Comments Posted By Nikolay
Displaying 61 To 70 Of 84 Comments
WHAT GOES AROUND, COMES AROUND
There's a big difference here. Iran was invading US embassy on Iranian territory, while US here invaded consulate on the Iraqi territory. As such, it pissed off: Iranians, Iraqi government, Kurds. Which is quite a lot of people to piss off at the same time.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 12.01.2007 @ 07:33
It's kind of unfair to talk about "Democratic cowards" when you see Ted Kennedy standing up for his position already being called "a hostile enemy", and with Mark Levin, who is so deeply ignorant as to talk about "Iraninan islomanazis and their Al-Qaeda friends", calling Kennedy all the names, and accusing him of wanting the genocide, which is especially insulting given Kennedy's Bangladesh experience.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 10.01.2007 @ 16:38
Don't you feel that some part of the Right went beyond shameless in their Civil War against "inner enemy"?
It’s okay if the story is false or exaggerated or a piece of enemy propaganda. What’s important is that righty bloggers eat crow.
It is quite important that righty bloggers eat crow if it turns out that they were uncritical tools of "Islamofascist" (i.e. Sadrist / MOI) propaganda, which seems quite likely to be the case.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 5.01.2007 @ 16:37
I don't really understand, how is it that Dems get blamed for their imaginary "coddling" of terrorists, Kerry is called traitor for his visit to Syria where he went to find the ways to help Lebanon get rid of Hezbollah, while the very real coddling of Islamo-extremists like Al-Hakim or Al-Maliki by the Right is OK with everybody.
I won't say that this is a fact, but this seems to be a likely possibility: Malkin went to bed with Al-Sadr because she hates MSM more than him.
JONAH GOLDBERG NEEDS A PIE IN THE FACE (METAPHORICALLY SPEAKING OF COURSE)
Mass murderer? Maybe not. But his stupid gambling with the fate of the world in 1962 should take the luster off of any praise you might throw his way.
Well, my point was that Kruschev was one of the more liberal Russia's rulers of the last century, which, given our country's history, is, unfortunately, not such a high praise. Nevertheless, he's not in the same league with Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin. Stupid, simple-minded and dangerous -- definitely. But not vicious -- though he took part in some of the atrocities during Stalin's era. And if you're comparing him to Castro, Castro probably also bears some responsibility for the missile crisis.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 15.12.2006 @ 13:48
Anyway, sorry for going entirely off-topic. It just really surprised me to see Kruschev in such company.
I minor point.
Neither brute enters the truly sublime territory occupied by Mao, Stalin, Kruschev, or Pol Pot (in that order).
I'm sorry, but this is kind of jaw-dropping. What else, besides ungentlemanly behavior at UN and not starting nuclear war with Kennedy earned him a place between Stalin and Pol Pot? He condemned Stalin, he released political prisoners from GULAG, there were less free-speech restrictions at his times than other time in USSR history before Gorbachev, his times are generally remembered as the most liberal before USSR started collapsing. I've never heard of anything he's done to rank him with Pol Pot. Do I miss something?
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 15.12.2006 @ 12:08
IF BUSH GOES "ALL IN," I'M WITH HIM
The two largest political parties – the United Iraqi Alliance and the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI)
Correction: SCIRI and UIA are not two different parties. SCIRI is a part of UIA.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 14.12.2006 @ 19:38
TAKING THE EMPTY SUIT TO THE CLEANERS
A win/win situation is a good thing for the US in Iraq. And this is the kind of thinking that was totally lacking from the ISG. This move is creative with definite thinking outside the box. It goes to show that there are in fact other options available to the US - options with a chance of turning the situation around relatively quickly.
Well, this, if it's indeed American initiative, not Iraqi's own, is back-door politics. Not a thing to be put into official report. Talabini is complaining against ISG's contempt for Iraqi sovereignty anyway.
BTW, don't you find it troubling that ISG is portrayed as "surrender" and "give a warm welcome to Iran & Syria" when it's in fact exactly opposite?
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 11.12.2006 @ 11:59
AOUN THREATENS VIOLENT COUP IN LEBANON
This is really crazy, when you think about the fact that Aoun was forced into exile by Syria and could only return in 2005 after Syrian army withdrew from the country.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 10.12.2006 @ 17:26
OUR GOVERNMENT IS UNSERIOUS ABOUT NATIONAL SECURITY
Maybe we should send the lot of them to the nearest junior college and make them all take a course in the history of Islam.
You know, the irony here is that Hastings is said to be one of the most hard-working members of the committee. And he knows about Islam enough:
And he was onto al Qaeda when most members of Congress probably thought it was an insect.Comment Posted By Nikolay On 10.12.2006 @ 17:21In 1998, he petitioned then-House leaders Newt Gingrich, R-Ga., and Richard A. Gephart, D-Mo., to “find a way to allow for academia and experts to come here and discuss with us the nature of the religion Islam.â€[...]
“Hastings,†maintains an ally, “could probably lecture on Islam for an hour or two.â€
As I recall, the way Raegan brought down the Soviet Union was by supporting dissidents within those countries. From the pressure applied, this caused the Soviet Union and its satellites to collapse.
Well, there were many factors that brought Soviet Union down, but I'm afraid the main one is the one that you can't use against Iran. Reagan engaged USSR in nuclear arms race which drained economy and forced party leaders to change direction. The only similar way to take down Iran would be to force Saudi Arabia to triple their oil output and to significantly lower prices. This would bring Iranian economy, which is already in very bad shape, to a halt.
The Islamic ability and willingness to build a world wide caliphate is no derangment. It is very real. It is not Muslims who are evil. The evil ones are those who use Islam as a basis for their goal of world domination.
Well, this is not some PC stupidity about Islam being religion of peace I'm talking about. I agree that Ahmadinejad, if left to his own devices, could do something crazy like nuke the world out of existence. And this is the thing to be dealt with.
But there's just no way for him to "conquer the planet". You know, "Islamofascists" are frequently compared to Nazis. But there's a huge difference. Hitler, among other things, restored German economy that was in shatters after WWI. German fascism was a symbioses of politics with very effective corporate economics. Islamism is not an ideology that could conquer the world, because it's not fit to function in reality. It thrives on oil trade, drug trade etc., but in the "real word" it's dysfunctional. Regular people in Iran are fed up with Islamism, they don't have enough resolve to fight it, but they certainly won't have resolve to spread it across the world. Of course, there's a big number of psychotic "jihad warriors" in the world, but don't forget, all the Al-Qaeda is about 10.000 people max, same with Hezbollah. They can cause a lot of trouble, but they are zero compared to Nazi armies if you talk about regular combat that is required to "conquer the world". The apocalyptic trash about "world caliphate" is just that, trash. They could as well talk about meeting the aliens.
Another comparison. Could you imagine something like this happening to Hitler:Iranian students have disrupted a speech by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at a prestigious Tehran university, setting fire to his picture and heckling him. [...]
"A small number of students shouted 'death to the dictator' and smashed cameras of state television[...]All the student resistance to fascism in Germany was, basically, limited to "White Rose", and they are now "saints" of Germany, with schools and streets named after them all over the country.
This is not say that Ahmadinejad is "soft". He's just as likely to murder dissent as Hitler was. But there's much more tension in the country now.Iran, Syria, and the Communist allies of Russia, China, and Venezuela. Our enemies are growing stronger literally by the week.
Well, you know, I live in Russia. I can honestly say, practically all the troubles that Russia causes have pragmatical grounds. It's good for us to have Middle East in a mess, since our economy is depended on oil exports. We sell hi-tech weapons to bad guys because bad guys pay money and because weapons is basically the only hi-tech exports we have. Our crazies in command like to do some minor Cold War replays just to repay for humiliation of the Cold War we lost. But the country as a whole is totally demoralized, there's no functioning army and nobody would care for a serious military conflict. Sure, we have nukes, but that's all we have.
Comment Posted By Nikolay On 11.12.2006 @ 11:38
Chavez is just a stupid nut who will eventually destroy his country's economy.
China is a different story -- I believe they expect the second Great Depression in your country that will officially make them the lone superpower of the world. This is probably inevitable, but it's a fair play. There are hard times ahead for US, but they won't have anything to do with "existential threat of Islamofascism", unless, of course, Ahmadinejad nukes the world to hell.
