“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Sunday, December 04, 2011

“What on earth is the matter with Europe?”




Eurozone crisis: the US has to ride to the rescue once again

Meanwhile, the politicians of Europe seem determined to make themselves irrelevant.



So, once again, the United States has intervened to save Europe from itself. And there we were thinking that the old 20th-century pattern had been eradicated. The Federal Reserve Bank made floods of cheap dollars available last week, having come to the blood-curdling conclusion that the global banking system could only be saved from catastrophic collapse by sending in the American cavalry – Europe’s own governing class being apparently incapable of effective action.

“What on earth is the matter with Europe?” asks the rest of the world in exasperation. Is it inherently obtuse – unable to see the mess that it is in and the danger to which its incompetence is exposing everyone else? Or do its political leaders simply buckle in the face of popular pressure, too fearful of electoral retribution to confront their populations with the only real options that are available? Angela Merkel is now making seriously uncompromising noises about fiscal union: it is to go ahead, whatever anybody else says or thinks. No more messing. And Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be accepting this – for the moment. But watch this space. Rather belatedly, the European Parliament has woken up to the threat this represents to democratic principle: it has announced that if tax and spending policy is to be decided centrally by the EU, then it, being the only body elected by the people, should have co-responsibility for those decisions with the European Commission. In other words, since fiscal policy will be out of the hands of national governments, and therefore beyond the reach of a population’s own democratic process, it really ought to be accountable to some representative body. (The most extraordinary thing about this is that it was just an afterthought.)

Then of course, Mrs Merkel will never permit the European Central Bank to bail out all those feckless southern Europeans who mystifyingly refuse to behave like Germans. Or maybe she will, if the EU puppet regimes now in place in Greece and Italy actually enforce austerity measures that pauperise their peoples. But since she is opposed to the money-printing that would be required for such a bail-out (for what her country believes to be sound historical reasons), it is difficult to see how she could relent even if the Greeks and Italians were hammered into the economic Stone Age. Meanwhile, in the back rooms, unknown officials are working out what is actually going to be done if and when the euro collapses: while this charade of absolutely-last-chance summits runs its course, the contingency planners are outlining the mechanisms that will contain the damage. You may find this reassuring, but think what it really means: economic policy is now outside of the control of politics – which is to say, no longer accountable to voters. Do all those people in the rest of the world who just want Europe to (as George Osborne puts it) “sort itself out”, understand this?

In truth, it is almost impossible to understand the European dilemma because it is so arcane – so weighed down with historical accretions and ideological obscurantism – that it has become impenetrable even to the principal players in what is turning into a tragedy of monumental proportions. The original plan was designed out of remorse on the one hand – to heal Europe’s ancient hatreds – but also to ensure that the unified power of the new European bloc would be a check on the overweening might of the United States. Instead, the old enmities and suspicions have been energetically revived and the US has, with its usual reluctance and misgivings, been forced to come to the rescue. Isn’t this where we came in? The French foreign minister, Alain Juppé, said last week that war on the Continent could recur. It was unclear whether this was intended as a warning or a threat.

To Americans, an inability to escape from the past is incomprehensible: theirs is a country composed entirely of people who did exactly that. But Europe is populated by the people who did not leave, whose collective memory is imbued with either blood-and-soil national identity, or a proud sense of historical mission. It was a mistake to think that all this could be expunged as an act of political will by a single generation which saw itself as uniquely enlightened. Like most benign oligarchies, the EU built this new entity on what it thought to be morally unimpeachable, immutable principles: the provision of universal security which would prevent populations from descending into fractured, hostile factions. Civil unrest – and the terrible international crimes to which it gave rise – would be eradicated for ever by a system of social engineering and welfare that would provide permanent well-being (and so, permanent peace).

In fact, that generation was as much a product of its times – and its own collective memory – as any other. The welfare and security that the “new” Europe distributed to its masses was a function of inherited class guilt: as much a tribute to the past as what had preceded it. The extent to which the entitlement culture that it bred contained both moral and economic risk did not become fully clear until it was extended beyond the core countries that had created it. (But in truth, if you can remember this far back, Germany’s lavish pensions and welfare programmes were under intolerable strain long before the euro crisis exploded.) It is no coincidence that this was largely a western European problem: the eastern bloc, being Marxist, chose to venerate work. Therefore it did not tolerate idleness. Therefore it had no welfare system. What it had was “full employment”. People did phoney make-work jobs and got paid phoney money that was worthless outside the Soviet currency zone. (That is why the eastern Europeans who come here are so willing to take any employment on offer, and may turn out to be the saviours of western capitalism.)

What is to be done about Europe’s politicians who seem determined to make themselves irrelevant? Presumably it is much too late to persuade them that there is no such entity as “Europe” – no cohesive, homogenised conglomeration which will submit to the forcible erasure of its various historical experiences. The elected leaders will be displaced either openly or secretly by technocrats – faceless, unaccountable functionaries who really will “sort out” the shambles that is left behind without having to consult the people at all. The rest of the world will probably sigh with relief.

189 comments:

  1. Drink your coffee! There are poor people in Europe sleeping.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Bomb disposal experts in the German city of Koblenz have begun defusing a 1.8 tonne bomb dropped by the Royal Air Force in World War II.

    The bomb was discovered in the riverbed of the Rhine when water levels fell because of a prolonged dry spell.

    Nearly half the city's population - 45,000 - have been evacuated, including the inhabitants of two hospitals, seven nursing homes and a prison.


    It's not just bank bombs being defused these days.

    ReplyDelete
  3. .

    Just a bit of social commentary yet quite extraordinary.

    In the last couple years, the occurrance of liver cancer in Britain has increased by 60%. In the northeast section of the country, it has increased by over 400% in the same period.

    The rise is attributed to kids drinking at a younger age and to excess, cheaper booze, and new sweeter drinks marketed to the young.

    From my recent visit there, I can believe the statistics.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  4. .

    Bunk!

    It is and will remain

    16 Israel
    0 Misguided




    He tries to come off as 'the fool on the hill' but merely looks the fool.

    He offers moonbeams and fairy tales yet none here are buying. Even his compadres in the Jewish lobby disagree with him. Well I aasume Bob disagrees with him. We havn't heard from him on the subject lately. And since he habitually defers to WiO (I would use more colorful language but it is Sunday) and since WiO states the attack was intentional...well...

    Once again Allen is left, alone, stamping his foot and denying reality.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  5. The NYTimes has an interesting story on the Salafists in Eqypt. With 25% of vote so far, they present a real threat to move Eqypt toward fundamentalism regardless of whether the military clings to power for a while longer.

    The danger here is that the really back assward fundies will through public pressure, violence and dogma force the people to submit to Allah. Afterall, isn't that what Islam is all about?

    In related news this weekend, the BBC reported that honor violence is increasing across the UK.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well, they can submit to the good devil hisself (directly) for all I care - as long as they do it off my dime.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Quirk:


    Bunk!

    It is and will remain

    16 Israel
    0 Misguided



    He tries to come off as 'the fool on the hill' but merely looks the fool.


    It reminds me of Al Gore saying the science on anthropogenic global warming was "settled". That it, it takes the character of religious dogma.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Danger to whom, whit?

    The Egyptians, could be dangerous for them.

    Not to Israel, they have 250 nuclear warheads that will limit military adventurism, by the Egyptians. Though they may stimulate such adventurism by the Israeli.

    Egypt poses no danger to the United States. Nor to NATO

    Recommend reading the link in the last comment on the previous thread, it describes how power is vested in the President, not the Legislature, in Egypt.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The plot thickens in Egypt.

    It will be very interesting to watch as the Salafists, the Brotherhood and Egyptian liberals share power and form coalitions.

    The Salafists could force the Muslim Brotherhood to reveal their true character which, so far, seems to be as moderate as they have been claiming.

    Will Egypt go backwards into fundamentalist Islam? Will the Arab Spring result in an Egyptian born Islamic "reformation"? Stay tuned.

    ReplyDelete
  10. If foreign fears of political instability continues to negatively impacts tourism, to Egypt, further social destabilization will become a self-fulfilling prophecy, as their economy continues to crater.

    Leading to demands for further "change".

    A death spiral, as it were.

    The question, when do we stop funding the Egyptian military.

    How long should we ride that pony, before abandoning Egypt to the Islamoids?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Nice to see you Whit. Here is the real score and test. Which of the following countries have become more secular or less with US involvement in Muslim countries?

    1. Pakistan.
    2. Afghanistan.
    3. Iraq.
    4. Turkey.
    5. Kosvovo.
    6. Egypt.
    7. Libya.
    8. Jordan.
    9. Iran.
    10. Saudi Arabia.

    The only one that is unclear to me is Saudi Arabia. Every other country has an upwardly increasing Islamic influence.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dangerous to freedom loving people in Egypt and surrounding environs.

    Hello, yourself, T.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In the last couple years, the occurrence of liver cancer in Britain has increased by 60%. In the northeast section of the country, it has increased by over 400% in the same period.

    The rise is attributed to kids drinking at a younger age and to excess, cheaper booze, and new sweeter drinks marketed to the young.

    From my recent visit there, I can believe the statistics.


    Having lived there for several years with numerous business and personal connections, I can say that I would not live in Britain today. It is really a sick society. It is sad and shameful and the result of the left-wing politically correct movement which began in the sixties. It was predictable and has been ruinous to many parts of Britain and to their culture.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'd agree that the Egyptians pose an internal threat, to their own stability and political freedoms.

    I do not think they pose a threat to the freedoms presently enjoyed by the Sudanese, Libyans, nor the Israeli.

    Certainly none to the Italians, Turks or Greeks.

    ReplyDelete
  15. But that is true, too, in Syria, Israel, Bahrain, Somalia, Pakistan, Libya, etc.

    Everywhere that civil strife amplified by religious intolerance rages.

    ReplyDelete
  16. To varied degrees there are civil wars throughout the countries of the Islamic Arc.

    More so, than less.

    Jordon, about the only country that comes to mind, that is not racked by insurgent violence.

    Bordering on civil war.
    In Turkey, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt, Israel, Libya, Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan ...

    The song remains the same.

    Targeting the near enemies, the Islamoid radicals are.

    We have assisted them in their cause, in Iraq.
    At least for US it is over, over there.

    ReplyDelete
  17. It'll be over for us as soon as we can shake that Afghani dust off our boots, anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Now, if we can just get 90,000 or so troops out of Korea, and Europe we'll be on the right track.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Now that Osama is in the deep six, there is no excuse for staying there, in Afghanistan, in such a large footprint.

    Except to continue the destabilization of Russia through the subsidization of Afghan heroin trafficking.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I agree rufus, there is no need for US ground troops to be garrisoned in Italy or Germany.

    Nor Okinawa or Korea.

    No military threat that necessitates stationing an USAF air wing in Poland.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Now that the Pakis have PERMANENTLY closed their supply route, the Russians, Uzbekis, etc are jacking up the prices for transit through their Route.

    Time to get out while the getting's good.

    ReplyDelete
  22. And, of course, we need to take that Six, or Seven Billion, or whatever it is, that we give to Pakistan with us.

    That could pay for a lot of healthcare in Mississippi.

    ReplyDelete
  23. There is no military reason to station 2,500 US Marines in Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ah, that's just a little "showmanship." Obammie's trying to encourage the Malaysias, and Brunies to join up in the Trade Pact.

    Implying "protection" for the trade partners.

    'sides, we don't want Guam to "tip over." :)

    ReplyDelete
  25. Military spending, by country:

    1 United States
    $687,105,000,000 = 4.7% GDP

    2. China
    $114,300,000,000 = 2.2% GDP

    3.France
    $61,285,000,000 = 2.5% GDP

    4. United Kingdom
    $57,424,000,000 = 2.7% GDP

    5.Russia
    $52,586,000,000 = 4.3% GDP

    6. Japan
    $51,420,000,000 = 1.0% GDP

    7. Germany
    $46,848,000,000 = 1.4% GDP

    8. Saudi Arabia
    $42,917,000,000 = 11.2% GDP

    9. Italy
    $38,198,000,000 = 1.8% GDP

    10.India
    $34,816,000,000 = 2.8% GDP

    Data set by wiki.

    ReplyDelete
  26. There is a disproportionate amount of spending on US military force projection.

    There is no combination of the "Top Ten" that could oppose US militarily.

    Our record of excessive military spending, long,

    The Soviets falling into the ash bin of history, what, 20 years ago?

    ReplyDelete
  27. We have more aircraft parked in storage on the tarmac in Tucson, than most countries have in their entire active air forces.

    ReplyDelete
  28. .

    Whit, it's great to see you stop in.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  29. While a report in the JPost ...


    Revolutionary Guard downs an "intruding RQ-170 American drone" in eastern Iran, Iran's Arabic-language state TV reports; Tehran warns its response will take place outside of Iran's borders.

    ReplyDelete
  30. I listened to Rick Santorum being interviewed last night for the first time. What's wrong with him? Nothing that I could detect, I liked the guy.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  31. Mr Santorum lost the last election he was in by, I believe it was 16 points, boobie.

    In the "swing" State of PA.

    He is not very "electable", proven by performance.

    ReplyDelete



  32. PARIS - France is temporarily downsizing its embassy in Iran and will bring some employees and their families home, a French official said Saturday.

    ReplyDelete
  33. With respect to your headline article - the author seems to contradict himself:

    at the start he/she rails:

    "Or do its political leaders simply buckle in the face of popular pressure, too fearful of electoral retribution to confront their populations with the only real options that are available? "

    and he concludes with:

    "The elected leaders will be displaced either openly or secretly by technocrats – faceless, unaccountable functionaries who really will “sort out” the shambles that is left behind without having to consult the people at all."


    One of the central problems in Europe appears to be that Merkel's power, for example, stems from her election by the German people and not the people of Europe as a whole so her decisions are made in that context. She can't make decisions for Europe thus losing German votes and picking up Greek ones for example.

    ReplyDelete
  34. The score remains the same

    Israel 16
    Others 0

    Irritating as it may be, the vast majority of Americans continue to support Israel.

    These are facts. Suck your thumbs and pout.

    ReplyDelete
  35. almost an audit of the Fed rat:

    "Secrets of the Bailout, Now Told"


    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/secrets-of-the-bailout-now-revealed.html?hp

    ReplyDelete
  36. The intel that I am getting on last night's Huckabee debate is that Ron Paul looked really old and disheveled and mostly incoherent, and nearly fell asleep, and nearly put everyone else asleep, too. In other words, a normal presentation, by Mr. Paul, there last night, crapper.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  37. Have to wonder what the majority of the German electorate thinks the consequences of Greek, Spanish or Italian default would be.

    How they think it would effect them.

    Then too, how their inherent nationalism plays into their thinking, tambien.

    ReplyDelete
  38. As I've said, boobie, Dr Paul is not a "good" candidate. He personally does not carry much water.

    That he is the best of the Librarian candidates, also a reality.

    That he has reached the mid-teens in Iowa polling, indicative of the incremental growth in the acceptance of Librarian principles, within the GOP base.

    Dr Paul, himself, never would stand a chance of gaining the GOP nomination, or defeating Mr Obama in the general election.

    Nothing new reported.

    ReplyDelete
  39. The Euro has been great for the Germans. Pretty good for the French. Everyone else got to "throw a party," but, now, the "hangover" begins.

    Having Different Political entities share a currency is a nightmare made in hell. It can't end well.

    ReplyDelete
  40. T,

    I’ll make things easier.

    Yesterday, I challenged you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States. The best you could do was to pull out the same-old, same-old, i.e. the USS Liberty. As thousands of rational US military fact finders have ascertained on 16 occasions since 1967, the matter is settled in favor of Israel.

    Surely, a smart lady like you can name a military unit of the United States ordered into battle to fight with the IDF. There must have been one such unit since 1948…Right?

    By the way, calling me names will have no affect on the facts.

    When you have facts, please post and link.

    I am going to hope you do not attempt the Bible quoting stuff for which you have become famous among your Christian brothers and sisters. Oh, and I assure you, I am not the anti-Christ - that would be the Chief Rabbi.

    You guys are just a laugh a minute :-))))

    ReplyDelete
  41. The "One-Worlders" know that if the Euro goes down, they've lost. They would fight a war, if necessary, to preserve it.

    The more pragmatic "elected politicians," however, probably won't want to partake of their European Armageddon to preserve the Euro.

    The thing is toast; we just don't know "when."

    ReplyDelete
  42. If Ms T cannot, I can, allen.

    www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/17/iraq.israel

    Jan 17, 2003 – The US has sent Patriot air-defence batteries and 600 soldiers to Israel to help protect it against missile attack in the event of a war with Iraq, ...

    ReplyDelete
  43. Then you agree with me, crapper, he is an old, disheveled, incoherent, somnolent fool, an example of American democracy at it's non functioning worst, someone a person like you might well like.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  44. desert rat said...

    If Ms T cannot, I can, allen.

    www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/17/iraq.israel

    Jan 17, 2003 – The US has sent Patriot air-defence batteries and 600 soldiers to Israel to help protect it against missile attack in the event of a war with Iraq, ...

    Sun Dec 04, 11:34:00 AM EST


    That's actually a strike for rat, there.

    I don't see anything wrong with it myself, but I do remember when it occurred.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  45. The thing about Ron Paul is, on some issues he makes a ton of sense.

    Many times, when he says, "That's none of our business" the room breaks out in applause.

    He is "striking chords" more, and more, often.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Deuce's video -

    It's the end of the caballero, as depicted in Picasso's Guernica, the screaming horse, master of our universe since the days the rude aryans learned to ride, north of the Caucasus, brought low by the horror metallic bomb dropping flying machine.

    But what is the eye, and the illuminating flame?

    b

    ReplyDelete
  47. The ideology Dr Paul enunciates, rufus, the anti-Federal Socialist storyline, is slowly gaining acceptance, on the "Right".

    His positioning on the Federal Reserve Bank gaining ground, on the "Left" and the "Right".

    The argument against accountability, made in the self-serving interests of those that would be held, accountable.

    ReplyDelete
  48. "That's actually a strike for rat, there"


    Thank you, bob!

    You see, you fellows at the Bar cannot take on a single member of the "Jewish lobby" without resort to gang warfare.

    The intervention of the two of you has relieved Ms T of her obligation you might "feel".


    So, bob, DR, and Ms T,

    "I challenge you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  49. Some of us just aren't interested in that, Today. The Post was about Europe.

    ReplyDelete
  50. The crew members of the USS Lberty were under US command and orders when they were ...

    ... killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States.

    Those sailors were not fighting with the Turks, when they were killed, where they?

    No. they were fighting with Israeli air and naval forces.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Everybody (almost) realizes that Dr Paul is a Crank, that we couldn't possibly, even if we wanted, go back to the Gold Standard.

    But, on the other hand, a lot of people are sick of the would be "Pax America" as envisioned by the elites, and the horrific military spending, and global intervention that that entails.

    ReplyDelete
  52. If I thought there was a chance in the world that RP could get elected I would never vote for him, but if I thought it was safe I might register a "Protest Vote."

    ReplyDelete
  53. Anonymous said...

    I don't see anything wrong with it myself, but I do remember when it occurred.

    b

    Sun Dec 04, 11:39:00 AM EST


    Obviously, neither you nor DR read the first paragraph of the piece. Had you, you would have learned that the US was not fighting WITH Israel; instead, it was bribing Israel NOT to FIGHT in self-defense.

    While I know that this must appear to you to be a small thing, if you actually think about it, it is an entirely different thing than my challenge posed.

    Oh, and as Ms T repeatedly misinforms us, this was at the same time that Israel was paid over $13bil by the US in order to NOT JOIN the FIGHT against Iraq.

    Wow!

    ReplyDelete
  54. DR,

    Re: Liberty

    You jest!

    I'll give you this, very few people can spout limitless nonsense out of both sides of their mouths.

    :-)))))

    ReplyDelete
  55. ya gotta give Kudo's to allen for actually offering arguments unlike WiO.

    ReplyDelete
  56. You look to motive, I look to actions, allen.

    The reality of action, US troops were in Israel, to fight and die in its' defense, if need be.

    That is the reality
    Call it what you will.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Who was Mohammed Ali fighting with, in that "Thrilla' in Manila"?

    Why, he was fighting with Joe Frasier.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Quirk,

    Re: “fairy tales” and “anus”

    I humbly defer to your expert judgment in such matters, “sesual” (Vidal).

    Quirk, there is nothing wrong with being “queer”. Why, some of my best friends are.

    You have no idea how difficult it is to find a size 12 ballroom dance stiletto in red. Well, duh, of course you do.

    ;-))))

    ReplyDelete
  59. DR,

    As you have often heard, you "think" no further than your belly-button.

    I associate myself with Quirk's recent castigation of your lack of intellectual honesty and/or integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  60. That you have often needed lessons in the use of the English language, allen, a long and torturous tale.

    ReplyDelete
  61. With Ash's comment, that now brings it to five/one.

    Ash, what specifically did I say that would sound like WiO?

    Now that you have joined, ash,

    I challenge you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States.

    Does this challenge remind you of WiO, ash? Hmm...

    ReplyDelete
  62. English being a more detailed language than most, necessitating a larger base vocabulary than say, Spanish.

    The English language so expressive that the use of vowels is required.

    ReplyDelete
  63. I was simply complimenting you allen for offering arguments (well sometimes anyway) as opposed to WiO's method of posting.

    ReplyDelete
  64. That your question was so open to "misinterpretation" allen, was that an accident caused by your ignorance, or by "intelligent design"?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Allen: Oh, and as Ms T repeatedly misinforms us, this was at the same time that Israel was paid over $13bil by the US in order to NOT JOIN the FIGHT against Iraq.

    It was a shakedown. Pappy Bush was trying to hold a coalition together that included many Arab countries, and Israel knew they could rattle loose some money by threatening to jump in. And that's something mobsters do, not friends.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Israeli ministers reacted angrily on Sunday after local media quoted U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton as saying she feared for the future of Israel’s democracy and the rights of women in the Jewish state.

    Clinton’s remarks, reportedly made Saturday behind closed doors at the Saban Forum in Washington, made headlines in most Israeli newspapers, which reported them without explaining how they obtained the comments.

    Top-selling Yediot Aharonot said Clinton had expressed concern about a slew of “anti-democratic” bills proposed by right-wing members of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s government.




    And the newspaper said Clinton had described shock at hearing that some buses in Jerusalem were gender segregated and some religious Israeli soldiers refused to attend events where women would sing.



    Clinton pisses off the Israeli Government

    ReplyDelete
  67. Ash said...
    I was simply complimenting you allen for offering arguments (well sometimes anyway) as opposed to WiO's method of posting.

    Sun Dec 04, 12:43:00 PM EST


    First, allow me to thank the honorable gentleman from Canada.

    Now, ash, how about answering my question?

    I am going to assume that, unlike DR, English is your first language and my question will not prove troubling. To reiterate:

    "I [challenge] you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  68. six/one

    When it reaches ten/one, I'll call upon an adult male Jew for help.

    ;-)))

    ReplyDelete
  69. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Parse This:

    Early on 18 January Iraq responded to the air onslaught by attacking Israel, the coalition's most vulnerable point. A missile landed in Tel Aviv, initially reported to have a chemical warhead. The coalition later denied this but the relevant log, released after the war, recorded it carried cyclo-sarin, a particularly deadly nerve gas. Israel prepared to counter-attack, but was dissuaded when the USA promised to destroy the Scuds. As a result, a great deal of effort was diverted into the ‘Scud hunt’, although the mobile Iraqi missiles proved difficult to find. British and US special forces were also sent in to find and destroy Scuds, with mixed results. The US also used the Patriot, originally an anti-aircraft system, to shoot down incoming missiles, the first time anti-missiles were used in the history of war. Very few incoming missiles were actually hit and those that were broke up, possibly doing even more damage than they would have otherwise. On 20 January, Iraq also began firing missiles at Riyadh, one of which hit a temporary US barracks and inflicted the worst Allied casualties of the war.


    Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-war#ixzz1fai1p1Ad

    ReplyDelete
  71. Allen: I challenge you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States.

    241 Marines, Beirut, Octover 23, 1983, joint operations with Israel to expel Syria and support the Gemayel government.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Allen, I really am not sure about what is your point?

    The US used as much as 25% of its aircraft working to keep Israel out of the war which would have completely changed the dynamic of the conflict leading to many more US casualties. Iraq knew they could goad Israel into the war and the US knew they had to keep Israel out. To say those US servicemen killed in their barracks had no relation to threatened Israeli action is simply disingenuous.

    ReplyDelete
  73. T said...
    It was a shakedown. Pappy Bush was trying to hold a coalition together that included many Arab countries, and Israel knew they could rattle loose some money by threatening to jump in. And that's something mobsters do, not friends.

    Sun Dec 04, 12:57:00 PM EST



    This is hardly an alliance, then, is it? From your take, one could hardly say, seriously, that America was fighting WITH Israel? Why, on the surface, it looks like America was looking for some cheap sex and Israel was willing to accommodate - Right? Sorta like, "I'll let you tie me down and permit flogging for the right price."

    As usual, T, your perspicacity is awesome. So...courteously...one more time:

    "I [challenge] you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    And, yes, T, it is a nagging habit of mine to stay on a question pursuant to disproving a lie. As a blessed person, I know you would want to help – Right? “You shall know the truth (and all that jazz)…”

    ReplyDelete
  74. If 34 sailors don't count, and 241 marines don't count, maybe we can start talking about all the CIA field operatives killed by the Soviet Union after Pollard transfered all that classified to Israel, who then passed it on to Moscow, obviously, since Netanyahu refuses to return it.

    ReplyDelete
  75. seven/one

    ;-))))

    I needn't parse; You were not HELPING Israel; you were desperately trying to keep Israel OUT of a war, lest your "allies" leave you high and dry. Think about that alliance you have with Pakistan - well, it's sorta like that. Now, that is not an alliance other than on a blog contaminated by "fairy dust".

    The fact is that none of you can put-up. Rather than man-up and admit you have no proof (sorry, T, I think ... Hmm) to substantiate the nonsense you accept as deep thinking hereabouts, you just ramble on, off topic.

    So, Deuce,

    "I [challenge] you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    ReplyDelete
  76. Re: Pollard

    Beautiful, T! It doesn't get any better than this.

    You have no proof, whatsoever, that any of those killed were fighting FOR/WITH Israel; but, boy can you ever remember the name of a traitor who should have been hanged.

    I hate to put it like WiO, but you really are a loser.

    ReplyDelete
  77. .

    The score remains the same

    Israel 16
    Others 0

    Irritating as it may be, the vast majority of Americans continue to support Israel.



    The fact is neither statement is related in any sense and therefore neither provides support for the other. Anyone with a normally rational mind would recognize that.

    Your rant used to be 13-0 and it has now morphed into 16-0. But as I pointed before, it is actually 13 x 0 = 0. I have printed the info describing these so called "hearings" a number of times before; however, since none here but you believe they were anything but mummary, there is no point in linking to the info again.

    Where you to say you believe the Israeli's attacked the Liberty by mistake, I would consider you rather credulous but would not object.

    However, when you find yourself without arguments and so instead hang onto the fabricated facade of these so-called 'hearings' you become laughable.

    Either you don't actually believe what you are spouting at which point you are merely an apologist and should be disdained or you do actually believe it and you are a fool who can only be be pitied.

    .



    .

    ReplyDelete
  78. Later ladies...got to shower...

    ReplyDelete
  79. allen wrote:

    "I am going to assume that, unlike DR, English is your first language and my question will not prove troubling."

    ummm, allen, it seems it is you with the reading comprehension problem here given your inability to understand that short simple statement I wrote earlier so I suggest you ratchet back your condescension.

    I also have little interest in playing your silly little game. I may have to re-evaluate my observation on your tendency to present actual argument.

    ReplyDelete
  80. .

    Hell, Allen we were up to eight.

    I was waiting to see that other "adult' Jew.

    My comments were merely about the Liberty, and you will obviously have to go offsight to find that supporting Jew.

    But please folks, can't someone take Allen's side in any of these arguments.


    You see, you fellows at the Bar cannot take on a single member of the "Jewish lobby" without resort to gang warfare.


    The fools lament, "though I show myself to be a fool, it's unfair that you gang up on me and point it out".

    Or put another way, once again Allen is the 'victim' of abuse at the old EB. It's just not fair.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  81. .

    Quirk, there is nothing wrong with being “queer”. Why, some of my best friends are.


    I have no doubt.

    However, I am a little confused as to what any of this has to do with the subject at hand.


    Re: “fairy tales” and “anus”

    I humbly defer to your expert judgment in such matters, “sesual” (Vidal).



    I assume this was meant as a jab of some sort. However, I can't really deny it. After all, for months you continued to attempt jest at my use of the word anus which in the end forced me to point out that anatomy was on my side, and in fact, you truly didn't know your anus from a hole in the ground, knowledge that comes to most people quite early.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  82. Thank you, Quirk, for picking up on the difference in ratio. It certainly took long enough.

    You never disappoint, you parochial devil, you.

    …two thoughts:

    1) spell check
    2) proof reader

    ReplyDelete
  83. .

    …two thoughts:

    1) spell check
    2) proof reader



    "When arguments fail, fall back on carping." (Vidal)

    .

    ReplyDelete
  84. oppositionresearchSun Dec 04, 02:36:00 PM EST

    Just an observation. I have yet to hear a serious argument over torn loyalties from any other hyphenated American other than those who identify themselves as Jewish Americans. Cuba-Americans are always way balanced on the American side. You never hear that from American Jews. It is always the mentality of Israel 7-0, 10- 0 or whatever the current score is. Typical and predictable.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Re: abuse by EB

    Quirk, allen "feels" no such thing. To "feel" would require allen to have some emotional investment in this process. That you could still believe that such an emotional investment is involved shows you to be as clueless as your repeated, unsolicited "crank" criticisms of others strongly suggest. Quirk, you are no Oscar Wilde – well, at least in terms of literary criticism. Sometimes when reading your "little wet hen" spinsterish rants against others, I am reminded of Wilde’s observation: “It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.” :-D))))

    Allen does "know" that not a single person could answer his question, while insisting for hours on engaging him in silly, convoluted trivia.

    ReplyDelete
  86. .

    Thank you, Quirk, for picking up on the difference in ratio.


    Since we have devolved to the level of nitpicking, there is no "difference in ratio" only a "difference between ratios".

    A ratio is a ratio.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  87. allen said...

    I hate to put it like WiO, but you really are a loser.



    Allen, After HUNDREDS of logical, rational and thoughtful discussion attempts at the ranters at the Bar about Jews, israel, Zionism and Judaism the ranters are not capable of learning anything, they just seem to get more and more desperate to prove Israel/Jews/Zionists guilt on all things in the universe.

    SO taking a page from our greatest Rabbis I no longer attempt the Hillel school of discussion but rather now embracing the Shammai school of thought.

    Or to put in a NT (new Testament) way, Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you, MAT 7:6.

    Or in another way...

    There is no talking with stupid....

    (that was for ash)

    This blog is now on Jew/Zionist/Israel hatred virus. Not a tread that goes by that Israel, Jews or Zionism is not attacked.

    I do not feel like a victim, I just want those that feel that way that I personally wish they take a flying fuck off a short pier.

    Sometimes foul language is a perfect way to communicate with the dense and hateful.

    Rational arguments, facts and truth never will sit well with those whose hearts are black....

    ReplyDelete
  88. WiO said:
    "This blog is now on Jew/Zionist/Israel hatred virus. Not a tread that goes by that Israel, Jews or Zionism is not attacked."

    I noticed that, too.

    ReplyDelete
  89. You would think Israel is the "little satan."

    ReplyDelete
  90. .

    ...while insisting for hours on engaging him in silly, convoluted trivia...


    If it appears this way to you we are making progress. You have to understand we intentionally try to bring to conversation down to a level you might possible understand.

    Conversation with you is often like talking with a small child.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  91. Re: ratio


    Thanks again, Quirk.

    I always know when I have hit pay dirt here: You slither out of that dark wet hole that so fixates you.

    :-)

    …by the way, Quirk, not to nitpick, but...
    "I [challenge] you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    Knowing you to be a guy interested in remaining "on-topic", I thought I would bring us back to where others and I began prior to your interruption.

    PS: ...glad to direct you to a kindred soul - Vidal...

    ReplyDelete
  92. Quirk,

    Re: Quirk said...
    .

    ...while insisting for hours on engaging him in silly, convoluted trivia...


    Gosh, Quirk, again I am in your debt. Who knew that you would so readily see how silly others here were behaving and admit it so readily!

    Now, Quirk, how about an answer to that question? Make it a childishly as you must; I'll understand or find an adult Jew to help.

    ReplyDelete
  93. WiO,

    Re: pearls before swine

    Not to worry, WiO, I'm a Southerner. We are used to "pig sticking". That would be from horseback or on foot.

    Right now, after a day's effort, I still have not a single name of an American killed fighting with Israeli forces, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States.

    Do note, WiO: Despite very trying conditions, I have yet to curse anyone. The trick is to understand that, when little, special people like Quirk behave like little, special people, projection is the cause. Reacting radically only encourages (misnomer, but who's counting) such childish behavior.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Allen

    mah nishta nah higlya hasay?

    it aint...

    lol

    ReplyDelete
  95. Re: Secy Clinton's criticism of Israeli religious fanatics (aka, women to the back of the bus)

    The Secretary is correct.

    Now, I am sure that both she and her supporters will not object when some Israeli kindly offers up some prime observation of an American flaw.

    ReplyDelete
  96. .

    …by the way, Quirk, not to nitpick, but...
    "I [challenge] you to name a single American killed while fighting with Israel, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States."

    Knowing you to be a guy interested in remaining "on-topic", I thought I would bring us back to where others and I began prior to your interruption...



    Nonsense.

    You will note that my responses were directed to the issue of the Liberty and your response on that subject.

    It seems to be you who, in fact, are unable to write and chew gum at the same time, not recognizing that you had two arguments going at the same time.

    Instead of staying "on-topic" as usual you conflate any (and all) attacks on your positions (I hesitate to say arguments) as one and the same, not an attack on you and your mumblings alone but as an anti-semitic attack on collectively, you, Israel, Jews in general, Zionism, and kosher food.

    While, I admittedly did find your whining about being ganged up on to be quite amusing, my main concern was with your continued lies and calumnies about the crew of the Liberty and the people big and small who recognize the event for what it was, an intentional attack upon an ally's ship.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  97. allen said...
    Quirk,

    Re: Quirk said...
    .

    ...while insisting for hours on engaging him in silly, convoluted trivia...


    Gosh, Quirk, again I am in your debt. Who knew that you would so readily see how silly others here were behaving and admit it so readily!

    Now, Quirk, how about an answer to that question? Make it as childishly as you must; I'll understand or find an adult Jew to help.

    Sun Dec 04, 02:58:00 PM EST

    ReplyDelete
  98. .

    You are stuttering again Allen.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  99. WiO,

    The reason so much time has been given to garnering an answer to the query, "name of an American killed fighting with Israeli forces, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States", has to do with the constant harping from this site about America fighting Israel's battles and putting a stop to that.

    Although the situation in the ME looks much like America has been fighting Israel's battles, it has not and it is not. Not a single American grunt has died fighting in Israel’s numerous wars of self-defense. To suggest otherwise is far worse than disingenuity.

    What we of conflicted loyalty would like to see is the upholding of contract law. For example, the Palestinian tax receipts were released by Israel last week because the Germans were threatening to stop delivery of a Dolphin submarine (a strategic threat, as Ms Merkel well knew). If the Germans again pull this stunt (this was the third time), one hopes that strategic industrial accidents do not follow in the Fatherland.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Quirk said...
    .

    You are stuttering again Allen.


    .

    Sun Dec 04, 03:24:00 PM EST


    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  101. Quirk: While, I admittedly did find your whining about being ganged up on to be quite amusing, my main concern was with your continued lies and calumnies about the crew of the Liberty and the people big and small who recognize the event for what it was, an intentional attack upon an ally's ship.


    I for one do admit that the Israeli Airforce DID intentionally attack an American ship called the Liberty.

    However that ship, was NOT an friend or ally of Israel. It was an illegal operation that hijacked the ship and was in fact doing great damage to Israel.

    Any US deaths or injuries should be placed directly on the illegal actions of the NSA that took over the ship against standing orders of the military theater

    All US ships were ordered OUT of the area, the only reason that American soldiers were harmed was because a criminal American group was in control.

    This was not the 1st time, nor the last that non-elected members of the American government caused innocents to die do to their illegal actions.

    Fast and Furious comes to mind....

    America is a great nation but some of those in power have done completely anti-american things... Illegal and disgusting.. Totally against what America is all about.

    ReplyDelete
  102. .

    Nothing?

    Da boy appears to be metagrabolized.

    Here let me help you. You seem to be fixated on this question


    Right now, after a day's effort, I still have not a single name of an American killed fighting with Israeli forces, in uniform, under orders of the government of the United States.



    Though, I have little interest in the subject and frankly miss the point, I will answer it.

    However, fair is fair.

    Months ago, you accused me of being anti-Semitic. I denied it but recognizing that self-delusion might be involved, I asked you to provide specific examples of my anti-Semitism not only to enlighten me on my shortcomings but also to demonstrate for the blog how you specifically define an anti-Semite.

    So please, answer my question and I will answer yours.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  103. Quirk,

    Lad, you have not used either "USS Liberty" or "Liberty" as an antecedent. Indeed, there is not a single such “in re”.

    If I am wrong, kindly direct me to a comment having to do exclusively with either the "USS Liberty" or the "Liberty". Simply point out where “Liberty” or “USS Liberty” was used by you in reference. You will find, I fear, that your comments were on the whole desultory and unfocused…not that I mind, this being a blog and all…

    ...clock still ticking...Can Quirk give us the answer, Precioussss?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Quirk,

    You are a silly man. You could not possibly answer the question (Although I can well imagine you thinking quite the opposite).

    By the way, Pancho, you disturbed the force of this thread by introducing a quote of mine you assumed had to do with the Liberty - without bothering to provide an antecedent. This has gone on since 09:15am, EST, in your usual disinterested way.


    Yes, you are a silly man, who should husband is limited time on earth.

    Away with you, Puck!

    ReplyDelete
  105. .

    This was not the 1st time, nor the last that non-elected members of the American government caused innocents to die do to their illegal actions.



    I'm sure the same can be said of Israel, WiO. The interpretation of those incidents are what makes the difference.

    I have no argument with you holding the position you do on the Liberty incident although we differ on the true reasons for the attack.

    When the blog discussed this in the past, there were pages of references listed on both sides of the argument and I came to the same conclusion you did, that the attack was deliberate.

    There have been numerous reasons offered for Israel's attack. Frankly, I have no idea what the real reason was. However, I must admit I don't really believe the reasons you have offered up. The US was an ally of Israel at the time and the only force strong enough to prevent the Soviets from intervening in some manner to help Egypt and their other Arab clients. The claim that the NSA highjacked the ship and was proceeding on its own authority to provide info is in my opinion ludicrous.

    You have made these claims before but the only reference I have seen you make was from John Loftus, a man who by his account almost single-handedly won the Yom Kippur War for Israel in 1973, a man who was fired from Fox news for endangering the lives of American citizens, and who's proof for his assertions involve mostly 'old spies' and other anonymous sources.

    We can differ in our opinion on the Liberty but don't mistake what my position is here. The Israelis may have thought they had reason to attack the Liberty. They may have felt justified in doing it.

    My main objection is with an American administration and military that when it became aware of the attack on the Liberty did not sent in the full force of American air power to destroy the attacking planes and boats and then proceeded to cover up the inaction.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  106. I have a mental image of Allen as a petulant, diminutive man stamping his size seven Bostonians.

    ReplyDelete
  107. quirk: My main objection is with an American administration and military that when it became aware of the attack on the Liberty did not sent in the full force of American air power to destroy the attacking planes and boats and then proceeded to cover up the inaction.


    The REASON America did not react?

    It KNEW the ship was rogue.

    It KNEW the ship was being used to collect intel and was being given to the british on cyprus and then to the egyptians...

    unless of course the ship was there on the orders of the President of the USA and was spying on Israel on purpose to harm Israel....

    Then it was not a rogue outfit, just an American backstabbing of a friend and ally fighting for her survival....

    I prefer to think it was the NSA going rogue and the reason the USA military did not come to the rescue was that ALL US forces were ordered out of the area DAYS before.

    The Americans that were wounded and killed on the Liberty were sacrificed by an illegal US operation.

    No point in saying that israel has done the same. that aint the point.

    The point is that Americans were "used" by a rogue outfit of our nation.

    JUST like Fast and Furious.

    Just like Iran/Contra

    And who knows how many other Americans have been used and abused by our nation's own doing something illegal...

    ReplyDelete
  108. I agree, Q. Johnson was in that USS Liberty mess up to his sorry ass.

    The most reasonable explanation, for me, is that Johnson was trying to pull of "Tonkin Gulf II," and get into the war against Egypt (and, assumedly, taking the Suez Canal.)

    The man was a vile, evil sonofabitch.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Anonymous said...
    I have a mental image of Allen as a petulant, diminutive man stamping his size seven Bostonians.


    Funny I have an image of a man sticking his size 12 Tony Lama's up the ass of some nitwit....

    Or maybe I am projecting...

    I own the Tony Lamas....

    ReplyDelete
  110. LBJ started the entire shift from traditional immigrants to a focus on 3rd world and moslems...

    LBJ had no problem in shafting Israel in the 1967 war by NOT LIVING up to the USA's treaty obligations.

    If AMerica had kept it's treaty with Israel in 1967? There would have been no six day war.

    All because LBJ could not stand up to Nasser by sailing a SHIP up the Strait of Titran

    LBJ=Pussy.

    ReplyDelete
  111. In 1956 israel, france and england "took" the seuz canal.

    It was America that forced Israel to return the entire sinai...

    for the 1st time....

    ReplyDelete
  112. .

    Lad, you have not used either "USS Liberty" or "Liberty" as an antecedent. Indeed, there is not a single such “in re”.

    You prove my point about you being a child.

    Reading my posts, most adults on the blog would recognize they were all about the Liberty up to the point where I had to digress to answer your childish post on the anus, oh, and to laugh when you began whining about being picked on.

    Poor baby.

    However, this takes the cake

    ...clock still ticking...Can Quirk give us the answer, Precioussss?


    How many months have I waited for that answer on the anti-Semitism? How many months must I wait?


    And with regard to the "precioussss and sweeties", perhaps you should try to butch it a little.

    Just a suggestion.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  113. Funny I have an image of a man sticking his size 12 Tony Lama's up the ass of some nitwit....


    Obviously you missed his post.


    You have no idea how difficult it is to find a size 12 ballroom dance stiletto in red.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  114. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  115. .

    In 1956 israel, france and england "took" the seuz canal.

    It was America that forced Israel to return the entire sinai...



    The US was opposed to military action with Egypt. The world was aware of this. Yet Americas good friends and allies, the British, the French, and the Israelis decided to attack Egypt without even notifying the US. When the US then proves unwilling to condone this fait accompli, the three amigos pout.

    And since the amigos, especially Britain and Israel, needed American support and more importantly in Britain's case its money, they backed off.

    That is not to say none gained from the war. Israel did after all end up with the navigation rights in the straights of Tiran one of their main objectives.

    .

    .

    ReplyDelete
  116. .

    As I pointed out before, it all depends on you perspective.


    The REASON America did not react?

    It KNEW the ship was rogue.

    It KNEW the ship was being used to collect intel and was being given to the british on cyprus and then to the egyptians...



    Rogue?

    Nonsense.

    It knew the ship was being used to collect intell?

    Of course it was. It was a spy ship. It was collecting information on anyone it could, Egypt, the Soviets, Israel if they popped up on its screens. But the ship was still an ally of Israel and cruising slowly in international waters.

    Passing on info on Israel's war plans to Egypt.

    Info from another one of John Loftus' 'old spies'?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  117. I remember reading that Eisenhower was double, triple pissed, because he was in the middle of trying to figure out how to help the Hungarians with their uprising when the Suez thing came down.

    He was about ready to bomb the brits.

    ReplyDelete
  118. .

    LBJ started the entire shift...LBJ=Pussy


    Pussy isn't exactly the word I would use to describe LBJ though I share your disdain for the man. However, again I guess it comes down to perspective.

    Clark Clifford took on Marshall and the 'Wise Men' in the Truman administration and pushed for recognition of Israel. He served as Secretary of Defense for LBJ and was considered a friend of Israel.

    I never viewed LBJ as anything but a friend of Israel. For instance, we talked of the Suez Crisis. Ike was pushing hard for sanctions against Israel to force them to withdraw from Egyptian territory. LBJ was the guy who led the charge against sanctions.

    You say LBJ didn't live up to treaty obligations. It pains me, but I have to plead ignorance on this point. What specific treaty obligation did he not live up to?


    All because LBJ could not stand up to Nasser by sailing a SHIP up the Strait of Titran

    At times your Israeli-centric perspective is gauling. You seem to forget what was going on in the world in 1967. The height of the cold war, Vietnam, demonstrations against Vietnam, China and Russia were inching closer to war, there were race riots across the US, Che Guivera and the Cubans were enciting in countries across SA, hot spots across the clobe, and you are upset because the US didn't escalate cold war tensions by provoking Egypt and the Soviets.

    .



    .

    ReplyDelete
  119. Tehran has focused part of its military strategy on producing drones for reconnaissance and attacking purposes.

    Iran announced three years ago it had built an unmanned aircraft with a range of more than 600 miles (1,000 kilometers), far enough to reach Israel.

    Ahmadinejad unveiled Iran's first domestically built unmanned bomber aircraft in August 2010, calling it an "ambassador of death" to Iran's enemies.

    ReplyDelete
  120. quirk: That is not to say none gained from the war. Israel did after all end up with the navigation rights in the straights of Tiran one of their main objectives.

    .

    So they WON what was theirs to start with...

    and then in 1967?

    they had to go to war again for those same rights...

    ReplyDelete
  121. US President Barack Obama contacted his Pakistani counterpart Sunday to offer his condolences over the deaths of 24 soldiers killed in a botched NATO airstrike.

    ...

    "The two Presidents reaffirmed their commitment to the US-Pakistan bilateral relationship, which is critical to the security of both nations, and they agreed to stay in close touch," it added.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Wio wrote:

    "LBJ had no problem in shafting Israel in the 1967 war by NOT LIVING up to the USA's treaty obligations."

    What treaty obligation was that?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Quirk,

    Re: Liberty (antecedent and reference)

    Facts is facts,Lad, and they ain't on your side.

    Israel did not attack the Liberty with malice aforethought – so says the evidence following numerous official investigations lead and manned by countless active duty service members over decades. Admittedly, DR and T do side with you. But I stick with the Armed Forces of the United States.

    That you would smear Israel following the numerous investigations of the tragedy only proves that you might have anti-Semitic tendencies. That you would smear the countless American service members who worked this problem over decades proves beyond doubt that you are anti-Semitic and a despicable excuse for a human being.

    Yeah, Quirk, I know: We are all “pussies” and “dicks”. But, facts is facts, Punk.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Whit!
    Bienvenue à nouveau...Bentornato....Bienvenido de nuevo...

    The Bar is not the same without you. Since you've been gone singing has been banned by some. T has only changed names twice. Rufus just had a baby. Yes, a boy. WiO? Well, what he just posted an hour ago is the same thing he posted the day you left and everything in between. He still thinks everyone as Jew/Zionist/Israel hating bastards and DR sits at the top of that list all calm, cool and collective as usual. After a long hiatus, Allen, came back thinking he was on redemption island and not at the EB. He couldn't have been more apologetic to T for whatever pain he'd caused her in the past. Eventually, he found his way back. Your partner has become more vocal and even developed a sense of humor on some level. I think he might run for president. Quirk has grown into a fine young man. Probably the most sincere next to Ash. Doug is always a day or two behind schedule so we're not really sure what he might say and Sam, well, he's always pleasant. Anonymous, Anonymous, and Anonymous are just pussies hiding behind the curtain thinking we don't know who they really are. But really? Really? As far as the new comers, are they really new comers? See nothing has change.

    Welcome back. I hope it's to stay. But after skimming through today's thread, I doubt you'll be back anytime soon.

    this one is for you

    ReplyDelete
  125. While I'd be in favor of an Israeli/USA Mutual Defense Treaty, or Israel in NATO, I can't find where in 1967 we had anything other than an extradition treaty with Israel.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  126. Ash said...

    Wio wrote:

    "LBJ had no problem in shafting Israel in the 1967 war by NOT LIVING up to the USA's treaty obligations."

    What treaty obligation was that?


    The peace treaty between the DNC and AIPAC.

    ReplyDelete
  127. WiO:

    LBJ=Pussy.

    You say "pussy" like it's a bad thing.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Anyone want a Minuteman III missile silo?

    There are 50 in Montana looking for a new owner, or they're going to get filled with gravel.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  129. WiO: All because LBJ could not stand up to Nasser by sailing a SHIP up the Strait of Titran

    Bad things happen to American ships when the Israelis get their dander up. Besides, what's up the Strait of Tiran? Eilat and Aqaba. Not exactly a world class destination. Regional maybe. I'm sure it's nice for folks from Beersheba to stick their feet in the saltwater. But for Americans it'd be like driving 1,700 miles from Seattle just to visit a city park in Kansas City.

    ReplyDelete
  130. Mel,

    …a beautiful song…

    When I was the age of the actors in this song I was struggling with all my might to survive the murderous machinations of a government that was willing to let 93% of my comrades die needlessly.

    On 8 June 1967, using a “procured” battery and chowing-down on some “liberated” C-rations, we listened to this song and hoped for a new day (literally).

    Enjoy…

    link

    ReplyDelete
  131. The US did not in 1967, nor has it today, a defense treaty with the Zionist entity.

    ReplyDelete
  132. allen said...

    The US did not in 1967, nor has it today, a defense treaty with the Zionist entity.


    We don't even recognize their occupation of Jerusalem. Otherwise the US embassy would be in that "capital" rather than in Tel Aviv.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Re: friendly fire casualties (antecedent referenced)

    This is what we admit to doing to our fellow Americans, accidently, during wartime. It is a bit harder to find the damage we do our allies and they do us during combat operations.

    War/Campaign Percent Casualties (U.S. Military only)*
    World War II 21%
    Korea 18%
    Vietnam 39%
    Persian Gulf 52%
    Panama .08%
    Haiti 0%
    Iraq 41%
    Afghanistan 13%


    Friendly Fire Notebook

    Granted, if we would turn such operations over to "big brains", like Quirk and T (20/20 hindsight), things would go so much smoother. But we mere mortals do our best while actually participating during the fog of real war.

    ReplyDelete
  134. Some Republican rivals are losing no time in attacking Mr. Gingrich as his support rises. Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said on ABC’s “This Week” that “when people talk about win-ability, really, you have to look at the other candidates.

    I mean, Newt Gingrich has always run in a heavily Republican congressional district in Georgia, and struggled at times to win that.”

    He also said that Mr. Gingrich has “consistently” put social values in “the back of the bus.”

    ReplyDelete
  135. T said...
    We don't even recognize their occupation of Jerusalem. Otherwise the US embassy would be in that "capital" rather than in Tel Aviv.

    Sun Dec 04, 09:33:00 PM EST


    That's rather simpleminded of you, old girl. You used to be so much better.


    If you would bother to study the history of the requisite UN resolution, you would know that Jerusalem was never on the table for negotiation. It is our capitol - that simple, as even the Ruskies were willing to concede.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Allen: If you would bother to study the history of the requisite UN resolution, you would know that Jerusalem was never on the table for negotiation. It is our capitol - that simple, as even the Ruskies were willing to concede.

    Review the 1947 Partition Map again.

    Jerusalem is supposed to be an International City administered by the UN.

    That the green areas representing the Jewish areas of Palestine are now de facto larger than the original map is due to conquest and occupation. No one outside of Israel recognizes it. The US will only locate our Embassy in the original green areas, unless we elect someone like McCain or Bachmann or Palin.

    ReplyDelete
  137. T,

    Re: "1947..." (antecedent referenced)

    As Quirk would say, "Please, stop; you are embarassing yourself" (admittedly, he would not use the semi-colon...Hemmingway never used one - EVER).

    The Muslims rejected all rational proposals, just as you do now, and insisted on "driving the Jewish entity into the sea." How'd that work out for ya?

    Long story short, T, when you lose wars, well, you are, as Quirk would put it, "a dick". (add a little hootch and he will throw in a oleaginous "anus". As we say down here in Dixie, "There's sumpin' wrong wit dat boy.")

    :-))))

    ReplyDelete
  138. allen said...
    T,

    Re: "1947..." (antecedent referenced)

    As Quirk would say, "Please, stop; you are embarassing yourself" (admittedly, he would not use the semi-colon...Hemmingway never used one - EVER).

    The Muslims rejected all rational proposals, just as you do now, and insisted on "driving the Jewish entity into the sea." How'd that work out for ya?

    Long story short, T, when you lose wars, well, you are, as Quirk would put it, "a dick". (add a little hootch and he will throw in an oleaginous "anus". As we say down here in Dixie, "There's sumpin' wrong wit dat boy.")

    :-))))

    Sun Dec 04, 10:09:00 PM EST

    ReplyDelete
  139. That was a nice song, Melody.


    Bobby Darin sucks.


    b

    ReplyDelete
  140. If you would bother to study the history of the requisite UN resolution, you would know that Jerusalem was never on the table for negotiation. It is our capitol - that simple, as even the Ruskies were willing to concede.

    Sun Dec 04, 09:43:00 PM EST


    "our capitol"

    I thought our capitol was Washington, D.C. I thought you were an American.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  141. Quirk has told us how much he dislikes getting off topic, and forget about even bringing up stuff from a preceding thread into one of Deuce’s new productions…just isn’t done…The Elephant Bar’s Miss Manners will see to that.

    Well, Quirk's panties must have been in a knot this morning, because he did not go just a single thread back. Oh, no, he went back two threads! Why, this is unprecedented! Why, this must have been an emergency to get Quirk to break his own solemn rules of blog etiquette with a doppelganger?

    What did "allen" say to Quirk to cause such a course of events? Nothing. Allen was conversing with Ms T.

    You are such a bag of hypocrisy and duplicity. That’s why I KNOW you to be an anti-Semitic ball of trash. You were wise to stay off Wretchard’s site: Those guys and gals would have your lunches into the next millennium. Only this place makes an honored place for a Himmler look-alike.

    ReplyDelete
  142. Aware that many of his people still view Iran with distrust, and have little desire to become a satellite of Tehran, Mr Maliki has insisted that he is trying to steer a neutral course between the growing rivalry for Middle East hegemony between the Saudi and Iranian governments.

    "Iraq is not a follower of any country," he said. "Clearly, we are no enemy to Iran and we do not accept that some who have problems with Iran would use us as a battlefield.

    Some want to fight Iran with Iraqi resources as has happened in the past. We do not allow Iran to use us against others that Iran has problems with, and we do not allow others to use us against Iran."

    ReplyDelete
  143. Cain to Endorse Gingrich

    Looks as though his new mantra is Newt-Newt-Newt. Fox 5 Atlanta reports that former GOP candidate Herman Cain will reportedly endorse current GOP frontrunner Newt Gingrich for the presidential nomination Monday. The news comes a day after Cain quoted a Pokémon movie and “suspended” his race. Meanwhile, Iowa polls show that Gingrich has a strong 26 percent of the vote, while Mitt Romney has only 18 percent. Ater Cain dropped out, several candidates, including Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul, made their case for why Cain supporters should vote for them.
    Read it at Politico

    December 4, 2011 10:39 PM

    b

    ReplyDelete
  144. bob,

    I should think you would have a good many things to worry about other than my choice of stylistic prose. The good folks here, including Quirk, direct you to the med-cabinet often enough.

    Just as Navajo could both be Navajo and serve on Iwo Jima, twit, it is possible for Jews to be a good, non-child molesting Americans and a Jews.


    ...hope I wasn't too rough, Cowboy...

    :-)

    PS: The next time you want to fight, bring a man. (May I suggest T?)

    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  145. Hysterical yet? One side here argues facts, another side emotion.

    ReplyDelete
  146. sorry, bob et al

    Re: "our capitol" (antecedent referenced)

    BAZINGA!

    :-D))))

    ReplyDelete
  147. Quirk isn't anti-semitic.

    He's anti-hillbilly, which pisses me off, (he thinks a furrow is something in one's brow) but he's not anti-semitic.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  148. Anonymous said...
    Hysterical yet? One side here argues facts, another side emotion.

    Sun Dec 04, 11:03:00 PM EST



    Well, bob (if it is the neutered ghost of bob), I could waste time pulling up derogatory comments made by your buds concerning your lack of sanity. But, bob, do you really want to go there? bob, pop an alprazolam (may I suggest 1mg?) and clock out, Sport.

    ReplyDelete
  149. Leon Panetta is a known Jew Hater. The Jewish media is at Defcon 2 over him and can you believe it Ron Paul is in second place. What next?

    ReplyDelete
  150. Check in to the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation, Allen, you really really need it.

    g'nite

    b

    ReplyDelete
  151. Quirk is antiseptic.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Re: Leon Panetta

    I was unaware of Panetta's anti-Jewish proclivities, anon.

    I thought that, like you or Quirk, he would sell his wife/mom/sister for a buck.

    ReplyDelete
  153. How is it that Leon Panetta is a known Jew Hater? First I heard of that. Where is your proof?

    ReplyDelete
  154. I don't think the U.S. has a "Capitol."

    The U.S. has a "Capital. That would be Washington D.C.

    ReplyDelete
  155. I don’t buy it that Panetta is a Jew Hater. I believe that Panetta is talking for Obama. That much is obvious.

    ReplyDelete
  156. However, I suspect that Q just might be antiseptic.

    ReplyDelete
  157. I think I will do a post on the Polish cavalry.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Some clarity would be nice.

    If Quirk wants to hide behind "anon" and bob wants to hide behind "anon" and some others want to hide behind "anon", can't you insist that they each announce themselves and take a number.

    Using Quirk's nomenclature, we would then have "pussy #1 ... pussy #n".

    All being honorable, there should be no problem...Right...

    ReplyDelete
  159. Mohammad Seddiq Seddiqi, head of juvenile prisons in Afghanistan, said: “About 80 per cent of the girls are in for these moral crimes.

    Afghan society really hates these crimes. People really hate it when girls run away.”

    Human Rights Watch said the two biggest girls’ prisons, in Kabul and Herat, were almost exclusively populated by inmates convicted of moral crimes.

    ReplyDelete
  160. Of course he's speaking for Obama. Just like H. Clinton is. Just like the Ambassador to Brussels is.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Re: Quirk - antiseptic

    And where is your boy, the bowl-brush?

    …what a surprise, coming from a guy who has hidden behind the “little wet hen” for two days, now, hoping not to have to answer two deflating questions. (Yes, I know: It would take an entire new universe to hold all that EB BS, but let's imagine).

    By the way, Pork Chop, what was your answer...Looks like your cavalry has gone to bed, leaving the great Khan to hold the field on his own. Come on, give it a try: name one, single, solitary American...

    :-)

    Just admit the obvious: You cannot do it. NEVER has Israel asked for a single American boot on the ground. And never has an American died fighting with Israeli armed forces in combat, in uniform, under orders from the government of the United States.

    Come on, Rufus, help me out here. You know what I'm saying. Consider it a matter of the Corps.

    Oh, and it's still

    Israel 13
    Others 0

    Sadly, the only cure for anti-Semitism is flushing or hanging followed by cremation and dumping.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Several states have adopted the practice of explaining their decisions. Virginia issues public notices praising specific aspects of an applicant’s rehabilitation.

    Obama officials believed changes in the pardon system could be made by executive order. But two years later, pardon reform efforts were dead.

    ...

    The pardons office continues to function much as it did under Bush, with Obama pardoning only applicants recommended by the office. Obama has denied 1,019 pardon requests, more than Clinton denied during his two terms.

    ReplyDelete
  163. Allen, you've got to be on the bender to end all benders.

    But, since you asked. I have a friend that had to walk out of the Sinai when he awoke behind 500 or so Egyptian tanks.

    So, yes, we had "boots on the ground" there.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Rufus said...
    So, yes, we had "boots on the ground" there.

    Mon Dec 05, 12:16:00 AM EST

    Re: benders

    No, Rufus, that would have been my six-week bender in Hong Kong.

    Returning to your friend in the desert, do elaborate. You did notice that "I" did not say no Americans etc...I asked my opponents to name, instead.

    That said, your friend did not serve or walk out of the desert wearing an American uniform. (No disrespect intended)

    ReplyDelete
  165. .

    My. My. My.

    What the heck happened here?

    Take a little time off to watch Sunday Night Football, come back and find Allen has run amok.

    Good lord, where to begin.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  166. Rufus,

    By the way, Semper Fi!

    I knew, if in fact you were a Marine (note present tense), you would not fail the Corps, even if that meant an oblique retort to me, an adversary. Those who have never served under her colors will never understand: Once a Marine, always a Marine. Those who have never marched the “Grinder” will never understand: Once a Marine, always a Marine - that means in Hong Kong or Baton Rouge.

    Again, thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Whether he was wearing his Ranger patch when he walked out I didn't ask. But, walk out he did.

    ReplyDelete
  168. .

    First, Bob, I can't be predjudiced against hillbillies as I am one.

    You may recall I was born in Tennessee.

    I think the word you were looking for was hayseed.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  169. .

    Deuce, I think doing a stream on the Polish calvary would be great as I am also Polish.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  170. Quirk,

    Re: Allen has run amok.


    Stick with your strong suite, TV.

    Allen never runs amok. That those with advanced supra-orbital-toursi might think so comes as no surprise on this blog.

    Come on, Big Guy, name a single American ...


    :-)

    ReplyDelete
  171. .

    Melody, that was a great post and I will try to post some more music.

    You are right, Whit used to put up some good tunes.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  172. The only way I know anything about it was it was told in the context of a funny story involving a botched extraction, a Judge in Huntsville, Al, and a pretty serious DUI/Auto Accident.

    ReplyDelete
  173. .

    Rufus, I seem to have missed the part about you having a baby.

    If that's true, congratulations.

    You must truly be optimistic.

    That's great.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  174. .

    Alright Allen, I've now pulled off all the posts you've directed specifically to me with some kind of question or assertion.

    You have been a busy boy. In the course of one football game you've compiled quite a litany.

    You'll forgive me if I ignore the posts where you used my name while insulting other posters or where you merely threw out the gratuitous insults. While some of them are quite telling, if I responded to all of them I would be up all night.

    I will try to do this in the order received.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  175. .

    First, regarding the Liberty.

    Israel did not attack the Liberty with malice aforethought...


    None here agree with you. Even you bud WiO says your full of shit.


    But I stick with the Armed Forces of the United States.

    The "countless" military involved in these so-called hearings were primarily pencil-pushers. Military from the Joint Chiefs on down have decried the findings of the of the one actual hearing on this matter and denounced it as a cover-up.

    You can stand with the military that did as instructed, I will stand with the 200 hundred servicemen who were killed or wounded.

    By the way, do you also stand with the military that were involved with Richard Nixon in the framing of General John Lavelle?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  176. Quirk said...
    I will try to do this in the order received.


    You know, Quirk, right about now, I find so many things more important than you. For example, I am a Marine, and my son will soon become a Marine. That places me a head and shoulder above anyone who is not. In fact, I had almost forgotten what it was like, until an exchange with Rufus.


    Quirk, think, if you can, about two old men, who suddenly recall a sacred vow, an undying trust. But, of course, Quirk, you cannot. You have never put your life on the line for a cause beyond your miserable life. When you look at "The Wall" you will never see young (forever young) mates, who took that round between the eyes or who gave you to drink from his canteen as you marched past his truck. Instead, you and others like you will desecrate the memory of real men. Like your idol Caligula, you will pay homage to a horse's rear end and think yourselves clever. A pox on you and all like you.

    ReplyDelete
  177. .

    That you would smear Israel following the numerous investigations of the tragedy only proves that you might have anti-Semitic tendencies. That you would smear the countless American service members who worked this problem over decades proves beyond doubt that you are anti-Semitic and a despicable excuse for a human being.

    Well this really kind of clarifies a lot

    I asked you for your definition of an anti-Semite. The only example you can give me is that I disagree with you on the Liberty incident.

    But WiO also disagrees with you on the Liberty incident; therefore, I assume you regard WiO as anti-Semitic. And this would make all the men who served on the Liberty including the Jews aboard anti-Semitic also since they disagree with you. Then there is Dean Rusk (SOS at the time), Clark Clifford, (SOD at the time), Ward Boston (Senior Council on the Inquiry), Adm. Moorer (Head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff), the head of the NSA, various embassy personell who had seen the communications, well, I could go on but what's the point under your definition they are all anti-Semitic because they disagree with you on this issue. Very telling.

    This one is a little confusing however.


    That you would smear the countless American service members who worked this problem over decades proves beyond doubt that you are anti-Semitic and a despicable excuse for a human being.


    :)

    Did you read this before you posted it? Countless? First, had you bothered to read the info I provided on the so-called hearings you would realize there just weren't that many military types involved other than scribes, pencil pushers and those doing the copying.

    Second, since all the people I mentioned above who disagree with the findings fall into the same category as me, once again you are calling them anti-Semitic.

    Third, I have to believe that the 'military' that you are talking about just given normal distributions would not consist entirely or mostly of Jews; therefore, how can my views on their work indicate that I am anti-Semitic.

    The only thing I can assume is that in any instance where a non-Jew disagrees with you on anything having to do with Jews, Israel, or Zionism, they are ipso facto anti-Semitic in your view.

    I have suspected this for some time but the clarification is helpful.

    .

    ReplyDelete
  178. .

    You are such a bag of hypocrisy and duplicity. That’s why I KNOW you to be an anti-Semitic ball of trash.


    Whoops. We now have another definition of what it takes to be an anti-Semite. This is starting to get a little confusing.


    You were wise to stay off Wretchard’s site: Those guys and gals would have your lunches into the next millennium.

    Geez, you could be right. I've stopped in a couple times, got bored, and left. So I don't really know any of those guys. Of course Habu, you know the guy you killed with your witty reparte, he stopped in about six months ago. He stated what a shit world it was and that the EB should get off it's collective ass and do something. When I pointed out that he wasn't really specific about what it was he would like us to do and questioned him on what he had done lately, he never responded. Haven't seen him since.

    Now I had expected Buddy Larsen to show up over here but unless he is merely trolling he hasn't done so.

    I recall at the time you were asked to leave the bar and Whit and Deuce were talking about shutting the EB down, I went over
    to the BC and noticed the post where you were telling Buddy how mean we all were at the EB and how we were talking about him. It was kinda like those nerdy little kids you knew growing up that were always telling tales trying to get in with the big boys.

    As I recall, Buddy mentioned he would have to stop in at the EB to see what was going on. Haven't seen him. Of course, he may have come over checked a few streams, saw you were full of shit and left.

    One wonders why a clever guy like you doesn't spend all of his time over at the BC. Could it be they also have grown tired of your favorite subject?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  179. .

    Some clarity would be nice.

    If Quirk wants to hide behind "anon" and bob wants to hide behind "anon" and some others want to hide behind "anon", can't you insist that they each announce themselves and take a number...



    Gee, Allen, I don't need to use an Anonymous to tell you what I think of you.

    Don't you remember the last time you brought this subject up, Deuce checked it out for you.

    Funny thing, the were no Anonymous postings out of Michigan but quite a few out of Georgia.

    Strange, no?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  180. .

    Allen never runs amok.



    :)

    Right.

    And I always drive better after a couple drinks.


    .

    ReplyDelete
  181. Quirk said...
    And I always drive better after a couple drinks.


    I'll just bet you do. And I bet your wife would also agree.

    Have a good night, Lassie.

    ReplyDelete