Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
The Homosexual Roots of Antiwar Sentiment: Podhoretz Schools the Ignorant
Nice piece in the American Prospect from Justin Logan on the silliness of pro-warriors' endless Hitler analogies and all, worth a read, but I really wanted to just single out this one somewhat extraordinary bit, news to me though perhaps not to longterm careful Norman Podhoretz watchers:
Podhoretz penned a meandering essay in Harper's in 1977 titled "The Culture of Appeasement" which likened antiwar sentiment in post-Vietnam America to the wariness of war in Britain after World War I, and then linked the latter to a homosexual yearning for relations with all the young men who perished in the Great War. In Podhoretz's view, "the best people looked to other men for sex and romance," and as a result, didn't much like them being killed by the score on the Continent. "Anyone familiar with homosexual apologetics today will recognize these attitudes."
Tying things back into the 1970s, Podhoretz pointed to the "parallels with England in 1937" and warned that "this revival of the culture of appeasement ought to be troubling our sleep." (A correspondent in a subsequent issue of Harper's would admit that he "had not previously realized that Winston Churchill fought the Battle of Britain almost singlehandedly while England's ubiquitous faggotry sneered and jeered from below.")
I haven't felt more like backing out of a room saying, "Uh, yeah, interesting, gotta go" while reading anything in a long time.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 12:54PM|#
One of the most celebrated martial cultures in Western history - that of Sparta - was riddled with homosexuality and pederasty.
Tacos mmm...|11.8.07 @ 12:59PM|#
A true, heterosexual manly man would have appreciated the Great War for eliminating most of his competition.
|11.8.07 @ 1:03PM|#
Pohoretz made an ass of himself on the Jim Lehrer News Hour,
trying to debate Fareed Zakaria about the wisdom of military
strikes on Iran.
To every point Zakaria made, Podhoretz responded with, "That
reminds me of what people were saying at Munich in 1938."
Apparently, people in Munich in 1938 were talking about how Hitler
didn't actually have control over the German military, and pointing
to the Nazis' two-decade-long time in power without having launched
a war.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 1:03PM|#
That theory shows some hardcore obsession with teh geys. The kind of obsession one usually sees in a repressed homosexual.
|11.8.07 @ 1:06PM|#
Not having any experience with finding the deaths of soldiers regrettable, Podhoretz wracks his brains for why anyone else might have such feelings, and comes up with "because they're gay."
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 1:09PM|#
But the ultimate danger of rolling out the Hitler analogy
over and over again is that if another Hitler should ever emerge,
we may be so sick of hearing about the next Hitler that he just
might be ignored.
Hannah Arendt made a very similar argument about terms like
totalitarian, etc.
|11.8.07 @ 1:11PM|#
I guess that's why conservatives don't want the gay infecting the military. They might suddenly become anti-war protesters.
Abdul|11.8.07 @ 1:14PM|#
Pre WWI England did have teh gay going on much stronger than I
would have thought. Not as strong as Norm Pod suggests. but I'll
never forget reading CS Lewis' Surprised by Joy in which
he describes going to an English boarding school just before the
Great War. There was a whole culture of "bloods" and "tarts" who
ruled the school's caste system through complex same-sex love
affairs.
I was surprised all right, but not by joy.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 1:17PM|#
There was a whole culture of "bloods" and "tarts" who ruled
the school's caste system through complex same-sex love
affairs.
When my parents wanted to send me to an all-boy's school, I said
"you don't want me to turn out gay, right?"
Will|11.8.07 @ 1:20PM|#
The problem being is that the people of England ( & others)
saw WWI as a great waste of lives & treasure & that nothing
good came out of it. Naturally they were skeptical of all war talk
as should most civilized people.
The answer wasn't going to war after Munich but stopping Germany
from re-arming as per the treaty. Don't arm a country who's head of
state wrote a book about conquering half of Europe.
|11.8.07 @ 1:24PM|#
Abdul,
Victorian/Edwardian England had its fair share of oddities
regarding sexual repression / unique expression, Teh Gay being just
one of a myriad. It was proof that yes indeed, you can be wound too
tight.
|11.8.07 @ 1:25PM|#
There seems to be another problem with the Munich analogy:
Hitler was demanding things at Munich. He wanted the English and
French to violate their defense treaties. He wanted them to
recognize his acquisitions as legitimate.
None of these New Hitlers have made any demands on the United
States beyond "Don't start a war with us."
|11.8.07 @ 1:25PM|#
Gore Vidal has a hilarious essay (i don't recall the title) which skewers Podhoretz on this. Incidentally, according to Vidal's essay, Mrs Podhoretz is even more hysterical on the subject of "teh gay".
|11.8.07 @ 1:27PM|#
I'm can't remember if this came up in the Zakaria debate or not,
but didn't he point out that in the '80's N-Pod slagged Regan for
(gasp) talking with the Gorbachev and the Soviets?
From Reason, 7-10-07
"Rudy Giuliani Announces Foreign Policy Team Members"
"Charles Hill to serve as Chief Foreign Policy Advisor; Norman
Podhoretz joins as a Senior Foreign Policy Advisor..."
|11.8.07 @ 1:29PM|#
Epi- I did go to an all-boys school, and didn't turn out gay. I did, however, get tired of that stereotype.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 1:32PM|#
Captain Chaos, my story is completely made up, and is just a joke in reaction to Abdul's comment. I don't think an all-boys school would have ocurred to my parents. In my interactions with people who went to such schools, none were gay and most liked it a lot, saying the lack of pressure to impress girls was quite relaxing.
|11.8.07 @ 1:34PM|#
Comparing Saddam in 1991 or Milosevic in 1996 to Hitler was at
least plausible, if vastly disproportionate. They actually were
engaged in acts of aggression against their neighbors, and intended
to keep going unless they were stopped.
So, maybe they qualified as little, tiny Hitlers, and letting their
aggressions stand might have qualified as little, tiny
Munichs.
But the last time I checked, the "appeasement" stance adopted by
Neville Chamerlain didn't inlcude using military force to compel
Hitler to abide by the disarmament treaties imposed by the allies
after an earlier war. As a matter of fact, that was the
Chruchillian position offered up in contrast to Chamberlain.
|11.8.07 @ 1:39PM|#
That's why I go to all the anti-war rallies and protests. With only peacenik fags for competition, it's sooo easy to get laid.
LarryA|11.8.07 @ 1:47PM|#
Homophobia has a poster child.
A true, heterosexual manly man would have appreciated the Great
War for eliminating most of his competition.
OTOH, the competition not eliminated came home in uniform, and thus
much more attractive to premium members of the target audience.
Unintended consequences.
The answer wasn't going to war after Munich but stopping
Germany from re-arming as per the treaty.
I think the economic hardships caused by the Allied war reparations
and the loss of face due to disarmament and other sanctions had a
lot more to do with enabling Hitler's rise to power than the
availability of weapons. Also, in another unintended consequence,
because Germany was disarmed it rearmed with new and better
equipment, and thus entered WWII a long step ahead of the
Allies.
Had not Britain lost most of its arms at Dunkirk, and the U.S. been
generally unprepared but able to tool up, the difference might have
been decisive.
None of these New Hitlers have made any demands on the United
States beyond "Don't start a war with us."
And little things like "Make your women wear burquas and your men
pray to the one God."
Ska|11.8.07 @ 1:47PM|#
I'm going to troll other forums with the extraordinary phrase "ubiquitous faggotry".
|11.8.07 @ 1:51PM|#
Everyone knows real manly men longed to go to the Great War and huddle oh so tightly together in foxholes.
|11.8.07 @ 1:54PM|#
One of the funniest stories I've heard about interwar England
was about how while the intellectual giants like John Maynard
Keynes were getting it on in gay interludes with their male
colleagues Bertrand Russell was going around fucking all their
wives. Quite an old stud that Bertie was, apparently.
Not that that has anything to do with...who were you guys talking
about?...oh, yeah, Norman Podhoretz. He's supposed to be some great
mind or something, right? Funny, I've always wondered what anyone
saw in him.
Shannon Love|11.8.07 @ 2:06PM|#
Comparisons to Hitler, hold true for most military opponents of
liberal-democracies because Hitler rather purely exhibited the same
narcissistic militarist mindset that enemies of liberal-democracies
almost always evince. Hitler is an exemplar of the type of
personality and mindset that causes problems and one that most
people with no specialized knowledge of history knows about.
In the militarist mindset, brute strength and power rule all human
interactions. Militarist usually murder their way to power and
maintain it through similar means. The view all responses to their
actions as reactions to their power. If an opponent makes
concessions it is because they are weak, decadent and afraid of the
militarist.
If you look at first hand reports of Saddam Hussien's
interpretations of the actions of the West in the 1991-2003 period
he sounds exactly like Hitler. Change a few names and dates around
and you could not tell the two apart. It is no cliche at all to say
the two thought alike.
Because militarist share the same psychology and internal political
imperatives, the same actions and policies of liberal-democracies
repeatedly evoke the same responses from all militarist. even those
of different cultures and ideologies.
Hitler might get overused but that is largely due to his widespread
familiarity. The basic lessons learned in our failure to head him
off apply many, if not most, conflicts with foreign leaders we will
ever see.
|11.8.07 @ 2:08PM|#
Larry A,
And little things like "Make your women wear burquas and your
men pray to the one God."'
Refresh my memory - was that Saddam, Milosevic, or Ahmedinejad who
made that demand of us?
Oh. Right. They didn't.
|11.8.07 @ 2:10PM|#
So, maybe they qualified as little, tiny Hitlers, and
letting their aggressions stand might have qualified as little,
tiny Munichs.
fuck, joe, you made sense. Now what am I supposed to think of you,
huh? Get back to being wrong, you assface. ;-)
|11.8.07 @ 2:13PM|#
Gore Vidal has a hilarious essay (i don't recall the title)
which skewers Podhoretz on this.
Vidal takes it up the ass. And he can dish it out, too.
|11.8.07 @ 2:18PM|#
That's pretty insightful, Shannon, as a description of what such
militarists have in common. I'd say the tendnency to assume that
non-militarists are weak and decadent ("a nation of shopkeepers,"
"You love Pepsi-Cola, we love death") is another common frame of
reference.
But the problem with bringing up Hitler is the mountain of
additional meaning the reference carries. First, it suggests an
imperialist aggressive drive to conquer territory. Second, it calls
to mind the Panzer divisions, and implies a main-force military
threat.
And bringing up Munich brings in a whole host of other implications
- such as, that the tyrant is making demands of us, or that the
relevant options are a main-force military intervention or
acquiesence.
If you look at some of the cases in which this has been invoked -
Noreiga, Iraq in 2002, Iran today - you can see that at least some
of these features are missing. By using a comparison that puts them
improperly into our thoughts, evoking Hitler and Munich can be an
impediment to clear thinking.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 2:26PM|#
Shannon Love,
...the same narcissistic militarist mindset that enemies of
liberal-democracies almost always evince.
The what? Can you please explain that in English? Thanks.
Hitler is an exemplar of the type of personality and mindset
that causes problems and one that most people with no specialized
knowledge of history knows about.
And you have this 'specialized knowledge?' Amongst historians
"psycho-history" as it is called is much debated as to its merits
partly because it is quite difficult at best to take written record
and put it on the couch.
In the militarist mindset, brute strength and power rule all
human interactions. Militarist usually murder their way to power
and maintain it through similar means. The view all responses to
their actions as reactions to their power. If an opponent makes
concessions it is because they are weak, decadent and afraid of the
militarist.
Wow, that sounds like any number of U.S. allies.
If you look at first hand reports of Saddam Hussien's
interpretations of the actions of the West in the 1991-2003 period
he sounds exactly like Hitler. Change a few names and dates around
and you could not tell the two apart. It is no cliche at all to say
the two thought alike.
Details, details.
Because militarist share the same psychology and internal
political imperatives, the same actions and policies of
liberal-democracies repeatedly evoke the same responses from all
militarist. even those of different cultures and
ideologies.
This at best an overly broad claim.
Hitler might get overused but that is largely due to his
widespread familiarity.
Actually it is largely due to rank historical ignorance.
The basic lessons learned in our failure to head him off apply
many, if not most, conflicts with foreign leaders we will ever
see.
Why don't the basic lessons learned with regard to deterrance,
detente, etc. in relationship with say the USSR or the PRC provide
the dominant model? Let's face it, the majority of the regimes that
the U.S. has actually had problems with over the 20th century were
not met with by military force and only a few of them (three in
other words) represented any sort of existential threat.
|11.8.07 @ 2:32PM|#
That kicks ass. Podhoretz rockin' the "holy shit where'd that come from?" theme.
|11.8.07 @ 2:33PM|#
In the militarist mindset, brute strength and power rule all
human interactions. Force is the only thing those people
understand. We need to go all National Review on their ass to show
them who's boss.
The view all responses to their actions as reactions to their
power. War opponents are just out to get George Bush.
If an opponent makes concessions it is because they are weak,
decadent and afraid of the militarist. Those dhimmicrats want
to appease al Qaeda because they're cowards.
You mean like that? Yeah, damn that militarist mindset.
stephen the goldberger|11.8.07 @ 2:34PM|#
Shannon's point is correct. That Hitler and many of these
dictators share teh same personalities and mindsets. However that
does not mean they pose the same threat to the western world and
humanity in general.
I'm sure you can find many meglomanical businessmen, artists, etc
who have Hitler's personality and mindset, that doesnt mean they
must be stopped.
|11.8.07 @ 2:35PM|#
I can say this much: I would be against any war that involved the US sending thousands upon thousands of ladies aged 18-24 into peril.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 2:41PM|#
I can say this much: I would be against any war that
involved the US sending thousands upon thousands of ladies aged
18-24 into peril.
What about the really, really ugly ones? I don't include fat girls
because some fat girls have the potential to lose weight and become
surprisingly hot.
Eric Hanneken|11.8.07 @ 2:41PM|#
Pre WWI England did have teh gay going on much stronger than I would have thought. . . . I'll never forget reading CS Lewis' Surprised by Joy in which he describes going to an English boarding school just before the Great War.
See also Good-bye to All That by Robert Graves, although
he didn't mention the homo-archy you say Lewis wrote about.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 2:43PM|#
stephen the goldberger,
That Hitler and many of these dictators share teh same
personalities and mindsets.
And many of them don't. It is unlikely that there is a universal
psychological profile of a dictator.
|11.8.07 @ 2:44PM|#
As a member of the faggotry, I can honestly say that I have
often seen pictures of soldiers marching off to war & sighed
that all those lovely young men, the flower of the world's youth,
was marching into a slaughterhouse.
But that doesn't change my support or lack thereof for any
particular war, on moral or political or strategic grounds.
Podhoretz is a homophobic, reductivist ass. But we knew that.
|11.8.07 @ 2:50PM|#
Shannon,
It's funny, the same people that compare any sort of diplomatic
solutions to Iran/Irag to Munich in 1938, get their panties in a
bunch when people compare Bush to Hitler for suspension of habeas
corpus, fear-mongering, universal ID checks, etc. I'm curious why
the "Hitler might get overused but that is largely due to his
widespread familiarity" argument doesn't work for violations of
civil liberties, but does apply to justify militarism?
That sounds like something a Nazi would justify.*
* This is a joke.
dhex|11.8.07 @ 2:53PM|#
for what it's worth, from my sample of one dude i know who went to a all-boys school and was indeed teh gay, there was plenty of msm nookie to go around.
Anonymo the Anonymous|11.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#
I'll never forget reading CS Lewis' Surprised by Joy in
which he describes going to an English boarding school just before
the Great War.
This reminds me of reading A Separate
Peace in high school and the teacher refusing to
acknowledge the rampant homoeroticism.
|11.8.07 @ 2:56PM|#
Every situation is unique. There will never be another Hitler
but that doesn't mean their might not be worse in the future.
Hitler was unique in that he is one of the few politicians in
history who ever kept his word. He said exactly what he was going
to do in Mein Kampf, eliminate the undesirables in German society,
rearm and settle the score with the French and then annex Eastern
Europe and move out the undesirables so that the German people
could have living space. That is pretty much exactly what he tried
to do.
If you look at the more recent studies of Nazi Germany you find
that one of the reasons that drove Hitler to keep invading
countries was to keep up the German stardard of living. He funded
the state first by looting the assets of Jews and other
undesirables he was shipping off to concentration camps. For
example, it is a lot easier to solve the unemployment problem after
you strip a few million Jews of citizenship and the right to work
and give their jobs to Germans. The Nazi "economic miracle" such as
it was was a miracle for the Aryan population of Germany created by
cannibalizing the assets of the other races in the society. That
money ran out pretty quick and he moved on to annexing Austria and
doing the same thing there and later Czechoslovakia and then of
course Poland, France and Eastern Europe. This is what explains his
seemingly insane invasion of Russis. He really thought they were an
easy mark and he needed the cash.
Saddam was somewhat similar to Hitler in that he invaded two
countries (Kuwait and Iran) for the primary purpose of looting
them. That is the exception though. Your basic crackpot middle
astern dictator is so drunk on oil money that it is unlikely to
invade another country for the cash. But they do have the
motivating force of Religion. Iran is not Nazi Germany. They are
Iran. Are the Iranians crazy enough to nuke Israel? I don't know
and neither does anyone here. Are they crazy enough to think that a
few well placed terror attacks against the US or perhaps a stray
nuclear weapon smuggled in will cause us to pick up and go home
from the Middle East? I don't know the answer to that either and I
don't see how looking at Hitler tells me the answer.
|11.8.07 @ 2:59PM|#
The first few chapters of Graves "Goodbye to All That" is about growing up and going to prewar bording schools and the homoeroticism of them. A lot of good gentleman English soldiers of the Great War were pretty gay. Hard to find a better infantry officer than Sigfried Sassoon and he was gay as hell.
|11.8.07 @ 3:00PM|#
Podhoretz penned a meandering essay in Harper's in 1977
titled "The Culture of Appeasement" which likened antiwar sentiment
in post-Vietnam America to the wariness of war in Britain after
World War I, and then linked the latter to a homosexual yearning
for relations with all the young men who perished in the Great
War.
That is one terribly convoluted way of simply saying "Anybody who's
against my favorite war is a fag!"
Podhoretz is one lousy historian, to say the least.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 3:01PM|#
This reminds me of reading A Separate Peace in high school
and the teacher refusing to acknowledge the rampant
homoeroticism.
I also had to read this excruciatingly boring book in 9th grade. It
was difficult enough for me to make it through another page, let
alone pick up on homoerotic content, though later I realized
it.
And then my teacher would analyze every fucking page, often down to
individual words--but no discussions of homoeroticism, go figure.
Might have livened that class up.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:06PM|#
John,
If you look at the more recent studies of Nazi Germany you find
that one of the reasons that drove Hitler to keep invading
countries was to keep up the German stardard of living.
No, Hitler himself was driven largely by ideological rationales,
which largely had to do with romantic visions of the German volk,
the desire to "save" the West, etc.
He funded the state first by looting the assets of Jews and
other undesirables he was shipping off to concentration
camps.
That was merely a means towards the ideological goals of Hitler,
etc.
Saddam was somewhat similar to Hitler in that he invaded two
countries (Kuwait and Iran) for the primary purpose of looting
them. That is the exception though.
I personally don't know what Saddam was like but I doubt that he
was like Hitler, except perhaps in the sense that they wanted to
create a grander nation than what they inherited. Invading Kuwait
was a means to that end for Saddam.
Are the Iranians crazy enough to nuke Israel?
Clearly not. The Iranians are rational players on an international
stage of largely rational actors. I mean really, I'm not the first
person to point this out, but look at how rationally the Iranians
actually behave on the international scene.
Alice Bowie|11.8.07 @ 3:09PM|#
I makes sense that Openly Gay Individuals are
against the War...and Closeted Homosexual
Republican Senators and Priest that Play
Beef-Jerkie in public men's rooms are for the
war.
Where's the controversy
|11.8.07 @ 3:12PM|#
"Are the Iranians crazy enough to nuke Israel? I don't know and
neither does anyone here. Are they crazy enough to think that a few
well placed terror attacks against the US or perhaps a stray
nuclear weapon smuggled in will cause us to pick up and go home
from the Middle East?"
They would have to be crazy to nuke Israel, because Israel could
retaliate with nukes. They would be crazy to use nukes against the
US also, because we could retaliate against them with nukes.
Anonymo the Anonymous|11.8.07 @ 3:12PM|#
And then my teacher would analyze every fucking page, often
down to individual words--but no discussions of homoeroticism, go
figure. Might have livened that class up.
Yeah, that's the grand irony of it all -- talking about how gay
that book is might be the only way to keep teenagers interested.
Assuming reading an actual good book isn't an option.
Mike Laursen|11.8.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Tying things back into the 1970s, Podhoretz pointed to the
"parallels with England in 1937"
I don't get it. Sure, he's no doubt correct that all those English
dandies were all gay about the war, but what's that got to do with
red-blooded, heterosexual Americans.
|11.8.07 @ 3:17PM|#
I don't find the theory that Hitler was motivated by loot
terribly compelling, either.
As with his domestic politics, he seems to have viewed the economic
gains of his conquests in a pragmatic manner. The
attainment of wealth for his war- and genocide-machines was just a
means to an end.
As you say, John, he laid out a pretty comprehensive ideological
case for his conquests.
|11.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#
"No, Hitler himself was driven largely by ideological
rationales, which largely had to do with romantic visions of the
German volk, the desire to "save" the West, etc."
That was part of it, but a lot of it had to do with economic
necessity. Look at the latest work on the Nazi German economy and
you will find that they plundered Europe to keep the German people
happy and supportive.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0805079262/reasonmagazineA/
"Clearly not. The Iranians are rational players on an international
stage of largely rational actors. I mean really, I'm not the first
person to point this out, but look at how rationally the Iranians
actually behave on the international scene."
You make the mistake of assuming that the Iranians are just like
us. They are not. There is nothing to say that they really might
make the rational calculation that losing a couple of cities to
Israeli nukes is a price worth paying to eliminate Israel. Indeed,
the Mullahs have said that for years. Are they kidding? I don't
know but I don't think you can just write off what they say. That
indeed is one similiarity to Hitler. Hitler said what he was going
to do and people said exactly what you are saying "he is a rational
actor. he is just a nationalist playing to the crowd. He doesn't
really mean it etc..."
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:18PM|#
I'm guessing that for a particular generation A Seperate Peace was an interesting book but it may lack the staying power that say The Heart Of Darkness has. I certainly never really "got into" the former.
|11.8.07 @ 3:19PM|#
Read the book I linked to on Amazon. I did earlier this year and it totally changed my view of things. It is some pretty original and compelling scholarship. In the end these clowns, be they Hitler or whoever, devolve into gangsterism. In the end it is about power and money and parnoia.
duster|11.8.07 @ 3:21PM|#
Has this guy come out of the closet yet?
Maybe he's one of those "Old School Gays"
|11.8.07 @ 3:22PM|#
Hitler began his international conquests within a couple of
years of attaining power.
Iran? We're coming up on 30 years of the mullah-ocracy, and no
wars. They seem pretty happy to play in their own sandbox.
And no, noting this fact and other evidence of their rational
behavior on the international scene is not "making the mistake of
assuming that they're just likek us," any more than noting the
rational international behavior of Maoist China.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:23PM|#
John,
That was part of it, but a lot of it had to do with economic
necessity. Look at the latest work on the Nazi German economy and
you will find that they plundered Europe to keep the German people
happy and supportive.
Dude, even the title of the book that you are recommending seems to
illustrate my point. The sort of activities that the Nazi regime
engaged in, while they did foster all manner of graft and
corruption, were also primarily taken from the perspective of the
regime's leaders to further the ideology of the Nazi regime.
You make the mistake of assuming that the Iranians are just
like us. They are not.
Actually I didn't. I judge them by their past actions. They've
acted quite rationally in the past and within a framework which is
based on benefiting themselves without creating an inordinate risk.
If you have a better way to judge the regime then tell me what it
is.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:26PM|#
joe,
Well, lots of commentators have made the remark that despite
China's quite rabid rhetoric in the 1960s they were quite willing
to deal with the U.S. by 1973.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:30PM|#
John,
In other words, for the Nazi leaders engaging in and furthering
their ideological goals was paramount, which is why the regime
undertook all manner of activities in wartime which ultimately
counter-productive to the war effort. The need for labor - slave
labor in fact - was paramount for the regime as members of the
Wannsee Conference made clear, yet SS-Gruppenführer Reinhard
Heydrich would have none of it - killing off the Jews was more
important than making sure the armaments industry had enough able
hands to keep it running at high capacity.
|11.8.07 @ 3:31PM|#
"You make the mistake of assuming that the Iranians are just
like us. They are not. There is nothing to say that they really
might make the rational calculation that losing a couple of cities
to Israeli nukes is a price worth paying to eliminate Israel.
Indeed, the Mullahs have said that for years. Are they kidding? I
don't know but I don't think you can just write off what they
say."
You have to understand the Iranian mindset. My wife, who's Iranian,
said that Iranians talk big like that all the time. My cousin's
husband, who is also Iranian, said the same thing. My wife's
brother, when he gets mad at you, says he's going to take your
life. Ofcourse, he doesn't mean it. That's just the way some
Iranians talk.
Episiarch|11.8.07 @ 3:32PM|#
I'm guessing that for a particular generation A Seperate
Peace was an interesting book but it may lack the staying power
that say The Heart Of Darkness has. I certainly never really "got
into" the former.
No, I think it's just a book that certain English majors (who often
become high school teachers) have a total hard-on for (pun
intended), and everyone else thinks it sucks rocks.
There are plenty of "classic" or "intellectual" books and authors
that are interesting, even to high school students. Why not pick
one of them?
|11.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#
Looking at the Iraq War, wouldn't "assuming the Iranians are just like us" make one MORE likely to conclude that the Tehran regime would undertake self-destructive military action, adopt an imperialst foreign policy, allow wishful thinking to crowd out rational cost/benefit analysis, and wage aggressive war in the name of their ideology?
|11.8.07 @ 3:33PM|#
"Iran? We're coming up on 30 years of the mullah-ocracy, and no
wars. They seem pretty happy to play in their own sandbox."
Really? I don't think the Lebanese think that. Further, if they are
so happy to stay at home why do they feel the need to build nuclear
weapons? None of their enemies have them. In addition, how do you
explain 30 years of propaganda about spreading the Shia Jihad?
Also, Hitler took power in 1933 and didn't do squat to another
country until what 37 or 38 when he took over Austria and even that
was an internal takeover not an outright invasion. Further, the
Iranians suffered a bit of a setback in the 8 year war with Iraq.
Getting invaded and suffering through the longest and bloodiest war
since World War II will tend to set your plans for world domination
back a few years. Maybe they are just wonderful people Joe, but
none of their statements seem to indicate that. If they are so
harmless why are they such a big sponsor of terrorism and why do
they feel the need to build nukes and missiles to put them on?
|11.8.07 @ 3:34PM|#
I've found it worthwhile to take another crack at some of the
classics I hated in High School.
Reading is much more enjoyable when you aren't doing it at
gunpoint.
|11.8.07 @ 3:35PM|#
Joe,
All I can do is look at what they say and what they say is pretty
frightening. Maybe they are lying. I don't know that they are not
but neither do you. I would just like more than your word as
evidence that they are kidding around.
Mike Laursen|11.8.07 @ 3:35PM|#
The sort of activities that the Nazi regime engaged in,
while they did foster all manner of graft and corruption, were also
primarily taken from the perspective of the regime's leaders to
further the ideology of the Nazi regime.
There's no reason they couldn't have been motivated by looting
and ideology. Especially, when the two weren't in
conflict.
Reminds me of people arguing over whether the Bush Administration
invaded Iraq because of their neo-con ideals or to get their hands
on oil. It was both.
|11.8.07 @ 3:36PM|#
I have no doubt in my mind that if the neoconservatives were running our government during the Cuban Mistle Crisis, the Cold War would have turned into a hot war. Neoconservatives don't believe in negotiations and diplomacy. They beleve only in force.
|11.8.07 @ 3:38PM|#
Iran? We're coming up on 30 years of the mullah-ocracy, and
no wars.
For the record, they did defend themselves against Saddam Hussein,
who was tacitly supported by the U.S.
|11.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#
"I have no doubt in my mind that if the neoconservatives were
running our government during the Cuban Mistle Crisis, the Cold War
would have turned into a hot war. Neoconservatives don't believe in
negotiations and diplomacy. They beleve only in force."
I can't imagine a US President being any more belligerent than
Kennedy was. He blockaded the Island for Christ's sake. The head of
the Air Force wanted to start a war and bomb China and nearly every
other country in the world preemptively if war with the Soviets
came. The world damn near ended and in retrospect the missiles in
Cuba were no more a threat to the US than the ones in Russia.
|11.8.07 @ 3:41PM|#
Iran invaded Lebannon? Really? Funny, you'd think something like
that would have made the papers.
Further, if they are so happy to stay at home why do they feel
the need to build nuclear weapons? Deterrence - you know, the
same reason every other country that built nukes in the past
half-century did so.
None of their enemies have them. What are you, kidding me?
The Great Satan has them, and Israel has both a first- and
second-strike capability.
In addition, how do you explain 30 years of propaganda about
spreading the Shia Jihad? Pretty much the same way I'd explain
our rhetoric of spreading democracy, and the Soviets' rheteoric of
spreading communism. How does any of this demonstrate
irrationality?
Also, Hitler took power in 1933 and didn't do squat to another
country until what 37 or 38 when he took over Austria... You
forgot Alsace, which came even earlier. But thank you for proving
my point - Hitler, unlike the Iranian regime, invaded his neighbors
at the first opportunity.
Maybe they are just wonderful people Joe, but none of their
statements seem to indicate that.
So, have you switched from arguing about their rationality as
global actors to arguing about their wonderfulness because you've
conceded the argument? Or do you just not understand that those are
two different subjects?
|11.8.07 @ 3:44PM|#
All I can do is look at what they say...
Not generally the smartest way to go about understanding the
motivations of politicians, John. It's better to look at what they
actually do, because politicians say all sorts of things for all
sorts of reasons that have nothing to do with their actual
intentions.
|11.8.07 @ 3:45PM|#
I can't imagine a US President being any more belligerent
than Kennedy was. He blockaded the Island for Christ's
sake.
Funny, when we had a blockade on Iraq, you described the
continuation of that policy, rather than invasion and conquest, as
a cowardly exercise in pacifist appeasement.
Now, you cannot imagine a more belligerent course of action for a
president to take. Funny, I can, and it doesn't take much
imagination at all.
|11.8.07 @ 3:46PM|#
"Pretty much the same way I'd explain our rhetoric of spreading
democracy, and the Soviets' rheteoric of spreading communism. How
does any of this demonstrate irrationality?"
It doesn't demonstrate irrationality; it demonstrates that they
mean what they say. They don't have to be insane. They only have to
believe in what they are doing and be willing to sacrifice for it.
It is not necessarily insane to nuke Israel. It just depends on how
much you hate Jews and how badly you want to destroy the country.
You assume "rational actor" is synonymous with non-threatening. If
only that were true. There is nothing to say that the Iranians mean
exactly what they say. Why is it so far fetched for them to build
nukes and then use them to destroy Israel and be the heroes of the
Muslim world? Or build nukes and use that deterrence to sponsor
terrorism with impunity?
|11.8.07 @ 3:47PM|#
I realize this is not the point of the thread at all, but I
thought A Separate Peace was a wonderful novel. I read it in high
school, and then read it again as an adult, and it was still far
more powerful than most of the crap that passes for "modern
literature" today.
Remember the guy who goes crazy, and describes what he saw when the
main character jostles the tree branch so that his friend Phineas
falls? He describes it as an engine, with sunlight bursting around
it like machine gun fire.
That image has stuck with me. Nothing from Faulkner or Hemingway
ever did.
|11.8.07 @ 3:48PM|#
"Funny, when we had a blockade on Iraq, you described the
continuation of that policy, rather than invasion and conquest, as
a cowardly exercise in pacifist appeasement.
Now, you cannot imagine a more belligerent course of action for a
president to take. Funny, I can, and it doesn't take much
imagination at all."
God you are an insufferable moron Joe. Blockading Iraq did not risk
getting us into a nuclear war with the Soviets. Blockading Cuba in
1961 did. Had Saddam Huisain had a few thousand nuclear missiles
pointed at the US, I would say blockading him would have been
pretty damn ballsy if not downright stupid.
|11.8.07 @ 3:50PM|#
"I can't imagine a US President being any more belligerent than
Kennedy was. He blockaded the Island for Christ's sake."
John, you're overlooking one little thing. JFK removed our nukes
from Turkey in exchange for the Soviets removing their nukes from
Cuba.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:50PM|#
Further, if they are so happy to stay at home why do they
feel the need to build nuclear weapons?
Well, first of all, Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and has
no capacity to do so at this time. Now it may be learning how to
create fissile material, but that is merely one step in the
process. Even its ability to do that is years off. As has been
demonstrated by both the Libyan and Iraqi nuclear weapons programs
it isn't easy to build a nuclear weapon.
None of their enemies have them.
In light of the rhetoric out of the Bush administration the U.S.
clearly looks like an enemy to Iran.
In addition, how do you explain 30 years of propaganda about
spreading the Shia Jihad?
It is exactly that, propaganda. The Iranian regime clearly realizes
the limits of power internationally, whatever rhetoric may come out
of its various organs.
Also, Hitler took power in 1933 and didn't do squat to another
country until what 37 or 38 when he took over Austria and even that
was an internal takeover not an outright invasion.
Actually, many Austrians opposed the effort and it wasn't remotely
as popular as Nazi propaganda made it out to be. Furthermore,
almost immediately after gaining power the Nazi regime was laying
plans to avenge WWI, indvade Eastern Europe, etc.
No one claimed that the Iranians were "harmless."
I can't imagine a US President being any more belligerent than
Kennedy was.
Actually, I can. Some of Kennedy's advisors wanted Kennedy to
simply launch a nuclear strike against Cuba and be done with it.
Did you not know this?
|11.8.07 @ 3:52PM|#
You assume "rational actor" is synonymous with
non-threatening.
No, I don't.
Now it's a lot clearer why you are making such bizarre arguments -
you really don't understand the subject being discussed.
Mao was even worse than the mullahs, and devoted himself to even
more aggressive rhetoric, but he acted in a rational manner.
Funding the Khmer Rouge and Shining Path were perfectly rational
actions for him to take, just as funding Hezbollah is a perfectly
rational action for Tehran to take.
Why is it so far fetched for them to build nukes and then use
them to destroy Israel and be the heroes of the Muslim world?
Becasue they, and their entire country, would be wiped off the face
of the earth in the counter-strike.
That last point, btw, is the central issue in this discussion that
you have such a weak understanding of. The questin is whether the
Iranians are going to act like rational bad guys, pushing to expand
their own power when it can be done at an acceptable cost, or like
irrational bad guys, willing to suffer their own destruction for
the cause.
In their actions over the last 30 years, they've looked a lot more
like Mao than like Mohammed Atta, in that way.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:55PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake,
Pretty clearly both sides gave each other leeway so as to avoid an
open conflict. If I recall correctly though the missiles in Turkey
were already basically obsolete anyway.
BTW, for a couple days after the end of the crisis apparently a few
Soviet subs with nuclear strike capability were in the Caribbean
unaware of the end of said standoff (out of radio contact I would
guess).
|11.8.07 @ 3:56PM|#
"Actually, I can. Some of Kennedy's advisors wanted Kennedy to
simply launch a nuclear strike against Cuba and be done with it.
Did you not know this?"
Yes, Curtis LaMay wanted to nuke the entire world. Yes Kennedy did
take nukes out of Turkey but confronting the Soviets the way he did
was very ballsy to say the least. He damn near got us into a
nuclear war over it. I don't think in retrospect, the missiles in
Cuba justified that. What is even more scary is that the missile
crews in Cuba were told to launch if they were attacked. Kennedy
almost tried to bomb them. If he had, the missiles might have
fired. Also, Castro tried to get the Soviets to give him the
authority to launch the missiles and argued vehemently for war.
Crazy bastard.
|11.8.07 @ 3:56PM|#
John,
Name something the Iranian regime has done, knowing it would lose
power and harm Iran as a result, in order to advance the "Shiite
jihad."
|11.8.07 @ 3:58PM|#
"In their actions over the last 30 years, they've looked a lot
more like Mao than like Mohammed Atta, in that way."
The Soviets were terrified of Mao and thought that he was a parnoid
lunatic. There was serious talk in the Kremlin in the late 1960s
that he was going to start a nuclear war. So you think the Mullahs
are like Mao? How many times does the world have to risk nuclear
weapons in the hands of lunatics before its luck runs out? Really?
You don't find someone like Mao holding nuclear weapons to be a
problem?
|11.8.07 @ 3:59PM|#
"Why is it so far fetched for them to build nukes and then use
them to destroy Israel and be the heroes of the Muslim world? Or
build nukes and use that deterrence to sponsor terrorism with
impunity?"
Because, even if Israel was unable to retaliate, the US could. The
Iranian government would never be so stupid to nuke Israel. Also,
why would Iran spend billions of dollars on nukes and give them
away to terrorists. They know the bombs could be traced back to
them and that they would be retaliated against. Also, how could
they trust that the terrorists wouldn't use the nukes against
them?
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 3:59PM|#
To be frank, a lot of the Iranian zeitgest (hey, Shannon used narcissitic) has clearly little to do with religion and more to do with memories of the past Persian empire, Persian nationalism, etc. Now a lot of that is channeled through rhetoric tinged with Islamic sayings, etc. but getting over a period in which Iran was dominated by foreign powers and getting back to Iran (persia's) "natural" position in the middle east does seem to describe the way a lot of Iranians feel at least in part.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:01PM|#
John,
Yes, Curtis LaMay wanted to nuke the entire world.
So you admit my point?
|11.8.07 @ 4:01PM|#
"Name something the Iranian regime has done, knowing it would
lose power and harm Iran as a result, in order to advance the
"Shiite jihad."
Once the Iranians have nukes, they can never lose power short of a
nuclear war or internal revolution. In that case, what incentive
would they have to restrain their behavior? If they sponsor
terorists all over the world, what are we going to do about it?
Risk a nuclear war? Further, what is Europe who will be in range,
going to do about it. Lastly, once they have nukes, how does the
world excert any influence over them in regard to their own people?
Nuclear weapons are like a get out of jail free card.
|11.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"The Soviets were terrified of Mao and thought that he was a
parnoid lunatic. There was serious talk in the Kremlin in the late
1960s that he was going to start a nuclear war."
The Soviets had an overblown fear of Mao just as we do of Iran.
|11.8.07 @ 4:03PM|#
"Because, even if Israel was unable to retaliate, the US could.
The Iranian government would never be so stupid to nuke
Israel."
Who is to say we would respond? Especially if they had the ability
to strike the US. Would the public support defending Israel if
doing so risked losing a couple of cities? I don't think they
would. If Iran has intercontinental nukes, they could use them on
one country and threaten any country that intervened with nuclear
weapons. If they launched on Israel and told the US that if we
defended Israel they would launch on us to, what would the US do?
Absent missile defense, nothing is I think the answer.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:06PM|#
John,
Did Mao actually have authority over the use of nuclear weapons?
Furthermore, did the testing at Lop Nor mean that the Chinese have
the ability to deliver such a weapon?
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:07PM|#
Rattlesnake Jake,
I think it was more of an effort to spike any ease of relations
between the PRC and the U.S. following the break between the USSR
and the PRC.
|11.8.07 @ 4:12PM|#
The Soviets were terrified of Mao and thought that he was a
parnoid lunatic. There was serious talk in the Kremlin in the late
1960s that he was going to start a nuclear war. So you think the
Mullahs are like Mao?
Seeing as how the Kremlin turned out to be completely wrong about
that, you've yet againg made a point in support of my
position.
Yup, people who themselves support military aggression and have a
paranoid view of the world, and overestimate the threat posed by
other powers, sometimes to their own detriment.
Good point.
|11.8.07 @ 4:15PM|#
Like that old British joke, "I am not homosexual, but having gone to public school, I may have slept with men who are."
|11.8.07 @ 4:16PM|#
John, did you paste the wrong quote at 4:01?
Your answer doesn't seem to have anything to do with the
question.
As for the point you mention, no on doubts that Iran in posession
of nukes is a threat. The question at hand is, how much of a
threat? As most of us have recently been reminded, overestimating
threats can be quite harmful, too, so it's not just a case of
"better safe than sorry" when estimating the degree of threat.
|11.8.07 @ 4:19PM|#
Of course, if you don't believe that the decision to go to war
against a nasty regime can ever be wrong, then any degree of threat
will do.
In which case, there really isn't any point in discussing the
degree of threat, except as propaganda.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:20PM|#
joe,
Well, as I noted, also the commentary may have simply been a means
to spread disinformation so as to undermine any future talks
between the PRC and the U.S. That wouldn't surprise me given the
nature of the relationship between the two countries at the
time.
|11.8.07 @ 4:22PM|#
"Getting invaded and suffering through the longest and bloodiest
war since World War II will tend to set your plans for world
domination back a few years."
You really believe they are bent on world domination, John?
|11.8.07 @ 4:30PM|#
"Who is to say we would respond? Especially if they had the
ability to strike the US. Would the public support defending Israel
if doing so risked losing a couple of cities? I don't think they
would. If Iran has intercontinental nukes, they could use them on
one country and threaten any country that intervened with nuclear
weapons. If they launched on Israel and told the US that if we
defended Israel they would launch on us to, what would the US do?
Absent missile defense, nothing is I think the answer."
This all sounds like farfetched fantasy to me. The most likely
scenario is that Iran would not use nukes against Israel in the
first place because they know that Israel and the US could
retaliate against them.
|11.8.07 @ 4:31PM|#
"You really believe they are bent on world domination,
John?"
I honestly don't know. They certainly make statements like they
are. I can't see anyone could argue that the world would be a hell
of a lot better off if they don't get nukes. The question becomes
how much are you willing to pay to stop that. If you told me
tommorow that we could just do a Kosovo like war and have sustained
bombing until they capitulated or until their nuke program was set
back for a decade or two, that looks like a decent option. Not
every war need involve invading the country and building a new one.
That is not what we did in Kosovo and not what we necessarily have
to do in Iran.
|11.8.07 @ 4:32PM|#
"This all sounds like farfetched fantasy to me. The most likely
scenario is that Iran would not use nukes against Israel in the
first place because they know that Israel and the US could
retaliate against them."
Hey what are a few million lives to gamble with. Further, even if
that didn't happen, how do you plan to confron a nuclear armed Iran
who are supporting terrorists? Yeah 9-11 was pretty bad but if
retaliating involved risking nuclear war, would you want to do it
or just take it and move on?
|11.8.07 @ 4:35PM|#
The Serbs didn't throw in the towel until we started building up
towards a ground invasion. We could credibly threaten them with
one.
Iran? In 2007? We can't even maintain troop levels in Iraq and
Afghanistan.
We've ratcheted up their motivation to pursue a deterrent, while
ceding our ability to credibly threaten them with the level of
force necessary to compel their compliance, even if we wanted to
use it.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:37PM|#
John,
The thing of course is that there is plenty of time to deal with
Iran.
If you told me tommorow that we could just do a Kosovo like war and
have sustained bombing until they capitulated or until their nuke
program was set back for a decade or two, that looks like a decent
option.
It is unlikely that the Iranians would capitulate and the tens of
thousands of civilian casualities caused would of course increase
the enmity of Iran toward the U.S. That and Iran obviously doesn't
have all of its eggs in one basket. Then of course there is issue
of what would happen in Iraq. Iran could easily cause a heck of a
lot of havoc there.
|11.8.07 @ 4:38PM|#
Hey what are a few million lives to gamble with.
Says the guy talking about starting a war.
Launching wars against countries in the Middle East is not safe.
It's a gamble, too.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 4:38PM|#
The irony of an attack on Iran would be the ratcheting up of violence in Iraq such that the 'surge' policy ended in a failure.
|11.8.07 @ 4:43PM|#
The best chance we had to reduce our Persian headaches was the
democracy movement of the late 1990s, and we put an end to that by
invading Iraq. Between the rally 'round the flag effect and the
greater defence towards executive action during periods of national
threat, there isn't a mass movement for democracy in Iran
anymore.
Launching wars is a dangerous business. It should not be treated as
a "safe" course of action that we avoid only out of kindness or
weakness or solidarity with the would-be-enemy.
Sometimes, the stock market goes down. Sometimes, wars harm our
interests more than help.
|11.8.07 @ 4:45PM|#
Oh, and remember, no matter how bad our intelligence was when we invaded the other country, once there we must remain FOREVER, or at least until they have a nice, stable, Western-style democracy with a McDonald's on ever corner. You break it, you buy it.
GILMORE|11.8.07 @ 4:54PM|#
In case no one's ever heard this line before =
The Pink Swastika:Homosexuality in the Nazi
Party
http://www.abidingtruth.com/pfrc/books/pinkswastika/html/the_pinkswastika_4th_edition_-_final.htm
You can read the whole ridiculous thing online.
I got through a few chapters once, LOL'd a few times, then finally
got nauseous. It really does boil down to "Nazis=Fags, ergo, all
gays are latent Nazis".
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 5:00PM|#
Gilmore,
Read Plant's "The Pink Triangle" for much of the history of the
Nazi persecution of homosexuals.
|11.8.07 @ 5:01PM|#
"how do you plan to confron a nuclear armed Iran who are
supporting terrorists?"
They would not be supporting terrorists against us if it were'nt
for our meddling foreign policy in the Middle East.
GILMORE|11.8.07 @ 5:01PM|#
John sez = how do you plan to confron a nuclear armed
Iran...
Well, they'd be an Iran with zero capacity to do anything with them
aside from threaten Israel, which if they did, Isreal would
preemtively turn them into glass.
Its not a credible threat to US security one way or the other. It's
a treat to balance of power in the region to be sure, and not
something we'd want to happen, but making Iran into some kind of
boogeyman nemesis is silly. We stood down the soviet union for 40
years, and they had the power to truly blow up the world. Iran is
by contrast a loudmouth kid in the neighborhood who gets a hold of
a .22
And before anyone suggests they'd "give teh weapon to terrrists~!",
try explaining how 'terrorists' would transport and detonate a
nuclear device the size of a minivan on US soil. If this were
practical, it could have been done already many times. Iran is
basically a head-fake by the US government to raise a new specter
for the elections of 08 ("whos Toughest on Iran!?"), and to
distract people away from the shithole mess called Iraq.
|11.8.07 @ 5:04PM|#
Actually, John hasn't made the claim that Iran would give
weapons to terrorists. I don't think he ever has.
He's been quite clear that the biggest threat he sees in an
Irannian nuke program is the possibility that we might not be as
eager to start a war with them.
|11.8.07 @ 5:17PM|#
If an officer in the military is pissing his pants this bad, I can't imagine how the average American makes it through the day.
|11.8.07 @ 5:45PM|#
Yes, Curtis LaMay wanted to nuke the entire world. Yes
Kennedy did take nukes out of Turkey but confronting the Soviets
the way he did was very ballsy to say the least. He damn
near got us into a nuclear war over it. I don't think in
retrospect, the missiles in Cuba justified that. What is even more
scary is that the missile crews in Cuba were told to launch if they
were attacked. Kennedy almost tried to bomb them. If he
had, the missiles might have fired. Also, Castro tried to get the
Soviets to give him the authority to launch the missiles and argued
vehemently for war. Crazy bastard.
Yeah, and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.
|11.8.07 @ 6:08PM|#
so wait, hilarious and insane arguments about how all anti-war people are gay aside, was WW2 a libertarian war?
|11.8.07 @ 6:14PM|#
Why is it so far fetched for them to build nukes and then
use them to destroy Israel and be the heroes of the Muslim world?
Becasue they, and their entire country, would be wiped off the face
of the earth in the counter-strike.
Is it just me or did Joe just give a ringing endorsement to
Reagon?
Glaivester|11.8.07 @ 6:57PM|#
Justin Raimondo commented on this years ago:
During the Vietnam war, super-hawk Norman Podhoretz once
declared that the antiwar movment was motivated by homosexual
passion to save all those delectable young men from a certain
death.
Joshua Holmes|11.8.07 @ 7:17PM|#
Upthread, Gabriel Kolko's Century of War discusses a
lot of the Nazi welfare state. Apparently, Hitler and his generals
were really quite shrewd in putting it together.
I know that World War I is barely ever mentioned, but few people
realize just how close the entire European continent came to
starving to death. This launched serious social revolutions,
including the Communist takeover of Russia. Germany also was
wracked by internal strife from labor and communist parties -
albeit the Germans had enough to put them down.
The Nazis remembered that Germany came close to a complete
revolution, and so they vowed to channel the spoils of war to the
German people. Bread and circuses, and all that.
I strongly recommend Century, although Kolko's prose is a
crime against the English language.
|11.8.07 @ 9:23PM|#
I can't imagine that Iran would give nukes to terrorists because then terrorists would have huge bargaining power against Iran. I think their history is too long to trust in rogue, non-state actors.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 11:09PM|#
That theory shows some hardcore obsession with teh
geys.
Actually, the post by Brian shows some obsession with those who
mention homosexuals in a way he does not appreciate.
The kind of obsession one usually sees in a repressed
homosexual.
I really do not know that to be the case and the famous Mr. Doherty
shirtless vest picture certainly should not be entered into
evidence to support your side of this discussion.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 11:12PM|#
I can't imagine that Iran would give nukes to terrorists
because then terrorists would have huge bargaining power against
Iran. I think their history is too long to trust in rogue,
non-state actors.
Yea, those Hezbollah guys are not such rogues, never following
along with their bosses and all that. Trying to make peace
with Lebanon and Israel withoug permission failing to
destroy their hosts and foes as ordered, all that.
Guy Montag|11.8.07 @ 11:17PM|#
so wait, hilarious and insane arguments about how all
anti-war people are gay aside, was WW2 a libertarian
war?
No, it was a war between Socialists. International Socialists on
the Soviet and irish side, National Socialists by the rest of the
leadership: FDR, Churchill, Hitler, degalle.
Syloson of Samos|11.8.07 @ 11:29PM|#
Guy Montag,
Actually, the post by Brian shows some obsession with those who
mention homosexuals in a way he does not appreciate.
On its face, does the argument make sense to you? Do you agree with
the assertion or not?
The guy's name was de Gaulle, BTW.
|11.9.07 @ 10:05AM|#
I don't know who "Reagon" is, but the concept of nuclear deterrence goes back to the 1950s.
|11.11.07 @ 11:00AM|#
joe-He was in one of the Godzilla movies. It was the one right after Godzilla vs. Qu'ran, Toho's attempt to return to the early days of allegorical Godzilla adventures. Unfortunately, it was Godzilla vs. Reagon that convinced Matthew Broderick that Godzilla couldn't possibly get any worse, and we all know how that turned out.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245