The Battle of Baghdad


Wolf DeVoon

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 99
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Seriously? Did you really fall for that? It's a very obviously faked photo.

J

Sure looks that way to me.

The "shadows" by the "kiss" particularly.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraqi soldiers ran from battle, took off their uniforms, abandoned humvees, artillery, and at least one helicopter, three weeks ago.

Hundreds were caught and killed, some beheaded by ISIS (aka ISIL).

In neighbouring Syria, IS/IS took territory in a roughly similar fashion -- except that the Syrian armed forces have since settled into a relative truce with their erstwhile opponents. IS/IS depredations in Syria have occasionally erupted into the West's newsfeeds, but against the death toll of 170,000, and the hideous refugee situation resulting from three years of war, who cares?

Infinitely worse: It's been alleged that ISIL in Syria was armed by the CIA via -- guess where? -- Benghazi.

The best kept secret of the Benghazi scandal, at least as far as Congress is concerned, is the CIA gun-running operation out of Benghazi, Libya, to the CIA’s latest al-Qaeda affiliates fighting to overthrow Bashar al-Assad in Syria. The U.S. support of various al-Qaeda affiliated and inspired groups, including al-Nusra and ISIL, either directly or through proxies, is well-known.

This Infowars article is a confection. Where to start in debunking its claims? Well, the operating assumption that the USA has made 'allies' with al Qaeda is incorrect.

When Alex Jones says such and such "is well known" -- in this case, direct or indirect US support for Al Qaeda, IS/IS -- the only ones who 'know' this are the raft of nutterzone commentators like Tony Cartalucci, or the Pulitizer Prize Winning Seymour Hersh.

Eg:

  • Syria: U.S. Directly Collaborates with al-Qaeda

(evidence? Well, none for this claim, unless you count as proved Cartalucci's mad speculation.)

  • Tony Cartalucci documents how the al-Qaeda inspired, although supposedly no longer aligned, ISIL is the product of a NATO and ISIS has been harbored, trained, armed, and extensively funded by a coalition of NATO and Persian Gulf states within Turkey’s (NATO territory) borders and has launched invasions into northern Syria with, at times, both Turkish artillery and air cover. The most recent example of this was the cross-border invasion by Al Qaeda into Kasab village, Latikia province in northwest Syria.

There is a grain of truth in this: Turkey is a Sunni-majority nation. They have been an opponent of Syria's regime since the first killings of demonstrators occured in early 2011. Turkey is a NATO nation. Turkey has uneasy relations with the Maliki government. Turkey has indeed sponsored and trained elements of the armed Syrian opposition.

But here's the thing. There is a variety of 'rebels,' ranging from defected members of the Assad regime (FSA) to the right fucking crazy IS/IS.

  • Award-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh wrote in 2007 that the Bush administration had aligned itself with radical Sunni elements in Iraq.

Hersh has essentially allied his reporting with the needs of the Syrian Government, most famously with his two articles blaming 'the rebels' (in this case, Al Nusra) and the Turks for the August 21 2013 Sarin attacks on the Damascus Ghouta region ...

  • According to Cartalucci, “The prospect of the US, NATO, or the Persian Gulf states delivering Iraq from ISIS is an ironic tragedy – as definitive evidence reveals ISIS’ brutal incursion was of this collective coalition’s own doing to begin with, and for its own insidious ends. Instead, a joint Iranian-Iraqi-Syrian anti-terror campaign should be conducted to corner and crush NATO’s terrorist mercenary expeditionary force once and for all.”

-- the phrasing indicates to me (even if I was not familiar with Cartalucci's kook output elsewhere) that the gentleman is unhinged. Where is this fucking "definitive evidence"? Up Tony's ass, most likely. Not one conspiracy tale has this guy passed on.

What makes the Infowars site unreliable is its swallowing hole any item, any claim, any preposterous assertion -- without fact-checking or corrections ...

“The New York Times reports that a 50 man cell of ‘rebels’ trained and armed by the CIA and US special forces is to sneak over the border from Jordan into Syria this week to begin fighting government forces there, a move that should prompt concern given that moderate rebel forces are now fully infiltrated by extremist al Qaeda linked terrorists,” Steve Watson wrote in September, 2013.

"Given that ..." whew, the only given is that Watson cannot make a case for the "Full Infiltration" ... so he proceeds on the assumption that it is true. Steve Watson is, as usual, full of shit. The headline for his article is "CIA TRAINED AL-QAEDA CELL TO ENTER SYRIA," but the article in no way offers evidence to support the claim ...

The same month, the U.S. brazenly announced it was arming al-Qaeda. “The United States has officially announced it is now delivering ‘lethal aid’ to the ‘rebels’ engaged in attacks against the Syrian government. In addition to sophisticated communications equipment and advanced combat medical kits sent by the CIA, the State Department is sending vehicles and other munitions, according to the Washington Post,” we reported.

Yikes. " the U.S. brazenly announced it was arming al-Qaeda."

Not true. The USA did no such thing.

“We’ve come full circle from going after al-Qaeda to indirectly backing al-Qaeda,” Bill Gertz quoted a U.S. official as stating following a promise in June by the Obama administration to increase arm shipments.

http://www.infowars.com/saudi-arabia-sunni-caliphate-nato-run-secret-terror-army-in-iraq-and-syria/

Going to the Gertz article, you can see that the Infowars hacks cherry picked one phrase ... smudging the differences between Al Nusra and the secular rebels of the FSA. Here's the money quote from the actual article, which is worth a read only to highlight the differences between the Infowars claim and the story they crib from:

A worst case scenario: “Our arms could end up in al Qaeda’s hands not just in Syria but in Iraq, Jordan, and elsewhere,” Riedel said. “They could be used to kill Americans.”

This excerpt makes more sense when you realize who Riedel is, and when you add the two paragraphs surrounding it:

Former intelligence official and counterterrorism specialist Bruce Riedel also questioned the United States arming the rebels.

“If done well, this move can end a bloody civil war,” Riedel said in acolumn in the Daily Beast. “If done poorly, it could lead to disaster.”

Riedel warned that other states involved in arming the rebels likely have differing interests than those of the United States.

A worst case scenario: “Our arms could end up in al Qaeda’s hands not just in Syria but in Iraq, Jordan, and elsewhere,” Riedel said. “They could be used to kill Americans.”

Riedel said there are many unanswered questions about the covert arms aid, such as whether the mission is to stop the use of chemical arms or to oust the Assad regime.

I trust not single story from World Net Daily. In this case, their two links recycle the same speculation (as fact) that has already surfaced at Infowars, Russia Today, Global Research and elsewhere on the lunatic fringe. This is in academia and publishing called Log-rolling. In this case, the nicest way to refer to this reporting is A Circle Jerk.

(Kelley's article in Business Insider is the best of the bunch -- he is a good reporter, and is careful not to overstate what he knows, what is possible, what is probably, and what is plausible)

The current Parliament is deadlocked on choosing a new Prime Minister. Malikei cannot command a majority in the new house, but refuses to step down unless he gains immunity for all his actions, and is protected by a security detail for the rest of his life. Maliki's Shia-First policies have cost him mightily -- in terms of support from erstwhile allies. I think Iraq deserves a new government, one that is not as blindly sectarian. That the Saudis reject that Maliki continue in power is unremarkable.

U.S. Signals Iraq's Maliki Should Go [Wall Street Journal]

Pretty ugly, huh?

What is ugly? The Maliki government? Or that the US is pushing for him to give way to a new PM?

In any case, instead of giving links and quotes from a shitty 'news as conspiracy theory" site like Infowars (or the crackpots at WND), why don't you give us your own take on things ...?

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Iraqi soldiers ran from battle, took off their uniforms, abandoned humvees, artillery, and at least one helicopter, three weeks ago.

Hundreds were caught and killed, some beheaded by ISIS (aka ISIL).

(snip)

What is ugly? The Maliki government? Or that the US is pushing for him to give way to a new PM?

In any case, instead of giving links and quotes from a shitty 'news as conspiracy theory" site like Infowars (or the crackpots at WND), why don't you give us your own take on things ...?

William, thanks for commenting on the "crazy press" (Jones, WND). I find them more credible than HRC ("What difference does it make?")

I've had first-hand experience with OGAs. I don't put anything past them. Bud McFarland delivered SAMs to Tehran, Ollie North shredded documents, and Richard Secord dealt in various cargoes of contraband in the Iran-Contra affair. I'd rather not say what else I know.

The situation in Iraq seems fairly straightforward. KSA wants Maliki out. Somebody armed ISIL in Syria, suggested a plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

William, thanks for commenting on the "crazy press" (Jones, WND). I find them more credible than HRC ("What difference does it make?")

Maybe William should read Charlie Wilson's War.

George Crile tells the nearly unbelievable tale of Charlie Wilson and his passionate support of the war in Afghanistan against the Soviet Union in the 1980s. The book opens near the end of the story, as Charlie Wilson receives an award from the CIA, a rare event for a civilian.

The action then flashes back to Wilson's early days in the Congress. He lives a wild, party life, highlighted by parties in Las Vegas hotels with strippers and hot tubs. As he moves up in the political spectrum, he frequently finds ways to pass the cost of his playboy lifestyle on to the congressional budget.

At heart, though, Wilson serves his country as a patriot. The author describes a small boy who listened intently to reports from the front during World War II. He championed the cause of underdogs in his home town of Trinity, Texas.

Wilson, however, is not the only character in this story. Gust Avrakotos, the son of Greek immigrants, enters in chapter three. He grows up firmly ensconced in the middle class in Aliquippa, Pennsylvania. However, his strong and varied aptitudes attract the attention of CIA recruiters. He enters the spy agency out of college, drawn by the promise of adventure. However, the agency shows signs of an Ivy League club, and Avrakotos soon realizes, as an outsider, his opportunities appear limited. Yet, he pursues his career.

Lastly, the author introduces Joanne Herring, a wealthy, ultra-conservative from Texas. She politically woos Charlie Wilson, though romance only sparks much later. Herring shares a peculiar friendship with an unpopular president in Pakistan, Zia. Though his religion, Islam, usually limits the actions of women, Zia connects with Herring and appoints her unofficial ambassador for Pakistan. Herring, in turn, introduces Zia's cause to Wilson.

After an invasion by the Soviet Union, in an attempt to spread their communist doctrine, tribesmen from Afghanistan attack. Pakistan offers secret support and refuge for those fleeing their villages. Herring introduces the conflict to Wilson. It speaks to his support of underdogs. Instantly, he authorizes congress to double the CIA's budget for Afghanistan, which draws no interest in America.

Most of the book follows the globe-crossing adventures of Wilson and Avrakotos as they escalate the conflict against the Soviets in Afghanistan. Wilson's specific quest is to give the fighters, the mujahideen, a rocket to shoot down deadly helicopters, called Hind. The journey takes them to Egypt, Israel, France, and, mostly, Pakistan. In each country, they receive royal treatment unlike they see at home. Most of all, they bring together a large portion of the world, mostly small countries, against the Soviet superpower. After six years, the budget grows from some millions of dollars to over one billion dollars per year. With the introduction of the American Stinger rocket, they finally bring down the Hind and, with them, the Soviets. Soon after, the Soviet empire collapses.

However, this story intertwines with America's newest conflict in the same region. The author explains the motivations of these radicals often misunderstood by those in the west. This chapter of the story, the author points out, is not over.

Read more from the Study Guide

William, it has a study guide. Might help you target your refutation.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any case, instead of giving links and quotes from a shitty 'news as conspiracy theory" site like Infowars (or the crackpots at WND), why don't you give us your own take on things ...?

The situation in Iraq seems fairly straightforward. KSA wants Maliki out. Somebody armed ISIL in Syria, suggested a plan.

That's a good opening line to an analysis.

I still get email alerts from WND. They are bracing. Such kooks.

As for Hillary, I would never watch her if she was a news outlet, as I find her a dull and plodding speaker. She speaks the dialect of Politish used at the state level, wherein every word is part of a carefully considered script in an adversarial situation. The same dialect as almost every other Senator or senior Congressman or Governor (or Premier -- BC has some terrible examples). I really hope she does not run for the the White House. The Republicans deserve a turn presiding over the state, I figure.

That said, I understand not trusting HRC one centimetre. I understand the poised 'my government is lying to me,' and I understand a most bleak assessment of mainstream media truth quotient. Yet before we give greater credence to Infowars and WND, I think we need an independent argument spelling out why.

My position is that Infowars/WND are proven unreliable (as with my deconstruction above) time and again. For me, such a track record means I have to probe each story for accuracy and logic, read three links deep the articles cited, test claims and assertions one by one. It's a bore and a chore and I won't do it again in this thread. But.

My goals in argument are to encourage critical assessment, intelligence gathering, testing assumptions, using all our proven skeptical tools -- in order to winnow out the bullshit and share the remains. Reason applied.

Wolf, you are brainy, well-read, in command of a great 'literary' voice. To the bombing of Iraq today, to the salvation of the Yezidis today, to the rally-round-the-flag-boys media swoon today -- I think you likely have lots to say that is cogent and worth reading closely. Those props, Infowars and WND, are not necessary.

Iraq_Ethnic_lg.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice map.

Interesting that the more inclusive parts of "Iraq" are almost all in Kurdish territory.

Those "green section people" better be paying the Islamo-fascist scum followers of truth and light who are in control of valves of THE dam because similar to "Mike" in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, they can throw walls of water instead of rocks.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you likely have lots to say that is cogent and worth reading closely.

Not really. From a policy point of view, the US should cut all ties to the region (MENA = Middle East and North Africa).

Patrolling the Persian Gulf, permanent bases in Qatar and Kuwait, deep involvement with KSA, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, supply lines in Pakistan, covert ops in Libya, meddling in Lebanon and Syria, defense of Israel, backing Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war, backing Mubarak in Egypt, the 1953 coup in Iran -- it's all poison, past and present -- nothing to do with US national security. We got involved because France and Britain were flattened by WWII, and it was sold as a Cold War game of baksheesh and brinksmanship.

Cheney fucked things up 100% worse, thinking it would be a cakewalk to seize Iraq's oil resources. Blair backed it to help BP.

America does not need MENA oil or oil from West Africa or any other hellhole. If we had invested a fraction of the money we've wasted on our 5th Fleet, boots on the ground, and payola to bloody dictators, the US could have converted its domestic transportation fleet to burn natural gas 30 years ago. More importantly, there would have been no WTC disaster, no endless War on Terror, no imbecilic Homeland Security nazis frisking babies and little old ladies.

The only way to salvage our reputation on the world stage is to say we did wrong and we're sorry. Goodbye and good luck.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh well in that case carry on, nothing to see here.

Well, no, though I appreciate the sarcasm. There is lots to see 'here' (there, in Iran's history).

Oh wait, Iran under the Shah was the only ME country to recognize the right of Israel to exist!

Nope. Don't forget Turkey, Jordan, and Egypt.

Under the Shah the universities were diverse and people could you know..talk there without getting their heads cut off!

This is special pleading, spurious. "Under the Shah, some good things happened on the surface. These cherry-picked good things outweigh the bad things." Really, not.

Under the Shah women could walk down the street without a burka and not have to worry about getting gang raped by muslim extremists!

Under the Shah, anyone could be arrested at any time by the fearsome secret police. Torture, summary executions, the whole nine yards. This was a dictatorship in every sense of the word.

Under the Shah Iran had very good relations with the USA.

Sort of true. True in the way that the USA has very good relations with the religious dictatorship of royal Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

Under the Shah there was no revolutionary guard training Hezbollah orrrrrrrrr supplying rockets to HAM ASS.

True, but so what? Because the current Islamic Republic is a mad religious dictatorship that oppresses its people -- this does not make the Shah's regime a beautiful thing without question.

Under the Shah no crazy fucking muslims where trying to enrich Uranium..,derpness

Well, is this your prescription for the USA to get in bed with any authoritarian regime, regardless of their oppression?

In any case, Jules, pining for an Emperor to return to the Peacock Throne is pointless. There will not be a resumption of royal rule. (this does not make the current regime into a good thing).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct Bill on all counts.

One thing I added that you may have missed. I qualified his return as a figurehead akin to what the monarchy is in England. Have religion and state separated. Real elections that are even (for now) moderated under international testing so the elections are not rigged. But bottom line is they themselves will have to do this. They need to have their own "anti Arab spring". A revolution based on enlightenment ideals. The prince returning would only be as a figurehead and a rallying symbol for other Persians that "it is ok to visit home".

One thing is certain "we" cannot give them and impose this it won't work. They are too stubborn and have to do it on their own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you likely have lots to say that is cogent and worth reading closely.

Not really.

Yeah really! I agree with about 95.3 percent of what you just wrote on policy failures and prescriptions. On point, strongly argued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nice map.

It's from the Gulf 2000 project out of Columbia University. There are many more maps, all of them useful, saturated with knowledge. Check out this one of the Levant's ethno-religious groups:

Levant_Ethnicity_sm.png

Interesting that the more inclusive parts of "Iraq" are almost all in Kurdish territory.

Yeah. It's what I call the 'Highlands Principle.' I think that over time, generations, hundreds of years, detested or suspect peoples -- of faith or custom different from neighbours or new conquerors -- took to the hills, which were most easily defended, and which were less economically interesting to the conqueror ...

So, it is no surprise that the highlands of Iraq are spotted with distinct ethnocultural remnants of long gone wars, pogroms, exiles and so on.

What that large map doesn't show, Adam, is a closer-level mixing in population centres, and the residential segregation by group that has occured in Iraq since the first Gulf 2000 maps came online. Here, for example, is Baghdad, over the span 2003 and 2007:

Baghdad_Ethnic_2003_sm.jpg

Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_early_sm.jpg

Baghdad_Ethnic_2007_late_sm.jpg

Those "green section people" better be paying the Islamo-fascist scum followers of truth and light who are in control of valves of THE dam because similar to "Mike" in the Moon Is A Harsh Mistress, they can throw walls of water instead of rocks.

Them 'green section people' are called Shia on the maps of Baghdad, with red being Sunni (yellow on the larger maps). You can see that the last years of inter-ethnic, Shia/Sunni civil war have led to a stark segregation in formerly mixed areas.

This is not under a Sunni administration, of course -- Maliki is Shia, and leads a Shia-majority factional party in the new Parliament. For the moment he is the Grand Poobah.

The dam is under IS/IS control; you can call them by their name too, the fascist maniacs. In any case it is not in the interests of IS/IS to blow up the dam. It supplies electricity, which they are not quite ready to renounce. This Globe and Mail story sez they have dispatched engineers to fix some blown up parts of the grid.

Maliki has been widely criticized for authoritarian and sectarian policies that have alienated Sunnis and prompted some to support the insurgency.

“I think this a wake-up call for a lot of Iraqis inside of Baghdad recognizing that we’re going to have to rethink how we do business if we’re going to hold our country together,” Obama said, before departing on a two-week vacation.

Employees of foreign oil firms in Arbil have been leaving, and Kurds have snapped up AK-47 assault rifles in arms markets for fear of imminent attack, although these had been ineffective against the superior firepower of the Islamic State fighters.

Given the Islamic State threat, a source in the Kurdistan Regional Government said it had received extra supplies of heavy weaponry from the Baghdad federal government “and other governments” in the past few days, but declined to elaborate.

In their latest advance through northern Iraq, the Islamic State seized a fifth oil field, several towns and Iraq’s biggest dam, sending tens of thousands fleeing for their lives.

An engineer at the Mosul dam told Reuters that Islamic State fighters had brought in engineers to repair an emergency power line to the city, Iraq’s biggest in the north, that had been cut off four days ago, causing power outages and water shortages.

“They are gathering people to work at the dam,” he said.

A dam administrator said militants were putting up the trademark Islamic State black flags and patrolling with flatbed trucks mounted with machineguns to protect the facility they seized from Kurdish forces earlier this week.

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

hmmm

Thks William -

Now I am totally convinced, if I was the President's adviser, ti blow the fucking dam and drown both of them and make it look like "some other actor."

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you likely have lots to say that is cogent and worth reading closely.

Not really. From a policy point of view, the US should cut all ties to the region (MENA = Middle East and North Africa).

Patrolling the Persian Gulf, permanent bases in Qatar and Kuwait, deep involvement with KSA, invasion of Iraq, invasion of Afghanistan, supply lines in Pakistan, covert ops in Libya, meddling in Lebanon and Syria, defense of Israel, backing Saddam in the Iraq-Iran war, backing Mubarak in Egypt, the 1953 coup in Iran -- it's all poison, past and present -- nothing to do with US national security. We got involved because France and Britain were flattened by WWII, and it was sold as a Cold War game of baksheesh and brinksmanship.

Cheney fucked things up 100% worse, thinking it would be a cakewalk to seize Iraq's oil resources. Blair backed it to help BP.

America does not need MENA oil or oil from West Africa or any other hellhole. If we had invested a fraction of the money we've wasted on our 5th Fleet, boots on the ground, and payola to bloody dictators, the US could have converted its domestic transportation fleet to burn natural gas 30 years ago. More importantly, there would have been no WTC disaster, no endless War on Terror, no imbecilic Homeland Security nazis frisking babies and little old ladies.

The only way to salvage our reputation on the world stage is to say we did wrong and we're sorry. Goodbye and good luck.

I don't agree with precipitate action while generally endorsing the end policy. For quick action I'd do that in Ukraine, then Europe overall including membership in NATO. After Ukraine out of the Persian Gulf. Israel doesn't need help except for resupply of munitions and I'd give them that for a while. Israel will be the most powerful nation in the area and will form local alliances. That leaves China. If China is strong enough to dominate the South China Sea so be it. The Philippines kicked us out of Subic Bay, afterall. Vietnam et al.--they can take care of themselves. Free passage of shipping? Why would China deny free passage of shipping? And if it did, so what? They can blow American aircraft carriers out of the water already. This would leave us only with a treaty defending Taiwan and our obligations to South Korea and Japan. No need to eat into this any further, for before we get there Israel will be bombing the shit out of Iran, maybe using nukes. In the above described policy context, which I support, what Israel does to Iran with what isn't going to be any of our business. Saudi Arabia will gladly let Israel's jets refuel to get within range. If Egypt gets uppity Israel could gently point out if that dam of theirs goes so does Egypt and if Israel blows that dam and drowns millions?--none of American fucking business. NO INTERVENTION! NO FOREIGN ALLIANCES! That will be the nature of Little America. (Also the name of a great truck stop in Flagstaff, AZ.)

--Brant

it will be a brave new world without American moral hubris wrapped up in a fist, but it cannot happen except as this country implodes economically and has to do like Rome did--contract; the entire American DNA impulse has always been to be the biggest and baddest and rightest since day one (and what boy wants to grow up to be President if he can't bestride the world? [Would we enjoy these discussions so much if we were Swiss?])

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Correct me if I'm wrong. America was a pipsqueak nuthin' until the Gilded Age, right?

Five 'great powers' 1900: British Empire, France, Ottoman Empire, Germany, Russia [Answers.com]

GDP rank in 1870: United Kingdom, USA (but very weak army and navy), Russia, Germany, France

Congress of Vienna 1815: Austrian Empire, France, Prussia, Russia, United Kingdom [Wikipedia]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Correct me if I'm wrong. America was a pipsqueak nuthin' until the Gilded Age, right? -- and a second tier power in WWI.

Relative to the European powers maybe. But to the Aboriginals, the U.S. was the Scourge of God a generation before.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

Correct me if I'm wrong. America was a pipsqueak nuthin' until the Gilded Age, right?

Five 'great powers' 1900: British Empire, France, Ottoman Empire, Germany, Russia [Answers.com]

GDP rank in 1870: United Kingdom, USA (but very weak army and navy), Russia, Germany, France

Congress of Vienna 1815: Austrian Empire, France, Prussia, Russia, United Kingdom [Wikipedia]

It has to do with its own turf--protected by oceans. If it was in Europe in the 19th C, then sure, you're right. It entered WWI as a second tier power and left on top of the heap. A proper analysis of what the US did in the Civil War reveals America was a first tier power starting back then and whenever it wanted to be. That's why when it entered WWII Churchill knew Germany was going to lose the war and "as for the Japanese, they would be ground to dust" even though out the gate America was again second-rate or worse militarily. It's those oceans. In the nuclear age much of the ocean advantage evaporated so the US stayed armed to the teeth for ramp up time became an unachievable luxury. Regardless, it was its huge industrialized economy = proficiency in industrialized warfare. Now the world gets extremely dangerous as the US gets weaker and power relationships change. This is happening all over the Eastern Hemisphere. That China is concomitantly getting stronger makes this even more difficult for orderly and rational disengagement of which there is none to speak of. The American tribe is much too big for intelligence in foreign affairs; the scum keeps rising to the top. We can say the same for domestic affairs even more easily.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. What is right? Foreign policy with or without the exportation of morality? And what morality would that be? Without the exportation, aka interventionism, presumably because that would be immoral, other countries would be "free" to do whatever they want and can respecting each other and no matter what the U.S. would be morally blameless if that means death, destruction and tyranny? We have a handle on proper social existence person to person as per human rights, but countries have social existence too. Why, when and where do they--we--tango? Yeah, there's trade. Is it moral to manufacture Zyklon B gas and export it to a German company that supplies it to the Nazis for the extermination of Jews? Or is it moral to go to war with such a Germany and beat the shit out of it? And where is "non-interventionism" then?

--Brant

a country has to know its limitations

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. What is right? Foreign policy with or without the exportation of morality? And what morality would that be? Without the exportation, aka interventionism, presumably because that would be immoral, other countries would be "free" to do whatever they want and can respecting each other and no matter what the U.S. would be morally blameless if that means death, destruction and tyranny? We have a handle on proper social existence person to person as per human rights, but countries have social existence too. Why, when and where do they--we--tango? Yeah, there's trade. Is it moral to manufacture Zyklon B gas and export it to a German company that supplies it to the Nazis for the extermination of Jews? Or is it moral to go to war with such a Germany and beat the shit out of it? And where is "non-interventionism" then? George Washington got an infection in his throat--I believe--riding about the countryside at the age of 69 to raise--something--for a war with France. The famous non-interventioner died of it (1799).

--Brant

a country has to know its limitations

I like the idea of going to war with Nazi Germany and wrecking it completely. Which is what we did.

Now Germany has the best economy in Europe and is in a good position just doing commerce.

We cured the Germans of Fascism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So. What is right? Foreign policy with or without the exportation of morality? And what morality would that be? Without the exportation, aka interventionism, presumably because that would be immoral, other countries would be "free" to do whatever they want and can respecting each other and no matter what the U.S. would be morally blameless if that means death, destruction and tyranny? We have a handle on proper social existence person to person as per human rights, but countries have social existence too. Why, when and where do they--we--tango? Yeah, there's trade. Is it moral to manufacture Zyklon B gas and export it to a German company that supplies it to the Nazis for the extermination of Jews? Or is it moral to go to war with such a Germany and beat the shit out of it? And where is "non-interventionism" then?

--Brant

a country has to know its limitations

I like the idea of going to war with Nazi Germany and wrecking it completely. Which is what we did.

Now Germany has the best economy in Europe and is in a good position just doing commerce.

We cured the Germans of Fascism.

I had to delete the Washington material in your quote of me. I edited it out of the original.

There'd of been no Nazi Germany and WWII except the US got involved in the stupidest war imaginable, WWI. WWI was the most defining war of all--it defines the world we live in today. It shapes, directs and controls it.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WWI was the most defining war of all--it defines the world we live in today. It shapes, directs and controls it.

Yup. US Federal Reserve opened the floodgates to pay for WWI... Balfour Declaration. Marxism. Fabianism. Roaring 20's. Prohibition.

Today?

The Fed is still blowing bubbles, Israel owns foreign policy, socialism won, and prohibition (of drugs) spawned 1.4 million US gangsters.

[From 1990 to 2000] the Nasdaq index shadowed precisely the Roaring 20's Wall Street boom that bankrupted technology speculators two generations ago. In the 1920's, the cutting-edge gizmo in question was radio: "America's fascination with the radio propelled RCA's shares to a high of $500 just before the '29 crash — an increase of 2,000 percent over six years. The crash wiped out all of those gains." [Wall Street Journal, March 2, 2001]...

The 1929 Crash wiped out the little guys in one chop. The 2000 Crumble slashed just as much paper profit, albeit with deceivingly erratic slow-motion uncertainty that tempted retail suckers to 'buy on the dips.' They bought and got creamed, while dot-com bosses quietly unloaded shares at the top of the market, knowing damn fine that there was nothing of lasting value on those IPO stock certificates. Even now, institutional investors (mostly government pension funds for teachers and cops) are compelled by their charters to sock more cash into stocks, throwing good money after bad, because they need above-market returns to pay out grotesquely lavish benefits...

So, the game continues, as long as possible, with increasingly frequent bail-outs by the Federal Reserve (Long Term Capital Management), the IMF (Russia, Indonesia, Argentina), U.S. Treasury (Mexico), FDIC (Continental Illinois), and Congress (Lockheed, Chrysler, and 400 Texas S&Ls).

The Tech Wreck, LFC Times

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting a new thread quoting Wolf above. "Israel owns [uS] foreign policy," because it's too much smoke to put this into the Iraq context where foreign policy is more owned by stupidity than any other thing I can think of.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

UPDATE -- military coup underway in Baghdad ?? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-10/coup-iraq-prime-minister-maliki-refuses-step-down-orders-security-forces-alert

Unconfirmed reports suggest troops and tanks have sealed off Baghdad’s Green Zone in an apparent coup. “There is a huge security presence, police and army, especially around the Green Zone,” the highly-protected district that houses Iraq’s key institutions, a high-ranking police officer has confirmed to AFP. http://www.news.com.au/world/troops-surround-baghdad-green-zone-as-outgoing-prime-minister-maliki-appears-to-cling-to-power/story-fndir2ev-1227020033404

Not a coup. It's Maliki circling the wagons, refuses to step down. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/10/iraq-special-forces-maliki_n_5666598.html

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki indicated that he will not drop his bid for a third term and accused the president of violating the constitution in a tough televised speech likely to deepen political tensions as a Sunni insurgency rages. Special forces loyal to Maliki were deployed on Sunday night in strategic areas of Baghdad, police said. Several police sources also said the forces had taken up positions at key entrances to the sprawling capital. Maliki, seen as an authoritarian and sectarian leader, has defied calls by Sunnis, Kurds, some fellow Shi'ites and regional power broker Iran to step aside for a less polarising figure who can unite Iraqis against Islamic State militants. Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Brett McGurk Tweeted Sunday evening that the U.S. supports Iraq's president. CNN's Jim Sciutto says this places the U.S. at odds with Maliki. http://www.businessinsider.com/iraqi-prime-minister-maliki-defiant-as-allies-call-for-his-ouster-2014-8#ixzz3A25lLKsA

Meh. Who cares? -- top headline at Drudge: school lunch http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/education/2014/08/09/district-drops-federal-lunch-program/13847169/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm in favor of butting out and completely withdrawing all aid in allllll of the ME. Let them all kill one another for the next thirty years. If Isis does take over? It will be another Iran/Iraq war.

Maybe then the rocket supply to HAMAS will even dry up!

Maybe help the mountain people relocate on our way out though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now