“That is a very, very dangerous development,” Kerry said. “Hezbollah is a proxy for Iran. … Hezbollah in addition to that is a terrorist organization.” Politico
-------------------------------------
Kerry can best be described as a primitive in foreign policy thinking.
Iran is a dangerous "enemy" of the United States because the US government acting under the "guidance" of AIPAC and WINEP says it is.
Hizbullah is a "terrorist organization" because we and the same crew say it is. If Hizbullah is merely a terrorist organization than it is sad to recall how badly the IDF did against them in 2006 and how well they are fighting in Syria against the salafist rebels in Syria.
BTW, that is a Hizbullah soldier in the picture. pl
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/john-kerry-russia-must-help-on-syria-93187.html#ixzz2X3098bl3
Yes Russia must help - because Kerry has nothing
Posted by: Charles I | 23 June 2013 at 11:22 AM
Looks like the 107mm rocket launcher the Syrians purchased from the North Koreans 25 or 30 years ago
Posted by: russ | 23 June 2013 at 11:39 AM
The planned negotiations with the Taliban seem to be off again. The Qataris screwed up but Kerry did not help the situation.
There were two pieces somewhat critical on Kerry in the press today. One by AP and one by the NYT. He, allegedly, does too much on a personal level and does not get things done. Lots of high hopes and illusions.
It seems the knifes are now out against him ...
Posted by: b | 23 June 2013 at 12:27 PM
b
He is a trivial, shallow, and overly ambitious man.
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 June 2013 at 12:33 PM
That's one spiffy terrorist! Is this a Russian or American supplied terrorist?
Posted by: marcus | 23 June 2013 at 03:08 PM
Speaking of failed Secretaries, why is Hagel pushing for women in the infantry?
Posted by: Tyler | 23 June 2013 at 04:54 PM
marcus
we don't arm or equip Hizbullah "terrorists." The Zionists won't allow it.; pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 23 June 2013 at 05:12 PM
Tyler,
If our U.S. Government 'rebelled' against the Zionist stranglehold, I have to seriously wonder how many of their Zionist 'terrorists/agents' would start coming out of the woodwork [actively] committing terrorist actions against U.S. (on Israeli/Zionist orders) on our U.S. soil? The Israeli/Zionist have murdered U.S. Military personnel/civilians more than once to achieve their Israeli/Zionist objectives, what is to stop them now from upping their Zionism terrorist level against U.S. because we the U.S. dared to 'rebel' against them??? Would our U.S. rebellion be then called Hizbullah part two according to their Zionist definitions of what a 'terrorist' is?
Posted by: J | 23 June 2013 at 07:43 PM
Here is a little article by a former Air Force pilot who flew John Kerry around when he was a U.S. Senator and was involved in talks in Vietnam about the POW - MIA issue. It is not clear when he was flying Kerry but obviously it was in 1985 or later as Kerry was elected to the Senate in 1984. The former pilot wrote the article in 2004 when Kerry was in the presidential race, and highlights the arrogance and self-importance and "elitism" projected by Kerry ("I never sail on anything less than 135 feet").
http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/03/04/the-john-kerry-experience/
Posted by: robt willmann | 23 June 2013 at 07:55 PM
At the risk of sounding a bit dewy-eyed, I can only think how much better off the US would be if we actually engaged in meaningful diplomacy with our "assumed" adversaries Syria and Iran, rather than the ham-handed my way or the highway approach. Certainly, good relations with Iran could only benefit the US.
Kerry is a mug no doubt, but while Ms. Clinton certainly had the appearance of more intelligence and skill, they both reflect that policy imho.
Posted by: steve | 23 June 2013 at 08:49 PM
Tyler
Do you object to women in combat role generally - or just in the infantry ? I am not nearly informed enough about military matters to have an opinion on women in combat roles. But have there already been women in combat . I seem to recall Congresswoman Duckworth lost both legs in Iraq when the Blackhawk she was piloting was shot down .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 23 June 2013 at 09:49 PM
J,
Likely. You have to remember that the tribe literally controls the levers of media, finance, and government, but they get a lot of mileage out of doing the 'oy vey' weep weep poor pity me. Look at the treatment other populists get whenever they come out of the woodwork: CRAZY DANGEROUS TERRORISTS.
Meanwhile 'Occupy' was covering up rapes and murders and burned the US flag but they're the good guys so that's why we get TV shows about the poor oppressed peaceful Occupy types versus the racist, fascist Tea Partiers.
Generally, if you stand up to the chosen, they're going to try and tear you down. Look at the recent push for more gun control, more immigration, and see who's behind it. What's the most terrifying thing to a jew? A goyim with a gun.
Posted by: Tyler | 24 June 2013 at 12:25 AM
I don't want women around men at all in the military. If I had my way we'd have the WAC and WAVES and they'd be separate branches of the military.
Duckworth got her legs blown off? Congrats, now let me introduce you to the hundreds of thousands of men who didn't get to run for Congress based off the fact they got crippled overseas AND get to deal with more illegal immigration.
Posted by: Tyler | 24 June 2013 at 12:27 AM
russ
yes. these have been around since WW2. they still work. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 24 June 2013 at 12:34 AM
I'd also add that WAC/WAVES should only be activated if we're facing an existential threat and need the manpower.
Most societies throughout history fought wars to PRESEVE their women and children. Our poisoned society is diseased and wants to offer up the next generation on the altar of their cultural marxism, so here we are because we can't accept the biologically realities of:
- women have children
and
- men are stronger than women
Posted by: Tyler | 24 June 2013 at 01:01 AM
As of this month the EU still refuses to label Hezbollah a terrorst group...dont have enough countries that will agree.
The US arm twisting not working as well as it use to...lol.
Posted by: cal | 24 June 2013 at 04:01 AM
"At the risk of sounding a bit dewy-eyed, I can only think how much better off the US would be if we actually engaged in meaningful diplomacy with our "assumed" adversaries"
Don't hold your breath..to clear out the twisted little elves that pass for 'leaders' in US government is gonna take something that most sleep walking Americans cant conceive of.
Posted by: cal | 24 June 2013 at 04:11 AM
and has long been so. I met him back in the VVAW days....when I was working at the VA in NYC. 72-74.
Posted by: jonst | 24 June 2013 at 08:25 AM
jonst
He does not seem to have ever had an original thought. If I recall correctly, he testified before the senate about "war crimes" that he had not seen, but had been told about. pl
Posted by: turcopolier | 24 June 2013 at 08:36 AM
Just laughing out loud at the irony of this whole state of affairs. We have a US Senator over in Syria arguing for material support for Al Qaeda aligned freedom fighters (terrorists). And an apparently well equipped and uniformed Hizbullah fighter in the field, labeled a terrorist.
That is one of the insidious problems with a war on terror. The definition is too fungible.
Posted by: marcus | 24 June 2013 at 09:20 AM
J
A super power has no reason to allow its policy to be dictated by any client state, and blowback concerns never seems to influence US long-term decisions. Consider the likely blowback from US support, training, and arming Al Q to take over Syria!
Posted by: ISL | 24 June 2013 at 09:36 AM
Re: Hezbollah being Terrorists, that IMO belittles them a lot. They have demonstrated that they are a capable military force, and their troops are soldiers and fight like soldiers and should be accepted, addressed and respected as such.
I wonder: Has anybody information as to how accurate Hezbollah targeted Israeli military installations in the Hinterland during Israel's last abortive adventure into Lebanon?
Now, be that as it may, I think if Israel really tried hard they could destroy Hezbollah. The IDF can do that if they deploy their full military force. It is just that they unwilling to pay the price.
That is how Hezbollah is a threat to Israel - because they are already able to deter Israeli foolishness, thereby limiting Israel's free hand.
It is this that the Israelis, overweening as they are, see as a threat. Only if Israel has a totally free hand she ever will be safe! Crazy. That attitude can only lead to excess.
Posted by: confusedponderer | 24 June 2013 at 10:42 AM
Thanks Tyler, - I value your opinion because you have been "downrange " , and am still cogitating about these very many issues .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 24 June 2013 at 12:39 PM
"Rapes , murders and burned the US flag ' which Occupy " where ?
Posted by: Alba Etie | 24 June 2013 at 12:40 PM
If my family , fortune & ancestral land had been taken -and if me & mine had been forced into an overcrowded and inhumane refugee camp for over a half a century ; and there was a credible organization that had an army that defended me against that occupier. And that organization also supported my people with hospitals and other material support. Furthermore in a neighboring country's parliament that organization had democratically elected PM 's that supported my displaced people - I daresay I would not call that organization anything besides an admired ally .
Posted by: Alba Etie | 24 June 2013 at 12:50 PM