German Militarism rearing it’s head regarding Honduras?
From Germany's Der Speigel:
In a Der Spiegel interview, ousted President Manuel Zelaya, 56, discusses the coup in his native Honduras, the lack of intervention from Washington.....
From the interview:
Zelaya: US President (Barack) Obama is sincere, but he is not acting decisively enough. He ought to pursue the coup leaders more resolutely so that such coups don't happen again.
But...but...but...but I coulda sworn that sophisticated and internationally astute Europeans like the ones who publish and edit Der Spiegel ADAMANTLY OPPOSE U.S. intervention in the affairs of poor, little inoffensive Latin American nations (such as Stalinist and Terrorist-sponsoring Cuba)???????
Now they're promoting--what?--that the U.S. send in the Marines to capture Micheletti, perhaps with the aid of a couple Panzer divisions???????
My, oh, my. How sophisticated, educated, internationally-responsible, anti-interventionist attitudes change overnight?????
Interesting to read this kow-towing to Zelaya by these "Krauts" (as my father-in-law delighted in calling calling 'em--especially in front of my mother-in-law who is first generation German!--so please stifle the accusations of racism! My wife of 30 years is half-kraut and my three offspring are one-quarter Kraut)
And for all I know, myself and many Babalusians probably have german blood. After all, German tribes--Goths, Vandals, Suevi, Alani--overan Spain after the fall of the Roman Empire and settled primarily in the Northern areas--what became Asturias, Galicia, Navarre--from where many (perhaps most) Cubans trace their heritage.
So there.
Yeah, and Europe, which claims to dislike U.S. and its domineering ways, would be the first to tell everyone to stop Israel any time it is defending itself.
Everything is funny if it weren't so sad.
One of my favorite jokes is that an American tourist is accosted by a Frenchman who is complaining about the pushiness of the U.S. He asks the Frenchman, "Pardon me, can you speak German?" The startled Frenchman answers. "No!" "You're welcome," says the American and walks off.
The Germans promoting an illegal invasion ...
I'm SHOCKED !
(sarcasm)
Humberto -
Yeah, Dad's 1/2 Hun ... makes me 1/4 or whatever Hun, I guess (once the dog's a full mutt you just don't see the different breeds in `em anymore).
As "usurpers" go, the Germans historically have one of the biggest track records. And speaking of dogs ... unless the Germans have some vested interest in Zelaya's return to Honduras they should just STFU or let us know out loud they support Communist dictatorships over throwing Constitutions and going against Supreme Court decisions ... might give us an indication where the Huns stand once that's in full swing here.
"My, oh, my. How sophisticated, educated, internationally-responsible, anti-interventionist attitudes change overnight?????"
An astute and key observation, as always, don Humberto. One of the fundamental symptoms of the sociopathology of our national neo-neo-fascism is that its adherents follow only select people, never principles. Thus, the liberal 'leader' may do _anything_, however heinous, without being held wrong or accountable -- his actions are always assumed correct by virtue of He who is committing the act. That is why when His Royal Goatglandedness, Good King Willard the First, committed perjury under oath it was simply "all about sex" and a minor misstep to be overlooked, whereas inaccuracies by his successor became "Bush Lied, People Died" by a source of pure evil. So, Clinton can unilaterally bomb the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade and it's OK, but Bush's coalition that invaded Iraq can never obtain adequate levels of consent from our erstwhile allies. Consequently, any military intervention for Zelaya (and his silly "campesino faux" hat) by Obama is correct simply because it is Obama. By definition, the present acts of the leader themselves define fundamental truth.
God save this Republic from such tiny minds and hands. If they assume total power of this nation, the Hondurases of this hemisphere will starting having REAL reason to fear.
Typo above: make that "start having" in the final sentence. The Bustelo-to-blood-sugar ratio was a bit high while typing.
ivandurakov,
I read your name and I thought, oh no, another visitor to tell us how we are wrong minded. Relief once I read your response.
Thank you.
I loved Ronald Reagan. But if he did something I didn't like, I said I didn't like it. I was not too fond of Bill Clinton, but if he passed the Free Trade agreement and allowed the '94 Congress to do its best and got out of the way, I said I liked that. When the otherwise disgusting Nancy Pelosi came out strongly against China's behavior at Tiananmen Square, to such a high degree that she opposed Holder's appointment because of his going along with the Chinese, I commended her for that.
What is it with this cult of personality crap? Intelligent people I know find themselves unable to see anything good in Bush, so complete must be their hatred and fear of him that to find a single thing good undermines their cult of hatred of him. And with Obama, of course it is the opposite. So if Obama is going against Israel as no other president has before him, and is the antithesis of the marvelously pro Israel Bush, then it must be Israel's fault.
Your assessment matches mine perfectly. We have got to stop this cult of personality stuff going on in this country.
How do we bring this out and at least make a chink in the liberals' nuttiness?
Honey & ivandurakov -
Perhaps waaaaay off topic here but ... my coffee to brain fluid ratio ain't what it should be yet, and your last comments provoke me to share ...
In the last year or so I have delegated TV to the background, and mostly humming away Fox News. Once or twice a week I might take an hour to watch something. For the last few days I have been burned out on news and the mental stress brought on by processing what it all means. So, I have tried to catch up on movies On Demand on my cable.
The Dark Knight. I knew the reason I was falling asleep 10-15 minutes into the movie was not because it was boring, but my mind was exhausted and took the opportunity of me actually stretching out on my couch in a reclined position to shut off. So, last night I sat up and watched The Dark Knight.
I had heard a year ago, prior to its release in the theaters, the writer was using the underlying story as a disguised narrative on The War On Terror, and Pres. Bush's thankless position in it. The Batman was supposed to symbolize Pres. Bush and his conflict over the deaths in the fight that were being blamed on him and not on the actions or decisions of "The Joker" and the other terrorists, and how the populace would turn on him because of it. As we saw here the populace and the media removed responsibility from the enemy as if they were fictional, insisting the war taken to them was the cause of their violent actions. And appeasement to the terrorists was quickly assumed by these people as a foolish means to quell the terror. But wiser heads would prevail and insist, even when the people were demanding The Batman's head, submission to the enemy was not an option. That things were going to get much worse before they got better.
Those who knew him, the real man behind the position of power as "The Batman", would harshly criticize him for his methods and his persistence ... Yet, when he would begin to falter in his commitment these same people insisted there was no other choice in facing this enemy ... that he, hovering dangerously close to outside laws and ethics, was the only chance they had. Nobody else was willing to put their reputations, morals, or lives on the line to do what had to be done. But he assumed the "cross" of vile and "fair-weather" appreciation from the public he was protecting and would carry on. And while coming close to crossing the line he never really did ... The "White Knight" (the District Attorney) The Batman had grown to trust and even hope would take his place and champion the city without hiding behind a mask ... in all his strength of integrity and moral steadfastness in the face of evil HE would give in to his emotions of loss and revenge and cross the line The Batman only 'toed' with. For all the damnation aimed at him, he never really crossed over into the darkside the terrorists were trying their damnedest to tempt him into.
If you have not see The Dark Knight, or have seen it and did not know this was an intended reflection of the Bush/WOT analogy I urge you to watch or re-watch with that in mind. Even if you're not into the action side of the movie, pay close attention to the underlying story I laid out, and the conversations, especially those between Bruce/Batman and those closest to him. In the end The Batman was willing to be hated, hunted, and even blamed for the death and destruction blame the annoyed public was thrusting upon him, removing the personal responsibility from the terrorists, in order to protect society on whole and rid it of the real criminals ... He stayed focused while they fell victim to their own "feelings" and emotions and fears. And the hardest choice in the movie comes when he has to decide between his personal interests and those of the city.
Now, a narrative movie on what we have today, what we are dealing with, is some sort of twisted combo of The Body Snatchers, Soylent Green, Dr. Zhivago, Salem's Lot, Lord Of The Rings, The Stand, and To Serve Man ... and it's about to go War of the Worlds.
Oh my dear sweet Lord ... Looky at what I just found:
http://tinyurl.com/ngv7vy
Sometimes synchronicity hits me like a double decker bus on a crowded Londonistan street just before the suicide bomber on board detonates ...
The poster is amazing and serendipitous. I sent it to my very small conservative mailing list.
drillanwr,
Not so off topic at that.
And also not so off topic is the fact that Coriolanus has always been my favorite Shakespeare play. The hero saves the day because no one else has the leadership, tactics or bravery needed to defeat the enemy and save Corioli. He is given a hero's welcome but immediately the congress conspires against him because he's getting so much credit and they aren't and they stir up the people to demand that he grovel before them to show he is no better than they are. He leaves the country and joins the enemy, thus dooming the ungrateful people. It goes on from there.
Now it's funny. The play can be read as a kind of Lear who had inordinate pride and it brought him down. Or it can be read like this Batman movie or George Bush saving the free world which is ungrateful and blames him for whatever.
But the funniest thing is that they say Hitler considered himself Coriolanus, and Stalin, too.
That's why history bothers me. Who writes the history books determines the history. Even today all you have to do is read comments on articles and you can see that there are crazies out there who say the darnedest things.
Ah well... Thank heavens there's babalu.
[...] German Militarism rearing it’s head regarding Honduras? [...]