Stammering around like that..... she's so afraid she's going to say something politically incorrect. And she can't be seen to be praising the military.
3 Americans soldiers killed and 25 wounded in Jordan
- Thread starter DANC
- Start date
Even if they're "fighting on behalf of this administration"?
I'm not sure I've ever heard that before, but then I don't listen to much of this stuff going back to when I started tuning out McClellan.
Only hire people who look a certain way/gender and reduce them to gibberish with pc bs ala the Harvard prez etc.
It’s a spokesperson. Simple. Call pat sajak. Tell him the country needs him. No one in Biden’s admin can talk. Be our spokesperson
“Circular logic,” “tautology,” “rubbish”. You certainly got the buzz words down.
This is mostly wrong. The mid twentieth century rise in Islamic fundamentalism came decades before Iraq and Afghanistan It began as a reaction to the mid-60’s Israeli war victories and the general ”creeping westernization” of the ME. The fundamentalist clerics had influence. They didn’t murder Sadat because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
This current situation is about Jew hate and the Iranian policy to eliminate Israel as a world state. Iranian surrogates export that policy to militants who have no purpose in life except to fight somebody. Maximum pressure needs to be applied to Iran and for reasons that have never been explained, we are not only not doing that, but we have reversed course with it. The Jew hatred is deeply imbedded in the ME, but the situation is not impossible. The Abraham Accords show that. The main problem now are the Mullahs who rule Iran. To destroy their influence will likely take a generation, and the job will never be finished. But we must begin and we are not doing that. We keep mumbling about a 2 state solution that the Iranian Mullahs will never accept.
This is just gibberish.
Last edited:
It began and grew rapidly during WW1.
Islam And World War One
The First World War played an intriguing role in the birth of the radical Islam we are dealing with today.
www.outsidethebeltway.com
Germany knew France and Britain had Islamic possessions and inflamed Muslims against the West.
How Germany used Islam during World War I
A refugee camp in a small German town stands on the spot of a mosque built to entice Muslims to fight for the kaiser.
But he's not a Biden supporter..... They always have to throw that in there, even though they defend his incompetency.
And, of course, the obligatory "Trump was worse" addendum.
She's bad. Her sentence construction made it sound much different than intended.
Kirby should be the primary spokesman.
Is it wrong of me to want to see her draw eyes on her lighter colored eyelids so when she blinks, she'd look like this?
Ever? I don't think this is true. If we turned over and didn't support Ukraine v. Russia, in the hopes it would sate his desires to conquer, wouldn't that count as appeasement? Didn't Chamberlain do that with Hitler?
I agree that the term is seized on by all who want to use military tactics vs. more diplomatic ones, and so is overused. But I think it's an overstatement to say appeasement isnt' an actual phenomenon. The following sentence is Hitch-like, though.
Reminding me: need to try running some of my writing through ChatGPT to see if it will edit it into a more Hitch-like style for when I'm feisty.
You two can find some common ground. Milton is using the term Islamic fascism, so you two have a lot of room to agree and then discuss methods for combatting or avoiding.
Milton, what are you proposing re how we deal with Iran? Or Islamic fascism in general? Pull out of the region and leave them to their own devices? What do we do about Israel?
Those aren't buzzwords--they are descriptors of your argument. Accurate ones at that.
With regard this point you make:
"This is mostly wrong. The mid twentieth century rise in Islamic fundamentalism came decades before Iraq and Afghanistan It began as a reaction to the mid-60’s Israeli war victories and the general ”creeping westernization” of the ME. The fundamentalist clerics had influence. They didn’t murder Sadat because of Iraq and Afghanistan."
I didn't date anything. I simply pointed out a discrete time frame of prominent islamic fascism (note the difference in fundamentalism and fascism). My point was a simple one: The fascistic islamic world is growing and it is relentless, and it is one of varying degrees.
With regard to this comment:
"This current situation is about Jew hate and the Iranian policy to eliminate Israel as a world state. Iranian surrogates export that policy to militants who have no purpose in life except to fight somebody. Maximum pressure needs to be applied to Iran and for reasons that have never been explained, we are not only not doing that, but we have reversed course with it. The Jew hatred is deeply imbedded in the ME, but the situation is not impossible. The Abraham Accords show that. The main problem now are the Mullahs who rule Iran. To destroy their influence will likely take a generation, and the job will never be finished. But we must begin and we are not doing that. We keep mumbling about a 2 state solution that the Iranian Mullahs will never accept."
Basically, what you are advocating is 20 year war with Iran because there is no way for western civilization to alter that short of war... Who do you think is going to help with that? Russia stood idly by in desert storm and following 9/11. Same with China. That won't happen again. I imagine that such a conflict would draw in North Korea on some level, but they don't have a pot to piss in. Point being, you have an end game, which is fine, but there is no way to get there. Not now, not ever. It will take the Arab/persian world to govern the Arab/persian world, and right now there are simply precious few rationale actors in the middle east.
There you go again, making shit up.
The House hasn't been negotiating anything of the sort. The only border+Ukraine deal being negotiated was being done by Sen Langford. Only thing the House has done was pass HR2 last year, which was a DOA partisan bill.
The House is never going to pass Ukraine money. Hell they can't even pass a regular appropriation bill.
I'm not making anything up.
Ukraine Aid-Border Security Deal in Congress Likely a Week Away
Senate lawmakers have been working on a deal for four months
www.voanews.com
The House will pass such a bill as long as we're not just adding more bureaucracy to process more illegals. Republicans hold such a slim majority in the House, it only takes a few Republicans to vote for the bill, if it meets enforcement requirements.
When was the last House to pass a regular appropriation bill?
Appeasement is used a lot to describe Chamberlain and Germany, but has been very politicized. There's several levels here going on with Germany. The first was the allowance of Germany to rearm after WWI, and that was largely because that sanctions against Germany following WWI were awful--way to harsh and even several members of the british parliament said at the time that "we just bought ourselves another war with Germany". That's a paraphrase but largely true. So the first allowance was for Germany to build a navy, but it had to be only as large as a certain percentage of England's (like 40%) or so. Keep in mind that the entirety of Europe had very significant concerns about communism.
The second aspect of what has been referred to as appeasement was the German annexation of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which didn't exist until after WWI. Undoubtedly part of that had been Germany territory prior to WWI. Why did Chamberlin let this happen? The French? Historians and contemporaneous documentation at that time was that England, France and others in Europe had almost no army. England had its navy of course, but it was irrelevant for purposes of central europe. Was it appeasement in the sense that "go ahead and take what you want"? Or was it because England and France had nothing in the thank to fight another war. The later plays a role later.
Fast forward a year later and the Chamberlin stupid war guaranty to Poland if Germany attacked. It was a bluff and bad one. Germany had something like 400 divisions to England's 8. It was a bad gambit, and the German's knew it. The next two - three years until the US came into the war and the Germans turned their attention to Russia, and England was crushed. France, like usual, ended up quitting after two weeks. There was nothing left in Europe except for England.
Still, this goes back to the original view point: was it pure appeasement or was the entirety of England and France not even remotely close to being prepared. As it was, even in that year between Chamberlin's alleged appeasement and the Poland invasion, England could only muster an extra 4 divisions and aircraft. Meanwhile, Germany had been re-arming itself since 1933....
That is the distinction in my mind. It is word that gets used a lot but context is king.
I'm not making anything up.
Ukraine Aid-Border Security Deal in Congress Likely a Week Away
Senate lawmakers have been working on a deal for four months
The House will pass such a bill as long as we're not just adding more bureaucracy to process more illegals. Republicans hold such a slim majority in the House, it only takes a few Republicans to vote for the bill, if it meets enforcement requirements.
When was the last House to pass a regular appropriation bill?
You posted a link that confirms exactly what I said.
The Senate is trying to pass a bill on the border + Ukraine. It's a hefty lift to get through the Senate, as the right flank is opposed. But it could probably get 60 votes...
The House isn't doing shit other then saying such a bill is "dead on arrival".
There is no chance of any legislation on either Ukraine or border security passing this Congress.
“Scalise’s chief got up and the first thing he said was, ‘This border bill, if you send it to us, is dead on arrival. Dead.’ He said, ‘I just want to be clear about that, we will not take it up, we will not vote on it. It is dead. End of discussion,’” said a Senate Republican source familiar with the comments at the meeting.
“So that sent a message,” the source said.
GOP looks for Plan B on Ukraine with border bill looking DOA
GOP supporters of aid to Ukraine are beginning to look for a Plan B as they come to grips with the reality that Senate legislation to boost border security and deal with a host of foreign crises is…
thehill.com
There is no simple answer here
1. The ME doesn't want us there;
2. The risk of not being there allows China and Russia to step in, which they have done now for 20 plus years;
3. More bombs and war hasn't solved a thing yet;
4. He who owns the oil field controls the world;
5. As to Iran, what I would guess we are doing is consulting with our major allies in Europe and with the Saudis. Keep in mind that from 2016-2021, the Houthi's have launched over 5,500 attacks against Saudi Arabia. There's a distinct hatred between Saudi Arabia and Iran for very obvious religious reasons, and we ought to capitalize on it.
6. You have to respond directly against Iran. We've had 2 or 3 presidents that have done so in the past from both sides. Maybe 4 (can't remember if Reagan did or not). I would target their drone making facilities and their cyber terrorism networks (apparently they are quite sophisticated).
After that, I'm not really sure what we can do that won't be perceived as overstretch by the balance of the ME
What are you suggesting here? Can we make a difference or are we wasting our time and money?
I think you might have an arguable point. But I think the significant post-Trump Iranian sponsored terror is evidence that Trump was on the right track. Do you think Biden’s policy has had any positive affect? I don’t see it and nobody has made that case, Biden’s aimless bullshit us just wasting time if not making matters worse.
Mark, you gave a great summary of the situation. I believe Chamberlain's reluctance to take on Germany was the fact that GB was just sick of war and didn't want to go through what they'd been through 20 years before.
But this isn't the same situation - not saying you're saying it is. The US is the pre-eminent world power. When we let groups like the Houthis lob missiles at our troops and then respond weakly or 'proportionately' (I hate that word - it's ridiculous when someone is shooting at you), it encourages them, and their sponsors, to commit further violence.
Republicans won't pass it AS IS. That was my point that you seem to have overlooked.You posted a link that confirms exactly what I said.
The Senate is trying to pass a bill on the border + Ukraine. It's a hefty lift to get through the Senate, as the right flank is opposed. But it could probably get 60 votes...
The House isn't doing shit other then saying such a bill is "dead on arrival".
There is no chance of any legislation on either Ukraine or border security passing this Congress.
“Scalise’s chief got up and the first thing he said was, ‘This border bill, if you send it to us, is dead on arrival. Dead.’ He said, ‘I just want to be clear about that, we will not take it up, we will not vote on it. It is dead. End of discussion,’” said a Senate Republican source familiar with the comments at the meeting.
“So that sent a message,” the source said.
GOP looks for Plan B on Ukraine with border bill looking DOA
GOP supporters of aid to Ukraine are beginning to look for a Plan B as they come to grips with the reality that Senate legislation to boost border security and deal with a host of foreign crises is…
I'm not sure how you can say the House isn't involved in negotiations. If you say the House 'isn't doing shit', you're just proving what a partisan you are. They are clearly providing input, which is why the Senate Democrats don't just bulldoze the bill through.
I think you've given a lot of great reasons for why England chose appeasement. But it is still appeasement. Completely agree that Badlwin, Chamberlain, et al get a bad rap.
But it is also true that Hitler could be checked, I think.
Re the French, come on now. The poor showing in WW2 is bad, but in WW I, they fought hard. 6 million casualties in a population of 40 million!
Yes, Reagan attacked Iran directly.
Yes, Reagan destroyed about half of Iran's Navy in 1988
A week after a U.S. drone attack killed Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani, a boastful historical claim about another U.
www.politifact.com
House Leadership is not involved in ANY negotiations with anyone on ANY border bill.
You keep talking about input and negotiations. That is not occurring. Literally the only one negotiating anything from the Republican side is Sen Lankford.
And he's getting censured by the Oklahoma GOP for daring to participate in these discussions.
They are NOT going to pass a bill. They have no interest in passing a bill. They need and want for this to be a political issue for the election. Don't be naive.
It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck....
" n 1935, Hitler revealed that Germany had developed an air force and was expanding its army, both major violations of Versailles. France and Britain had full authority to take economic or military action against Germany. Given the early stage of Germany’s military preparations, Western pressure could have easily neutralized the military threat. Failing to act when the stakes were low was the West’s first mistake. "
World War II: How Western Leaders Failed To Stop the Nazi Rise
World War II: A catastrophic failure of Western leadership enabled the Nazi menace to wreak havoc throughout Europe. What can we learn from the mistakes made by British and French decision-makers?
www.forbes.com
"After World War I, the Rhineland had been left demilitarized to deter German aggression against France. With this border undefended, the French could pour into Germany. Only 3,000 Nazi troops entered the Rhineland. Hundreds of thousands of French troops stood just miles away. Germany’s generals trembled with fear, certain that a French invasion would end the Third Reich. However, facing bad economic conditions and finding few allies willing to offer support, the French government decided that military intervention was too expensive. Once again, a weak and divided West allowed the Nazi threat to increase. "
"Many British and French political leaders had staked their hopes on appeasing Hitler to avoid war. Appeasement was a fatally flawed policy. Churchill condemned appeasement as the strategy of feeding a crocodile in the hopes it would eat you last. He recognized that Hitler was insatiable, and each meal only made the crocodile more dangerous. "
Republicans learned their lesson with abortion: big button issues are always more valuable unsolved.
You need to live in the real world. If members of the House didn't have input, the Dems could vote through any bill they want - they have the majority.
Honestly, we have to worry about whether we are wasting our time and money right?
Religion v Religion is how the Muslim world likely views any dispute. Infidels, Crusaders blah blah. You can't change their mind any more than you can convince a Christian country to do something or accept something that is opposite of what they have been conditioned to believe....
I'm terribly sorry, but I can't perform multi-quotes. Too old, but in regards to this:
"I think you might have an arguable point. But I think the significant post-Trump Iranian sponsored terror is evidence that Trump was on the right track. Do you think Biden’s policy has had any positive affect? I don’t see it and nobody has made that case, Biden’s aimless bullshit us just wasting time if not making matters worse."
I don't know that we can draw a conclusion from events now and say well the policy was screwed up. Keep in mind that from 2014-2019, the Iranians were fighting with us against ISIS in Syria and elsewhere. The Houthi's existed but their main target has always been attacking Saudi Arabia. Candidly, I'm not sure I know what the Biden Policy towards Iran is. I've read (I don't watch the news), and that gives me a bit more information that is unbiased. The economist has had some great article, and their conclusions are the same as mine--I can't figure out the end game. here. There is a lot going on in the world right now. I can understand and accept the policy in the Ukraine, but really not sure what we are going to see in the middle east. I know Biden admin broaden the trade agreement with Israel and Bahrain so that the parties are trading about 3.8 bil a year in good with one another. That's fine. But Iran, i'm not just sure what is going on, and that is a problem. North Korea is a waste of time. The fat little man is just an internet troll with no money. He ain't doing a thing.
Last edited:
Well, the Dems have a Senate majority, right? What's to keep them from passing whatever bill they want?
What's stopping them is knowing the House has requirements before they'd pass a bill from the Senate. Ergo, they have input.
If you are defining appeasement as "not wanting to go to war because you will get your ass handed to you because you have no army", I guess I would agree with that, but I don't agree to the definition because now it makes all non-choices (which I suppose is a choice), start to look like like this broad definition of appeasement.
The french had the opportunity to stop Hitler when the annexed the Rhineland in 1936 with a whopping 3,000 troops. Right across the border and a few miles away were 250k french soliders. Well they didn't want to fight the germans because france was peniless.....So there was an opportunity to try and put out a fire, but not the whole ball of wax.
Ummm the Senate is likely to pass a bill. The House has said don't bother because they won't even vote on it. Twenty has this spot on.
Dems don't have 60 votes in the Senate. So, no they cannot pass anything they want. That's why they are negotiating with Senate Republicans. You can't pass anything in the Senate without 60 votes.
