionist foreign policy as a principle appropriate to America, and, more important, described how it was admirably applicable to the chaos and confusion of the post-Cold War world. The dangers inherent in U.S. interventionism after the Cold War, Kennan wrote, are roughly similar to those

"that clearly underlay John Quincy Adams' response to similar problems so many years ago – his recognition that it is very difficult for one country to help another by intervening directly in its domestic affairs or in its conflicts with its neighbors. It is particularly difficult to do this without creating new and unwelcome embarrassments and burdens for the country endeavoring to help. The best way for a larger country to help smaller ones is surely by the power of example. Adams made this clear in the address cited above. One will recall his urging that the best response we could give to those appealing to us for support would be to give them what he called 'the benign sympathy of our example.' To go further, he warned, and try to give direct assistance would be to involve ourselves beyond the power of extrication 'in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assumed the colors and usurped the standards of freedom.' Who, today, looking at our involvements of recent years, could maintain that the fears these words expressed were any less applicable in our time than in his?"

Does this sound like the warmongering of the neoconservative interventionists? I think not. It rather sounds like the words of a man who knows his country's history and traditions and its peoples' character far better than the obtuse Podhoretz and crew. At one point in his book Podhoretz quotes W.H. Auden's description of the 1930s as "a low and dishonest decade." (188) There is no better overall description for Norman Podhoretz's World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism than "low and dishonest."

scrapper2  posted on  2014-04-12   3:25:07 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#14. To: scrapper2 (#13)

Admission from the King himself that the neocons are Marxists.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Pvx_8be6z8

bush_is_a_moonie  posted on  2014-04-13   12:28:34 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

#15. To: Cynicom (#4)

He is not dead.

He is only sleeping.

Know guns, know safety, know liberty. No guns, no safety, no liberty.

randge  posted on  2014-04-13   19:43:03 ET  Reply   Trace   Private Reply  

Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest