Much as we do right here as home, as well:
Posted on 03/01/2005 5:14:37 PM PST by The Loan Arranger
The original architects of the U.S. empire—long before its celebration by today’s neoconservatives—understood the importance of legitimacy in the neo-colonialist enterprise.
In order to achieve some degree of legitimacy, it was important to create a native stooge—what some call a “comprador”—heavily dependent upon American power to govern in the interests of the U.S. government.
In Iraq we have had the proverbial “Three Stooges,” as in the movies, often beating up on each other. The first of these was Saddam Hussein, who was essential in helping evict the British from control in Iraq and then in attacking Iran, but who became just a little too big for his britches. He has been followed with less success thus far by Ahmed Chalabi and now Iyad Allawi.
With all of the attention on Iraq and Afghanistan, with elections much in the news in those nations as well as in the United States, it is easy to lose sight of the U.S.’s long-term policies as recently projected by the Bush Administration and American military planners.
The Philippine Example
In the buildup for war against Iraq, the neocons used the Philippines a century ago as an example of successful counterinsurgency warfare and then of nation building. The primary advocate of this strategy was Max Boot, whose chapter on the Philippines in his book The Savage Wars of Peace: Small Wars and the Rise of American Power—based on a few American secondary sources and totally ignoring Filipino scholarship—made him an instant “expert” on such matters, vaulting him from the Wall Street Journal to the Council on Foreign Relations.
(Excerpt) Read more at independent.org ...
"The first of these was Saddam Hussein, who was essential in helping evict the British from control in Iraq"
Eh? In August 1921 a plebiscite elected Faisal king of Iraq. On Oct. 3, 1932, Iraq was admitted to the League of Nations as an independent state. Saddam didnt seize power for another more than 40 years!!
We need to cut the colleges off. Stop donating money.
This is what happens when leftist intellectuals read nothing but each other's opinions.
No, not all of them are leftists nuts; however, many are. The lefties are in majority control in most faculties. Remember, professors approve the hiring of new professors. Therefore, those in control determine those who will be added to the department. The leftist, for all of their banter on "diversity" look down upon conservative applicants. Conservatives are viewed by the elites as rubes or provencial. That is okay, because I am happier than my lefty colleagues; I don't waste my life agonising about things that are beyond my control. Frankly, when has angst freed one person or fed the starving?
and feed one another's egos.
I have met a few and they are pretty damn pathetic. They are SERIOUSLY out of touch with the real world.
Yes and No in response to your questions in the order they were asked.
Oh...I thought he was referring to the Baghdad Thunder Run and the taking, and holding, of the critical intersections Curly, Larry and Moe.
I think the campus leftists are dangerous rather than funny or pathetic...and they sop at the public trough with loud slurping sounds
I agree. They over-aged, immature, drugged out, pony-tailed leftovers from the 60's are indeed dangerous. The USA will be better off when they take the ol eternal dirt nap.
Much as we do right here as home, as well:
Three not-too-bright guys who think they know it all.
This is one of the more extreme examples of a leftist making up his story as he tells it. And once it's out of his mouth everybody is supposed to treat his words like gospel. And if folks dare to contradict his fabrications, they will be called many mean names.
These leftists smoked too much pot in the 70s. Their intellectual development was arrested. Now they sound like teenagers in Lala Land.
Hmmmmm? I don't think it's you!!
I'm sick of these leftist/libertarian moonbat rants against "neocons" going to war. They've been pretty much the same since right after 9/11/01 when the morons were calling Afghanistan a "dirty little police action".
I'm also tired of this neocon crap. I thank the lovely libertarians for that. If I only just discovered exactly what one is (apparently, I'm a paleocon, not a neocon not that the flipping label matters) then there's not a chance in hell some leftist moonbat, like the author of this mindless rant, knows what one is.
I'm now willing to bet that at least half of those of us derisively called "neocons" by the so-called "paleocons" AND the left aren't "neocons" either.
Our soldiers come from all political and ideological stripes. They're paleocons and neocons, moderates and a few leftists. They are no less brave, their blood no less red when spilled, than that of the armchair warriors mindlessly parroting overt Nazi-esque dogma.
THEY can stand and proudly and know that in 2001, Afghanistan, via Binny, attacked this country, but now the Taliban is gone and millions of Afghani men and women voted in their first elections.
THEY can stand and know the Gulf War, begun in 1998, is FINALLY over, Saddam is toppled and millions of Iraqis voted in their first free elections ever.
THEY can stand proud and know that if not for their brothers, the moonbat who wrote this drivel has the right to speak or write whatever black, hateful thought strikes his twisted little mind without fear of being tossed into a plastic shredder or of having US tanks turned on his home.
WHOSE freedom did William Marina guarantee?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.