“Soft despotism is a term coined by Alexis de Tocqueville describing the state into which a country overrun by "a network of small complicated rules" might degrade. Soft despotism is different from despotism (also called 'hard despotism') in the sense that it is not obvious to the people."
Wednesday, December 12, 2012
(Reuters) - World powers meeting in Marrakech recognized Syria's new opposition coalition as "the legitimate representative of the Syrian people"
Just one question: Would you like the “World Community” selecting these assholes to be your new masters and leaders?
Here is the rest of the crowd:
Posted by Deuce ☂ at 12/12/2012 04:40:00 AM
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Assad better get out of Dodge. His line of defense will break everywhere in a mass ass protection maneuver. Then the real ventilator splat will begin.ReplyDelete
Assad and the Alawites have no where to go.ReplyDelete
To your point:Delete
A large number of civilians from Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's Alawite sect are reported to have been killed or hurt in a village in Hama province.
Some opposition activists said as many as 300 people may have died in Aqrab.
They said pro-government militiamen besieged by rebels had blown up a building in the village where they had been holding the civilians hostage, and it had then been bombed by warplanes.
There has been no word so far from the government or state media.
A video posted online by opposition activists purported to show a young Alawite boy who survived the events in Aqrab, which is about 40km (25 miles) south-west of the city of Hama.
Speaking at a makeshift rebel field hospital, he said that 300 Alawite civilians were killed when government forces destroyed a building where pro-government Shabiha militiamen were holding them hostage.
"Shabiha came to us, claiming they were going to protect us from the rebels," the boy said. "They stopped us from leaving the house, and killed my father, my mother and my brother."
Continue reading the main story
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights received a series of contradictory reports on events in the village of Aqrab”
Syrian Observatory for Human Rights
UK-based activist group
Activists said the militia-controlled building was being besieged by the rebel Free Syrian Army (FSA).
The Shabiha, who are almost entirely Alawite, were using the civilians as human shields, according to the activists.
They said village elders were sent to negotiate a release of the hostages and surrender of the militiamen.
But the elders were seized and killed, the militia threw grenades at hostages who were trying to run away, and then blew the building up as they themselves escaped, the activists claimed.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said it believed between 125 and 150 people, almost all of the Alawites, had been killed by gunfire and explosions in Aqrab.
Incrementalism never works well for tyrants does it?ReplyDelete
the Syrian government, out of its care for its people's lives, had asked the UN Supervision Mission to visit, inspect and calculate the stocks of a private sector chlorine processing plant, located to the east of Aleppo city, after information that the terrorist groups were then planning to take hold of it.ReplyDelete
The Supervision Mission however could not do this because the terrorists opened fire on its members as they were trying to visit the plant, the Ministry added.
"The terrorist groups recently took hold of the plant which includes tons of the poisonous chlorine following the latest U.S.-Western campaign, with all the risks this issue implies," it said.
The Ministry expressed Syria's warning that the terrorist groups might resort to using chemical weapons against the Syrian people, and its denunciation of the international community's inaction to deal with the developments after the terrorist groups recently took hold of a Chlorine processing plant to the east of Aleppo city.
"Syria also denounces not holding the supporters of the terrorist groups to account according to the relevant UN Security Council resolutions," the letters added.
They slammed the hostile campaign against Syria as being characterized by the absence of the moral dimension, saying that "countries which used these or other similar weapons like the US, are not worthy to launch such a campaign, especially that [the US] used the pretext of Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction (WMD) to justify its invasion and occupation of this Arab country in 2003.
The Foreign and Expatriates Ministry highlighted that Syria has scores of times made it clear that it will not use chemical weapons, if they exist, against its people under any circumstance, and stressed its commitment to its legal obligations according to the agreements and protocols it signed.
"Moreover, the Ministry added, "Syria submitted by the end of 2003 a draft resolution to the UN Security Council on Middle East Zone Free of Nuclear, Biological and Chemical (NBC) Weapons."
However, the Ministry said, the US and the countries following it hindered the draft resolution and prevented the Security Council from adopting it.
It went on saying that Syria was not surprised by the U.S. move a few days ago to foil the UN efforts to hold a conference to establish a zone free of weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East, which was due to be held by the end of 2012.
“All of that was in defense of Israel, the only party in the region which has not signed the WMD agreements,” it added.
As was correctly stated above, the Alawites having no where to go, even if Assad and a few others might depart, the others might well fight on, seeing it as kill or be killed. Some stout Colonel among them might even decide to use those chemical weapons on his own. It's hard to see, after decades of this, the place turning into a peaceful melting pot. Besides the Alawites being so brutal, they are also heretical swine, and the Christian dogs are thought to worship a human being.ReplyDelete
Some Russian reactions.
Russia to return to Afghanistan after US occupation
Some of the Afghans back in the hills think they are still there, and we is they.
"I was always embarrassed by the words sacred, glorious and sacrifice and the expression in vain. We had heard them, sometimes standing in the rain almost out of earshot, so that only the shouted words came through, and had read them, on proclamations that were slapped up by billposters over other proclamations, now for a long time, and I had seen nothing sacred, and the things that were glorious had no glory and the sacrifices were like the stockyards at Chicago if nothing was done with the meat except to bury it."ReplyDelete
Allahu Akbar الله أكبر
So far the rulers and masters have been totally unsuccessful in drumming up any "give a shit" among the American people. Thank God.ReplyDelete
Their Oil is no longer sufficient for their own needs, much less export; they are not self-sufficient in food, and they can manufacture nothing that the world wants to buy.
This place will be a horrible, overpopulated mess for years to come.
General Manager Mick Henderson said that Commonwealth Agri-Energy was pleased with the results and anticipates expanding the collaboration with Delta BioRenewables in 2013. “The sugars in sweet sorghum were fermented in the same way as corn, without any significant changes to our process. I believe that our co-op could produce 5 percent or more of our overall annual ethanol production using sweet sorghum grown on nearby marginal land and under-utilized pasture,” said Henderson. “Everything came off without a hitch. We wanted to see the sweet sorghum juice in a full truckload lot, run our own analytical profile, and then introduce the juice in our fermentation system at full scale.”ReplyDelete
Sweet Sorghum Ethanol from a standard Corn Ethanol Plant
This is exciting news from Commonwealth Agri-Energy, that the sweet sorghum can be processed in the first generation distilleries, set up initially for corn.ReplyDelete
It's, actually, got me rethinking the whole "cellulosic" idea. You can grow sorghum on some mighty sorry ground.Delete
Whether or not the Federal government "needs" the money from the sale of assets, or not, most of the land the Federals hold should be sold.ReplyDelete
As in HealthCare, private ownership and management is preferred to the socialized management the Federals provide.
Obviously the National Parks would not be included in the divestment.
The vast tracts of western range lands would be.The Persidio in San Fransico and the military installation in Monterrey CA would be.
Statue of Liberty island, not.
Gettysburg battle fields, not.
The majority of Idaho, yes.
The Federals now hold over 63% of Idaho.
The Federals not selling the land is a modern development ...
Since the early days of the republic there has been disagreement about the disposition of federal lands, with many powerful groups agitating for private exploitation. Until 1976, a total of 1.144 billion acres of federal lands were disposed of. From the tenure of President Theodore Roosevelt until the 1970s, environmentalists who favored Washington's control of the federal lands won most of the battles.
Those who wanted these lands to pass into private ownership were alarmed when Congress passed a law in 1976 directing the Bureau of Land Management to hold land "in perpetuity" instead of systematically disposing of it. This triggered what was known as the Sagebrush Revolt, which peaked in 1979.
Those that favor the new Washington centric management model, supporters of extreme environmental mandates upon economic development.
Those that favor the continue divestiture of the 24% of the United States now in Federal hands, conservatives looking to undo the economic damages that have be levied upon US by the socialists in DC.
No one that supports free enterprise and private markets should support the Federals holding 24% of the land in the US in perpetuity.
Federally owned or administered lands constitute some 24 percent of the total land area of the United States; of this federal land, 89 percent is in the American West, and such lands constitute almost one-half of the total land area of the eleven most western states. 63 percent of Idaho is federal lands....
Of the total federal lands, 44 percent is reserved for grazing and 42 percent for forests and wildlife. Less than 5 percent of the total is for defense or atomic energy. The public lands of the West are mainly public domain that have never left federal control
Why the Federals have to maintain control of grazing and forests, never explained. As Duece pointed out many moons ago, the private lands in PA are much more productive than the public lands.
Markets beat socialism in economic growth and improved standards of living.
Anyone that would not support Federal divestiture either is a dye in the wool Socialist or has a economic stake in the continued poor economic performance that has plagued the western United States since the new policies were implemented, back in the day.
Our farmer friend from Idaho still supports the policies of Jimma Carter and Mike Mansfield.Delete
Truth be told.
Our friend from Arizona wants to turn the poor man's paradise over to the very and exclusive wealthy, maybe even the Chinese.Delete
Most of the American people are with the Friends of the Clearwater and like minded organization all over the state.
Friends of the Clearwater is a grassroots advocacy group that works to protect the public wildlands, wildlife, and waters in the Clearwater Basin. We believe these important natural resources belong to all Americans, and that decision-making should be informed by the best-available science. We oppose efforts, even if well meaning, that seek to circumvent our democratic public decision-making processes. Such actions are not in the best interest of the public or our spectacular wildlands, wildlife, and watersheds.
Join Friends of the Clearwater now!Delete
Sign up here -
The only way the Federal government can protect is by ownership?Delete
You have a nonstarter of an argument
The Florida Keys, the Gulf of Mexico Coast of the US, Chesapeake Bay just some of the thousands of pristine places that are protected by Federal law, but not managed or "owned" by the Socialists.
You kneel at the feet of Jimma and Mike.
And "most" people in the US voted for Obama.
Does that make him or his policies right?
You favor economic stagnation and Federal control of enterprise, in Idaho.
Your arguments for Federal control will be played back in the HealthCare arguments to come.
What "most" folk want, what gets passed into Law.
The best for all of US.
Only by taking over the HealthCare system can the Federal ensure all of US have access to HealthCare.Delete
Just like the forests of Idaho.
Most people in the US did vote for Obama. And most people who voted for Obama don't want to turn the National Forests over to Mitt Romney and a few craven, greedy, exclusive, money now, money forever, money is all there is Republicans, as many see them, or perhaps the Chinese, for an exclusive country club. Many greedy Republicans, especially around here, don't want to see this either.Delete
Heath care and the National Forests are unlike. And, the courts really run the National Forests now. Nearly every move being challenged in court these days.
What "most" folk want, what gets passed into Law.
The best for all of US.
Control of land and business, boobie, are what both are about.Delete
Access to the land was what you said was why Federal management was required.
Access to HealthCare is at least as important as access to the forest.
HealthCare more important to "Most" of us.
Both require Federal control to ensure public access.
With the costs of HealthCare ever rising ...Delete
More and more private citizens will be denied access to the doctors and hospitals that thrive in our North American culture.
Access to all ...
More important than the economic gains to be had by implementing private management.
High costs, which limit services to the affluent, not part of our common culture, according to boob.
He claims the government MUST ensure equal access to our cultural assets.
Crapper again uses his old tired tactic of putting words in other people's mouths and then attacking that.Delete
How can anyone claim that the government MUST ensure equal access to our 'cultual assets'? And what exactly is a cultural or natural asset?
I think the government 'should' ensure equal access to important natural and cultural assets, such as the National Forests. And hope it shall always remain so.
Crapper thinks the government should not, by turning the decision over to a small clique of wealthy folks.
Most people if they ever think about it conclude they would like access to the National Forests.
And, why would they not, come to think of it.
Particularly if they ever got off their fat asses and came and took a look. But, that takes some energy, expense and some hiking usually.Delete
The "National Heritage" and "Culture", boobie, of the United States is one of Free Enterprise and Private Property.ReplyDelete
Not central control and common ownership controlled by the DC stewards of public interest
Crapper, our national heritage is a lot more than that. Hence, we have National Forests and Parks. Yellowstone came very early for instance. If our national heritage and culture were only what you say, we wouldn't have had any National Forests of Parks in the first place, would we?ReplyDelete
Your logic and historical understanding is again defective.
You wouldn't want to destroy the environment of the noble gray wolf, would you?
Yesterday you compared such people to Osama bin Ladeen, people who shoot wolves for sport. Which they don't of course, but it makes good propaganda. And here you are advocating the extermination of the wildlife in the National Forests by turning them over to Free Enterprise and Private Property. Such an outlook makes Osama bin Ladeen look like a piker, by comparison.
Could you please support your contention that the National Forests are more important than healthcare?Delete
I can't think I've ever made the comparison in any way. They seem like apples and oranges to me. Unlike. So, you must be asking crapper.Delete
Must break this off, as I am going downtown.
The only connection I can see between health and the National Forests is that hiking around the forests and breathing fresh air is generally thought to be good for one's health. So perhaps they should be retained just for that purpose alone.Delete
And one's mental health as well.Delete
O who would deprive
The forests magical
From the imaginative child?
But Bob, you argue on the one hand that the Federal Lands are so important that all Americans must have equal access to them, right? That they be kept out of private hands so that all can enjoy, rich and poor.Delete
on the other hand you don't think that every American deserves equal acess to to Healthcare.
Either you believe those federal lands are more important than healthcare or you are not consistent in your thinking.
No, Ash, you see I argue all Americans deserve access to health care. Even the aged and the young, the lame, the insane, all of them. I am for Paradise, too. I do argue that the government has no right to be making the micro rules about that access, and I don't want them in my doctor's office. I argue that the best way to provide access to medical care is to create more teaching hospitals, medical schools, and primary care doctors, along with world class research. I believe medical care in the US will get worse under ObamaCare for everyone, and the money wasted beyond calculation.Delete
In a high pitched voice, Pedro Hernandez, 51 years old, said “not guilty” when asked in Manhattan Supreme Court how he pleaded to murder and kidnapping charges contained in an indictment handed up by a Manhattan grand jury last month. Hernandez is being held without bail.ReplyDelete
Defense attorney Harvey Fishbein said he plans “to attack the sufficiency of the evidence” of the case. He said his client, though found fit to stand trial, has a history of mental illness dating back at least 20 years, including being diagnosed with schizophrenia and schizotypal disorder, which he said can cause hallucinations.
Hernandez’s indictment came three weeks after a man, who had been considered a leading suspect in the disappearance for 30 years, was arrested as he walked out of prison after serving 27 years for molesting two boys.
The bottom line is that we cannot fund our current levels of spending even if we make unrealistically charitable assumptions about taxpayer response to confiscatory tax rates and confiscate the entire annual income of every American who made more than $100K in 2009.ReplyDelete
We have a spending problem.
You just never catch onto them, do you bubba?Delete
You didn't ask yourself "why they referred to 2009," did you?
You know, 2009, the year all the wealthy business-owners took write-downs?
Get your head out of your ass, Bob.
You live in an alternative reality now, bubba.Delete
Get your head out of your ass, Rufus.
How about, I'll take the National Forests, and you folks can have Detroit -
While I'm at it -Delete
By adding such a huge amount of fuel to an already plentiful supply of oil ((((and our leadership in coal and advancements in nuclear power and solar and wind energy))))...well, the future certainly looks bright.
There's a plan, get busy on all of it.
Basically, Sarah Palin's plan, may the Lord bless her.
Did you consult "bubbleplumb polling" on that?Delete
Or, Dick Morris?Delete
Unskewed Polls dot com?
Here's the situation in Idaho:Delete
If they don't get on board by Friday, all of those families with an income between $14,300.00 and $4,008.90 will Not be eligible for either Obamacare OR Medicaid.
This is heart-wrenching because if Idaho would raise their Medicaid limit to $14,300.00 the Federal Government would pick up 100% of the cost for the first 3 years, and 90% thereafter.
Map of StatesDelete
The Syrian Alawites are beginning to shoot Scud missiles around.ReplyDelete
Well, look at that; we even made money off the AIG Bailout ($26 Billion, as a matter of fact!)ReplyDelete
Pigs are a'flyin' now
Quality articles or reviews is the main to invite the users to payReplyDelete
a visit the web page, that's what this website is providing.
Feel free to visit my web page - amber leaf tobacco