REP. ILHAN OMAR (D-MN): On February 8, 1982, you testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about U.S. policy in El Salvador. In that hearing you dismissed as communist propaganda reports about the massacre in El Mozote in which more than 800 civilians, including children as young as two years old, were brutally murdered by U.S.-trained troops. During that massacre, some of those [American] troops bragged about raping 12-year-old girls before they killed them … You later said that the U.S. policy in El Salvador was a fabulous achievement. Yes or no do you still think so?The questioning continues. Omar has something she wants to establish — that the U.S. had responsibility for human rights violations in the past in Latin American, Abrams was involved and dishonest about it, so we need to worry that whatever we do in Venezuela will lead to human rights violations and Abrams will be dishonest again. She's completely confrontational, and Abrams responds combatively.
ABRAMS: From the day that President Duarte was elected in a free election to this day, El Salvador has been a democracy. That’s a fabulous achievement.
OMAR: Yes or no, do you think that massacre was a fabulous achievement that happened under our watch?
ABRAMS: That is a ridiculous question.
OMAR: Yes or no?
ABRAMS: No.
OMAR: I will take that as a yes.
ABRAMS: I am not going to respond to that kind of personal attack, which is not a question.
February 14, 2019
When "no" means "yes": "Yes or no?"/"No"/"I will take that as a yes."
Ilhan Omar — a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee — was questioning Elliott Abrams. Abrams — who is now Trump's special envoy to Venezuela — held foreign policy positions in the Reagan administration in the 1980s and was accused at the time (see Wikipedia) of covering up atrocities committed by U.S.-backed governments in El Salvador, Honduras, and Guatemala.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
345 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 345 of 345@hombre:
I’ll take this as a momentary lapse in concentration on your part
And I'll take this to mean you can't answer my question.
They have supported Sunni jihadists in Iraq and Syria and have been empowering and transferring American weapons to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula while attempting to bomb Yemen's civilian population and starve them to death.
That could use some supporting documentation. Are the Kurds and the SDF jihadists? Are the Saudis still supporting Al Qaeda? For that matter, is Al Qaeda still a significant force or have they lost the political battle to other jihadist movements.
I grew up and lived or a good while in MN-5.
It's crazy what's happened there. Don Frazier and Mary Sabo (Dems of the HHH persuasion) reliably won the always liberal district by a 70/30 margin. Then and now, MN-5 includes the city of St. Louis Park (the strongest Jewish community in the state).
Wrap your mind around this: Omar won the district by 80/20
?????
It is foolish to suppose Omar is a woman of the left or to think of her as a secular progressive. She is neither secular nor progressive. She does not care about Maduro, Venezuela or past atrocities. She is an Islamic jihadist. Her game is sedition to further Islam and its causes.
Wiki:Under these conditions, MS-13 began to mutate into a gang. Originally, the gang's main purpose was to protect Salvadoran immigrants from the other, more established gangs of Los Angeles, who were predominantly composed of Mexicans, Asians, and African-Americans.[39] The gang became a more traditional criminal organization under the auspices of Ernesto Deras. Deras was a former member of Salvadoran special forces, trained in Panama by United States Green Berets.
Abram is not just a Jewish name. It is a common Muslim name as well.
Abram, better known as Abraham, is one of the major prophets of Islam.
I could perhaps see her not wanting to use that name to refer to Abrams. Given how poorly she read the rest of her crap, I agree with others that it was stupidity, incompetence, illiteracy. Perhaps even just poor eyesight.
She is still quite a giggle and I may donate in 20
John Henry
Farmer: “And I'll take this to mean you can't answer my question.”
Of course you will.
Just to add to what I said above, I recommend this by Ron Radosh.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-ilhan-omars-attempt-to-shame-elliot-abrams-backfired?ref=home
Ron is a former Madison radical who got wise in his encounter with the rabid dog defenders of the Rosenbergs. He knows what he is talking about with regard to the left's disgraceful defense of totalitarians in Central America in the 1980s and its totalitarian bigots today.
It’s pitiful that she’s the best representative her district could come up with.
chuck:
Are the Kurds and the SDF jihadists? Are the Saudis still supporting Al Qaeda? For that matter, is Al Qaeda still a significant force or have they lost the political battle to other jihadist movements.
Some members of the SDF are jihadists, yes. But that's not the only players in Syria. Saudi Arabia also supported the Army of Conquest, an umbrella organization that included groups like the Al Nusra Front and Ajnad al-Sham. And yes, the Saudis are supporting Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula as a proxy force to attack the Houthi.
@Howard re 10:28: So the current iteration of MS-13 is America’s fault? More particularly, Republicans’ fault? Wow! Just wow!
@hombre:
Of course you will.
Have no other reason to think otherwise. I just love when people say things and then refuse to back them up because their point is apparently so obvious.
@hombre: yes. actions have consequences. Newton's Third law.
@hombre:
She is an Islamic jihadist. Her game is sedition to further Islam and its causes.
What is the evidence for this?
Blogger J. Farmer said...
@hombre:
She is an Islamic jihadist. Her game is sedition to further Islam and its causes.
What is the evidence for this?
If you have to ask, then it makes no sense to try and convince you with evidence.
If you have to ask, then it makes no sense to try and convince you with evidence.
Haha. When it's hard to distinguish between real comments and satire.
Plenty of democrats were behind the central American crisis. Since we live in a democratic republic, the citizens are to blame for whom they elect and what they do.
Been there, seen that.
The world is messy, and some countries/situations are messier than most.
" for our complicity in murder and torture in other countries. "
In all cases the same things were happening or were about to happen. Nearly always when one "intervenes" in such a situation, that invites intervention, the only question is not whether murder and torture will take place, but who is to be murdered and tortured.
One can assume an air of detachment and moral superiority I guess, and that is, well, human, but it does not come from a good moral place. It is just another kind of vanity.
J. Farmer. Of course I know who he is. The real question is do you know anything real about him?
Robert Cook said,
Does "loving" American require we applaud our complicity in murder, torture and rape abroad?
How about complicity in ongoing murder, torture, and rape on our on soil?
We cannot change the past, arguing about the U.S. role in past interventions seems fruitless to me.
However, the open borders crowd is complicit in the murder, torture, and rape committed by the illegals they explicitly and implicitly import into the country.
Let's have some Omar style questioning of the Democrats in congress and pin the blame on them for each and every torture-rape-murder of a 15 y.o. girl by MS-13 gang bangers.
Think the MSM will run that loop on the evening news?
sdharms: hombre was quoting Farmer.
@Jon Burack:
J. Farmer. Of course I know who he is. The real question is do you know anything real about him?
As opposed to knowing something fake about him?
Omar's role was too shut down debate, about Venezuela policy as it was in the 80s with Dodd Harkin (chuck Todd's future mentor) Kerry et al,
Duras was a very junior man on the totem poll, perhaps some of the kaibiles that joined the Zetas or the Mexican special force who hunted down the zapatistas is more relevant
@Pillage Idiot:
Let's have some Omar style questioning of the Democrats in congress and pin the blame on them for each and every torture-rape-murder of a 15 y.o. girl by MS-13 gang bangers.
That'd be entertaining, but I wouldn't stop with the Democrats. The Republicans have been trying to sell out on immigration for years, and Trump has recently signaled that he plans to sign the godawful border security deal.
She does not have to be an "Islamic jihadist".
And there is no easy way to distinguish an Islamic jihadist from anyone else. Certainly not by their public face, or even by their private communications.
Most of the trouble with Moslems does not come from modern or even ancient flavors of jihad, but the fundamental antagonism against every flavor of the other, carried from the most religiously ignorant and illiterate to the most learned judge. Indeed, fundamentalist movements or those of the modern enlightened and educated radicals all come from the same root, and are I think simply natural channels for this underlying proclivity.
Islam has its ancient bloody borders not because of jihad, but because Muslims have a tendency to view their non-Muslim (and many Muslim) neighbors as legitimate prey.
Islamists are an even bigger threat than communists. Neither has a place in our society and certainly not in our government. They are both antithetical to American values and immigrants need to declare their intentions. Are they here to become Americans or are they here to destroy America?
buwaya:
Islam has its ancient bloody borders not because of jihad, but because Muslims have a tendency to view their non-Muslim (and many Muslim) neighbors as legitimate prey.
Plus religions have fundamental differences in their orientation. Jesus was an apocalyptic who believed in an imminent supernatural event. That is why he told people not to concern themselves with the material world, to give away their possession, etc. Islam is a blueprint for building a society and claims to be an all encompassing system. It was born in the conquering of Mecca.
Exactly as it was in the phillipines, as we are told to abandon Duterte, now.
buwaya: The best example that Christianity is better than Islam is how it civilized the future spawn of the dark age caliphate. Spain, Italy, Mexico, South America are basically populated by the descendants of Middle Easterners. While bitterly clinging to the church, machismo and authoritarianism, they non-the-less are an example of a definite improvement and are a key component of a diverse western hegemony.
@J. Farmer,
Let me reiterate how much I enjoy slicing and dicing viewpoints with you. You add a fresh perspective.
You state:
Look, Omar is not anyone I would ever vote for, and if my preferred policies were followed, she wouldn't even be in the country.
I agree with this fully. My inclination would be go a little further. But, we can wait and see. She just took her Congressional seat 1 month ago - maybe she will surprise us.
Omar, of course, is not the issue.
The issue is, What to do about Venezuela? It was once a thriving country, that has been wrecked by socialist morons, and now has a refugee crisis of 2.6 million people.
My inclination is to help, but maybe, as you state, helping will make it worse, so let's do nothing. I'm ok with that. Intervention post-Cold War has been a series of misadventures. So, let's think about it before we do anything rash. I'm game.
You use the analogy of Saudi Arabia - and our tortured relationship to the Kingdom. Good point. We like their oil, we like their money, we like that their rulers are less crazy than the arabs who want to overthrow them. We also like them as a check against Iran, but we don't like how Saudi money funds terrorists. Boy, is it messy!
You ask:
Given this, do you think our so called concern for human rights in Venezuela comes off a little bit disingenuous?
My answer is No. It's a weak analogy, because it raises too many complexities. Nobody has a good answer on how to deal with the Saudis, other than to keep the relationship generally stable. We could shoot the breeze all day on that. Whatever we do with the Saudis, or Cuba post-Fidel, or China, doesn't help inform us on what to do about Venezuela. At a minimum, though, we should explain to people who and what caused the mess there. In my view, it was Chavez/Maduro/socialism. At a minimum, we should explain to people clear-eyed what is happening there.
And, if the Venezuelan army takes out Maduro on its own, maybe that solves the problem in a manner we both like.
That's why they have 4,000 general and 15,000 Cuban troops plus Russian auxiliaries.
The previous president wanted to surrender to them:
https://babalublog.com/2019/02/14/colombias-president-wont-bow-to-german-pressure-demands-castro-regime-turn-over-eln-terrorist-hiding-in-cuba/
"She's a disgraceful, ignorant fool. An embarrassment to the Democrat Party, an embarrassment to Congress."
It's kinda their thing: Oacasio-Cortez, Omar, Guam might tip over, etc. When it comes to Democrats, they really should consider picking names from the phone book. Could they do any worse? Who votes for these fools?
If there is evidence Omar and her brother committed immigration fraud, the pair should be tried and if found guilty, deported.
Some progress being made,
https://www.caracaschronicles.com/2019/02/14/new-boards/
She's a vile creature and a stain on our democracy.
" Spain, Italy, Mexico, South America are basically populated by the descendants of Middle Easterners. "
More like Middle Westerners. Genetics tells a different story. The closest genetic cousins to the ancient Iberian ur-population are the Irish. And this was the foundation of Spain, as we know it, those tribes in at the beginning of the reconquista, who cried Santiago, and saw the campus stellae.
"Much of the argument here seems to be whether or not to intervene for moral reasons. Oddly, I think Robert's position is that intervention on moral grounds is not justified, that one should simply not participate."
Actually, I think you're confusing me with J. Farmer. He believes we have no business intervening in other countries for moral purposes. (I don't necessarily disagree.) My view is that we do not intervene in other countries for moral reasons, but for self-serving purposes of profit and/or geopolitical advantage. We simply claim our interventions are for moral reasons to hide our bad doings in the guise of good doings.
To be blunt, "human rights" in Venezuela would matter very little to anyone, no matter the ideology of its government, if it weren't that the place is an economic disaster. Its that part that makes trouble for its neighbors.
Its not that human rights were in anything like a good state when the Chavez regime was swimming in cash. His militias and secret police imprisoned tortured and murdered. There are plenty of Venezuelan political emigre's dating from then.
My view is that we do not intervene in other countries for moral reasons, but for self-serving purposes of profit and/or geopolitical advantage. We simply claim our interventions are for moral reasons to hide our bad doings in the guise of good doings.
Have to agree with you there, Cookie. The term "American interests' is always trotted out as justification.
J. Farmer said...
“@hombre:
‘She is an Islamic jihadist. Her game is sedition to further Islam and its causes.’
What is the evidence for this?”
Flimsy as it may be, let me refer you to the all-knowing J Farmer at 10:58: “Islam is a blueprint for building a society and claims to be an all encompassing system. It was born in the conquering of Mecca.” If that doesn’t suffice, perhaps the Muslim holy books references to “jihad” and Islamist behavior and prosyletizing and exhortations to violence worldwide will help.
Or do you think she is just another partisan Democrat calling for the destruction of Israel? LOL!
This has gone way beyond a lapse of concentration to willful ignorance on your part.
@buwaya:
To be blunt, "human rights" in Venezuela would matter very little to anyone, no matter the ideology of its government, if it weren't that the place is an economic disaster. Its that part that makes trouble for its neighbors.
Agree with that. Venezuela is not our neighbor, so the question remains: why do we care what happens inside of Venezuela?
"Islamists are an even bigger threat than communists."
Neither are tenable threats to the U.S. (Again I must ask: what communists?)
The only thing Farmer gets right is that a left-right dichotomy is a relic of the Cold War that should be discarded.
The basic question when dealing with each and every one of these foreign countries is whether there is a US interest, and, if so, where does our interest lie. Trump gets it, in a way that I don't think any president since the end of the Cold War gets it. Here and there some of his predecessors showed that they got it -- Clinton staying out of Rwanda (the genocidal war was bad from a Christian morality perspective, but was there a US interest in whether the Hutus won or whether the Tutsis won?), and Bush the First pushing Iraq out of Kuwait was another example of pursuing US interests.
But, part II, once the US does get involved we owe it to the people on whose behalf we intervened, to be in it to win it. If that means getting down in the filth and the muck fighting guerrilla insurgents, then do it. In. It. To. Win. It. And there is nothing more filthy than a guerrilla war. Women get raped and murdered, down to young ages. Children are tortured and killed in front of their parents. If that means being as bad as the guerrillas are, then do it. Or stay out.
An exasperated Abraham Lincoln once demanded to know whether a delegation calling on him wanted him to prosecute the Civil War with "elder-stalk squirts charged with rose water." He realized that the South had not only to be beaten, but to totally understand that it was beaten.
@Hombre:
If that doesn’t suffice, perhaps the Muslim holy books references to “jihad” and Islamist behavior and prosyletizing and exhortations to violence worldwide will help.
So then it is your contention that every Muslim is an Islamic jihadist? What a perfect way to evacuate that phrase of any coherent meaning.
Or do you think she is just another partisan Democrat calling for the destruction of Israel? LOL!
This has gone way beyond a lapse of concentration to willful ignorance on your part.
Care to quote Omar or any other "partisan Democrat calling for the destruction of Israel?"
"so the question remains: why do we care what happens inside of Venezuela?"
Because its going to make a mess in the entire area if it all goes up, as in a great famine. They are just a hair away from that, and from what could cause it, a Somalian-style general anarchy of warlords. Millions of refugees - actually, there already are millions. Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil, and leaking into Central America and even Mexico.
Call it my own domino theory. Venezuela goes down this road, and some of the others are likely to face some destabilization of their own. Millions of recruits for revolutionaries and drug smugglers and who knows what else, plus the armaments of the Venezuelan military and security forces.
@Cookie, Heather Heyer was a communist. She was an organizer for the IWW, a well-known and long-time communist front organization. They exist.
"The only thing Farmer gets right is that a left-right dichotomy is a relic of the Cold War that should be discarded."
This is a very hostile way of putting things.
"One thing Farmer gets right" is more respectful and does justice to his argument.
@Big Mike:
The only thing Farmer gets right is that a left-right dichotomy is a relic of the Cold War that should be discarded.
Your very next sentence is something I've been arguing for 20 years. I don't know anyone who advocates a foreign policy that they believe are antithetical to our interests. The question of course is how one defines America's interests. I am in favor of defining them much narrower than the interventionist, who define them very broadly.
@Farmer, it may be difficult to find quotations from Omar explicitly calling for the destruction of Israel, but it is trivial to find examples of extreme anti-Israel statements made by her on the record, e.g., her absurd claim that Israel practices apartheid as South Africa once did.
@buwaya:
Call it my own domino theory. Venezuela goes down this road, and some of the others are likely to face some destabilization of their own. Millions of recruits for revolutionaries and drug smugglers and who knows what else, plus the armaments of the Venezuelan military and security forces.
Yes, Venezuela is a problem for the region. Again, why should we care?
I don't know anyone who advocates a foreign policy that they believe are antithetical to our interests.
His name was Barack Obama.
The question of course is how one defines America's interests. I am in favor of defining them much narrower than the interventionist, who define them very broadly.
I certainly define them more broadly than you do.
@buwaya, I will take that as a friendly amendment. My apologies to you, Farmer.
MASA - Make America Somalia Again
You have to love how people bring the old country with them
Diversity is strength
We all need to listen
Yes, Venezuela is a problem for the region. Again, why should we care?
Because we need a stable Columbia to keep the drug lords under control.
@Big Mike:
His name was Barack Obama.
That is talk radio/cable news fabulism. You may have disagreed with Obama's foreign policy, as I did with most of it, but it is hysterial to imagine that he was actively working against American interests or trying to bring America down. Obama was a broadly centrist candidate in the mold of Clinton and Bush II who mostly carried on the foreign policy of his predecessor.
I certainly define them more broadly than you do.
Indeed. And I think it is precisely this overly broad definition that has led the US down one disastrous foreign policy path after another.
My apologies to you, Farmer.
No apology necessary. That was actually quite tame compared to some of what I get.
But, buwaya and Farmer, I would appreciate a response to my "part II." Sometimes doing the right things from a foreign policy perspective will mean getting filthy dirty, but guerrilla wars are the filthiest things on the planet since the Viking raids of the ninth and tenth centuries.
You don't apply Marquis of Queensbury rules in a bar fight.
@Big Mike:
Because we need a stable Columbia to keep the drug lords under control.
Mexico is stable. How under control are their drug lords?
Bringing back gargoyles like Bolton and Abrams was a huge misstep for the Trump administration.
He could be using their reputations to get what he wants by intimidation and fear in our enemies instead of fighting. Sounds good to me.
The Soviets were afraid of Reagan's unpredictability and backbone.
And, overlooked in all this, is that Ronald Reagan and his State Department developed a superb reputation for convincing dictators to step down quietly and go live elsewhere in lieu of dying in a coup. Marcos in the Philippines most notably, but there were others.
@Farmer, are you certain about the stability of Mexico? Or are you fooling yourself?
"The Soviets were afraid of Reagan's unpredictability and backbone."
At least, that's what Reagan's idolators like to tell each other.
Adding to my comment at 12:07, Elliott Abrams was part of the Reagan foreign policy team that accomplished the bloodless replacement of dictators. Trump is hoping he remembers how it was done.
@Big Mike:
But, buwaya and Farmer, I would appreciate a response to my "part II."
I don't think your part II has any relevance with any of the threats that challenge American security. The US intervenes on its own behalf, so I reject the notion that "we owe it to the people on whose behalf we intervened." Your argument is just a rehash of the old cliche that America doesn't win wars anymore because we won't do what it takes to get the job done with inevitable references to the air raids against Germany or Japan. Wars against large, industrial nation-states are poor analogies for trying to defeat an insurgency, especially if one enjoys some degree of support from the local population.
It would be so Trumpian if he would just pivot and appoint Omar as ambassador to Venezuela...taking care to respect her social justicey sensibilities by housing her in a facility with NO WALL.
trying to bring America down
Down or out or just smaller. A leveler at home (except for his donors) and abroad. He isn't a rabid anti-American like some academics/activists, but he's certainly been influenced by them.
@Ralph L:
He could be using their reputations to get what he wants by intimidation and fear in our enemies instead of fighting. Sounds good to me.
That's the kind of ex post facto justification that a lot of Trump supporters use to justify his decisions. I think the notion of Trump as a master negotiator is mostly a PR creation.
@Ralph L:
Down or out or just smaller. A leveler at home (except for his donors) and abroad. He isn't a rabid anti-American like some academics/activists, but he's certainly been influenced by them.
Can you give some examples of this from Obama's foreign policy?
@Big Mike:
@Farmer, are you certain about the stability of Mexico? Or are you fooling yourself?
Stable is obviously a relative term. Is Mexico as stable as Denmark or Norway? No. Is it more stable than Pakistan or India or Laos or Thailand? Certainly so.
At least, that's what Reagan's idolators like to tell each other.
No that was found in their files after the fall.
Why should we care about South America? Because they'll all be trying to come here if it turns into Syria or Somalia.
@Ralph L:
Why should we care about South America? Because they'll all be trying to come here if it turns into Syria or Somalia.
Easy solution: don't let them in.
Farmer: ‘Care to quote Omar or any other "partisan Democrat calling for the destruction of Israel?"’
Evidently, one of us is confused about the implications of “LOL” at the end of a sentence. In future I will use “/Sarc” for the benefit of the willfully ignorant.
Obviously, I don’t claim that “every Muslim is an Islamic jihadist.” However, I would be happy to entertain your compelling explanation for her historical and current anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments, her lie about support for BDS (al Taqiyya?) and her attack on Abrams about events in the 80s in support of an anti-American regime in Venezuela. Try to remember that she is Muslim.
This should be good.
Stable is obviously a relative term. Is Mexico as stable as Denmark or Norway? No. Is it more stable than Pakistan or India or Laos or Thailand? Certainly so.
Stable so long as officials are on the cartels' payroll.
The fake nice people of Minnestoa continue to foist upon the rest of the country some of the most odious politicians in history.
@Hombre:
Evidently, one of us is confused about the implications of “LOL” at the end of a sentence. In future I will use “/Sarc” for the benefit of the willfully ignorant.
LOL means you think something is funny; it does not necessarily connote sarcasm.
Obviously, I don’t claim that “every Muslim is an Islamic jihadist.”
Yet when I asked you for evidence that she was an Islamic jihadist, your response was that she was Muslim.
However, I would be happy to entertain your compelling explanation for her historical and current anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments, her lie about support for BDS (al Taqiyya?) and her attack on Abrams about events in the 80s in support of an anti-American regime in Venezuela.
I don't consider criticizing Israel to be anti-Semitism anymore than I consider criticism of Russia to be russophobia or criticism of China to be sinophobia. As far as a candidate prevaricating during a campaign, knock me over with a feather. And considering that Abrams is being named a special envoy to Venezuela, there is nothing untoward about questioning his previous actions in regard to Latin America.
So, in short, if that's the sum total of your "evidence" that she is an Islamic jihadist, count me considerably unimpressed.
J. Farmer asks:
"so the question remains: why do we care what happens inside of Venezuela?"
Buwaya answers intelligently:
"Because its going to make a mess in the entire area if it all goes up, as in a great famine. They are just a hair away from that, and from what could cause it, a Somalian-style general anarchy of warlords. Millions of refugees - actually, there already are millions. Colombia, Ecuador, Guyana, Brazil, and leaking into Central America and even Mexico.
Call it my own domino theory. Venezuela goes down this road, and some of the others are likely to face some destabilization of their own. Millions of recruits for revolutionaries and drug smugglers and who knows what else, plus the armaments of the Venezuelan military and security forces."
J. Farmer seems to concede that the region has an interest in what happens in Venezuela, but necessarily the US.
The Organization of American States (OAS) may not speak for the entire region , but they certainly are a big voice in the region. They think Maduro cheated in the election. Here's the OAS Resolution on the matter.
As a preliminary step, J. Farmer, do you have any major disagreements with the OAS position? Do you think the OAS is a mere puppet of the US? Would you have any problems with an intervention into Venezuela by member states of the OAS?
It's a much better discussion than Omar's rude badgering of Abrams.
Here's a good short, recent article in the Miami Herald (with video) that explains what's happening in Venezuela at a broad, general level.
@Bay Area Guy:
As a preliminary step, J. Farmer, do you have any major disagreements with the OAS position? Do you think the OAS is a mere puppet of the US? Would you have any problems with an intervention into Venezuela by member states of the OAS?
I don't know enough about the issue of the election to have an informed opinion on it, but I am willing to concede that Maduro cheated and that the election was not legitimate. That doesn't change my position one iota. It is not the job of the United States to police the legitimacy of foreign elections. Egypt's election was cancelled by a military dictator, and we responded by giving him money and guns. The election issue in Venezuela is, in my opinion, merely a pretext.
Over 90% of girls in Somalia undergo FGM and Omar refused to support a MN targeting parents who allow such barbarism. Giving feminism a bad name.
"Yes, Venezuela is a problem for the region. Again, why should we care?'
Because its just one region over, more or less, and the adjacent one is already in a fragile state. One Somalia, two Somalia, three. Until it is next door. That's a heck of a lot of desperate people at the border wall.
sadly they have not translated it into English, that I can tell:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/3231010-guatemala-la-historia-silenciada-1944-1989-tomo-i
"The election issue in Venezuela is, in my opinion, merely a pretext."
The election issue would not matter at all, likewise "human rights", if it were not for the economic disaster. These things are rhetorical exercises.
@buwaya:
That's a heck of a lot of desperate people at the border wall.
If only we had a wall.
Because its just one region over, more or less, and the adjacent one is already in a fragile state. One Somalia, two Somalia, three. Until it is next door. That's a heck of a lot of desperate people at the border wall.
First, I think it is far likelier that the government would fall long before the whole society fell. Second, I think it is very unlikely that a collapse in Venezuela would result in millions of people trekking through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico, and then end up on the US border.
If civil war conditions broke out in Venezuela, would you support deploying US troops to the country?
The election issue would not matter at all, likewise "human rights", if it were not for the economic disaster. These things are rhetorical exercises.
Hence I referred to it as "merely a pretext."
"I cut and pasted the quote from the website I linked to. The bracketed bit I assume was clear in the larger context. If not, Real Clear Politics is much less trustworthy than I thought."
In the larger context the bracketed addition was simply wrong. Even Omar only referred to "American-trained" troops. It may have been inserted by the author or possibly by an editor but there was no good reason to put it there as the preceding sentence made it clear that the reference was not to American troops.
It is confusing. Why put in a lie when the lie is made obvious by the preceding sentence? Innocent error is an unlikely possibility. You can see from this thread that a good many people hate their country and no lie in service of that hate is to big to tell.
I read it as an intentional and dishonest slur.
" Is it more stable than Pakistan or India or Laos or Thailand? Certainly so."
Pakistan, India and Thailand are extremely stable. In some ways more so than Mexico.
There is periodic theatrical sturm und drang in Thailand, but not actual suffering or disruption of the economy, and its been a considerable success. A country that, mostly, makes an honest living.
India is certainly not in an unstable state. Or not more so than it has ever been post-Raj, and much more "together" than ever since the Raj.
Pakistan is a funny one. Its not really a country, its more a collection of peoples held together by an Army, that is the true state, and it has been so since the British conquered each bit and piece in the 19th century. No sign of breakage there. Pathans and Baluchs are troublesome and so on, but so they have been for hundreds of years, and the majority of the people are Punjabis or other "civilized" groups anyway.
Farmer: “So, in short, if that's the sum total of your "evidence" that she is an Islamic jihadist, count me considerably unimpressed.”
You really are confused. Disagreeing with my explanation is not your explanation for her behavior. Straw men are not evidence for anything (I.e., “every Muslim”, “she is a Muslim.”) except that you cannot counter.
And: “I don't consider criticizing Israel to be anti-Semitism ....” Right. One must consider the source, the nature of the criticism and any other evidence of anti-Semitism from the speaker.
It’s all just too complicated, isn’t it? It would be so much easier if anyone else had noticed her anti-Semitism. /Sarc
" I think it is very unlikely that a collapse in Venezuela would result in millions of people trekking through Colombia, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Honduras, Guatemala, Mexico,"
Its less a matter of trekking THROUGH, but trekking TO. And this is already happening. The domino theory is that you don't just have to worry about Venezuelans but their effect on the Colombians and Hondurans and Guatemalans and Mexicans.
Consider what the Rwandan refugees did to Zaire/Congo.
And Imran khan, is the tool of isi and the army, which should be more noted, the problem with neocons, is they forgot that military intervention, is the last resort after political action propaganda elections et al, hence the involvement in the Balkans, and some other locales,
now tyrants like Maduro, have read what worked in eastern Europe and Nicaragua, so they seized the institutions by coercion and cooptation,
"If civil war conditions broke out in Venezuela, would you support deploying US troops to the country?"
I support using a "foreign legion" there to support whomever seems likely to restore order and rule rationally. US troops are overused.
Farmer
"Yes, Venezuela is a problem for the region. Again, why should we care?"
Well they are a hair from being a client state of Russia if they are not already. When they were solvent they kept Cuba afloat. That is now tenuous. Quite possibly they can become a vassal of the Colombian cartels which could use an Atlantic base. Lots of reasons to "care."
Oh yeah, Farmer. How about Omar’s “not one dollar for DHS....”
Hmmm Who might benefit from that?
@buwaya:
Pakistan, India and Thailand are extremely stable. In some ways more so than Mexico.
"The standard definition of political instability is the propensity of a government collapse either because of conflicts or rampant competition between various political parties. Also, the occurrence of a government change increases the likelihood of subsequent changes. Political instability tends to be persistent."
-Can political stability hurt economic growth?
According to the Fragile States Index, in which a higher score indicates more fragile, Mexico in 2018 was scored 71.5 (94 out of 178). Thailand scored 75, Pakistan scored 96.3, and India scored 76.3. Thailand has been ruled by a military since a coup against the Prime Minister in 2014. Mexico has a higher GDP per capita than India, Pakistan, or Thailand.
@J.Farmer,
I don't know enough about the issue of the election to have an informed opinion on it, but I am willing to concede that Maduro cheated and that the election was not legitimate.
Fair enough. But what were the consequences of the Maduro illegitimate election? Starvation, chaos, inflation and refugees.
That doesn't change my position one iota. It is not the job of the United States to police the legitimacy of foreign elections.
That's fine, but you keep "chopping up" the causal links. We're not policing the legitimacy of the foreign elections -- we're interested in undoing the mess caused by Maduro and his socialist cronies. You have articulated the maximum non-interventionist position. On an intellectual level, I accept and respect that.
@hombre:
You really are confused. Disagreeing with my explanation is not your explanation for her behavior. Straw men are not evidence for anything (I.e., “every Muslim”, “she is a Muslim.”) except that you cannot counter.
There's a pretty simple explanation for her politics. She's a democratic socialist on the European model. Those aren't my politics, but they have nothing to do with being an Islamic jihadist. a claim for which you have still not provided a scintilla of evidence.
It would be so much easier if anyone else had noticed her anti-Semitism.
A lot of people claimed Stephen King of Iowa is a white supremacist (I don't). Does that make it so?
@buwaya:
Its less a matter of trekking THROUGH, but trekking TO.
Venezuelans can't trek TO the United States without trekking THROUGH the countries I mentioned. You also ignored my point that it is far likelier that the government would collapse before the entire society collapsed.
I support using a "foreign legion" there to support whomever seems likely to restore order and rule rationally. US troops are overused.
And how many Latin American countries do you think would be interested in sending their troops to die in the middle of a Venezuelan civil war?
@Bay Area Guy:
We're not policing the legitimacy of the foreign elections -- we're interested in undoing the mess caused by Maduro and his socialist cronies. You have articulated the maximum non-interventionist position. On an intellectual level, I accept and respect that.
I don't believe the US should be in the business of cleaning up the mess of foreign countries. And of course it is not merely "on an intellectual level." Should we try to clean up the mess of Haiti? The mess of South Sudan? The mess of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The mess of the Central African Republic? The mess of Zimbabwe?
J. Farmer,
I don't believe the US should be in the business of cleaning up the mess of foreign countries. And of course it is not merely "on an intellectual level." Should we try to clean up the mess of Haiti? The mess of South Sudan? The mess of the Democratic Republic of the Congo? The mess of the Central African Republic? The mess of Zimbabwe?
This is the least persuasive of your many good observations. The argument that we shouldn't intervene in Venezuela, because we are also not intervening in 6 other shithole countries is unimpressive.
"cleaning up the mess" also is just my friendly vernacular, not a precise statement of the terrible things happening in Venezuela due to Maduro and his illegitimate, socialist thugs.
Let me test the boundaries of your maximum non-interventionist stance from a historical perspective.
1. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Europe during WWII? How about the Marshall Plan after WWII?
2. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Korea in 1950?
3. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Iraq in 2003?
Yes or NO! (just kidding!)
I've come to the conclusion, and it's been evident to me for quite a while that J Farmer is here to argue, and nothing more.
> but it is hysterial to imagine that he was actively working against American interests or trying to bring America down. Obama was a broadly centrist candidate in the mold of Clinton and Bush II who mostly carried on the foreign policy of his predecessor.
Hey Farmsy,
Why did he engineer the salute of Che Guervera pic?
https://stream.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-Che.jpg
reported by MoDo, on site
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/27/opinion/sunday/obamas-last-tango.html
> When the Cubans bobbled a photo op at the José Martí memorial in Revolutionary Square, President Obama took over and directed the group to its picture in front of a Che Guevara mural.
@AllenS:
I've come to the conclusion, and it's been evident to me for quite a while that J Farmer is here to argue, and nothing more.
Close. I am here to give my opinion. Some people agree with it, some people oppose it. And they tell me so. When they do, I read what they have to say and I give my response. They in turn do the same. That's kind of how dialogue works. I don't really have much interest in participating in a thread where everyone agrees with each other.
> Thailand has been ruled by a military since a coup against the Prime Minister in 2014.
I live in Bangkok, dope.
Back through 2014.
The King runs everything, continuing back thousands of years. Everything has his approval. Nothing there has changed this century.
Not that my opinion matters, but I like J. Farmer. He argues and makes good points. On foreign affairs, he is a maximum non-interventionist. In the old days, they woulda tarred him as an "isolationist" or "appeaser," but that was wrong then and now.
@Unknown:
Why did he engineer the salute of Che Guervera pic?
Presumably because "the Cubans bobbled a photo op at the Jose Marti memorial in Revolutionary Square."
https://stream.org/wp-content/uploads/Obama-Che.jpg
Quite a dramatic cropping. This is less so.
So that's your best evidence for the notion that Obama was trying to bring America down? Yikes.
Farmer: There's a pretty simple explanation for her politics. She's a democratic socialist on the European model. Those aren't my politics, but they have nothing to do with being an Islamic jihadist. a claim for which you have still not provided a scintilla of evidence.”
I see. What’s required from me is evidence while you get by on unsubstantiated assertions and predilections.
So, being a newly self-proclaimed “democratic socialist on the European model” fully explains her anti-Israel stance, her relentless anti-Semitism, her lies about opposing BDS, her “not one dollar for DHS”, her “abolish ICE stance, and her badgering Abrams about American policy in the 80s - except that it doesn’t.
Most of those stances have nothing to do with forwarding the cause of democratic socialism. But, let’s see, whose cause do they forward? What is it about “Islamic jihad” that you don’t understand?
@Bay Area Guy:
1. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Europe during WWII? How about the Marshall Plan after WWII?
Germany declared war on us. Pat Buchanan explores the subject quite interestingly in his book Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War. I wasn't ultimately convinced by its thesis
2. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Korea in 1950?
In the context of the cold war that was just beginning at the time, that was a tough call. I'd say 50-50. I certainly would have been on Kennan's side over Rusk or Acheson.
3. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Iraq in 2003?
No.
Back to having a little more fun with Ms. Omar.
1. In her campaign, she advocated abolish ICE. .
Abolishing ICE? This means she's an open borders wacko, and totally discredits her on any and all immigration issues, legal or illegal.
2. She's proud to call herself a democratic socialist - well at least according to her staffer.
@hombre:
I see. What’s required from me is evidence while you get by on unsubstantiated assertions and predilections.
"She is proud to call herself a democratic socialist, she’s very excited about this. So I hope you guys endorse us, too."
-The Reds Are Coming—& They're Young, Female, & Determined To Win America's Heartland
So, being a newly self-proclaimed “democratic socialist on the European model” fully explains her anti-Israel stance, her relentless anti-Semitism, her lies about opposing BDS, her “not one dollar for DHS”, her “abolish ICE stance, and her badgering Abrams about American policy in the 80s - except that it doesn’t.
There are plenty of leftwing Jews who have similar stances on Israel (e.g. Chomsky, Finklestein). Is that because they want to advance "Islamic jihad?" The investigative journality Allen Nairn told Abrams to his face that he was a war criminal and belong in jail on Charlie Rose in 1995. Was this to advance "Islamic jihad?"
There's a pretty simple explanation for Omar's politics: she's left wing. How does "Islamic jihad" explain her support for LGBT causes? Or Medicare for All? Or a $15 an hour federal minimum wage? Or free college tuition?
@J. Farmer,
Yeah, that Buchanan book is outstanding. Very provocative.
Only 50-50 on Korea? Hasn't 70 years of history of shithole North Korea v prosperous South Korea, convinced you that our US intervention in that instance was noble, justified and successful?
Very good discussion!
@Bay Area Guy:
Abolishing ICE? This means she's an open borders wacko, and totally discredits her on any and all immigration issues, legal or illegal.
Agree. I have no interest or inclination to defend Omar's politics. I'm an ethno-nationalist.
2. She's proud to call herself a democratic socialist - well at least according to her staffer.
Spoken to a crowd at a campaign rally before Omar spoke.
@Bay Area Guy:
Only 50-50 on Korea? Hasn't 70 years of history of shithole North Korea v prosperous South Korea, convinced you that our US intervention in that instance was noble, justified and successful?
I am not a huge fan of counterfactuals. And it is hard for me to support the deaths of over 30,000 Americans for the benefit of the South Koreans. But I obviously have no way of knowing what I would think about something in 1949 and 1950.
@Unknown:
I live in Bangkok, dope.
Back through 2014.
I, too, lived in Thailand for several years in my mid-20s, continue to travel there frequently, and have a condominium there. My apartment was about a block from the red shirts encampment at Lumpini Park when the Thai military moved in in 2010. I watched CentralWorld burn after the protest attacks. My partner is a Thai national and was on the Faculty of Political Sciences at Chulalongkorn University.
The King runs everything, continuing back thousands of years. Everything has his approval. Nothing there has changed this century.
Thousands of years? Thailand has only been a unified kingdom since the 13th century. The current Chakri dynasty only goes back to the late 18th century. The king most certainly does not "run everything." Read Thomas Handley's book The King Never Smiles. But be careful, it's banned in Thailand.
@J. Farmer,
"I'm an ethno-nationalist."
Help me out here with this intriguing creed. A crazed leftist would declare you to be a Nazi, because they think Nationalism is generally bad.
Steven Bannon says he's an "economic-nationalist"
What's an "ethno-nationalist"?
I'm more of a nationalist, than a globalist. Particularly, after the Cold War. But generally I support LEGAL immigration from all countries, although this presupposes they assimilate into Americans, regardless of their skin color or country of origin.
@Bay Area Guy:
What's an "ethno-nationalist"?
In order for a nation to succeed it needs a dominant ethnic majority. This role used to be filled by WASPs but has been systematically dismantled over the second half of the 20th century. A polyglot, multiethnic country will not lead to a strong national character but something more akin to Yugoslavia. Ethnic diversity is a source of conflict. Even nations with strong historical bonds (e.g. England Scotland) can barely function within the same state.
She's completely confrontational
The Dems are -- and have been -- completely uninterested in doing anything except confront and attack.
That's another reason why they should never be elected.
"Venezuelans can't trek TO the United States without trekking THROUGH the countries I mentioned."
They trek TO the countries you mention, overwhelm them (Venzuela has more people than all but Mexico on that path) and THEY collapse, and then you get a growing landslide of the desperate.
Like Rwanda and the Congo. The Congolese had nowhere to go however. But everyone in Central America knows where to go.
Farmer: “There's a pretty simple explanation for Omar's politics: she's left wing. How does "Islamic jihad" explain her support for LGBT causes? Or Medicare for All? Or a $15 an hour federal minimum wage? Or free college tuition?”
I hadn’t realized that endorsing a left wing policy or two precluded one from being a jihadist. Similarly, it hadn’t occurred to me that anti-Israel ravings of leftwing Jews equated with the anti-Israel ravings of Muslims. Silly me.
And despite Althouse’s apologia for Omar’s bullshit, the behavior of American trained troops in the 80s and Abram’s testimony about same have nothing to do with Venezuela today. It’s just America bashing and Abrams the Jew bashing.
Am I ignoring the fact that the world is filled with left-wing Muslims? I don’t think so. It isn’t. Are you ignoring the fact that Omar, a Muslim, openly holds views consistent with Islamic jihad? Of course you are.
@buwaya:
(Venzuela has more people than all but Mexico on that path)
Colombia has almost 20 million more people than Venezuela.
@hombre:
Are you ignoring the fact that Omar, a Muslim, openly holds views consistent with Islamic jihad? Of course you are.
The only such view you have been able to identify is her critiques of Israel. It doesn't matter if the critiques are made by a Jew or a Muslim or a Christian or an atheist. What matters is are the critiques true. How does her support for gay rights square with her support for Islamic jihad?
The notion that Omar's positions are better explained by her being an "Islamic jihadist" as opposed to be a leftwinger is completely daft. So just to recap this long exchange, the amount of evidence you have for your claim that she is a jihadist is precisely zero.
In order for a nation to succeed it needs a dominant ethnic majority. This role used to be filled by WASPs but has been systematically dismantled over the second half of the 20th century.
So what's an ethnonationalist to do in contemporary America, our dominant ethnic majority having dismantled its dominance, or having seen it dismantled, recently? Mourn? Are you more inclined to the optimistic ethnonationalism of a Jared Taylor, who thinks Asians are going to help out, or the grievance-driven ethnonationalism of a Kevin MacDonald, who would like to see WASPS try to reclaim their group supremacy?
@daskol:
So what's an ethnonationalist to do in contemporary America, our dominant ethnic majority having dismantled its dominance, or having seen it dismantled, recently? Mourn?
Well that is why I am inclined to say "America is Doomed," and I have long described the Trump presidency as a hail mary pass.
Are you more inclined to the optimistic ethnonationalism of a Jared Taylor, who thinks Asians are going to help out, or the grievance-driven ethnonationalism of a Kevin MacDonald, who would like to see WASPS try to reclaim their group supremacy?
I am an admirer of Jared Taylor's, I've been a supporter of American Renaissance for a number of years, but I am far less optimistic than he is. I'm a bit more ambivalent about MacDonald's work, particularly his Culture of Critique trio.
So I suppose the short answer is: I don't know. But I am extremely pessimistic about America's future.
"3. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Iraq in 2003?"
We didn't "intervene" in Iraq in 2003. We invaded them to overthrow Saddam Hussein...a criminal act on our part.
Trump's, and Steve Sailer's, economic nationalism is more heartening than concluding all is lost absent a dominant ethnic majority group.
Prosperity, for Americans first: an ethosnationalism I can get behind.
A lot of ethnonationalists get a deservedly bad rap because of the resentment and anger that permeates their commentary, whether it's academic/pseudo-academic work like MacDonalds' or just blog commenters. Somehow Jared Taylor avoids that trap. But all that anger and resentment, often targeted at (((certain ethnicities))) makes people nervous, including people like (((me))).
@daskol:
Trump's, and Steve Sailer's, economic nationalism is more heartening than concluding all is lost absent a dominant ethnic majority group
Sailer's citizenism is certainly more palatable than Taylor's white nationalism, but I don't think it has much chance of saving the US from its problems. For one, people are not simply economic units. There's a massive cultural component, too. Ethnic diversity erodes trust and social capital within communities. What do you think American economics will look like once we have the demographics of Brazil? Whites, Jews, and East Asians will form a technocratic overclass, and blacks and hispanics will be a permanent underclass. That is not a recipe for a well functioning society.
Me: "3. Was it appropriate for the US to intervene in Iraq in 2003?"
Cook: "We didn't "intervene" in Iraq in 2003. We invaded them to overthrow Saddam Hussein...a criminal act on our part."
You are correct, we did invade, I used the term "intervene" broadly in the context of 3 other historical events. Don't waste time parsing. By the way, you use the term "criminal" in a very sloppy manner. Congress authorized the invasion, remember Dem Dick Gephart? Remember John Kerry's and Hillary Clinton's votes to support it?
It may have been a wrong-headed move, but it certainly wasn't criminal.
The UN authorized the invasion as well, so in what form was it criminal?
Her agenda is get the Jew.
@Bay Area Guy:
It may have been a wrong-headed move, but it certainly wasn't criminal.
The invasion of Iraq was a pretty clear violation of the UN Charter.
The UN authorized the invasion as well, so in what form was it criminal?
No, they did not.
J.Farmer,
"The invasion of Iraq was a pretty clear violation of the UN Charter."
You're a nationalist. You don't give a hoot about the UN or its Charter.
The part I found particularly bizarre was when she brought up the issue of genocide in Venezuela. Because... if the United States supports the opposition... does something... she was not clear about exactly what... that could lead to genocide? What???
That made no sense. And frankly what is happening under Maduro is already a kind of genocide in very slow motion. That is exactly how we talk about the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia. I genuinely struggle to understand what point Representative Omar was trying to make. Is she concerned about what is happening in Venezuela? Yes or no? I will take her answer as a yes. And if yes then exactly what concern is she raising?
Farmer: “The only such view you have been able to identify is her critiques of Israel.... So just to recap this long exchange, the amount of evidence you have for your claim that she is a jihadist is precisely zero.
That is simply the only view presented that you have chosen to acknowledge. I have put forth several others that you have ignored. As I said, willful ignorance. It’s changing the face of America politics.
So..Mexico, Uruguay and..the Vatican have a plan?
On Monday, a delegation representing Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaido met at the Vatican with Holy See officials.
The Argentine-born Francis has lamented that Venezuelan bishops were frustrated in their efforts to help defuse political and social tensions in the country, where much of the population lacks adequate food and medicine. The letter to Maduro indicated the pope also felt frustrated by what he described as an inadequate government response to the willingness by church officials to facilitate dialogue aimed at achieving reconciliation in Venezuela.
Lamentably, the letter said, all intentions aimed at reconciliation begun in recent years were effectively thwarted since, despite various meetings, "there was no follow-up with concrete gestures" to implement agreed-upon measures.
Francis has said he favors dialogue, but only when it places the common good over all other interests and when it is aimed at achieving unity and peace.
Despite the diplomatic language in the letter, Francis is "quite tough in saying, 'Yes, I can be a mediator, but at my conditions,'" Franco told the AP in an interview.
https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article226194525.html
In the letter, Francis appears to acknowledge Maduro is no longer recognized as president by many countries following a heavily criticized 2018 presidential election. The salutation refers to the Venezuelan as "Mr. Nicolas Maduro" and not as "president."
Maduro, paying a call on the pope at the Vatican in 2013, a few months after Francis became pontiff and shortly after the Venezuelan was elected president, received the pope's blessing.
Read more here: https://www.miamiherald.com/latest-news/article226194525.html#storylink=cpy
@hombre:
That is simply the only view presented that you have chosen to acknowledge
No, I addressed every single one of them. Go back and read my reply to you at 12:47pm. These were your three points:
1) Anti-Israel/Anti-Semitic comments: I don't consider anything she said to be "anti-Semitic" as I don't consider criticizing Israel to be ipso facto anti-Semitic. Interest in Palestinian statehood has long been a concern of the left, and I gave examples of Noam Chomsky and Norman Finklestein.
2) Lying about her support for BDS: candidates prevaricating over any number of issues is quite common in electoral politics
3) Abrams: there is nothing wrong with bringing up Abrams' record in Latin America when he is being named a special envoy to Venezuela.
So just to recap, none of these three things, individually or taken as a whole, is evidence of jihadism. They are all, however, well within the leftwing tradition. Including all of her other political positions on things like healthcare, education, taxation, and identity politics.
@Bay Area Guy:
You're a nationalist. You don't give a hoot about the UN or its Charter.
That is not true. Yes, nationalists tend to be skeptical of treaties because of the degree to which they remove sovereignty from the nation. I am generally against mutual defense treaties, for example, but it's not an absolute position. Some mutual defense treaties make sense (e.g. Japan) and some don't (e.g. Macedonia). They have to be evaluated on an individual basis. As for the UN Charter, the US has a permanent seat and veto power on the Security Council.
@Rick67:
The part I found particularly bizarre was when she brought up the issue of genocide in Venezuela. Because... if the United States supports the opposition... does something... she was not clear about exactly what... that could lead to genocide? What???
She was referring to Abrams' support for Efraín Ríos Montt in Guatemala. He was later found guilty of genocide and war crimes against the Ixil, an indigenous Mayan people.
Considering socialism deep-sixed the once wealthy Venzuela, going to Pope Francis for mediation is..SAD!!
And it was a garbage charge as sabino pointed out in hidden Guatemala, besides Abrams was focusing on el Salvador that did have us advisors not the former who relied on others
FWIW,
re narciso's Guatemala comment:
https://panampost.com/editor/2015/08/12/did-rios-montt-commit-genocide-in-guatemala/
Farmer: “No, I addressed every single one of [your points].... So just to recap, none of these three things, individually or taken as a whole, is evidence of jihadism.”
No, you took each out of context and ignored any significance they had to jihadism in favor of your predilections. For example, you may be the only person on the planet who doesn’t consider “anything” Omar has said to be anti-Semitic.
Either you are just a contrarian or someone who doesn’t know the difference between evidence and proof.
“Either you are just a contrarian or someone who doesn’t know the difference between evidence and proof.”
Of course, there are also other possibilities. LOL!
Post a Comment