ALF Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Neocons in the media. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/media-pundits-libya-syria-regime-change No looking back after their destruction of Libya; they have a new war to sell... The U.S. opened pandora's box in the middle east , I would not even have invaded the quagmire Afghanistan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Neocons in the media. http://www.alternet.org/grayzone-project/media-pundits-libya-syria-regime-change No looking back after their destruction of Libya; they have a new war to sell... Why those whily neocons who orchestrated the military decisions in the UK & Germany. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
row_33 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 Why those whily neocons who orchestrated the military decisions in the UK & Germany. So a neo-con has been defined in my life as... 1) A former student Marxist who became a conservative in the late 60/70s. Irving Kristol, Norm Podheretz as two influential examples. 2) then it was totally upended and became someone from the Univ of Chicago who had ties to study under Leo Strauss or one of his students. Strauss would be horrified to see how his teachings have been presented by the media. so has it become something else overnight without warning? Like when blue and red states flipped on the political map at some point. The conservative/GOP was always blue until one day BAM!! it was no more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2017 Author Share Posted April 24, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/entire-u-senate-white-house-north-korea-briefing-150459069.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 https://www.yahoo.com/news/entire-u-senate-white-house-north-korea-briefing-150459069.html If it represented anything terribly dire, they probably wouldn't be briefing all of Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoBills808 Posted April 24, 2017 Share Posted April 24, 2017 If it represented anything terribly dire, they probably wouldn't be briefing all of Congress. They may have found some really good kal-bi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted April 24, 2017 Author Share Posted April 24, 2017 If it represented anything terribly dire, they probably wouldn't be briefing all of Congress. The rumored reason for this very rare occurrence is to discuss a possible strike against the DPRK... If that's the non-official/official "rumor" being floated, which of course is odd in and of itself - you don't want to tip a strike is coming so blatantly unless you're using the appearance of getting ready to strike as leverage, which they might be - I can only imagine what the actual topic(s) of conversation will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted April 25, 2017 Share Posted April 25, 2017 I can only imagine what the actual topic(s) of conversation will be. Given they're meeting with Trump, I'm guessing the actual topic will be...Trump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 (edited) Al-Qaida leader says group fought alongside US-backed forces "Al-Rimi did not elaborate on what exactly fighting "alongside" meant but al-Qaida has emerged as a de facto ally of the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and his backers Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthis in a grueling civil war that has wreaked devastation, caused widespread hunger and killed more than 10,000 since late 2014." https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-qaida-leader-says-group-fought-alongside-us-090957107.html Edited May 1, 2017 by Deranged Rhino Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Al-Qaida leader says group fought alongside US-backed forces "Al-Rimi did not elaborate on what exactly fighting "alongside" meant but al-Qaida has emerged as a de facto ally of the government of President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi and his backers Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates against the Houthis in a grueling civil war that has wreaked devastation, caused widespread hunger and killed more than 10,000 since late 2014." https://www.yahoo.com/news/al-qaida-leader-says-group-fought-alongside-us-090957107.html No ****. These are not binary conflicts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 No ****. These are not binary conflicts. They're not. But are portrayed as one. The more interesting note is that we once again (shockingly) find ourselves aligned with AQ... who just happen to be fighting a war on the Saudi's behalf. Funny how that just keeps on happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 They're not. But are portrayed as one. The first casualty of war in the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 The first casualty of war in the truth. Correct. And for 16 years we've been lied to about the imminent danger of terrorism. So much W and Cheney used it as a means to strip away basic constitutional protections. AQ is such a threat to the American people that we have to give up our fundamental constitutional protections while the US government funds, trains, and works side by side with AQ to wage holy wars on behalf of the out house of saud. It's criminal. Or, as some would say, the cost of doing business. Of course those that say that are full of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Correct. And for 16 years we've been lied to about the imminent danger of terrorism. So much W and Cheney used it as a means to strip away basic constitutional protections. Such as? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted May 1, 2017 Author Share Posted May 1, 2017 Such as? Fourth and Fifth amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Fourth and Fifth amendments. Exactly how did Bush and Cheney do away with the 4th and 5th. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Exactly how did Bush and Cheney do away with the 4th and 5th. You're misinterpreting his position he never said that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 1, 2017 Share Posted May 1, 2017 Fourth and Fifth amendments. Exactly how did Bush and Cheney do away with the 4th and 5th. I've been known to take a Fifth on the Fourth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary M Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 You're misinterpreting his position he never said that. I believe he was attempting to get DR to elaborate on the statement he made, but as it is just a talking point he heard on a Sunday news show, he can't. But thanks for the input. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted May 2, 2017 Share Posted May 2, 2017 I believe he was attempting to get DR to elaborate on the statement he made, but as it is just a talking point he heard on a Sunday news show, he can't. But thanks for the input. I'm trolling DR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts