US became a sort of blind giant. The giant chose to have others take his hand and guide him through treacherous landscapes. Then, periodically, the giant finds himself surprised he stumbled, crippled or made a fool of himself. At some point, the giant is going to fall and truly hurt himself beyond repair. But the giant tribulations are not the others' problem, they only fear the giant might fall on their heads and simply crush them under his shear size and those who feel threatened surely won't be sympathetic with the giant's affliction, especially since many consider it is self inflicted .

Germany succesfully usurped somekind of Holly Roman empire authority and managed to portray itself as the legitimate leader of all western Europe. For a country still under limited sovereignity and one that fuels the globalist EU leviathan with its own blood it is quite a feat. Still, its economic empire functions at most like a condominium between German interests and supranational corporatism. At best (see the concessions they had to make on their own territory when East Germany was absorbed). In fact, in all major issues Germany's politicians eventually tip the balance towards globalist interests.

Nevertheless, the way it somehow compensates the losses on behalf of poor eastern colonies looks even more despicable. No wonder the lesser Croatian cronies mimic the German behaviour.

This South Sudan must be setting a new record, a failed state before even becoming one. Still, those oil fields must be protected from the natives lack of understanding. They don't need them anyway, caught with their cattle stealing raiding parties bickering. Can't really notice the difference between (old) Sudan's supremacy in the not so distant past and US' no doubt benevolent care, but I admit I'm not enlightened enough. Nevertheless, Obamacrats warned beforehand about their interests in Sudan and once again prove to be men of their word.

We're neither one political entity, no matter what globalists think or try. So, global revolution or not, the impossible to circumvent nation states are here and their vehicle for violence is called war. From what point the war becomes world war could be debated, but it certainly seems like we're on that road.

Here's my two cents as an outside observer on Iowa results.

The official candidate has to be Romney, I don't think reps have the luxury or time to push-test others from a lot which, Ron Paul excluded, probably hits the lowest political standards. Santorum was puffed up with votes stolen from Paul and others just for make believe. It is very important for the Rep establishment to keep Ron Paul "in the crowd" not as the principal contender to their chosen puppet. And it is very important for the establishment as a whole to paint an image where Ron Paul represents strictly a minority view. The establishment knows Paul will run as an independent eventually and they have to convince themselves and, they think, others that RP can't be a threat.

They all might be very wrong since Paul's force will be ultimately tested when former Obama voters will have to choose. Between independent Paul or Republican Paul which variant could be more appealing to them? Let the Republican establishment make a fool of itself, Paul's message is addressed to Americans and the more the dinosaurs and media accomplices show their true colors the better. The reps fabrictions should alienate Rep constituencies and the media bias should alienate fair minded Dems. While those standing undecided might interpret all the foaming at the mouth as sign of systemic failure and gather the courage to deepen the breach.

US and/or Israel want the Muslim Brotherhood rule Egypt or not? No one seems to be able to answer convincingly this question which is crucial imo. The other question: do US and/or Israel know what they're doing seems pointless considering their last years track record.

It would be very easy to dismiss the logic behind this article as one addressed to the brain dead. No, the bizarro world new species understands this logic. For this kind, if areas where observers are present prove peaceful then it makes sense to withdraw them because observers prevent protesters to "express" themselves fully. There's no other explanation. If clashes occur in places where observers are absent implying the government forces act unrestrained then it would make sense, in the old logic, to extend the presence of observers in those areas too. Wrong! Bizarro logic abhors this kind of unpassionate aproach. Bizarro logic is exuberant, romantic and advocates violence as long it's "revolutionary". I apologize if my translation needs some polishing, I'm still a novice in bizarro logic but I try my best. On the other hand, when my apprenticeship is over I won't be able to understand the "old" logic anymore. Such an imperfect, hesitant old world, no wonder bizarro marches on. Only the red banners are missing.

The parallelism between post WW1 Germany and present day US should include considerations on the general public's dominant perception upon themselves as a nation.

Germany was a republic in name but all its modern history up to that point was one of imperial behaviour. Until the end of WW1 it... worked. Germany grew, expanded, conquered, developped tremendously, became a focal point in terms of education, industrial knowhow, scientific prowess, military might. And it wasn't exactly military defeated in WW1 yet ended in a humiliating position which many Germans thought was a political betrayal. A few years of, on paper, liberal society, mostly plagued by poverty, hyperinflation and even outright communist revolution attempts or other kind of coups, didn't help to prove the superiority of this kind of society. Similar to US today, the political forces were strongly ideologized ones interested in promoting their kind of society where individual freedom wasn't exactly the #1 goal.

Today's US has a de facto past of imperial behaviour which succeeded to penetrate down to the individual's perception about his nation. The American exceptionalism has become an imperial one in the mind of many individuals. But a few important conditions that were present in post WW1 Germany didn't happen yet in US or (9/11 case as a trigger for suppressing liberties) happened in a different order. Military (even strategic - meaning by other means than classical warfare) defeat (confirmed through harsh setbacks, either put in a treaty or implicit) is improbable and financial collapse, while highly probable, didn't happen yet. This is in no way reason for optimism, US dictatorship might prove more stable and long lasting than nazi's and it is also fully prepared to wage worldwide war. But it all depends on how far and deep extends the imperial feeling among the people. 30 seconds attention span individuals aren't a solid foundation for any kind of regime, but hard core activism and imperial exceptionalism could prove a formidable blend. It won't matter in the long run since no dictatorship won't be able to deliver anything but suffering, especially when the elite survival depends on "grand gestures" like war or implementing pharaonic projects which would require strict discipline from masses used to a certain degree of confort. The current official rhetoric can't supplement the possible lack of sufficiently large numbers willing to follow a cause, while fear mode as source for generating an overt dictatorship is different than the revenge mode which, imo, finally prevailed in post WW1 Germany. I'm merely suggesting deliberate provocations, propaganda and spining objective circumstances could prove just a desperate gamble if the general "psyche" responds in a more diverse (or chaotic) manner than post WW1 Germany's.

Your comment is treasonous, no doubt. Do not ask yourself what America you want for your children but what America wants your children for. Good old JFK hinted right, right?

No fly zone! Asap. Genocide imminent. Oh, wait, it's Iraq, not Syria, my bad.