All Things Russia & Ukraine

[MDlaxfan76]

Leaving out Bremer...and Will..Kirkpatrick...even Moynihan, all of whom were described as neoconservatives.

Not sure Bremer would qualify as a neocon either. He entered the Foreign Service out of graduate school & rose to prominence working for Henry Kissinger, in & out of govt. Kissinger is a realist who still often differs with neocons. Bremer is lumped in with all the neocons he worked with in the Bush admin. Moynihan rejects the neocon label for himself, although he was good friends with the neocon founders. Was Will ever a liberal, or a conservative from the start of his writing ?
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/ge ... cons-11252

Yes, Bremer is/was definitely a neocon.
Prominently so, serving in the Bush Admin.

What specifically qualifies Bremer as a neocon ? He was appointed to do a job, which he did. He did not take us into the war.

" globalism" is not antisemitic. You can't disqualify everything.

He was just following orders???

Listen, read the links I provided you thoroughly and then we can discuss the tropes.
Please do that work first.

Do some work yourself.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg847cc
As U.S. forces began their invasion of Iraq in late March of 2003, L. Paul Bremer received a phone call from Lewis (“Scooter”) Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff. “He asked whether I would be interested in coming back into the government to serve in Iraq,” recalled Bremer. “I couldn’t serve for long,” Bremer responded, “since I am busy running my company.” At the time, Bremer was chairman and chief executive officer of Marsh Crisis Consulting, a crisis management firm owned by the financial services firm Marsh & McLennan. Libby replied that “it wouldn’t be a full-time job

So what?

Bremer was a prominent neoconservative, ideologically and in practice. That he's a smart guy and was running a major company and making big bank has nothing to do with where he was ideologically.

Yes, please do the homework on the anti-semitic tropes.

I try to read the things you post, under the positive assumption that I can learn new things.
I typically find that you haven't offered them up idly...and I take the time to think about them and to respond in turn...often not in full agreement, but actually responsive.

I'm again trying to give you the benefit of the doubt too.

What makes Bremmer a NeoCon ?

I read the refs you provided. I reject the the stigma of antisemitism applied to "globalism" or "new world order".

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dic ... /globalism

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-s ... orld-order
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/citations/ADA398504
The phrase new world order has been widely used on the political scene since first publicly coined by former president, George Bush. Although quickly adopted as the catch phrase of the 1990s, few people actually agree on what new world order really means. ...new world order, while elusive in definition, is most frequently used to describe aspects of the post Cold War international scenario...

There are a whole lot of words and phrases that have perfectly innocent meanings, no slur involved. But as the first link I provided explained quite well, they ARE indeed utilized to be slurs...typically when used in conjunction with names of prominent Jews, Jewish organization, or when combined with other tropes...

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

[DMac]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

[youthathletics]

Gotta wonder why there are so few people who participate here anymore.
Anybody?

"snowflakes"???

Seriously, I think the really gross trolling is what turned people off.
Really, really ugly stuff...and if that's what you wanted, plenty of other places for that without the rules against.

If people took off because of getting challenged to defend their views...well, that's too bad.

The problem is that you and TLD post too damned much.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So offending is quite alright....well, depending on who is doing the offending, of course.
You sound like a perfect human being. Welcome to club, I am too.

Nobody on this planet is perfect. I can admit to being wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong. No shame in it. Also, nothing wrong with a difference in OPINION. You ever see me claim my comments aren’t offensive? Legitimate question.

No one has said there's anything wrong with being wrong, no one has said there's any shame in being wrong either, nor has anyone said there's anything wrong with a difference of OPINION.
Your question, no. Why would there be a need to claim the clearly obvious intent?

I was just elaborating on your perfect comment….being wrong happens to people who are not perfect. I was pointing out that I am not perfect, which like you said, is obvious.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Gotta wonder why there are so few people who participate here anymore.
Anybody?

"snowflakes"???

Seriously, I think the really gross trolling is what turned people off.
Really, really ugly stuff...and if that's what you wanted, plenty of other places for that without the rules against.

If people took off because of getting challenged to defend their views...well, that's too bad.

The problem is that you and TLD post too damned much.

What up DR?

[old salt]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -globalist

The use of the word is not an accident…..and often it isn’t “innocent”.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/09/28/cal ... -rejected/

But ain’t nobody going to shame you into not using it!

https://academic.oup.com/book/43056/cha ... m=fulltext

[old salt]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -globalist

The use of the word is not an accident…..and often it isn’t “innocent”.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/09/28/cal ... -rejected/

But ain’t nobody going to shame you into not using it!

https://academic.oup.com/book/43056/cha ... m=fulltext

Soros has an agenda. He very effectively uses his wealth to achieve it, globally & in the US.
It is not antisemitic to point that out.
The fact that he is Jewish does not exempt him from critique.
Likewise for Bloomberg, only to a lesser extent re. his influence.
The Koch bros or Peter Thiel don't get a categorical pass.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... orm-227519

[DMac]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -globalist

The use of the word is not an accident…..and often it isn’t “innocent”.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/09/28/cal ... -rejected/

But ain’t nobody going to shame you into not using it!

https://academic.oup.com/book/43056/cha ... m=fulltext

Soros has an agenda. He very effectively uses his wealth to achieve it, globally & in the US.
It is not antisemitic to point that out.
The fact that he is Jewish does not exempt him from critique.
Likewise for Bloomberg, only to a lesser extent re. his influence.
The Koch bros or Peter Thiel don't get a categorical pass.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... orm-227519

Un huh

[Typical Lax Dad]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

Yep. I don’t mean anything by it. That should be good enough around these here parts.

[youthathletics]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

OS doesn’t have enough crayons to help make them understand.

[DMac]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

Yep. I don’t mean anything by it. That should be good enough around these here parts.

...and you've misinterpreted what I said and are twisting it to what you want it to mean shouldn't be around these here parts.

[MDlaxfan76]

Gotta wonder why there are so few people who participate here anymore.
Anybody?

"snowflakes"???

Seriously, I think the really gross trolling is what turned people off.
Really, really ugly stuff...and if that's what you wanted, plenty of other places for that without the rules against.

If people took off because of getting challenged to defend their views...well, that's too bad.

The problem is that you and TLD post too damned much.

Hah!

[MDlaxfan76]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

come on DMac, why are you ignoring the full trail?

That's an entirely incorrect statement above.

I didn't know what Salty's intent was, whether it was conscious or unconscious use of the trope...Salty had ample opportunity to explain and back off the trope. And free to critique as much as he wanted without those tropes.

He's still refusing to do so.

[MDlaxfan76]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -globalist

The use of the word is not an accident…..and often it isn’t “innocent”.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/09/28/cal ... -rejected/

But ain’t nobody going to shame you into not using it!

https://academic.oup.com/book/43056/cha ... m=fulltext

Soros has an agenda. He very effectively uses his wealth to achieve it, globally & in the US.
It is not antisemitic to point that out.
The fact that he is Jewish does not exempt him from critique.
Likewise for Bloomberg, only to a lesser extent re. his influence.
The Koch bros or Peter Thiel don't get a categorical pass.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... orm-227519

Good lord, you are stubborn aren't you?

These are disgusting tropes actively used by racist groups for very bigoted antisemitic purposes...

You want to critique any of these folks without resorting to the tropes and slurs that others will read as such, go for it. I entirely agree with you that no one is immune from critique.

But if you're going to use these tropes, stop pretending that you don't know what they are and how bigots will read them and agree....and how those who understand this prejudice and its history will be offended by them.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You used the word with the intent TLD and MDlax say you did, salty.
You know those are the rules around here. Whatever your intent is
incidental, how it's viewed and interpreted by them, oh, and DocB
too, is how it is and what was meant. Just the way it is around these
here parts.

Yep. I don’t mean anything by it. That should be good enough around these here parts.

...and you've misinterpreted what I said and are twisting it to what you want it to mean shouldn't be around these here parts.

It seems that “I didn’t mean anything by it is enough”. If someone tells me something I said or did offends them, I use basic common decency and apologize and avoid saying it or doing it again. Life is short. But that’s me.

[Typical Lax Dad]

So, when one uses Soros (or other Jews) and "globalist" to make a claim about "control", this is indeed well understood as a slur...indeed, it is actively used as such by white supremacist, White Nationalist groups that make their ideologies and bigotries quite clear. That's been a longstanding usage.

When one repeats these tropes, it may or may not be the intention of the user to be making an anti-semitic slur. But it feeds into that narrative. Which is why I asked and tried to provide a path for you to back off the trope and apologize. I assumed, as I try to do with most anyone, that you didn't intend it as the slur, but rather it was part of the literature you consume...and others intend to manipulate this way.

Do you deny that Soros is a globalist, notwithstanding his religion ?
Do you deny that he has exerted great influence in the US & in E Europe ?
Yet stating the obvious is somehow an antisemitic trope.

https://www.ajc.org/translatehate/globalist

https://amp.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -globalist

The use of the word is not an accident…..and often it isn’t “innocent”.

https://www.azmirror.com/2022/09/28/cal ... -rejected/

But ain’t nobody going to shame you into not using it!

https://academic.oup.com/book/43056/cha ... m=fulltext

Soros has an agenda. He very effectively uses his wealth to achieve it, globally & in the US.
It is not antisemitic to point that out.
The fact that he is Jewish does not exempt him from critique.
Likewise for Bloomberg, only to a lesser extent re. his influence.
The Koch bros or Peter Thiel don't get a categorical pass.
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/ ... orm-227519

Good lord, you are stubborn aren't you?

These are disgusting tropes actively used by racist groups for very bigoted antisemitic purposes...

You want to critique any of these folks without resorting to the tropes and slurs that others will read as such, go for it. I entirely agree with you that no one is immune from critique.

But if you're going to use these tropes, stop pretending that you don't know what they are and how bigots will read them and agree....and how those who understand this prejudice and its history will be offended by them.

Nothing wrong with saying black folk love watermelon….it’s served at the country club all the time. Who doesn’t like watermelon?

[DMac]

If someone tells me something I said or did offends them, I use basic common decency and apologize and avoid saying it or doing it again. Life is short.

In the real world but not here, right?
Here unapologetically offending is okay.
DMac:
"You might be the most offensive one though (with respect to salty)."
TLD:
"I know I am. I don’t deny it. "

[Typical Lax Dad]

If someone tells me something I said or did offends them, I use basic common decency and apologize and avoid saying it or doing it again. Life is short.

In the real world but not here, right?
Here unapologetically offending is okay.
DMac:
"You might be the most offensive one though (with respect to salty)."
TLD:
"I know I am. I don’t deny it. "

Like I said…I know it’s offensive. It’s meant to be. You see me claiming it isn’t offensive?