Friday, January 18, 2008
|
|
Norman Podhoretz On Iran
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:24 AM
|
I interviewed Norman Podhoretz on Iran on today's program. (Transcript here.) The opening exchange:
HH: I read with great interest your new article in Commentary, Stopping Iran: Why the Case For Military Action Still Stands. And I linked it on the Hugh Hewitt website. But I wanted to talk with you in depth about it, because it’s vitally important. Let’s cut to the chase at the beginning.
NP: Sure.
HH: Do you think President Bush needs to authorize air strikes against Iran now?
NP: Yes, I do. The question is whether he will, although I thought, I was pretty confident that he would before the National Intelligence Estimate came out in early December. I still think in the end, he will order air strikes before he leaves office. But I am, as the NIE would say, I offer that prediction now with only low to moderate confidence.
Read the whole thing. I will soon interview Douglas Frantz, co-author with Catherine Collins of Nuclear Jihadist: The True Story of the Man Who Sold the World's Most Dangerous Secrets...And How We Could Have Stopped Him. No one who reads this book or studies the record doubts that Iran is perilously close to possessing a nuke, and maybe many. Podhoretz understands this, as well as the awful consequences of such a development. Read his article. Read the Frantz/Collins book. And hope that a Republican wins in November for there are very difficult and extremely serious years ahead.
One more exchange from the Podhoretz interview:
HH: Let me agree with you, and set the table a bit closer. You’re a Rudy guy, I’m a Romney guy. And you quote John McCain, and I approve of this, the only thing worse than bombing Iran is letting Iran get the bomb. I’m not a big fan of John McCain’s, but he’s right about this. Do you expect that the top five Republicans, if George Bush were to act in March or April, and that means Huckabee, Thompson and the other three we’ve mentioned, would all come out and stand shoulder to shoulder with the President, and declare that it was a necessary and important thing to do? Because that might be the moment of greatest political defense for the President to act, and I’m hopeful that’s what we’re headed towards.
NP: Well, that’s a great question. I would certainly hope that they would stand behind them, and it would, by the way, be in their political interest to do so, because they would, Democrats would stick them with the responsibility for it anyway. And so I would hope that they would have the simple moral and political courage to back him. I mean, I think that the five minutes after the first bomb were to fall on the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran, there would be a motion to impeach the President. And it would probably go forward. But…our only hope of avoiding a really horrible domestic political situation would be for the Republicans to stand firm.
|
|
What about bombing China for picking on the Kitty Hawk yesterday?
Come on Hugh Cuba is more a danger to us than Iran. |
|
A pugilistic old guy should always be in charge of the military.
Keeps things exciting.
Okay, the serious part. Iran is not a third world nation. It is a nation that was taken over by mad men. No different in many ways than Eastern European countries that were taken over by the Soviets. Eventually that system will fail, just like Soviet Communism, but in the interim we have to contain it. It is a sickness. We need to assist the opposition in Iran whenever possible and maintain a force sufficient to act when necessary and also deter.
And when they move to get the bomb, and they will, we need to be able to act. |
|
IF the winner is Repub, Cool. IF the winner is Dem, 25K B-Busters Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
See, us nefarious-evil neos can play Realpolitic, too! |
|
|
I don't think America wants John McCain in charge of the nuclear briefcase. He would be much too happy to pull the trigger on Iran. |
|
Nice book, Nuclear Jihadist.
When are you planning to explore Jonah Goldberg's new book, Liberal Fascism? Even your buddy, Dennis Prager interviewed him, for an hour, on the radio this past week. ABSOLUTELY fascinating.
Did not know that H.G. Wells coined this title. Back then it was Wells' flashy way to describe that unique LIBERAL ideology desiring the blend between big business and big government.
Yep, those Leftists of today love to screech fascism to describe the far right. How predictable, their twisting this H.G. Wells concept.
HUGH, this book will do more to pi** off liberals then anything you've done in the past several months (yeah, that includes your very open support for Mitt Romney, which they insist on taking credit for in "discovering").
Goldberg backs it up with facts and incredible insight. It is amazing that all of this information, which is readily accessible, has NEVER made it into a Howard Zinn book on political history. Come to think of it, where is Noam Chomsky on this? He miseems to have "missed" it as well with the wall-of-books he's written over the decades. LOL.
Hugh, love to hear you interview Mr. Goldberg and see the fur fly. Thanks for considering.
They are an incredibly scary bunch, those liberal fascists. And right in the back yard of Pathetic Liberal they are very busy.
Every new home and office building built in California has to have a radio frequency transmitter incorporated. WHY? So the STATE can, at will, regulate the air you breathe in your home. Yep, if the state DETERMINES that you have your t-stat set too high, or too low, they do not have to even come knockin' on your door with jackboots. They can do it from afar with faceless little squirmy squids. Geeeesh, I miss living there. It must make those liberals in California proud to be on the cutting edge of flagrant fascism. |
|
that is the dumbest post I've ever read. So it is the LEFT that wants to blend big business and big government? Hmmm... yeah, cause big business did really well in the Soviet Union. Fascism is a right-wing phenomenon -- by definition. Whose definition? Well, try Mussolini, the first major theorist of fascism (which, by the bye, comes from "fasces," a Roman symbol perfect for, well, an Italian dictator).
Why did Krupps, Bayer, etc. do so well under Hitler? Hitler did not appropriate the means of production from capitalists -- indeed, he helped them by supplying slave labor. Communists, on the other hand, appropriate the means of production -- there are NO big businesses in a communist state. If you go to the sources -- Marx, Engels, Lenin -- you will see that the ultimate goal of communism (I make no argument about the actual course of events) is the "withering away of the state" -- it is NOT theoretically a politics of "big government." Fascism is.
Stalinism and fascism have in common totalitarianism and oppression. But so does, say, Bonapartism. Doesn't make them the same thing.
As for the air monitors in CA, that is just silly. ANY state -- fascist, communist, liberal bourgeois democratic etc. -- has regulations at a varying level. It is what states do. But to argue that non-compliance in a liberal state leads to jackboots is just silly and disrespectful to people who really face the prospect of being dragged out of their homes and sent to camps. That -- even in jest -- you consider pollution regulations to be comparable to, say, the oppression in a place like Burma is just absurd. |
|
Call Jonah Goldberg. He's hearing from many people like you who've been drinking kool aid from Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky-types their whole lives. Your response is predictable.
Frankly, I don't want radio transmitters hooked up to my thermostat---unless I put them there, and I control them (you do what you want).
You, on the other hand, are comfortably numb in preparation for life, according to: Boxer, Feinstein, Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Linda Sanchez, Loretta Sanchez, Pete Stark, Maxine Walters, Henry Waxman et al. A 2:1 ratio of liberal, or far Left, to conservative representation. It fits you well.
I'll withold calling YOU dumb at the moment, 'cuz it won't be sufficient enough description for the condition you suffer from.
Fascism was a liberal ideology----conceived by liberals. The very name was coined by H.G. Wells, a liberal. That's okay, manfred, you can't be held 100% responsible for your ignorance. After all, it's been formed and fashioned by those you've studied from. You sure got your money's worth. |
|
|
Manfred might want to look up what the Nazis Party's official name was... |
|
I am simply glad that folks are telling the real stories.
We have allowed, far too long, the Liberals, Leftists to "mind the store" at our learning centers. The narcissistic generation is responsible for this past 30 to 40 years of "skewed" truth.
If you ever get some extra time, read Erin Oconnor's website, "Critical Mass". She's a tenured English professor at UPenn. Her background profile is based upon quite radical variables, however, this fine woman is dedicated to Truth, as it pertains to issues going on within the universities.
http://www.erinoconnor.org/
I can assure you, you will NOT be disappointed.
If you decide to check her out---go back several years into archives. I followed stories through this woman that I NEVER heard from any MSM, or, other sources.
Be well. |
|
By the way, there are always exceptions to any rule. My comment above regarding Liberal-dominance on our university campuses is FACT. Several studies are out there.
David Horowitz simply offered one of the first ones.
You see, I am willing to recognize anomalies in this field, and that is why I mention Erin O'Connor to you.
I consider her a personal hero of mine (having formed this opinion after reading her for years), despite the fact we lead radically opposite lives. |
|
Why are you guys so obsessed with Iran when Americans are getting murdered left and right by the Saudis:
http://www.asecondlookatthesaudis.com
I agree that the NIE does not mean that Iran is not a threat, but it does clearly indicate that we have more time to deal with them. So why not turn your attention to the more immediate threat, the fanatical young men of Saudi Arabia who actually carried out 9/11, and who continue to murder our troops in Iraq (and Lord knows what else they're working on) to this day? |
|
Ah, yes, the old canard -- the Nazis called themselves National Socialists, and therefore are a bunch of leftists. Interesting how "well" their communist brethern did in Germany, then, under their rule?
You can all dumb-down definitions if you like -- simply blending the most general traits together in order to elide differences. The fact remains: the far left and the far right are in stark opposition. Fascism caters to the bourgeoisie, while communism and socialism are workers' parties.
As for Goldberg, he knows that the quickest way to make a buck is to throw a few incidiary claims between covers and pass them off on a bunch of doofuses. |
|
Manfred writes:
"As for Howard Zinn, he knows that the quickest way to make a buck is to throw a few incidiary claims between covers and pass them off on a bunch of doofuses."
There ya go, I fixed it for you. Hey, Manfreda, we all make mistakes. That's what were here for---to help each other out. |
|
Righties with a little History, 'Hawk & Clarity. He is, as I recall, a Giver. The workers & peasants were ably represented by whom on Lenin's Politburo? Nada. Nein. Nyet. None.
Die Rote Capelle was arrested and liquidated by the Nazis because...? The nice Father of the Peoples in Moscow gave the info on the Red Ring. Nice fella....Endless wonderful anecdotes. |
|
Would your "godfather" be pleased with your unhistorical drivel? "Wonderful anecdotes" do not make the far right the far left. Nor, for that matter, does elliding the difference between Stalin and Lenin, for example (consider their profound differences on the Georgia issue just prior to Lenin's death). It is suggestive of the larger issue: communism is an international politics -- it is about the totality -- all workers and all owners. Fascism is a nationalist movement -- typically undergirded with racism. If -- and I'm sure you have -- you have read Lenin and Trotsky, you will note that both made it quite clear that communism could NOT survive in a single country -- Trotsky predicted pretty accurately the decline of the Soviet Union. Hence Lenin's NEP -- a movement back to a limited market economy and a recognition after the failure of a revolution in Germany that Russia could not proceed towards communism in its backwardness.
No Fascist would argue that his country is backward or incapable of achieving its goals. Fascism is a national greatness movement.
So, to restate:
Fascism nationalist, communism internationalist
Fascism aligned with bourgeoisie, communism aligned with proletariat.
Fascism racist, communism not. (and don't give me the Stalinist anti-semitism as a response -- Stalinism is clearly, as I alluded above, a deviation and his anti-semitism was an extension of his anti-Trotskyism).
Fascism idealizes war, communism does not (hence the collapse of the 2nd international and the Bolshevik withdrawal when Kautsky supported German imperialism in WWI).
Strikes me as a quick list but likely sufficient. |
|
Not bad for a Lefty. I would have given you a straight 'B', but then you threw in the usual Lefty Drival about Stalin not being a real communist. Can I presume, based on that nonsense, that you find Mao and his 60-million dead to be another non-real communist? Pol Pot? Fidel & the Butcher Che? Danny-pre'democratic'morph-Ortega?
Lefties look at the toll of 20th Century Communism--More deaths than ALL the Wars in History--and say to themselves,"Yeah, it was a little excessive, but if they'd done the REAL Communist thing, their motives were Goooood".
But, you're showing progress, Manheim. B-Minus. |
|
Well, as I am certain you are aware, Marxism is a tricky thing, with many lines -- quite apparent in, say, Lenin's attacks on the right-deviation of the "renegade Kautsky" and the "infantilism" of left-wing communism. So it is likely fruitless to start going figure by figure and deciding communist or no.
Interestingly, however, you absolve the West (including the US) of its responsibility for Stalin -- not just after the war, but also after the Revolution when they (and WE) invaded Russia to aid the Whites. THAT war helped destroy Russian infastructure and led in no small part to collectivization and mass death.
I am also fascinated by the logic that I so rarely hear applied to neocon activities. So, communists are wrong to argue that (as Trotsky said) the means justify the ends so long as something justifies the ends. Yet, whenever those of us who oppose the war (pointing to the 6-figure death totals, for example), we get trite responses like "freedom isn't free." What about the millions dead in Vietnam? That's different?
Finally, I think it is disingenous to compare the deaths in WAR to the deaths in communist countries. How about deaths as a result of capitalism and imperialism? Start with the millions of Africans and Native Americans who died "building" America. Add from there. |
|
thing more illuminating than the Moscow Printing House stuff, Kid. Wheeeeeeewww. The Cliff Notes are fun, but ya gotta branch out a tad or two.
"Mao:The Unknown Story", Jung Chang & Jon Halliday,(2005, Knopf) will fill you with pride for that which you are defending.
"Hungry Ghosts:Mao's Secret Famine" is a nice companion follow-up. By Jasper Becker,(1996 & 98, Henry Holt).
"Kolyma:The Arctic Death Camps" by Robert Conquest,(1978, Viking) is a good little trial balloon on the topic, along with Ann Applebaum's,"The Gulag", (2003, Doubleday).
We destroyed that sophisticated infrastructure of the fledgling Soviet Union? Oh, Manfred. We gotta hook you up with some history, Dude. You're right, it is unnecessary to compare ALL the deaths from War in History to the 1-Century Toll of the'Progressives'. 100 Million minimal is the figure for the misunderstood communists. Who wouldn't be proud of that? Africans and Indians in the "millions"? Waaaaay off, but you're throwing in the(far more than musketry) American Indian deaths from Small Pox?
Shall I make a little 2-year History, Biography, Memoir list for you? I need look no farther than my own bookshelves. Hey, as you recall, I AM a Giver.
Manny, you're a Lefty and anti-Fascist. Cool. Now, why is it that today's morph of The Left is, apparently, pro-fascist? Kinda cute and paradoxical. Millions dead in VietNam is correct, Manfred, though not the way you intended. |
|
How is the left pro-fascist, do tell?
I never defended Mao, and I won't. I've read Applebaum's tedious book. I have read Conquest, Service, etc. etc. I never said, if you return to my post, that the invasion destroyed Russia's "sophisticated" infrastructure, as you wrote -- Russia was a backward country made all the more backward. Lenin would have been the first to acknowledge that.
Now perhaps you should return to the history books -- there were NOT millions dead as a result of the Middle Passage? Hmmm... And let's go back to WWI -- a war that cost about 8,000,000 lives, a war the communists tried to put a halt to -- not just the Bolsheviks, but Luxemburg et al. in Germany (though not Kautsky or the rest of the Second Int'l). Returning to the original point, the difference between fascism and communism, it was the proto-Nazis who assassinated Rosa Luxemburg after the war.
Who was responsible for the millions dead in Vietnam? It was colonized by French Imperialism, against which the communists struggled. America took over for the French, and occupied the country for over a decade, bombing, attacking with chemical weapons etc. Was that the fault of the communists?
And, again, I am baffled -- give me one example of the far left supporting fascism. |
|
having an exchage with a man stuck in 1968 New Left revisionism. Kind of takes me back, Man!
Rosa Luxumburg, for godsakes? What about Leibnicht? What's next...Bella Kuhn?
Too late here in Florida for this old 60's T-Rex to respond, but I'll try in the a.m. Damn, Manfred, it's almost reassuring to know there's a few Weathermen types still kicking! Thought for sure they'd all morphed into Greeny-GWarming Nutters. Defending the entirely indefensible, long after its death and replacement by a shocking amount of liberty(oh, say Eastern Europe...)is kind of....quaint, in an Antique Lefty sort of way. Okay, Manny, you've sparked my interest.
What Lefties are 'supporting' fascism? Hint: Dark Age Islamist Fascist Butchers v. Jorge Bush. Hmmm. |
|
A) I wasn't even a glimmer in mah daddy's eye in 1968. Not even a thought that had crossed his mind. So no dinosaur here.
B) Let's return to definitions. This whole -- as your godddaddy would tell you -- nonsense about "Islamo-Fascism" is an intellectually lazy nomenclature. The Taliban is far from Fascist, for example, as it is more feudal than anything else. Fascism is a modernizing politics (hence, for example, the connection between Italian Futurist art movements and Fascism -- the cult of technology, the cult of the machine, the city). Islamic fundamentalism is obviously anti-progress. Fascism is (for all, say, Nazi mysticism) really an extension of the Enlightenmnent. I think we can agree that Islamic fundamentalism is not.
Now. I think it is fair to say that the Left does not support Bush. I also think it is fair to say that the Left tends to be supportive of national liberation movements in the faceo of imperialism. But I think you would be hard pressed to find any leftist who truly supports, say, al Q. Who are we talking about here? Is it pro-fascism to think that Bush is a bad president? To think his policies are immoral? To think torture is out of line? |
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/0 00/00
Postmodern Jihad: What Osama bin Laden Learned from the Left. by Walter Newell 11/26/20001 Volume 007 Issue 11
Also Google http://www.schwazreport.org/
This brings up the Christian Anti-Communism Campaign.(CACC) Go to the Essays and read Dr. David A. Noebel "The Worldviews of Destruction in the 20th Century" This organization was founded by someone you never heard of, Dr. Fred Schwaz. He was Ronald Reagan's tutor and mentor on communism. I do not know how to link these to you, so I apologize. Dr Noebel contends that the Jihadists are Marxists. |
|
Hard to find someone still defending the Commi's, outloud anyway.
|
|
our Manny! Looks like the Kid is the poster child result of the imbedded 60's generation professorate. Sad, ain't it? Way too much time in Poly Sci Class. Sometimes the mere resiliancy of the Left amazes moi.
Manfred: If it hates freedom and hates America, it is a Friend of the Left. Think about it,
Boy-yo. Liberation Movements...? 1960's Time Warp.
So...Shining Path? Ya just gotta luv those Peruvian Butchers. 'Course those bad-boys have fallen on Bad Times, eh? Shame about Guzman. Well, that's the breaks.
Back later. |
|
So, let's get it straight. Sandinistas=
butchers. Contras= our dear friends. I got it, I think. Osama our enemy. Except when he was our friend. Taliban bad (after 9/11/01). Taliban business partners before (including paid trips to Texas). Sure. The distinction is clear, and I can see why liberation movements are bad. I can also see why Republicans were against Mandela and the ANC in the 80s.
Now, SEE, little as I like addressing a propaganda rag like the Weekly Standard, or any of the other nonsense you cite -- well, it is nonsense to compare AlQ and communism or Marxism. Let's cite just one famous example of why: "religion is the opiate of the masses"? But that is too easy. Why don't you look up Alexandra Kollotnei -- or other women Bolsheviks -- see how women were treated in the Soviet Union while Lenin was alive, and you will see there were no birkas. Indeed, the Soviet Union had a woman foreign minister before any other country.
One is not Marxist simply in being anti-capitalist. That shows an utter incomprehension of the details of Marxism. In fact, to take an example that people of small minds would probably not get -- the vast majority of, say, the WTO protestors are NOT Marxists -- but anarchists, and Marxists scorn anarchists (going all the way back to Bakunin).
I don't defend "commi's" (sic) in general -- I don't defend Mao, for example. But I don't disparage anyone based on nonsense definitions, and I don't see how fantasies like a comparison of medival religious views and Marxism makes anything clearer in the world.
|
|
Neo,
How often I've commended your patience, your light spirit; attributes contributing to your willingness to engage the ignorant with zest.
With regards to your back-and-forth with manfreda, all the best. I simply do not possess patience for reeducating one who has been "produced" by our present education woes.
Neo, keep in mind that, Goldberg has told interviewers that the title "Liberal Fascism" comes "directly from a speech that H.G. Wells gave to the Young Liberals at Oxford in 1932."[3][4].
Keep in mind that Fascism must be ranked as one of the most effective of all protest ideologies; replete with a deliberately vague set of ideas that combined a radical attack on modern society from ethics to economics, a high level of emotion, and unprecedented attention to tactics and to organization. How convenient, the liberal characteristic of change, for the sake of change.
[Neo, you recall the vagueness of Al Gore's platform in general election of 2000? How about this most recent change of leadership in 2006. The best they had was, "unseat the 'culture of corruption'". And accomplishments? Oh yeah, they changed the minimum wage.]
Your patience is seemingly inexhaustible. You really should consider a new career in, working with children, once you are done travelling to Burbank for your "projects".
Be well, friend.
|
|
footnote to above.
Manfreda challenges my verbiage of "big government and big corporations melding in fascist state.
Interesting.
Checked one of my source books, Jennifer Bothamley's, "Dictionary of Theories". Fascinating that she defines fascism as, ..."ordinary people, rather than being democratic citizens, are to be organized in corporations according to the contribution they make to national well-being. The Latin 'fasces', a bound bundle of rods, symbolized strength through unity". She references, Walter Laqueur, ed., Fascism: A Reader's Guide; Analysis, Interpretations, Bibliography (Hardmondsworth, 1979)
FASCINATING, that she would use the word corporations, in describing fascist organizing of workers for economic contribution. Seems consistent my referring to Goldberg's thesis, much to chagrin of Manfreda. Tsk, tsk. |
|
Perhaps I ought to use smaller words. I don't dispute that government and corporations conspire under fascism. I DO dispute that this is evidence that fascism and communism are similar. Indeed, it supports MY point that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, because communism appropriates corporate property, fascism supports it. Note the quotation you supply does not mention anything about liberalism, socialism, or communism. How does that support you or Goldberg? As for fascism attacking modern society -- that is sort of a gross over-simplification. On the one hand, as I wrote already, there is a backward-looking (dare I say conservative?) side to it (e.g. Mussolini's glorification of Roman history; Hitler's idealization of die Volk -- or, "the folks," as Bill O'Reilly would say). On the other hand, Fascism is deeply committed to industry, mechanical production, and a near cult-like dedication to progress. This is not, by any means, a Luddite politics (another reason why "Islamo-Fascism" is so stupid a term). Spare me the educational critique -- you have no idea what my educational background is. The only thing lamer than ad hominem attacks are anonymous ad hom. attacks.
And SEE -- back to the nonsense about Marxism and Islamist extremism. I would further point out that Lenin -- in 1920! -- wrote that Bolsheviks need to "combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends" -- so perhaps Leninists can accuse everyone of having a pre-1920 mindset, rather than being accused of having a pre-9/11 mindset? |
|
Perhaps I ought to use smaller words. I don't dispute that government and corporations conspire under fascism. I DO dispute that this is evidence that fascism and communism are similar. Indeed, it supports MY point that they are on the opposite ends of the spectrum, because communism appropriates corporate property, fascism supports it. Note the quotation you supply does not mention anything about liberalism, socialism, or communism. How does that support you or Goldberg? As for fascism attacking modern society -- that is sort of a gross over-simplification. On the one hand, as I wrote already, there is a backward-looking (dare I say conservative?) side to it (e.g. Mussolini's glorification of Roman history; Hitler's idealization of die Volk -- or, "the folks," as Bill O'Reilly would say). On the other hand, Fascism is deeply committed to industry, mechanical production, and a near cult-like dedication to progress. This is not, by any means, a Luddite politics (another reason why "Islamo-Fascism" is so stupid a term). Spare me the educational critique -- you have no idea what my educational background is. The only thing lamer than ad hominem attacks are anonymous ad hom. attacks.
And SEE -- back to the nonsense about Marxism and Islamist extremism. I would further point out that Lenin -- in 1920! -- wrote that Bolsheviks need to "combat Pan-Islamism and similar trends" -- so perhaps Leninists can accuse everyone of having a pre-1920 mindset, rather than being accused of having a pre-9/11 mindset? |
|
Show me, just once, where I used the word "communism" in my original post, of which you took to task---calling me "dumb"?
I said, of fascism,
"...describe that unique LIBERAL ideology desiring the blend between big business and big government."
You said, in direct response to above, "...that is the dumbest post I've ever read. So it is the LEFT that wants to blend big business and big government?"
Pathetic twit...that surpasses "dumb"----enters realm of disengenuous---no, flat out misrepresentation of truth----Hell, how 'bout we just call a spade a spade----you Liar.
your twisting of my words is yet another hallmark of Liberal-speak and ill-conceived changing of the argument----man, you Lefties change-up even faster than I can keep up with.
Pathetic.
Please----argue with Neo, he has teh patience for punks like you---I already admitted, I do not. |
|
You are still not addressing how liberals -- set aside communism, socialism or any other incarnation of the left -- blend big business and big government. Is John Edwards, for example, pro-big business? Aren't people on the left the ones who attack, say, Wal-Mart? Indeed, isn't this one of the big divides in, say, the healthcare debate today? The left wants government healthcare, and the right wants to leave it to the private sector -- i.e. big business? Name one big corporation that is a favorite of the left.
Now if you mean liberalism in the classical sense -- the Adam Smith sense -- then, to the degree that government aids big business in direct and indirect ways (e.g. protection of international trade rules and, say, waterways etc). then there is something to it. But THAT form of liberalism (or, today, neoliberalism) is far more a right notion than a left (see, for example, the broader discontent with NAFTA on the left than on the right). |
|
Damn, Guys...Focus...Breathe...Focus...Breathe...
Too much good futbol going on to stick around long and digest this. Clarity, for goodness sake, how'd you end up getting into a sword fight after cautioning and congratulating me on my patience and forebearance with Manfred The Mongol?
Manny, for Gawdsakes Lad, you do bring up V.I.Lenin alot. Are you SERIOUS? By the end of the first year after the Bolsevik coup d'etat, he'd butchered many-thousands more than the Czarist Regime from 1800-1917 combined! And, the Civil War hadn't yet begun. Ilyich had slaughtered more that first year after the coup than his offspring, Sandero Luminoso, did in Peru in 4-decades of butchery. Nice f***ing fella, that Great Father of Progressive Mankind!
Futbol beckons. |
|
In the first year after the "coup d'etat" (hardly a neutral term, eh?), Lenin hardly murdered the opposition -- that would suggest that, after the Bolsheviks came into power, the Whites simply rolled over. As Robespierre asked, "Did you want revolution without revolution"?
It is pretty hypocritical, again, for supporters of this war in Iraq to point the finger at, say, Lenin and call him a butcher. Are the 100,000+ deaths in Iraq in a war for "freedom" somehow different?
By the bye, again, you have a strange accounting system. Do you count, in the dead of the Tsarist regime from 1800-1917 all the Russians dead in the wars with Napolean, the Crimean War, WWI? Do you count those who starved as serfs in the barbaric, feudal system? C'mon. |
|
you need to go right down to Borders and buy Richard Pipes, "The Russian Revolution", "Russia Under The Bolshevik Regime"**, and his wonderful small, "Three'Whys'of the Russian Revolution".
IF, that is, you are unafraid of the unaccustomed torture of critical thought.
Back later today... |
|
Damn. Forgot to do the note for the** below. That work is best ever written on the early years of Regime & those cuddly fuzzballs who brought luv to Russia.
Also, a great comapion piece of the two works of Pipe is "The Bolsheviks" by Adam Ulam. Pipes & Ulam were longtime colleagues in the Russian Research Center at Harvard. |
|
Ah, ever condescending. I've read Pipes. I've read Conquest. I've read Service. I've read Figes. I have a pretty firm background in the industry of unsympathetic histories of Russia in the 20th century. I assume, since you are lecturing, that you have read the other side, yourself? Tony Cliff? Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution? etc. etc?
Who ever said they were "cuddly fuzzballs" bringing "luv"? Mao said communism is not love but a hammer. Any fool who says he is going to bring love by revolution (sounds a bit like Ron Paul) is a liar or loser.
I like your Clintonian strategy, though. Ignore any of my questions and keep on the attack. Why are the 100,000+ dead Iraqis worth sacrificing in this war, but in other wars, leaders are simply dismissed as butchers? |
|
that I mistook you for a couple of days for somebody vastly mistaken, but nevertheless serious. You've read Pipes work on the Bolshevik Regime like I've read Quantum Mechanics, Brutha.
Gotta run, but will be back later. Not at all patronizing intent on the reading suggestions, Kid. Just horribly obvious that you've not opened them. C'mon, Manfred. Your Lefty Nose is growing.
Iraq later. Though it's just too easy. |
|
Condescending and accusatory. I don't need to prove my reading, as I have -- unlike you -- been backing up my statements with specifics.
How is Quantum Mechanics treating you? |
|
|
is self-imposed. You've read Pipes and Ulam like I've read Ygail Gluckstein...Actually less, as I do have a scarred paperback copy of a little 1980 monograph on Lenin by Ygail..errr..Tony. I was right, you're not serious. But, Cliff might be proud of you. Probably would, I'd guess. |
|
|
Ah, yes, the infamous close to a Neo discussion: "you're not serious." Still having left unaddressed any issue of substance. Always move away from the issue and towards his retirement-home bookshelf. As I said before, I don't have to defend my reading. What can one do? Quote? I could just pull unread books of my shelf, if that were the case. Digest? Then I could just talk in gibberish and generalizations -- like my hero, Neo. Simply declare? Well, that is your tactic, so I don't want to steal. |
|
Remind me, please, what it is you need answered. I'm old, like you say, and forgot. Suffering from Irish Alzheimers where one forgets everything but those he despises: Ergo, Lenin & Dzerzhinski I don't forget. Unread little by-products of the lingering 60's professorate tend to fall off my windshield easily.
Let's see, it was something about the equivalence of communist mass murder on a scale never before reached--even by Hitler--in History...and, Jorge Boooosh, slaughtering vast numbers of innocent, sleeping Iraqi civilians?? That kind of sum-up your question? The folks slaughtering innocent Iraqis on vast scales were, of course, Uncle Saddam and, subsequently, al Qaeda(Its leaders are on repeated record affirming Iraq as the main Front Against the Infidel) and the now subdued militias of the Shia & Sunni. Manny, there, in a nutshell, is why it's impossible to take you or yours seriously. But, make my day: Frame your Inquiry and I'll answer, whilst being ever-attentive and sensitive to your needs.
Tony Cliff? Sharing the same page as Pipes, Conquest and Ulam is--ya gotta admit--reason enough for a tickle!
Do me a little favor: Find the number of newspapers being published at this moment in Iraq in 2003. Now, inquire as to the exact hundreds being published now. Umm, same with schools.
One further favor: How old are you? What is your occupation? Family? Last 10-books you've read. I am more curious than glib with that request. Even in Hollywood, in this day and age, one very, very rarely finds anyone actually defebnding ANY part of the dead ideology of communism. That's why I--incorrectly--had you pegged as a contemporary 'New Left' throwback.
Thanks.
|
|
"NP: Well, I don’t say it’s not going to happen, because I think it might conceivably happen. The problem is that the Israeli Air Force, superb though it is, would, according to a very important study issued a year or so ago by two guys at MIT, the Israelis, if they undertook this mission, could only succeed if every single detail went right. And you can’t expect that to happen, because you know, if you have no margin for error whatsoever, it’s not going to work. And of the Israelis did it, or if we left it to the Israelis to do, first of all, we’d get blamed, because they would be regarded as our surrogate."
[snipped, excessive blathering due to Podhoretz's desire use ten words when one would do in true trotskyite fashion.]
"We, on the other hand, could, even if we made some mistakes. We have a much larger margin for error. So it would be better if we did it, and let the Israelis off the hook."
Right, let the "Great Satan" take the heat.
Looks to me that if the US is stupid enough to bomb Iran that Israel wouldn't be off the hook at all. The Iranians know damn well that the Likud party has a large fifth column in this country, Podhoretz being a prime example and would find the Iranians using forth generation warfare to extract a price against Israel.
Podhoretz, like a true neocon is permanently stuck in 1938. He should start at the beginning of this mess in 1914. The US should have stayed out of WWI instead of this stupid crusade to "save the world for democracy." Instead, this meddling resulted in Hitler and Lenin. Norman isn't very good at history.
The fact that he is considered a foreign policy expert by some of these presidential candidates should automatically disqualify them from serious consideration. He's a crackpot.
|
|
Speaking of crackpots here's Neoconscum with more stupidity...
"Wait Until After the Nov Election...
IF the winner is Repub, Cool. IF the winner is Dem, 25K B-Busters Awaaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
See, us nefarious-evil neos can play Realpolitic, too!"
Scum,
In your case I don't think it is so much evil as it is ignorance. Do you think that the US should "let the Israelis off the hook" and only use US forces? By your agreement with the above that makes you just another America hater for you obviously don't care about the lives of US military personel. |
|
ism appears pretty tame and light compared to the raving Paulbot rushing to intrude. The little squid is getting around HH big time this a.m.
Ry-Ry01 is kinda cute, though, coming to rescue a Tony Cliff reader. Ron Paulbot attempting to help a Lenin fan. God, sometimes a Day just starts TOO DAMNED G O O D!! |
|
|
Don't try to bait and switch here. I haven't even brought up Lenin. Why do you hold Israeli lives above those of Americans? You obviously agree with Podhoretz. I'd figure that a flag waving, tub thumping "patriot" like you would want our "strategic partner" to help the US to "get some." Instead, you would have us go it alone. |
|
for your mentor aside for a few minutes and give my personal answer to your apparently sober inquiry.
NO: I'd prefer that 'my friends' the Israelis NOT be involved in bringing 25K lb. Bunker Busters to the Mullah's Nuke Program. Simple, tough, bottom-line considerations bring me to that preference. It goes like this...I know full that Israel will take care of the problem IF we don't. It is their country that is 1st on the Iranian Threat list. Hitler wasn't lying about his fanatical, illogical intent. Neither are the Mullah fanatics in Tehran.
In Gulf War I, Saddam tried, unsuccessfully, to suck Israel into the fray because he knew that IF the Jews were involved it would vastly complicate the US position vis-a-vis other Arab States. Or, worse, most other Islamic States. The Persians aren't Arab, but their huge presense in the region--amongst other things, Shiite Islam--would be aided by others(perhaps a swarm of others)IF the Jews attacked their Nuclear Facilities. We are the Unipolar Superpower, vastly involved in the Mid-East, and it is far wiser for us to do the destruction of the Nuke Program. Not least is the reason that the Iranian folks on the street are very fond of America and detest the Mullah Terrocracy. Damn, I think I just invented a word! It is our responsibility. Jews killing Persians risks a far bigger price to pay in the region. It's possible, for instance, that Saudi Oil could be stopped flowing in our direction.
That's some of it. See, I can be civil if challenged.
|
|
|
|