tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post5410364470087044347..comments2023-10-26T08:02:44.948-04:00Comments on Connecticut Commentary: Red Notes from a Blue State: BiBi The “Chickens**t”Don Pescihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11167988001948356357noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post-83983170093455184012015-03-04T13:45:14.485-05:002015-03-04T13:45:14.485-05:00Back in the days of the Cold War, when the world w...Back in the days of the Cold War, when the world was simple, the good guys were easily distinguised from the bad, and John Kerry and Baraq Obama had no problem choosing sides, the Left developed a fetish for "arms control." Given the history of such international agreements it might be thought that the Left, not Bibi Netanyahu, is in need of alternatives. It might also be thought that given his disastrously failed policies in Syria, Iraq, Egypt and Libya Mr. Obama might indulge in a bit of modesty. However our historic black President and his Party are willfully/ideologically ignorant of history and utterly inconsiderate of the human suffering their ignorance is causing.<br />--------<br />The Case Against Arms Control<br />11.01.84 - 12:00 AM | by Seymour Weiss<br />Share on print Print PDF<br />In one sense the case against arms control is not difficult to make. One might simply ask just what evidence exists that recent nuclear-arms-limitations agreements with the USSR have actually contributed to U.S. security. Yet in spite of the fact that no such evidence can be found, emotional attachment to the hoped-for benefits, together with the presumption that arms control is politically attractive, has created what Albert Wohlstetter has sardonically described as the mad momentum of arms control. It is this emotional attachment that makes the task of rational assessment more difficult. There is an undeniable and understandable yearning among our people, reflected in Congress and certainly echoed by our allies, for a cessation of the tensions that have accompanied the years of confrontation with the USSR.<br />https://www.commentarymagazine.com/article/the-case-against-arms-control/<br />-----------------------<br />On the core issue of preventing Iran from building nuclear weapons, Mr. Obama said, “the prime minister didn’t offer any viable alternatives.”<br />------------<br />Chris Murphy ✔ @ChrisMurphyCT<br />Follow<br />Netanyahu's criticism of talks were strong, but I didn't hear a plausible alternative.<br /><br />peter brushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post-58651352356987322182015-03-02T13:44:47.072-05:002015-03-02T13:44:47.072-05:00“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face...“I have a moral obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still time to avert them,” he said. “For 2,000 years my people, the Jewish people, were stateless, defenseless, voiceless.” He added: “Today, we are no longer silent. Today we have a voice. And tomorrow, as prime minister of the one and only Jewish state, I plan to use that voice.”<br />-------------<br />Rudy Giuliani is right to admire Netanyahu. He was right about Obama, too, although our Presidente may not be completely void of patriotic passion.<br />--------------<br />Socialist patriotism refers to a form of civic patriotism promoted by Marxist–Leninist movements.[1] Socialist patriotism promotes people living within Marxist-Leninist countries to adopt a "boundless love for the socialist homeland, a commitment to the revolutionary transformation of society [and] the cause of communism".[2] Socialist patriotism is not connected with nationalism, as Marxists and Marxist-Leninists denounce nationalism as a bourgeois ideology developed under capitalism that sets workers against each other.[3peter brushnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9069955.post-65016165077633592192015-03-01T10:19:33.624-05:002015-03-01T10:19:33.624-05:00I understand that David Axelrod has disclosed that...I understand that David Axelrod has disclosed that actually, now that you mention it, Barack Obama merely claimed to be opposed to "gay marriage" to get elected. Polls must have indicated that there were too many voters clinging, bitterly or otherwise, to non-ideological reality to risk intellectual honesty. But, we didn't need Axelrod to determine that our Presidente is a man of the Left doing what it takes vis a vis ends justifying means. <br />The real Barack Obama is not in disagreement with Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright, but he knows that for the time being the American electorate can't quite stomach revolution based in self-hatred. The real Barack Obama is pro-Palestinian, but knows the electorate is pro-Israel. The real Barack Obama agrees with Noam Chomsky that the United States and Israel have threatened and abused Iran. The point is not that the Left is mistaken; big time, as Dick Cheney might say. It's that we have a President who is operating on Leftist premises he intentionally conceals. That is the source of the confusion with the "procedure" involved in Netanyahu's speech. And, it is the cause of the complete and utter collapse of American hegemony with the attendant dissolution political order, as in Libya. When he was running in 2012 Obama leaned quietly in towards the oppressed World Community of his imagination, and whispered that after the election he may be more "flexible."<br />----------------<br />NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, what’s the crucial fact about Iran, which we should begin with, is that for the past 60 years, not a day has passed in which the U.S. has not been torturing Iranians. That’s 60 years, right now. Began with a military coup, which overthrew the parliamentary regime in 1953, installed the Shah, a brutal dictator. Amnesty International described him as one of the worst, most extreme torturers in the world, year after year. When he was overthrown in 1979, the U.S. almost immediately turned to supporting Saddam Hussein in an assault against Iran, which killed hundreds of thousands of Iranians, used extensive use of chemical weapons. peter brushnoreply@blogger.com