Massacre... a consequence of US leaving Iraq...

[BaalChatzaf]

They already are. The only reason Burger King was able to relocate was with the purchase of the Canadian Tim Hortons franchise. 11billion to buy it. This was not a stipulation from the Canadian side but a US policy that to relocate you had to prove a substantial amount of your customer base/business resides in the country you are relocatingii to.

Soon they may close that stipulation as well.

I just had a fantasy sci fi thing go off in my head. A bunch of Dr. Who type Daleks going Invert! Invert!

If the bastards close this portal then privately own firms will have to liquidate or burn down their assets like Ellis Wyatt did in Atlas Shrugged.

[Jules Troy]

If the bastards do that it will hasten their own end as well. They won't be able to print zeros fast enough.

[Selene]

Jules:

At a certain level, this is what Ayn posited, which is that they want death.

A concept that I have always found big "O" bjectivists rather "shy" to openly acknowledge and discuss.

A...

[Wolf DeVoon]

Jules:

At a certain level, this is what Ayn posited, which is that they want death.

A concept that I have always found big "O" bjectivists rather "shy" to openly acknowledge and discuss.

A...

Yes and yes.

[Peter]

Francisco described, “The Seven Stages of Interventionism.”

And Tony responded, “. . . Friends are essential, trading partners necessary, and allies practical. . . .”

end quotes

I remember Henry Kissinger published something proactive and substantive before The U.S. restarted relations with China and there were some good war game scenarios after 9/11, but does anyone know of any descent geopolitical projections if certain policies like anti-interventionism are pursued? Tracinski wrote about how Obama’s current chattering with a few bombs policy is anti-interventionism - and that Rand Paul’s hands off policies, if he were elected President, would have the same negative, geo-political results. Figuratively, if you have an itch is it moral to scratch it? What is the best course for the world, swat the world’s wrongs or mind your own business?

[Selene]

I guess capture the world and establish a Constitutional caliphate is not the answer to want, right?

[moralist]

Have you ever had dogs Greg?

Yes.

I had Scotties and loved them. We chose not to have dogs or cats so as to grow food without needing to contend with feces.

But the wildlife! Rabbits, deer, bears, woodchucks, lizards, birds (bombs away!).

My four cats stay indoors 24/7 every day of the week every month of the year and every year of the decade (so far for two of them).

I suggest indoor hydro for you. Use the living room or guest bedroom.

--Brant

None of those even approaches pet feces 24/7.

But thanks for the suggestion. We like the outdoors much better.

Greg

[moralist]

At a certain level, this is what Ayn posited, which is that they want death.

I say, give them what they want.

Greg

[Selene]

Greg:

With your civil engineering talents, you could build a small run, pitched properly to sluices and just hose it into your outdoor hydro.

Dogs certainly are trainable to use it. Hell even cats.

A...

[moralist]

This is another consequence of the US military being withdrawn in defeat...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2738469/Forced-watch-crucifixions-stonings-beheadings-taught-fire-machine-guns-big-How-Islamic-State-training-camps-children-swelling-ranks-junior-jihadis.html

[Brant Gaede]

Have you ever had dogs Greg?

Yes.

I had Scotties and loved them. We chose not to have dogs or cats so as to grow food without needing to contend with feces.

But the wildlife! Rabbits, deer, bears, woodchucks, lizards, birds (bombs away!).

My four cats stay indoors 24/7 every day of the week every month of the year and every year of the decade (so far for two of them).

I suggest indoor hydro for you. Use the living room or guest bedroom.

--Brant

None of those even approaches pet feces 24/7.

But thanks for the suggestion. We like the outdoors much better.

Greg

I didn't mention Big Foot!

--Brant

[Richard Wiig]

Turan Dursun.

http://www.jihadwatch.org/2014/08/turkish-ex-mufti-on-muhammad-so-many-people-cant-live-properly-because-of-him

[Peter]

From The Times of Israel:

An overwhelming majority of Palestinians believe Hamas defeated Israel in the recent Gaza operation, and support the continuation of rocket attacks if Israel does not remove the blockade on Gaza, a new Palestinian poll revealed.

According to the data collected on August 26-30 by the Ramallah - based Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) headed by pollster Khalil Shikaki, 79 percent of Palestinians questioned in Gaza and the West Bank said that Hamas had won the war against Israel, while only 3% said Israel had won. A similar majority believed that Israel was responsible for the breakout of the war.

end quote

Can that poll be believed? There were hushed up stories of Palestinians killing the Hamas terrorists responsible for firing rockets from near their building which was later destroyed. How can Palestinians look at the destruction and cheer for more? I cant believe that, but if it is close to the truth, expect a pile of rubble on top of dead rubble, er, I mean Arabs.

Peter

[Jules Troy]

One thing is certain, these people are not soon to be joining any objectivist circles!

[Peter]

Jules wrote:

One thing is certain, these people are not soon to be joining any objectivist circles!

end quote

Now a second American journalist is reported to have been beheaded. The Saudi leader ironically said ISIS will be in Europe in one month and in America in two. Sounds like someone doesnt want to end up like Kaddafi. And it is his own relatives and Arab allies who are financing terrorism. Is it time for some serious retaliatory force before the poor little rich shit king gets his head lopped off? It is 7pm est and 91 degrees.

[Jules Troy]

Isn't Islam wonderful?

[Selene]

Hey, come on, President Barack Hussein O'bama said this is just the JV...and according to presidential historian Michael Beschloss*** said on one of Imus's brilliant interviews that this man had the highest IQ of any President in history, which also established Michael as the stupidest presidential historian in history.

Imus pressed him with, "What is his IQ?"....here is the transcript:

"Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to
become President."

Anyway, the Power Elite historian finally had to admit that he did not know his IQ!!

This is his Iranian wife...ah The Power Elite - where is C. Write Mills when you need him...
**Beschloss is chairman of the Investment Committee of the Ford Foundation and is on the Investment Committee of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. She is a member of the board of trustees of the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Urban Institute and a member of the board of directors of World Resources Institute.[4] She advises international pension funds and central banks and has written a number of journal articles and books.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

[Added] Here is a July 27, 2014 American Standard article on precisely this Imus interview. It is very well written.

There I was, listening to the radio whilst happily working in my shop, when the voice of the "the smartest president ever" abruptly interrupted my felicitude. "The separatists," it said, “are removing evidence from the crash site – all of which begs the question: what exactly are they trying to hide?”
And I thought, "God Help Him, he doesn't know what it means!”

In so doing, I begged three questions: that there is a God, that He is involved in our daily lives, and that He would be interested in helping Mr. Obama.

Now, I acknowledge that I'm venturing into a quagmire (begging the question of quagmires being sticky and unpleasant places into which to wander), but shouldn't this "genius" know that "all of which begs the question" does not mean "all of which raises the question"?

To beg the question is to assume an unstated premise in a statement or argument. It does not mean to ask a question that begs to be answered.

It's one phrase that, heretofore, I've never, ever used anywhere (including conversationally) even when I was absolutely certain I would be using it correctly, and I’m absolutely certain that I may or may not have used it correctly herein.

It’s one phrase used incorrectly by almost everyone. An extremely rare, correct use of it may be found here in a piece by Scott Johnson at Powerline:

Last year George Will wrote a disappointing column on the Obama administration’s interim deal with Iran. The problem with Will’s columns is its assumption that Iran can be contained/deterred. Will assumes without argument that doctrines of containment and deterrence are viable in the case of Iran; he assumes what is to be proved, i.e., he begs the question.

To me, hearing it used incorrectly is jarring – comparable to hearing Mrs. Clinton cackle, or hearing fingernails on a chalkboard, or hearing Mrs. Wasserman Schultz speak!

And seeing it used incorrectly in print is equally jarring, and comparable to seeing a gross obscenity in a staid article.

Language is, almost by definition, constantly changing, and its usage changes are often difficult to accept, particularly when a common or esoteric word or phrase changes its meaning or use. Some changes, in Pat Moynihan’s words, define the language down, and when we lose fine distinctions in language, we also lose thought.

Consider the word “enormity.” It is no longer exclusively applied to an especially atrocious or outrageous act; rather, it is regularly used to mean “something huge.” This change is, indeed, an enormity!

Some years ago, the late grammarian James J. Kilpatrick expressed in correspondence with me and others his dismay when “fungible” began to be used with respect to monetary matters. Today, it is acceptable usage, but it was a new and questionable usage of the word in the ‘80s.

That “begs” the question would become acceptable usage for “raises” or “asks” the question would represent to a horrific degree the extent to which our language is becoming debased.

Hearing the insufferable Sherry Preston’s playing, on the hour, every hour, Mr. Obama’s incorrect usage of petitio principii as she read what the editors at ABC radio fed her displayed to me that either Ms. Preston and/or her editors* don’t know what the phrase means or they don’t care that Mr. Obama uses it incorrectly.

And it brought to mind an interview Don Imus had with the obsequious Obama adorer, Michael Beschloss, that forever destroyed whatever reputation for objectivity Mr. Beschloss might have theretofore held:


Historian Michael Beschloss: Yeah. Even aside from the fact of electing the first African American President and whatever one’s partisan views this is a guy whose IQ is off the charts — I mean you cannot say that he is anything but a very serious and capable leader and — you know — You and I have talked about this for years …

Imus: Well. What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: … our system doesn’t allow those people to become President, those people meaning people THAT smart and THAT capable

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Pardon?

Imus: What is his IQ?

Historian Michael Beschloss: Uh. I would say it’s probably – he’s probably the smartest guy ever to become President.

Imus knew that Mr. Obama was not the genius that he was being portrayed as being. And he knew that Mr. Beschloss (who had been a regular guest on the show) was a fool for thinking so highly of Mr. Obama’s brainpower.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Beschloss never again appeared on the show, and his appearances elsewhere also became more infrequent.

Readers may watch Mr. Obama bumble here (at about 4:25).

*It seems most print editors omit Mr. Obama’s use of the phrase.

The author is retired. His profile may be found on LinkedIn, and comments about his use of English grammar may be sent to bilschan@hotmail.com.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/07/begging_for_some_enlightenment_for_our_questionable_president.html#ixzz3CDvxlxPq
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

[Selene]

Finally found the audio:

"It's good to start the day off with a laugh. This one still makes me laugh every time I hear it.

Why would a supposedly bright man like Michael Beschloss say something so utterly ridiculous?

He has no idea what Obama's IQ is but he, as the expert, is telling the audience that it's 'off the

charts.'"

Adding, "What else does Beschloss put out there as fact that's pure fabrication?

What an embarrassment for Beschloss!"

http://freedomeden.blogspot.com/2008/11/mike-beschloss-don-imus-and-barack.html

A...

hmm like that Sarah Palin did not say anything close to "You can see Russia from my front porch?

[Peter]

Jihad is at our doorstep. Russia is going rogue. Chinese expansion of influence is accelerating. And every reasoning person on Objectivist Living is wondering: what would Machiavelli do? What would Henry Kissinger have done differently? I am half kidding. What would Ayn Rand do? Would it in any way resemble what Machiavelli or Kissinger would do? Hell yes, but as part of a greater foreign policy.

Some great points:

PLAYBOY: What about force in foreign policy? You have said that any free nation had the right to invade Nazi Germany during World War II.

RAND: Certainly.

PLAYBOY: . . . And that any free nation today has the moral right -- though not the duty -- to invade Soviet Russia, Cuba, or any other "slave pen." Correct?

RAND: Correct. A dictatorship -- a country that violates the rights of its own citizens -- is an outlaw and can claim no rights.

end quote

At the same time, the eventual goal of her brand of government was to lessen taxation, until it was zero, which may not be a contradiction if lessening taxation and deficit spending is put off for the duration of the crisis. At this time were she alive would Rand countenance an invasion of Syria and Iraq if we were spending money we do not have, even if Iraq invited us back and Syria said, NO?

Rand was quick to anger, and two beheadings would make her very, very angry. Two Randian options. She would call for a joint session of congress as did George W. Bush, and reach a consensus to destroy them. Or she would call this an emergency situation and sanction our President to do whatever is necessary to punish jihad-ists and protect America.

On a round table discussion on Fox about foreign policy around 12:45 Wed., one panelist said, Obama is not befuddled or indecisive. He is doing exactly what he wants to do, even though Joe Biden is out there saber rattling and saying we will follow Americans executioners to the gates of hell, because that he where they are going to hell! I wish.

[anthony]

Peter: On CNN last night there was a quick interview with some expert advocating against the US going in solo, boots and all, reactively. Agreed, completely. Then he said that going in would only "radicalize" other watching Muslims further. Wha-at?! Psychologizing - rather than principles? Scared to offend some (not the majority, I think) who would be 'offended' anyway - whatever USA does? Come on!

It's how progressivist foreign policy works, I guess.

[Selene]

It's how progressivist foreign policy works, I guess.

Ah, there is your error Tony...

Progressivist foreign policy does not work, much like their domestic policy.

A...

[Brant Gaede]

Don't ask what Ayn Rand would do. Aside from the basic principle or two, she hardly knew what she was talking about about foreign policy.

--Brant

[william.scherk]

On CNN last night there was a quick interview with some expert advocating against the US going in solo, boots and all, reactively. Agreed, completely. Then he said that going in would only "radicalize" other watching Muslims further.

Do you remember anything else about the interview, like which program or host? I'd like to know who that expert is. There are advocates for the whole range of options, from do nothing to 'crush ISIS.'

I am interested in knowing who the expert was referring to ... who would be further 'radicalized' in the event of further US military action, and what 'radicalize' meant in context.

It's the case for military action inside Syria that interests me a lot -- in that Syria has warned any such action will be interpreted as aggression. Syria is battered, divided, and the Syrian government has not shown willing to make ISIS its main target (it continues to bomb civilian areas not under its control). The territory outside Assad's control is large once you include the Kurdish cantons in the north, and the ISIS areas in the northeast, not to mention the areas under control of various non-ISIS factions and groups.

Tony, one can make a strong and principled argument for zero US military action beyond what has already occurred (in Iraq). There are plenty of arguments out there which take the 'anti-imperialist' or 'resistance' line. This is that section of political thought that sees the USA as a demon and the Assad/Hizbollah/Iranian alliance as a frontline against American hegemony (and a lot of other big bad analytical words). This is the demented section that supports Assad's dictatorship no matter what. There are of course other demented-Western sections like the right nuts Anti-War coalitions.

It is almost in American strategic interests to do nothing more in Syria, since action inside Syria could strengthen Assad's regime. Almost, because Assad has not brought the full fury of his war machine to ISIS. In other words, Assad has let ISIS grow in strength in order to better illustrate his line that all armed opposition are takfiri 'terrorists.' He has continued to relentlessly bomb 'rebel' areas that are not under ISIS control, and even facilitated ISIS movements when it plays to his need for sectarian fear. The latest example is in the city of Salamiya. Here it looks like Assad may soon abandon his defenses in the area. This could bring on a Sinjar situation. Salamiya is the centre of the Ismaili community in the Middle East. Ismailis are not at all the kind of Muslims that ISIS 'protects.'

So one scenario is that Assad will pull his forces out of the area, leaving the religious minorities to the whims of ISIS.

So, what might the US do if Assad does not defend this minority against ISIS (he has built his appeal as 'protector of the minorities' -- Shia, Ismaili, Christian, Syriac, Alawite, Druze)?

What should the US do if this scenario came to pass? I certainly don't know. I envy those whose certainties are solid and unwavering.

Edited September 3, 2014 by william.scherk

[Jules Troy]

America needs to secure its borders first(Mexico )

[Brant Gaede]

Just hit them in Iraq enough to let their natural enemies finish the job there and never mind Assad and Syria. There is no possible pretense of any new country, whatever it's called, outside Iraq proper. If they manifest significantly abroad--in the United States--declare war and go ape on them. Block them off but tell them they have an out: go to Syria and do your thing there if you can.

--Brant

keep it simple