There are several brief points worth noting about all of this: (1) For those who ask “what should be done?,” has the hideous aftermath of the NATO intervention in Libya – hailed as a grand success for “humanitarian interventions” – not taught the crucial lessons that (a) bombing for ostensibly “humanitarian” ends virtually never fulfills the claimed goals but rather almost always makes the situation worse; (b) the U.S. military is not designed, and is not deployed, for “humanitarian” purposes?; and (c) the U.S. military is not always capable of “doing something” positive about every humanitarian crisis even if that were really the goal of U.S. officials?
Associated Press, December 1, 1990:
New York Times, January 17, 1991:
New York Times, December 17, 1998:
Time, John Dickerson, January 28, 2003:
The Daily Beast, July 24, 2014:
International Business Times, January 2, 2014:
There are several brief points worth noting about all of this:
(1) For those who ask “what should be done?,” has the hideous aftermath of the NATO intervention in Libya – hailed as a grand success for “humanitarian interventions” – not taught the crucial lessons that (a) bombing for ostensibly “humanitarian” ends virtually never fulfills the claimed goals but rather almost always makes the situation worse; (b) the U.S. military is not designed, and is not deployed, for “humanitarian” purposes?; and (c) the U.S. military is not always capable of “doing something” positive about every humanitarian crisis even if that were really the goal of U.S. officials?
The suffering in Iraq is real, as is the brutality of ISIS, and the desire to fix it is understandable. There may be some ideal world in which a superpower is both able and eager to bomb for humanitarian purposes. But that is not this world. Just note how completely the welfare of Libya was ignored by most intervention advocates the minute the fun, glorious, exciting part – “We came, we saw, he died,” chuckled Hillary Clinton – was over.
(2) It is simply mystifying how anyone can look at U.S. actions in the Middle East and still believe that the goal of its military deployments is humanitarianism. The U.S. government does not oppose tyranny and violent oppression in the Middle East. To the contrary, it is and long has been American policy to do everything possible to subjugate the populations of that region with brutal force – as conclusively demonstrated by stalwart U.S. support for the region’s worst oppressors. Or, as Hillary Clinton so memorably put it in 2009: “I really consider President and Mrs. Mubarak to be friends of my family.”
How can anyone believe that a government whose overt, explicit policy is “regime continuity” for Saudi Arabia, and who continues to lend all sorts of support to the military dictators of Egypt, is simultaneously driven by humanitarian missions in the region?
(3) “Humanitarianism” is the pretty packaging in which all wars – even the most blatantly aggressive ones – are wrapped, but it is almost never the actual purpose. There are often numerous steps the U.S. could take to advance actually humanitarian goals, but those take persistence and resources, and entail little means of control, and are thus usually ignored in favor of blowing things and people up with Freedom Bombs.
(4) Note how even the pretenses of constitutional democracy are now dispensed with: there is a reasonable legal debate over legality, but in essence: the President has the power to order bombing of Iraq because he decides it should happen.
(5) Perhaps having Israel and the U.S. simultaneously bombing Arabs in different countries – yet again – will create some extremely negative consequences?
(6) This above-documented parade of “Saddam-is-worse-than-Hitler” campaigns was surrounded by stints of U.S. arming and funding of the very same Saddam (the same, of course, was true of the Taliban precursors, Gadhaffi, Iran, Manuel Noriega, and virtually every other Latest Villain who needed to be bombed; the US was roughly allied with ISIS allies in Syria and American allies fund ISIS itself). The propaganda has gone from “pulling babies from incubators: as bad as Hitler” to “rape rooms: worse than Hitler” to the new slogan: “worse than al-Qaeda!” What’s left?
For quite some time, it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the democratically elected president of Iran who left office peacefully at the end of his term and who never actually invaded anybody – who was The New Hitler. As all of this demonstrates, there certainly are some heinous, violent people in the world: often including America’s closest allies and the ones who unleash the violence documented here, as well as those at whom that violence is directed. But perhaps some perspective and serious skepticism is warranted the next time we’re relentlessly bombarded with messaging about The New Greatest Villainous Threat in History – and especially manipulative accusations that opposition to U.S. military attack is indicative of support for those New Villains – as a means to secure acquiescence to the next bombing campaign.
(7) Maybe this and this, rather than humanitarianism, is a more significant influence in this new bombing campaign? Targeted strikes against ISIS is obviously not remotely the same as a full-scale invasion of Iraq, but whatever else is true, and whatever one’s opinions are on this latest bombing, it is self-evidently significant that, as the NYT’s Peter Baker wrote today, “Mr. Obama became the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition” known as Iraq.
When are we going to go after those funding ISIS? We need to cut the head off the ISIS snake: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar. Without their funding ISIS would not exist…..Oh, silly me…the royals from those countries own our politicians. So, we waste taxpayers’ money fighting what our “friends” create. Madness, shear madness.
Bombing Iraq is just an act of war by the most basic of international laws. It will also be used as catalyst to have more vicious extremists joining the extremists……Ironically Al Qaeda are looking now like potatoes comparing to the new generations of ????? (just an amalgam group between thugs, criminals, religious fanatics). Too bad when the government does not look back to the grave mistakes of the very recent years just not to repeat them!
You’re completely right about the paramount need to rein in the war profiteering MIC Ike warned about. JFK was killed for resisting them. As JFK showed, not all presidents actively collaborate with the war profiteers. Johnson, Nixon, and Bush 43 definitely did. With Obama, there’s a clear difference between how he’s managed the military and how W managed it. Obama has resisted numerous calls for heavy military action, while W lied to America (his specialty) to justify the MIC invasion of Iraq. But the fact that humanitarian cover stories are a standard tactic of the MIC doesn’t mean all humanitarian stories are cover stories.
Point 5 equates Israel’s bombing of Gaza with Obama’s bombing to protect refugees who had fled their homes at gunpoint. The refugees are like the Palestinians in this scenario. The thing that does not fit Obama’s pattern is his tolerance of Israel’s agression. The Jewish supremacists note this, and don’t trust him. They don’t think he’ll support Jewish supremacism when the chips are down.
But even if a president were to resist the war profiteers (and avoid assassination) they have so much control in Congress and the media that they’re still hard to keep in check. They can still get conflicts started overseas.
The “Islamic state” mindset was predicted decades ago as a reaction to the attack on Muslims by the “Jewish state” mindset.
http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
The Middle East is awash in war and terrorism and on who is which opinions vary. With modern weapons almost anyone can be either or both, they are mass produced. It is the Peacemakers with the souls and skills to look into chaos, hatred and endless war and find a way to peace that are hard to find.
Peacemakers such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Muhammad Anwar El Sadat AND Martin Luther King are a rare and often endangered species. As with warriors and terrorists, opinions on peacemakers vary. One man’s peace maker is another’s traitor and enemy. The very act of looking over dead countrymen and kinsmen to a path to peace can mark one for death. All the above peacemakers put their lives on the line and paid full measure.
Peacemakers do not get the MSM coverage of war and terror, more interesting to mass audiences and boost the ratings. Perhaps the Intercept could run a Peacemaker of the month column. Hopefully this could be done without painting a target on their backs?
I was on a Special Forces A team doing “area studies” on the Middle East nearly half a century ago. The leaders have been replaced but the tribal forces remain. With everyone blaming someone else for “losing,” screwing up, Iraq, I think this is the wrong question. The real question is when did anyone ever in reality find Iraq as a unified Nation in the first place? Whether colonials, dictators or Bush one and two, Neocons or Obamites through peace, wars and occupations no one every found a formula to create a long term stable unified Iraq. The flip side of the coin Iraqis never found and most never sought a concept or leader that united.
I support the ideals of the Intercept and commits generally. The first Iraq war should have been prevent by better communication that invasion of Kuwait would lead to war. The second Iraq war was just a huge mistake from start to finish. Afghanistan was way too drawn out, military action is designed to break it, not own it, not fix it or nation-build. Most of Iraq Wars bad results are due to a complete redefinition and expectation for the randomness of warfare and resulting outcomes by the “military industrial complex” too influenced by profit and economic gain to confront reality. This has produced great wealth for some politicians and corporations, created rouge agencies that commit sedition against and loss of oversight of governance by “We the people,” and yield a police state “light” USA. This will not remain static and will either get worse or better. It is our baby we the people must rock it.
Our branches of governance are currently transfixed or controlled by greed, political angst and stupidity. Too many Neocons, true and de facto, that fail to understand that war is the province of fools to be placed at the bottom of the toolbox of state not at the top. Yes you fight Nazis in WWII but perhaps not a Southeast Asia nation where the president recites part of the Declaration of Independence in his inaugural address. Be all the above as it may, and despite our well meaning and not so much actions, ignorance and arrogance, it is time to view the current situation in the cool desert star light and hot dessert sun, we are HERE. We most move forward from this point, the corner we are painted into and must exist with minimum mess. Genocide and radical terrorist exporting states cannot be the exit point.
Regardless of blame, waiting for Godot, an Iraqi Washington or Jefferson to unite the fractured Nation of Iraq was always a ridiculous idea for a very remote outcome. As suggested by others partition, without genocide and civil war may be the best of bad outcomes. Despite the propaganda of MSM “Wag the Dog” campaigns past and present as excellently reviewed in this article, real human need and opportunity for a better outcome may exist. Some humanitarian, economic and even military action may be required. This reality is a cold shower for every point of view, mine included.
My views have changed from just a few weeks ago. No one ever came close to finding a truly unified Iraq. Those that try end up on the sectarian hate disaster to disaster merry-go-round. You can almost hear the music in the background will Obama buy another ticket for one more go around? These were my thoughts a few weeks ago. The failure of the Iraqi government to check ISIS and capture of advanced US weapons by ISIS pointed at religious minorities and Kurds has changed my view. I now believe we and other nations should and will take one more spin to try to balance the competing forces in partition of Iraq so that all end up with some place and security. In the end the outcome must be determined by the Iraqi peoples, as it always was destined and should be so.
The master plan is not mine. However, the end game of triple play partition of Iraq can on the up side prevent a total meltdown of the Middle East, lay the ground work for future cooperation between parties and players in the area and provide generally good outcomes to all but terrorists and intractable ideologues. A better outcome than most of many meddlers deserve. I left Iraq in all the names below for their comfort.
(1) The Kurds can hold Northern-Kurdistan-Iraq and provide a buffer between Turkey and ISIS. Kurds though somewhat moderate in nature do not cut and run and will fight like demons for a chance at a homeland. Turkey a NATO member “approves” and with some help from US and others, Kurds have oil to play and pay all can be fine there. Maybe not happily ever after but as good as it gets.
(2) Southern-Shia-Iraq (former central government) has strongly partner with Iran. Iran will make sure their proxy state and Shia shrines are safe. They also have oil for fun and profit. Have a nice day.
(3) Central-Sunni-Iraq now ISIS controlled is the only piece that although tentatively partitioned is going to face some shift in leadership and the lines in the sand. Most Iraqi Sunnis mainly want antinomy from sectarian Shia rule. The moderate Sunnis will work to push ISIS out, they will not want to hold on in the long run to an ISIS lightening rod. A moderate Sunni state but not an ISIS caliphate is acceptable to most all the players and parties, USA, Russia, Syria, the rest of what was Iraq, Iran, Jordan, Turkey and even Saudi Arabia. Most everybody hates and fears an ISIS outcome. Sunni-Central-Iraq will face major economic problems they have less oil but have captured some. Their major aquifer is being depleted they will need help to get some oil and water from a partition deal. This should be part of the carrot. God of Your chose willing, this might work out. I pray it does. If not three big sticks exist, ISIS cannot maintain surrounded by Syria aided by Russia, Northern-Kurdistan-Iraq aided by USA and Southern-Shia-Iraq aided by Iran. ISIS are some tough bad boys on a roll for now, but they are in the middle of a three-way ass kicking. If they say “bring it,” it will be forthcoming. I hope a better way is found.
Iraq, as you’ve indicated, never really was a nation, but something cobbled together by the Great Powers after WWI, another creation of that time, like, say, Yugoslavia, that never really had coherence. Odd, that we’re one century on from that war and still coping with its after-effects.
War is the gift that keeps giving, dead, damaged minds and bodies and hatred and ill will damaged future. This is why one should only strike the war-post after much consideration, debate and full congressional constitutional vote.
Even necessary wars as a last resort are tragic and preemptive wars by executive order are most often ill conceived and disastrous.
The film “The Longest Day” sums it up pretty well. Flying Officer David Campbell played by Richard Burton. “He’s dead. I’m crippled. You’re lost. Do you suppose it’s always like that? I mean war.”
And in a very surprising turn of events that no one here could’ve predicted (not), it turns out that Haidar al-Abadi, who is in line to replace al-Maliki in a “democratic” transition of power, was pre-selected by the US back in June.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/11/exclusive-inside-obama-s-push-for-regime-change-in-iraq.html
A good article and a very intelligent move by Obama to seek a political solution before going in headfirst with guns blazing to try to eliminate the iSIS. Marginalized Sunnis joined with the ISIS.
“……Obama until June had taken a hands-off approach to Maliki. While Maliki prosecuted leading Sunni politicians, alienated members of the western Iraqi tribes that fought with the United States between 2007 and 2009 against Jihadists and further consolidated power, Obama agreed to sell Maliki’s air force advanced fighter jets…….That policy has changed. Obama on Saturday said the United States was ready to give extraordinary assistance to Iraq, provided that Iraqi leaders form a more inclusive government……”
I also guarantee that Iran approved of the replacement as well. The ISIS represent the most feared of enemies for the Shia in Iran.
*Amnesty International Report Details Crimes by US/NATO Forces in Afghanistan*
http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2014/08/11/amnesty-international-report-details-crimes-by-usnato-forces-in-afghanistan/
Direct link to the report [PDF]:
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/ASA11/006/2014/en/c628b1a4-821f-4168-a583-ac4a6159986e/asa110062014en.pdf
“President Obama’s goals in Iraq continue to grow every time he gives a speech, and the shifting sands are giving hawks more ammo in their constant push to escalate the new US war as much and as quickly as possible. Obama’s goals have gone from protecting Irbil to protecting Irbil and Baghdad, and now to prevent the creation of an Islamic caliphate in Iraqi territory, as well as keeping all ‘strategic’ sites in the nation from ISIS control. That’s a big shift, in only about 72 hours since he announced the war… Now, despite all protestation to the contrary, fear of mission creep seems very well founded, and the mission is not just creeping into a bigger one, it is exploding at an alarming rate.”
http://news.antiwar.com/2014/08/10/as-obama-broadens-iraq-goals-escalation-seems-inevitable/
What makes me grind my teeth out is seeing the same old assholes such as Peter King, John McCain and his girlfriend – reached for comment. You’d think by now that they’d just have a template with some fillable lines for the date and part of the world that they’d like to blow up.
The Sunday news shows need those ratings!
It could be about ratings, but my opinion is that they serve to allow ratcheting up of the violence by making Obama’s aggressive position look milder (thus giving a bit of room to escalate) by comparison. The fact that they (and Clinton, too, it seems) sound so bloodlusting is highly disturbing, and the caricatures that overt hawks now appear to be are almost cartoonish – allowing the most popular comments on other sites to be ‘I’m so glad we have Obama and not McCain as president,’ ‘this is all Bush’s fault,’ and sometimes on Clinton articles ‘now I know why I chose Obama over her,’ the thought behind which has the propagandist value of making her look aggressive and Obama look thoughtful as-ever. Plus, all this hawking is red-meat for reactionaries and militarists. Perhaps all that, AND ratings.
I wouldn’t go that far. First, that would imply that either: (1) McCain and Graham are secretly collaborating with Obama (uh no), or (2) that the Sunday News Shows have the exact same agenda and use McCain, Graham, et al as pawns to make Obama look milder as you said, including Fox News Sunday. It’s not that complicated or cabal-like. I think it is ratings-driven because these hawks have become familiar faces and at least in the Executives’ minds, still have enough credibility to entice viewers. From McCain’s and Graham’s perspective it gives them a podium that I’m sure they find irresistable. It doesn’t matter that they say the same shit over and over! Here is an article on the matter: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/09/us/politics/on-sunday-talk-shows-a-familiar-cast-of-characters.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Secondly, you call Obama’s actions aggressive but considering the limited strikes thus far, are there any military options you’d consider “non-aggressive”?
I think just about all public figures in the establishment (Democrat and Republican) are working for the same ends, whether they know it or not.
These ends are, I believe, determined by the ‘elite’ – a mix of military, banking and other corporate interests.
And I would call any killing “aggressive” as a technical matter.
Glenn, just days ago:
In light of the actions taken by IS, especially in the last few days, I wonder if Glenn wants a mulligan on characterizing as propaganda claims that IS is “worse than al-Qaeda”?
It could very well be worse than al-Qaeda. The purpose of putting that in a headline is clear, though: To elicit fear.
Wait a second, how can it both be potentially true (“It could very well be worse than al Qaeda”) and simultaneously said JUST to “elicit fear”? You can’t have it both ways.
It is one thing to try to refute the Daily Beast’s title, but another to just dismiss it outright as propaganda.
You seem to assume that propaganda implies falsity. But it simply means government communication aimed towards influencing a population to support or oppose some policy. All of the examples cited have been used to build support for military operations in Iraq.
Propaganda is a very respectable and useful tool, but unfortunately has had a bad press. Governments don’t advertise themselves as propagandists, as they feel drawing attention to it reduces its effectiveness – which may be true. But it’s the most responsible way to govern – creating consent for what you do. It really does work better than a continual resort to brute force.
I don’t assume that, although falsity is a trait. Continuing your definition, which seems to come from Wikipedia, I included the rest of the entry:
What I’d consider “good propaganda” is not spewing outright lies but providing information that contains grains of truth and lying by omission.
Glenn’s characterization wasn’t grounded in any analysis of the Daily Beast article. It comes across as knee-jerk and over-broad.
But why discuss this conceptually when we can assess the actual DB article (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/24/isis-worse-than-al-qaeda-says-top-state-department-official.html) and provide opinions on whether it represents propaganda? Here’s my shot:
The first paragraph says
IMO, DB should have included “threat” in its headline. I synopsized the arguments to support the claim:
What I’ve read and seen seems to agree with this assessment. I think you’d have your work cut out for you trying to argue that this is propaganda but if so, I’d like to hear it.
By “good”, I assume you mean effective. The reason that lies aren’t effective is they can be exposed, which undermines the government’s credibility which is counterproductive (although even counterproductive propaganda like WMD can work in the short term). But what is left is still large enough to encompass virtually all government communications. All governments lie by omission. Are the commercial interests of American companies a factor in a decision of whether to send the military into Iraq? Of course. Will the government ever explicitly say so? Of course not. It would undermine popular support for military action.
The job of a government is to act and maintain the fiction that it is in control of events. A leader does not say ‘I’m guessing this is the best thing to do and I hope it works out’. That might be honest, but it is not leadership. A leader says ‘I’m convinced this is the right thing to do, and I will require your hard work and sacrifice for it to succeed’. Is it dishonest to not reveal your inner doubts and discuss the things which might go wrong? Maybe, but doing so could sow confusion, destroy morale and in the end, guarantee failure. So governments omit telling people those things; i.e. they lie by omission.
So yes, I maintain that all governments, including the US, routinely employ propaganda – for a reason – and there is no use trying to pretend otherwise.
@Benito:
Great response, hit the nail on the head.
Think ISIS is scary? A new threat of terrorism surfaces.
“Dennis Roszell, who currently lives in Alberta but owns a home across from the beach, claimed the nudists are deliberately intimidating the public with their actions.
“The nudists have actually perpetuated their blatant crimes to a point of terrorist activity and should be convicted of terrorism,” he said in an email.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/10/nudists-should-be-convicted-of-terrorism-says-b-c-homeowner-seeking-to-ban-bare-bodies-on-beach/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
And Hillary is again showing her true colors:
And:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/hillary-clinton-failure-to-help-syrian-rebels-led-to-the-rise-of-isis/375832/?single_page=true
You should vote for her, avelna. Anyone’s better than Rand Paul.
Clinton is a wretched corporatist militarist, but Rand Paul seems no better viz. Israel.
*Rand Paul: “I Wouldn’t Question” Israel.*
“‘I wouldn’t question what they need to do to defend themselves,’ the Kentucky Republican told conservative radio host Glenn Beck on The Blaze. ‘These are difficult decisions people make in war when someone attacks you. It’s not our job to second guess.'”
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/07/rand-paul-israel-mideast-glenn-beck-109284.html
I won’t vote for either of them.
There’s your candidate, registered democrats. So go out there and be good, informed citizens; exercise that right to choose more of the same exceptional, bloody shit. And eat it.
It sure looks to me like the administration is using the embassy employees, folks that should have been pulled out as the country has fallen over the last month, as a TOOL. Eleventh hour protection, escalating into unknown military action is a damn poor strategy, unless last minute desperation is the THEME OF THE THEATRE
They embarrassingly, have tried to IGNITE this MIDDLE EAST POWDERKEG over and over here!!!
It’s like watching idiots with bad fuses.
Hail to the Truth
And what TOOL would these embassy employees be used for?
What is the benefit of having “last minute desparation” as the THEME OF THIS THEATRE?
Are you kidding, US lives at stake, these hawks are jonesin’ for a way forward,
that we can say WE didn’t start this, but we gotta get in there
So these embassy workers are tools because they haven’t yet been evacuated?
That would be swell and all if it were true. There have been evacuations.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-evacuates-consulate-staff-iraqi-city-arbil-205802857.html
Witnesses Recount Tales of Yezidi Women Taken as War Booty
[snip]
[snip]
I cannot begin to imagine, even minimally, living with the pervasion of crippling fear such cruelty generates. In a world where truth and justice produce material wealth, such crimes would rarely occur. That world *does* exist, but it is deeply hidden within each of us, requiring fervent human desire and persistent effort to uncover it and live in the warmth and wisdom of its accord.
http://rudaw.net/english/middleeast/iraq/110820144
Greenwald Is, (I want the word is to spell correctly with a lowercase letter I) being a fool, comparing this round of bombing with all the others. It’s the first time I can remember that it made any sense at all.
The USA is at war against Al Qaida, and Al Qaida should not be allowed to do just whatever they want. The Shiiites and the Kurds can hold their terrirtory.
When I cannot find clarity, I attempt to step back my perspective and get a better view.
IN MY OPINION
This is only ideological from one side……..The other side just wants the OIL
Dick Cheney’s “secret energy conference”(1999 London),
“The OILL BUSSINESS is such a PESKY THING, you find oil today, and tomorrow you have to go out and find more.”
ISIS is not al-Qaida. ISIS is at this point
a very well organized and trained military force, not a group of terrorist
cells. They are the result of 60 years
of havoc wrought by the US and UK in
the ME. We have not learned yet that you cannot bomb an ideology.
But you can bomb your own weapons:)
Well, in defense of his wet Depends – South Carolina is a state closer to ISIS than most.
Perhaps he can see them from his veranda…
God I wish Lyndsey would come out of the closet as he wouldn’t be so blood thirsty if he did!
That’s right. They’re going to hop right in their big row boats and dash across the oceans to mortally attack us. We should all be shakin’ in our boots!
A break for a little contemptuous derision of the propagandist Graham: An American Travesty – Leticia in the glory of her lyin’ eyes –
https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5445/9450864822_5f690b978b_b.jpg
Only last week the markets had breached support levels and the pundits were warning of a 20% correction. Now that bombing is resurgent, all is rosy again. Oh, thank you specious Obama and your perverted advisers, thank you self-serving Zionist foreign policy, thank you multi-generational, sociopathic MIC.
War is the health of the State! …the people’s health be damned.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/DJIA
click the 5d option below the chart.
To suggest that the US’s airstrikes against ISIS are not motivated largely by a desire to help those suffering from ISIS brutality is unrealistically cynical. The US has often been on the wrong side, but not this time.
Glenn, don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. Sometimes the US uses its military for the right reasons.
Same old story
Why can’t we depose an undesirable leader or bomb another country without having to pretend the world is coming to an end. I would like to think that all this drama is a necessary precondition to overcoming moral reticence, but I have become convinced that what is really going on is just bad writing. And I’m not just talking about this post.
If the internet has taught us anything it is the idea that we don’t have to put up with a pizza delivery man just to watch people fuck. Narrative has now become filler. Once you subtract the “story” from a typical two hour “comedy” at best you are left with maybe 15 minutes of actual funny. Narrative is now filler. I just want to watch some guy get cut in half with a machine gun. I don’t need him to kill the family of the protagonist so I feel better about the transaction. Just cut straight to the money shot. Narrative is now filler.
Understand that I am all about foreplay. You want to tie up and torture some guy for twenty minutes before you cut him in half with a machine gun…awesome…but don’t waste my time and insult my intelligence trying to morally justify this crap. Porn is bad enough without having to watch an hour and forty-five minute wedding before people can have sex for fifteen minutes.
This emphasis on empty narrative is from a time before fast forward and Mr. Skin. A time of comic book codes and “R” ratings.
We confuse storytelling with moral justification as if they always have been the same.
But they have always been the same.
“The real tragedy of great power is that it is fundamentally at odds with ethical conscientiousness and judgment. Don’t get me wrong, “great power” will consider normative values, will engage in moral discourses and will reflect upon ethics, but it is invariably and persistently self-indulgent and self-serving. Great power will idolize itself, and demand obedience from whoever falls within its sphere. It will reflect on ethics, but ultimately will always reach the conclusion that whatever it does or decides is indeed ethical, and that all who are less powerful must sublimate and praise its virtues. And the highest form of sublimation is obedience. The tragedy of Israel’s great power is that it has lost the ability to be restrained or proportionate. In other words, it has lost the self-critical insight and restraint needed for reasonableness.
I believe that the first principle of ethics is to pursue goodness and resist evil, but the second principle is to speak the truth of goodness and the shame of evil to great power. It is due time that we recognize that the critical premise of all moral acts is reasonableness, and that when great power acts unreasonably, great evil unfolds. Whatever the religion, nationality, ethnicity or race of this great power, the human suffering is always the same.”
The Tragedy of Great Power: The Massacre of Gaza and the Inevitable Failure of the Arab Spring
By Khaled Abou El Fadl
http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2014/08/08/4064106.htm
Very good thanks for the quote and link. I think this quote may help to put our problem into perspective as well:
“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.”
It would be so great have some hope of improvement in the world but there is little reason for it everyone who reads this will spend their day in dutiful obedience – and thousands will die before they sleep.
Thank you too. There is little reason for hope indeed.
It is said of money that it is devoid of emotion and ethical concerns, and that quality makes it easy for its owners to disassociate themselves from the evil money does when invested in certain ways. That probably indicates the source of great power and the primary way in which it can elicit in its admirers ignorance of their responsibility for the tragic effects it generates.
We may be better served to place our hopes elsewhere than by attempting to humanize great power. It is already realizing its own dangerous way throughout the globe, and having progressed virtually unnoticed over decades at a snail’s pace, it dominates nearly every aspect of our lives. Soon whatever shreds remain of our privacy, they too will be eliminated, and with them even our ability to discern the roots of our ethical behavior will wither. Those roots need our protection – just as the ember needed guarding in the early days when the human discovered s/he could control fire.
Thank you Rwth, for the link. An excellent essay!
@Rolling with the times
Very interesting article. Thank you. I need to read that at least one more time.
I am willing to check out xhamster.com, but the problem with most of the “Girls Gone Wild Kingdom” sites is that many of the animals are not only underage, but frankly not very attractive representations of the species.
Follow up:
OK, after visiting that site I may have been misled by the name. It’s embarrassing moments like this that makes me wish that The Intercept had an edit function for the comment section.
God I hope my dog doesn’t read this.
I recommend xhamster.com, they get down to it within 2-5 minutes, so I’ve been told by a friend….
The Four Horsewomen of the Humanitarian Intervention Apocalypse are
Madeleine Albright
Hillary Clinton
Susan Rice
Samantha Power
This is a narrow minded view of the world and the US foreign policy.
1) Bombing for humanitarian.
a) Did the situation in Kosovo get worse or better for the civilian population after military intervention?
b) Was the deployment of the US military in Haiti in 2010 after the devastating earthquake helpful or detrimental to the population? Is the violence of Libya due to the inability of the tribes to work together or to the NATO bombings?
If you claim to be impartial and a great defender of the truth you also have a duty to answer these questions fairly before portraying the US military as being incapable of performing humanitarian missions.
2) American policy to “subjugate” the population
Was the US against the democratically elected president Morsi in Egypt? Has the US placed Tunisia under sanctions after their revolution? You are picking convenient cases to boost your partial opinion. I do not believe you are ignorant of Middle Eastern politics. You are just simplifying the complicated issues on the ground to maintain your quest of anti Americanism. Maybe the support of the US to Mubarak was due to his ability to maintain peace with Israel when all his neighbors and some of the Egyptian citizens were asking for war. Maybe the support to Saudi Arabia is due to the ability of the tribes in power to maintain stability within in an area well known for thousand years to have violent religious conflicts. Do you believe that countries in the Middle East would stop selling oil if they were run by fully democratic governments?
3) “Freedom Bombs”
Governments start wars for many reasons. Humanitarians may also be part of the economical or the political reasons. Did the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan get better or worse after the US invasion in 2001? We all know that was not the main reason to attack Afghanistan. Is there a humanitarian argument to intervene in Irak right now? And if there is one how do you stop ISIS? Do you negotiate with them or do you use force?
4) Legality
Has the democratically elected government of Irak requested US military intervention against ISIS? Yes. Yet you presented the US president as a powerful 18th century European king who decides to send his people to war because he makes him feel better!
5) Arab public opinion
If the Arabs believe the USA is such a threat to peace why US consulates in Arabic countries are always crowded with locals trying to go to the USA? The Japanese consulates or the Chinese consulates are never crowded! Why so many people would want to go to a country that represent such a danger to the world? Is it just possible that the public opinion reported by the survey was just an emotional response to the conflict between Israel and Palestine?
6) Propaganda
“Democratically elected president of Iran”. You continuously request a high standard of democracy for America, but yet you disregard the fact that candidates in Iran must be accepted by the supreme leader. Assuming that he was really democratically elected in your narrow minded planet, would you have some concerns if the president of a country states multiple times that he wants to destroy another country? You can always challenge what politicians in America or Israel say or do not say. You might even get a prestigious price for your curiosity. I dare you to go to Iran and challenge him on his democratic values.
7) America ambition
Are you willing to report that this president is also the one who pulled the military out of Irak and the military actions now have been requested by the Iraki government? That is even if you do not believe there is a humanitarian argument to intervene in Irak.
From The Guardian:
This Masum seems to be quite clever; violating the constitution is a sure fire way to attract the support of the US government. All the naysayers who dismiss the Iraq war as a failure are ignoring the subsequent development and flowering of shared values. This form of ‘soft power’ may ultimately prove more beneficial to the US than the overt display of ‘shock and awe’ which, because it was so much more telegenic, attracted the bulk of the attention.
Rumors of some kind of coup d’état.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/10/1320554/-Coup-in-Iraq-This-sounds-familiar
The people involved should look back on what happened to other US clients who wore out their welcome, like Manuel Noriega or Ngo Dinh Diem.
No doubt.
“The Strange Case of Nouri al-Maliki”
http://journal-neo.org/2014/07/03/the-strange-case-of-nouri-al-maliki/
That is all true, which is what makes this Russian propaganda so insidious. Americans know that heroes, while they may ultimately receive popular acclaim and oil exploration leases in Kurdistan as rewards for their humanitarian interventions, are not primarily motivated by those things. Doing good is its own reward, which is what the cynics and schemers in countries such as Russia, who project their own motivations onto others, fail to understand.
Of course the current dire situation has nothing to do with the Americans fomenting sectarian strife while they were in Iraq. By a process of logical elimination, one is forced to the inevitable conclusion that Maliki is to blame. After the many sacrifices of Americans to create a prosperous and democratic state in Iraq, it is amazing how the Iraqis managed to mess things up so quickly. To the United States’ great credit, they have not run out of patience, and are now willing to give the Iraqis a second chance. A new reasonable Iraq government will grant the Kurdish areas de facto autonomy, and will also be reliant on the US for protection from IS – which will ensure they stay reasonable.
The nightmare scenario is that Maliki, in a selfish bid to stay in power, seeks aid against IS by strengthening the ties between Iraq and Iran. This would curtail the access of American companies to favorable oil leases, alarm Saudi Arabia and Israel, and of course, result in tremendous suffering to the Iraqi people, who would be caught up in sectarian conflicts, instigated by outside powers who had little or no regard for their long term welfare.
Indeed Duce, here in UK of the USA we have been warned of Russian propaganda.
“Unlike the BBC, which is governed by an at least nominally independent Royal Charter and which is in most matters quite truthful, RT is a subsidiary of the recently defunct RIA Novosti, the successor to the Soviet Information Bureau (Sovinformburo), which was wholly funded by the Soviet and then Russian governments.”
Unlike the Russians, when conducting humanitarian activities, the US, and the UK of the USA, display some empathy to the local population, to the extent that they may even adopt their customs.
“According to the Washington Post (20/9/05) [2], “Iraqi security officials on Monday variously accused the two Britons they detained of shooting at Iraqi forces or trying to plant explosives.” Reuters (19/9/05) [3] cited police, local officials and other witnesses who confirmed that “the two undercover soldiers were arrested after opening fire on Iraqi police who approached them.” Officials said that “the men were wearing traditional Arab headscarves and sitting in an unmarked car.” According to Mohammed al-Abadi, an official in the Basra governorate, “A policeman approached them and then one of these guys fired at him. Then the police managed to capture them…”
http://usa.mediamonitors.net/Headlines/Caught-red-handed-British-Undercover-Operatives-in-Iraq
al-Maliki is practically gone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/12/world/middleeast/iraq.html?_r=0
The US is pushing the process along. Kerry said that al-Maliki should not try to interfere with this “moment of democracy” in Iraq.
Violating a constitution written under military occupation shouldn’t be considered a big deal. It should even be encouraged, on principle.
It is true that governments violate their constitutions all the time. Yet is better not to be seen doing it. The constitution is the document that declares the legal authority to govern. A government that openly flouts it, acknowledges it does not have legitimate authority. This is a detail perhaps, but I believe it is preferable, in order to maintain an aura of legitimacy, that a government should maintain a certain degree of secrecy when contravening the constitution which enables it.
Of course, a government could also take steps to legally modify the constitution, but that is generally a lot of trouble.
You love ISIS killing & torturing or that anyone not muslim is an infidel & can be killed.You enjoy the complete subjugation of women including their mutilation.You probably think suicide bombings of innocent children is fun.Wait till they crucify you.
Fear-Mongers United [FMU]
Motto: ‘Inaction is no longer an option’
“I think of an American city in flames because of the terrorists’ ability to operate in Syria and in Iraq,” said Graham, a reliable advocate for U.S. use of military force overseas.
“They are coming here,” Graham later added about the militants. “This is just not about Baghdad. This is just not about Syria. It is about our homeland.”
Graham added that if Islamic State militants attack the United States because Obama “has no strategy to protect us, he will have committed a blunder for the ages.”
The chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein, also said the Islamic State militants pose a threat “in our backyard” and were recruiting westerners.
“Inaction is no longer an option,” she said in a statement as U.S. airstrikes were underway.
“The collapse of Mosul was not a result of lack of equipment or lack of personnel. It was a leadership collapse,” said Democratic Sen. Jack Reed. “And so in order to put the situation right, we have to begin at the fundamental core, which is leadership in Baghdad, Iraqi leadership.”
“They have attracted 1,000 young men from around the world who are now fighting on their side,” McCain added. “This ISIS is metastasizing throughout the region, and their goal, as they’ve stated openly time after time, is the destruction of United States of America.”
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/08/10/u-s-lawmakers-warn-of-isis-attack-on-american-soil-urge-strong-response-to-islamic-terrorists-in-iraq/
And so it goes. Rico, we have common ground on this one : ) All these FMU types prey on the ignorance and fear associated with the junctions of the lizard brain. Works really well with shallow thinkers. “Until we meet again and the case is Sol-Ved.” Inspector Clouseau
*functions, not juntions* fmmmphm!
Dear friends,
Could you place me on your mailing list, please ?
Thank you in advance.
Regards,
George.
Patrick Cockburn writing in the London Review of Books:
“For America, Britain, and the Western powers, the rise of ISIS and the Caliphate is the ultimate disaster… The war on terror for which civil liberties have been curtailed and hundreds of billions of dollars spent has failed miserably. The belief that ISIS is interested only in ‘Muslim against Muslim’ struggles is another instance of wishful thinking: ISIS has shown that it will fight anybody who doesn’t adhere to its bigoted, puritanical, and violent variant of Islam. Where ISIS differs from al-Qaida is that it’s a well-run military organization that is very careful in choosing its targets and the optimum moment to attack them.”
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n16/patrick-cockburn/isis-consolidates
“……The war on terror for which civil liberties have been curtailed and hundreds of billions of dollars spent has failed miserably……”
It’s simplistic to believe that the rise of the ISIS is strictly a failure of the war on terrorism. The ISIS has risen because of the Arab Spring (like in Syria) and complex regional struggles pitting Iranian (Shia) interests against the Saudis (Sunnis). The ISIS has filled in power voids. In addition, the US invasion of Iraq opened the door for ISIS although the Maliki government drove the Sunnis into the arms of the Islamists by alienating them from participating in the Iraqi government. That is strictly the fault of Maliki. Of course, that is the main reason that the US will not intercede fully in (helping) Iraq until Iraq changes governments. The Sunnis rightly have no trust in his leadership.
“…[….The belief that ISIS is interested only in ‘Muslim against Muslim’ struggles is another instance of wishful thinking: ISIS has shown that it will fight anybody who doesn’t adhere to its bigoted, puritanical, and violent variant of Islam…..”
ISIS seeks power no matter who stands in the way. That’s obvious. But they operate in the Middle East so Muslims who oppose their rule will be the first casualties.
But the war on terror enabled the Iraq invasion and all that followed in Iraq. That is what Cockburn means, and you agree with him.
Mike
I do agree with him to a limited extent, however for the reasons I outlined above, certainly not entirely. The rise of ISIS is complicated by a bunch of factors – not just the US invasion of Iraq. One place where the ISIS has gained a foothold is in Syria where the US has had little influence (which I mentioned above). There is nothing really controversial about that Mike.
There was a time when supporters of the US invasion of Iraq said it would bring change to the entire mid east. Maybe it did, but not as desired.
>”There is nothing really controversial about that Mike.”
U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/11/world/middleeast/us-actions-in-iraq-fueled-rise-of-a-rebel.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Monty Python – What have the romans ever done for us
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
bahhummingbug
Your link is to a story carried by the New York Times this morning.
“…….U.S. Actions in Iraq Fueled Rise of a Rebel……”
Baghdadi’s rise came from filling in a power void left when Hussain was vanquished from power by the US invasion. No one can deny that. He probably hated Saddam Hussein as much as the current Shia leadership which rightfully is in power in Iraq. Radical Islamic fundamentalist certainly oppose the current order of authoritarian dictators in the Middle East. In the same respect, when Syria collapsed into civil war, the ISIS took full advantage carrying the fight to the Syrian regime. Baghdadi is an opportunist who has taken advantage of the regional upheaval to subjugate parts of Iraq and Syria. He seeks power and control and as we have seen, and he is willing to do anything to maintain power and create a twenty-first century caliphate.
Baghdadi has carried on the tradition of torture and murder that AQI used to stir up sectarian tensions. He is willing to kill anyone, but minorities are especially at risk. His threat to murder 40,000 Christians even surpasses Assad in brutality who tortured and executed a mere 10,000 (prisoners).
Thanks.
Not if the goal was to spend hundreds of billions of dollars, curtail civil liberties, and to foster an enabling enemy.
Those that lied about WMDs and mobile biologic weapons labs were certainly aware of the intelligence assessments that the invasion of Iraq would cause terrorism and extremism to flourish and make Americans less safe. Those same people have for the most part done quite well, and not one has paid for his crimes. Many businesses have done well, too.. Meanwhile, the many Americans and Westerners who have seen their material worth dwindle remain bewildered, frightened, and all that much easier to control.
How do you know those really weren’t some of the goals all along?
Sykes-Picott, more verb than noun
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/05/2013567200437919.html
Of course economic control by the International Banking Cartel and the resulting profits which go exclusively to the “elite” are the reasons for every conflict and war. To deny this would be to deny historical fact.
See: “17. The Ring of Power – Control All Money [17 29]”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxoyFknv6U&index=17&list=PLB27102B532501E72
Also see:
“24. The Ring of Power – War on Terror [24 29]”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2YEJd5Xxxo
unfortunate name (Mr C)…..
I think ISIS is being tolerated to carry out an old plan, the division of Iraq. A Clean Break, Oded Yinon, PNAC, take your pick. What may be happening is the establishment of a Kurdish state in northern Iraq, the first part of the plan to be completed.
Humanitarian reasons, as usual, are only a pretext to get a foot in the door. There are always bigger plans.
US foreign policy can be understood under a simple model, as follows: There’s a list of countries with a category next to each name, which can be (1) Regime change, (2) Regime continuity, or (3) Don’t care. The US and some other imperialistic NATO countries are probably the only ones in the world that see non-neighboring countries in this manner.
In the “regime continuity” list you see countries like Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Yemen, Ukraine after the coup, and possibly Egypt after the coup. In the “regime change” list you’ll find countries like Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Egypt after the Arab Spring, and Ukraine before the coup.
I think the US had an interest in regime continuity in Iraq, but this many have switched to regime change, not because Iraq is not an obedient client state, but because the government is just not sustainable and is causing lots of problems. So now the US will try to find someone who will later be “elected democratically.” This will fail miserably sooner or later, though, because it’s not true self-determination.
Aside from the simplicity of this, couldn’t you say the same for most World powers and not just the US? It’s even simpler than what you say: Maintain influence and power abroad. Not exactly novel.
That ain’t what is says on the tin, Nate. Why do you think that is?
I had to look that idiom up, won’t lie. So, now that that is out of the way, what are you attempting to ask?
it’s rather old school, no worries. ;)
But now that we’re all savvy, it’s a straightforward question. Says one thing, does another. Why?
In the Iraq case?
I think it truly is part humanitarian. These people are being starved out after all and we’ve seen how IS treats no believers. Obama is not some soulless ghoul, I think he did care about the innocents who were gassed in Syria and cares about these people under Siege.
However, I agree that our interests are also involved. We have infrastructure in the north and those dams that IS is holding is quite concerning. Are there US concerns about oil as well? Yep, I think so and there probably should be. But I see this as a combination of many factors.
I’d hate to be in Obama’s shoes in this because it’s really a no-win situation. It is easier to get in than to get out. I fear that we will be bogged down there for a long period of time
The right thing to do was to try to evacuate those people out, and use the fire power necessary to accomplish that specific task. It appears that the Iraqi government has done that or is in the process of doing it. Everything else is just interventionism in the affairs of another country, and the humanitarian cause is mostly just a pretext.
@Nate
There is no such thing? We’re not dealing with ghouls, we’re dealing with compound interests. Game Theory, supposedly. Rationalists, right? Not philosopher kings. Why the appeal to romance? That’s what I don’t get.
BenjaminAP:
Not sure if you meant this to be a question, but it clearly is PART humanitarian or we wouldn’t be providing food and water and helping the Yazidis leave the area. The cynical and so far unfounded sentiment around here is that Obama is using the “humanitarian” motive as a pretext to inject ourselves back into Iraq. I just don’t buy it. If Obama really wanted to keep forces in Iraq, he could have back in 2011. If he really wanted to be more active in Syria, he could have as well. Yet he did not, so why would I believe he wants to send troops back to Iraq?
Alan Grayson has an opinion article today against intervening (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2014/08/10/iraq-isis-president-obama-rep-alan-grayson-editorials-debates/13875479/). I do see Grayson’s point that if they won’t fight, why should we!? But at the same time, there are consequences to doing nothing (see the Taliban in the 1990s).
As I said before, this is a truly shitty situation and if I had to make a decision, I would be trying to get as many other countries and stakeholders involved as possible. Hell, if the U.S. isn’t already covertly doing so, they should be working with Iran to address this problem.
I think we can say that about the US, and to some extent about France and the UK. I suspect Russia would like regime change in Ukraine very much, and perhaps some other neighboring states, but that’s probably the extent of it. I doubt Russia or China are working (financially or operationally) to produce regime change in, say, Sweden.
Russia also works for Regime Continuity in Syria. If we were to list countries in order of imperialistic ambition, Russia might be #2, and would certainly be in the top 4.
Here’s an easy way to tell who are the empires and wannabe empires in the world (and they happen to match up with the ones I suggested before looking at this page): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases
The sections with long lists are the ones that matter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country
“A global force for good” aka currency
Parsimonious analysis. *thumbs up*
You brought up the category of “non-aligned” earlier, and it begs the question, what does “alignment” represent in the 21st century? I mean, it’s the “end of history” right? Capitalism won. Ideology ain’t it. So what the fuck is it? Human rights? Democracy? Shall we laugh some more?
Oy vey. Is imperialism “too obvious”? We can’t contextualize what is obvious?
What causes a country to be marked for Regime Change or Regime Continuity probably depends on a lot of factors. Good candidates are: (1) Benefits to financial capital worldwide, (2) Interests of multinational American corporations, (3) Access to resources.
(1),(2), (3) are completely interdependent, no? Each would seem to contain the other.
“Regime Change or Regime Continuity” is a darn good model for hegemony because we can graph it. And it cuts through a lot of filter (see: CraigSummers’ misuse of the word “support”)
Jose
Neither the Egyptian overthrow of Morsi or the removal of the Russian puppet, Viktor Yanukovych, were US coups. Both overthrows resulted from popular democratic protest which ended with their removal from office.
You cannot just state something because that’s what you want to believe – or the US did it somewhere else, OK?
Craig,
The overthrow of Morsi most certainly was a coup and it was backed by the U. S. He was democratically elected. We back coups of the right wing or those friendly to our fucked up foreign policy interests on a regular basis.
“……The overthrow of Morsi most certainly was a coup and it was backed by the U. S. ….”
I agree to a certain extent, but would like to get across the point that the US had nothing what so ever to do with the coup. There was massive Egyptian support for the removal of Morsi. Millions of people took to the streets to protest the rule of Morsi and the military acted after delivering an ultimatum to Morsi:
“……On 3 July 2013, a coalition led by the Egyptian army chief General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi removed the President of Egypt, Mohamed Morsi, from power and suspended the Egyptian constitution, as a conscious response to Egyptian protesters who demanded the end of Morsi’s administration and the initiation of early presidential elections. The move came after four days widespread national protests against the administration and an ultimatum by the military for the government to “resolve its differences” with opponents within 48 hours or face the implementation of a military “road map” for reforms…..”
Morsi failed to satisfy the conditions and the Egyptian military acted to prevent the spread of violence, but the US had nothing to do with nor supported removing Morsi from power. That was strictly Egyptian politics. In fact, the US was critical of the military takeover:
“……President Barack Obama said he was “deeply concerned” by the actions of Egypt’s military and urged a return to democratic governance. He ordered his administration to review United States aid to Egypt.[210] He added: “No transition to democracy comes without difficulty, but in the end it must stay true to the will of the people. An honest, capable and representative government is what ordinary Egyptians seek and what they deserve. The long-standing partnership between the United States and Egypt is based on shared interests and values, and we will continue to work with the Egyptian people to ensure that Egypt’s transition to democracy succeeds.”….”
Ultimately, the US for geopolitical reasons backed al-Sissi. We will see what shakes out in the future in Egypt. Clearly, the democratic revolution isn’t finished.
Thanks. Good point.
You state with such authority that the US had nothing to do with Morsi’s ousting, but I ask you how you know? Because we(the US) said so?
JGreen
“…….You state with such authority that the US had nothing to do with Morsi’s ousting, but I ask you how you know? Because we(the US) said so?….”
Like anything else, it’s guesswork until someone publishes under the Freedom of Information Act.
First of all, the US (Obama) criticized the Egyptian military for ousting Morsi and cracking down violently on the MB. Lots of people died. The Egyptian military has been a huge ally of the US for a long time. Secondly, the US threatened to withhold the aid package to Egypt. Both of those were very unusual moves for the US. However, the US eventually gave the aid to al-Sissi.
Despite all the criticism from this site and the far left in the US, Obama has shifted US policy in the Middle East and elsewhere. In fact, the US right is very upset with Obama as well.
You know how you tell? By how much USAID and NED are investing, who they are giving money to, and what their activities are. It’s not always as obvious as in Cuba, but there’s a pattern.
Well said!!
Very much on point. Douthat in NYT seems to want US intervention, something more than a few airstrikes.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/10/opinion/sunday/ross-douthat-the-right-war.html?hp
He wants “an independent, secure, well-armed Kurdistan.” Didn’t the US try and set Iraq up that way before? And would the Turks like a strong Kurdish state on their border? I really Douthat.
There seems to be a very fine line between being humane and merciless mayhem and destruction, and those who have crossed over do not seem able to see that difference anymore. Terror always becomes the biggest tool in their arsenal.
“Mr. Obama became the fourth president in a row to order military action in that graveyard of American ambition” known as Iraq.”
US weapons manufacturers (and crony lapdogs) are laughing as they make their deposits in the bank.
It’s follow the money in 99% of the cases where the US intervenes militarily.
HAIL to the TRUTH
nice write~up
Palestinian suicide homes are ramming themselves in to peaceful Israeli Bulldozers..!
MURDER IN YOUR NAME
Dragging behind you the silent reproach
Of a million tear stained eyes . . . . . . . . . .
———————————————————–
FREE PALESTINE ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
I ask your indulgence for an experiment I am conducting. A comment I posted yesterday never appeared, so I’m repeating it below in four separate pieces to see which part (if any) annoyed The Intercept.
Perhaps due to a burst of adrenalin from winning the World Cup, Germany is taking steps to assert itself. It is now circulating a note to all embassies requesting a list of all spies on their staff (article in Der Spiegel.
I couldn’t find the English version but this links to a Google translate request which is reasonably understandable.
It will be interesting to see which countries refuse to comply (US, China and Russia are considered to have the most spies on staff), and whether the Germans in return will then place restrictions on the activities of those countries’ embassy staff. This sort of pressure has a way of escalating.
Bruce Schneier speculates that the story about spying on Merkel and an number of other stories published by Der Spiegel did not come from the Snowden documents. He considers it possible that the information in those cases may have come from German counter-intelligence. That would be interesting, since spying agencies have a “gentlemen’s agreement” to not expose each other’s spying, recognizing their mutual interest in maintaining the ignorance of the general public. The disaffection may be deeper than it appears.
Clearly, The Intercept refused your comment due to your failure to use the proper article here – “an number”. You BM, of all people, know that there is no limit to the good reasons that can be found to justify censorship.
Ah, that shows that persistence pays off. Even though The Intercept has set such stringent standards, if you keep posting, the comment may eventually slip through even their legendary Quality Control process.
Mike Wolf has vanished. There is an uncharacteristically solitary post from addabadda. Nate and craigsummers are persistent. Now this idiot Lauren has joined their August company. They should start their own website and make each other crazy.
I’ve noticed that myself – persistence – it does pay, eventually.
It’s all part of the mystery that is TI’s comments section. I had a longer post yesterday that never showed up either.
Someone should just start a TI subreddit…
Benito
I really don’t buy that the Intercept has any desire to censor your post. There must be some glitch somewhere. There is nothing in any of these four posts that might provide a reason for censorship. It’s an interesting take on the intelligence community, however. German intelligence is highly advanced and US intelligence has a long history of spying on friends. It’s unlikely that they didn’t at least suspect US of spying on Germany. Hell, maybe they set up the insecure line for Merkel just for that reason……
Take care.
Well, I consider Google Translate to be a subversive site and had grave misgivings about providing a link. It has the potential to expose Americans to an array of unwholesome foreign ideas. So I’m sort of disappointed the filters didn’t screen it the second time – but The Intercept is still a work in progress, and will no doubt address these deficiencies in due course.
Well, you do have a rather long tongue, BM. Mind you, I’m not complaining …like some do.
*I will say, the four posts you posted here seem a bit more incoherent than usual? This is not to let TI IT off the hook (disappearing posts make the natives restless!) … but really, BM, you could have done all that in one setting?
ps. I read the news today, oh boy, and it turns out: ISIS is ‘worse than terrorism’! *Glenn Greenwald can’t define ‘terrorism’ and now we have something ‘worse than’ it!
Update: Rep. P. KIng says ISIS almost ready to invade the u.s.a.
pps. also, you’s make a fine ‘mediator for the President.’ When He first mentioned ‘genocide’ and ‘tens of thousands of civilians trapped’ and in immediate danger … I thought he was talking about Gaza!?
You are very discerning. I need to go back to mixing Vodka with my Amaretto – it helps calm my nerves.
Try moonshine and strawberries … cures most common ills in one sitting.
cheers
I need to go back to mixing Vodka with my Amaretto – it helps calm my nerves.
For one who subscribes to every totalitarian evil, torture, and murder…I’d submit you haven’t got a single nerve in that perineal abscess masquerading as a human body.
Try Sangiovese with a small dish of pecorino cheese, Duce, it’s a lot more mellow.
The key to understanding the unpredictability of the TI comment section is understanding that spam is the geek version of terrorism.
The extremes needed to combat this scourge are proof, not only of the inhumanity of spammers, but of the righteousness of our cause.
Mary M. of Chexmix, MD writes in to ask–
“How can geeks, who are now nothing more than handmaidens of the advertising and tracking industries, be opposed to spam?”
Think of spam as unauthorized advertising.
James T. K. of Pretzel, WI writes–
“That Mary woman sounds like she supports open relays. She should be ashamed.”
For people that don’t know what an open mail relay is–think of it as Tor for email.
Alfred P. N. of Sans Serif, FL emails–
“My sister made $500 last week working from home. She is a secret internet shooper and gets paid to shop from where home is. If you like to shop to where your houseyou can make BIG BUCK$$$$$.”
James T. K. of Salty, WI complains–
“Having recently relocated, I must object to the publishing of spam without a trigger warning. I hope that Mary woman is happy now. If Mary is even her real name.”
Mary M. of Chexmix, MD responds–
“Like I’m going to tell you my real name.”
James and Mary had a very brief sexual encounter in the men’s room of a mall food court bathroom in Pennsylvania. They are now happily married with three children. She never told him her real name.
LOL!
You had more than one link. TI seems incapable of allowing posts with more than one link in them.
A comment I posted yesterday is in today. Yours too. Patience is all we need :-)
Oh noes, I am supposed to be on an internet detox break this week, but I can’t seem to stay away from this site. I hate trick-of-the-light moral questions – Jeremy Scahill talks about one side starting a war, Sam Harris shoots back that he wants to leave innocent people to die. Violence in response to other violence always has that quality, and there’s no good answer to it in the short term. An equal and opposite reaction is just as bad and seems like beating your child because you caught them fighting with another kid. A more (not totally, but ‘more’) surgical, targeted reaction (drones, etc.) decreases overall physical harm but probably increases a kind of psychological harm in that it highlights a power imbalance between groups – what one is able, potentially, to do to the other vs. what that group has the power to do in return. Doing nothing means leaving innocent people to die in the name of an abstract ideal or ‘this is better in the long, long run’ thinking – sorry, hope that violent and gruesome death doesn’t go to badly for you, we’ll be thinking of ya!
I was reading about Aristotelian ethics recently, how parts of it are clearly repugnant to us today. I.e., a slave can do wrong to a master but a master cannot do wrong to a slave. Or parent to child, husband to wife, etc. It occurred to me that while we find the idea of moral ‘weighting’ (this life is worth 200 times more than this one because…) repellent, at least in the abstract, in 2014 based on *those criteria, we often accept that general thinking based on *some criteria. The life of someone who seems like a source of potential future harm is worth less, in various calculations. The life of someone who seems a bit ‘woo hoo!” on the topic of lawless Hobbesian power struggles vs. someone who can happily exist in a structured society is worth less, etc. I suppose we have moved from rigid and somewhat arbitrary ‘roles’ to a form of utilitarianism there, and maybe that’s positive, but there is still an unacceptable undertone to any kind of retaliatory harm, in that it would clearly be better if we could live in a world where it didn’t exist.
In the short term I see no good answer here, other than to orient more towards long term thinking in the hope we can avoid or minimize these situations in the future.
I usually don’t question US policy, but it’s possible that invading Iraq during four consecutive Presidencies created a somewhat cynical atmosphere. Even though you explain that this time it’s for entirely noble reasons, that unlike the fictitious WMD there really is a people called the Yazidis and they really need to be rescued, it seems difficult to build the proper level of enthusiasm.
I would suggest that more countries should be added to the war rotation. This is why AFRICOM is so promising. Not many people realize that Africa is the world’s second largest continent by area (larger than North America) and has 57 countries. The US has made a good start in Libya and Somalia, but it has a lot of work left to do. I think this would prove more popular than continually attacking Iraq, which creates an impression of lack of progress, leading to feelings of futility.
It would be nice to have a war that everybody can support, so that people grumbling about war not solving anything would, lacking an audience, simply go away.
see my novella; ‘The Boy Who Cried Wolf and Was Elected President’
>”This is why AFRICOM is so promising. Not many people realize that Africa is the world’s second largest continent by area (larger than North America) and has 57 countries. The US has made a good start in Libya and Somalia, but it has a lot of work left to do”
But BM, you desire is fulfilled already. We sent military (advisors, I believe) to Nigeria to help out Goodluck Jonathan who has not properly taken the opportunity to exploit Islamic (apostate) Terrorism™ to full advantage. He is now taking advanced lessons in the money management style that fills his pockets (after the bankers take their top cut) at the expense of his own people.
I’m surprised you’re not up to date on affairs African. Oh yes, and the really huge profit potential is up and coming – Pharma is on the verge of a killing, both literal and figurative. They’ve developed a vaccine and a potential treatment for ebola which, in the process of mutating, is about to become a serious global disaster.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/geographic-ebola.jpg
Well BM, that was one of the objectives of eliminating Gaddafi, due to the fact that as head of the African Union he posed an impediment to the US’s plans for Africa. But Boko Haram’s murders and kidnapping in northern Nigeria have provided opportune cause for American advisors to push the less than effective Goodluck Jonathan to take advantage of the profit potential of fighting Terrorism™ there. Financial advisors will be instructing him in advanced lessons of money management that will (after the Big Boys take their top cut) fill Jonathan’s pockets to the brim at the expense of his people.
If you google USinAfrica you’ll find a film showing the US Military is in 49 African countries. I suppose the point of their presence is to assert ownership of the Disputed territory north of Oceania on that continent, to keep it from falling lock, stock, and barrel into Eastasia’s hands.
There’ll be a fight though for the eastern parts of Eurasia as tension with Russia may require Oceania to back off for a while or risk a nuclear exchange, the fall-out of which, the western part of Eurasia won’t want to endure.
As a fascist leader BM, it would seem imperative you keep current with the work-in-progress the greatest fascist power ever is undertaking this moment.
Additionally, Pharma is stands to make a figurative killing as ebola mutates and spreads creating threat of a serious global crisis. A new vaccine is being readied for use, and a new treatment, tested on the American doctor and nurse in Atlanta, is under development for trials. The WHO recently shared a map indicating the current infection locations worldwide.
http://www.who.int/csr/disease/ebola/geographic-ebola.jpg
Excerpted from Is the world waking to Ebola threat? at Daily Globe.
“Even though you explain that this time it’s for entirely noble reasons, that unlike the fictitious WMD there really is a people called the Yazidis and they really need to be rescued, it seems difficult to build the proper level of enthusiasm.”
That’s funny, I don’t remember explaining any such thing. It’s ok, though, people are always helpfully explaining to me what I really mean. Being sad about dead Gazans means you are pro-Hamas and anti-Semitic. Comparing male and female circumcision means you are pro-bloodiest-possible-athesthesia-free FGM. Being sad about dead Kurds means that you are pro-war. Trying to see other points of view is the most serious crime of all and means you are a pro-‘relativist’, which (again, people have helpfully explained to me) means you are cool with eating babies. People who lack a “Go team go!” spirit for a particular narrative should probably just be locked up, but they’d have to be rotated through dozens of different prisons since such actions apparently make you the enemy of *everyone.
>”That’s funny, I don’t remember explaining any such thing. It’s ok, though, people are always helpfully explaining to me what I really mean.”
Benito was referring to the generic ‘you’, Nic, and not ‘you’ specifically.
*not putting words in peoples mouths is his best redeeming quality, imho.
Ok then, I misunderstood, thanks bahhumingbug.
Bahhummingbug is correct. Putting words in someone’s mouth is only necessary when trying to win an argument. I generally don’t get involved in arguments, because I know I’m right which makes me indifferent to the opinions of others. One of the main failings of democracy is fostering the delusion that everyone’s opinion is important. This creates an evangelical zeal to convert others to one’s way of thinking, the source of much unneeded discord and strife.
Any decent language should have different pronouns for you (singular second person), you (group) and you (general). For the general case, there are alternatives used in other countries.
US: ‘You can fool all of the people …’
England: ‘One can fool all of the people …’
Scotland: ‘A body can fool all of the people …’
Ok then Benito. I am not used to speaking with dictators online and the rules of etiquette here escape me. I’ll send you a lovely brie melt or some other “under 30 minutes to make dish” by way of apology, I assume that’s the appropriate response? Or wait, will you be insulted by that? I could make something more elaborate and then snipe behind your back about your diva-esque nature to the neighborhood planning committee as well, I’m flexible.
I think ‘surgical violence’, as a frame, lowers the threshold to kill. It imputes ‘less harm’, and thus a higher impetus to engage in discreet violence. It falls neatly under the entire rubric of ‘humanitarian intervention’. The misdirection is that intentions are inherently noble, when they are in fact muddy at best. Hence the euphemisms of “surgery” and its component “collateral damage”. The target is “a patient”, the violence is “therapy”. But “malpractice” rarely enters into it. “Mistakes are made”, but no one loses their license to kill.
I appreciate your point about the psychological balance, but overtime, I think physical harm is being enabled.
“Doing something” is equally abstract, in terms of the utility you’re invoking here. So all we’re left with is patter recognition, aka history. WWII’s fable perpetuates the myth that mass violence = “something is being done”.
“There is no alternative” is the key fallacy IMO. Doing nothing doesn’t mean “doing nothing”. It just means mass violence isn’t the “something” we think it is.
“The misdirection is that intentions are inherently noble, when they are in fact muddy at best.”
I kind of throw ‘intentions’ out the window in such situations, because they are almost impossible to suss out, and outside the degree to which they have predictive value, what do they matter? If a judge is gleeful about sending someone who actually committed a crime to prison, the only ‘problem’ with that glee you can point to occurs outside that moment – he may have reason to send people to prison in a way that *isn’t fair in the future, for example. I actually think you have to have certain constraints in place no matter how noble an intention is, so I don’t put a lot of emphasis there. Everyone thinks their intentions are noble, to my mind, that alone tells us little.
I think you can look at some ‘surgical’ interventions in just the opposite light, btw – look at all the time, energy, and resources wealthier countries have to pour into special ops units, and the risk those people take on – because getting one target is of course preferable to harming innocent people using less targeted means. Even drones, creepy as I find them, likely minimize actual number of deaths – I see your point about “well maybe we never would have bothered with those people if we didn’t have drones”, but how many battlefields would it take to up the number of casualties very fast? Say it was only a small percentage – I still think the number of casualties is so much higher in any combat situation, and includes so many more civilians, that intuitively I don’t see sheer numbers as an argument against drones (could be wrong on that, though). But the power difference they create is a very big deal. I mean, take that scenario to its extreme endpoint – the ‘best’ possible intentions with the most possible power – we’d essentially be living in a world run by a sort of godhead who could smote anyone at will.
As far as “doing something” – what intervention do you propose that would save people in harm’s way *now that is nonviolent? I mean, in the abstract, you could have made the same argument about the Nazis – hey, what we really needed to do there was work through diplomacy and better education and all boats rising with the tide of knowledge and understanding. You could have said that, but it would have meant leaving people to die in camps. Gandhi advocated nonviolence with the Nazis, I’m not saying one couldn’t, as part of a coherent worldview, but there is no all around have your cake and eat it too answer in situations like this one.
Agreed 100%. It does tell us very little, but the energy spent on telling us otherwise is instructive. “Humanitarian intervention” is all about the profession of noble intent. Why? Because it is the pretext for its predictive value.
<blockquoteAs far as “doing something” – what intervention do you propose that would save people in harm’s way *now that is nonviolent? I mean, in the abstract, you could have made the same argument about the Nazis…
You’re reinforcing my point that the mythology of WWII is driving this entire rubric of humanitarian intervention-“there is no alternative”.
I reject the premise entirely. Not “killing some people” isn’t ipso facto “killing other people”. War is not peace. Lets start there.
“You’re reinforcing my point that the mythology of WWII is driving this entire rubric of humanitarian intervention-”there is no alternative”.
I reject the premise entirely. Not “killing some people” isn’t ipso facto “killing other people”. War is not peace. Lets start there.”
That isn’t an answer to the question, though, and I suspect this is a big part of the problem. Almost no one, myself included, when it’s a real world situation, has the heart to say “Throw that man in front of the trolley”, unless, apparently, the man strikes them as Evil, which is our current criteria for trolley-throwing-worthiness. The answer to this moral question of humanitarian intervention does, in fact, include the statement “These people die”, and talking around that is just talking around it. Which leads to an endless game of “Who can we cast in the role of Evil”? There is something ‘to’ that type of moral reasoning, I mean, if you really believed we should do no harm to anyone for utilitarian reasons, ever, we’d just tear down all the prisons tomorrow. War is not peace and incarceration is not freedom – that would make sense if we never had to make sacrifices for the greater good. (Now that I think of it, perhaps the problem is that war and peace are nouns, when they should be adjectives, where the referent could be an individual or a society. Somebody is going to be at war here, it’s more a question of who, and how big, and at what point in time – now or later.) But I find the idea of anarchic utopias unrealistic in 2014, so there has to be some element of that.
I do agree that WWII probably caused a lot of problems in humanitarian intervention, possibly because we were dealing with an area that was rather similar in culture. Yay D-Day, yay Marshall Plan, and we’re sorta kinda moving on now. I suspect this primed expectations for similar results in Vietnam and Iraq, where the mindset, culture and dynamics leading up to various conflicts and power structures are very different.
Well said. But as you noted before, “everyone thinks their intentions are noble”. We can throw “evil” out of the window. There are no ‘evil doers’, as that would negate the moment of “doing something”. So Humanitarianism is euphemism, to its very core. “Humanism” is the gel cap for violent intervention. It makes the violence easier to swallow. That says a lot about the times we live in- chiefly, that mass murder hasn’t gone out of style.
I’d argue WWII didn’t cause problems for humanitarian intervention, it simply created the fallacy that it exists.
Well, as far as “evil doers” – no, I cannot personally see moral equivalency between ISIS, who want to engage in ethnic cleansing, and a group who wants to save those about to be the victims of genocide. I do give moral weight to one group over the other and don’t say “Oh, they’re all human lives, equally valuable, so shooting in self-defense is the same as shooting in a robbery”. Again, by that logic, why put criminals in jail – we’re all humans, equally deserving of freedom, after all. Maybe that contradicts what I said earlier about intentions, I don’t know – I suppose it’s more when ‘intentions’ are part of the overall context vs. existing in one person’s head. I.e., you run into a burning building and save a child but deep down you did it for the fame and glory – well, I mean, ok, who really cares? But in the case of ISIS – yes, I think ethnically cleansing the local population (vs., say, putting violent criminals on death row – both killing another but different circumstances) is different.
So I don’t accept that as an argument against interventionism. I think there are arguments against it, they just all have a very sad component one has to acknowledge – people are going to die. You could say that in the long, long run, countries are able to build happier and more secure futures if we let them evolve on their own and that short term assistance actually sets them back in that process so they will have to go through situations like this all over again, for example. We use that same kind of ‘long term benefit’ thinking when we have policies like “We do not, under *any circumstances, negotiate with terrorists”. That might mean lives lost in the short term, but save countless others in the long term.
It maybe be a churlish point on my part, I just dislike the narrative that any one side is ‘all good’. If only we did things this way it would be great and wonderful and perfect for everyone, and it’s only these Big Baddies on the other side who are keeping that from happening. Granted, taking too broad of a view can make one a bit wishy-washy and that can be a liability in a world where things have to be accomplished quickly and other sides are assured of their ultimate rightness. But I don’t think that thinking is *true, in a larger sense, and that bothers me. Larger truths always encompass smaller ones in the end, so better to aim for that – just my two cents, though.
Let’s add HUMANITARIAN MILITARISM to our mindset
AMEN
What’s the fatal fallacy in Obama’s reasoning?
. . . based on the conditional presupposition IF Iraq can establish a national unity government.
After years of intervention and occupation, after billions of dollars spent and wasted, after thousands of troops on the ground killed and injured, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed by an invading american army, and a U.S.-installed regime that’s not supported by the people of Iraq – bunkered down and isolated in Baghdad – the country is in a transition that we cannot control
Now we learn the current air-strike campaign [afraid to put “boots on the ground”?] “will go on for some time . . .” NO END IN SIGHT is that what those words mean?
and what if, using the logic that Israel uses for bombing and invading Gaza to destroy the tunnels and weapons that threaten it, some state or non-state force should attack and destroy the U.S. Mideast airbases and aircraft/missile carriers in the Persian Gulf ? Is this self-defense
Not a surprise, of course, and mentioned here yesterday, I believe, so this may be redundant:
The U.S. Airstrikes in Northern Iraq Are All About Oil
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119035/us-attack-islamic-militants-all-about-iraqs-oil
I typically respect the New Republic but this is a piss poor article with a dramatic headline.
Ah, Nate, but is it the truth?
If it was about oil, the U.S. wouldn’t have irretrievably destabilized Libya.
It’s about central banking, but the liberal New Republic isn’t, and never was, a bright magazine.
The oil interests and IMF interests are one and the same cartel.
Please, do enlighten us on this Central Bank claim.
The first action that the establishment took after the pan-African, natural resource-backed money promoting Gaddafi was eliminated was to install Libya’s first central bank.
https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=rothschild+owned+central+banks+in+all+but+3+countries
I am waiting for you to elaborate. Saying “Rothschild bank!!” Is not enough. Let’s hear how this will play out. Include some supporting docs if available.
“Let me issue and control a Nation’s money and I care not who makes its laws”. —Mayer Amschel Rothschild, 1838
Actually, the one you’re speaking of wasn’t Libya’s first central bank. Gaddafi had established a central bank that was public, in other words, owned by the Libyan people. What happened to that bank once Gaddafi was brutally murdered to the cackling pleasure of the Pant Suited One, was its conversion to private ownership by the international banking cartel.
You can refer to Rothschild if you want, but you will be inaccurate. The banking industry, the private cartel running it, is owned by many people of different nationalities, racial categories, and religious/philosophical persuasions. When you make it a Jewish conspiracy you deflect valid criticism of it by giving that corrupt industry a convenient cry of “Anti-Semitism” to hide behind. A very foolish strategy, IMO.
And it’s about population reduction and control:
http://archive.wired.com/science/discoveries/magazine/17-05/ff_guidestones?currentPage=all
Ok…
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/esp_sociopol_denver.htm
Certainly, there are many organic forces at play. It’s like trying to understand why the market moves one way or another.
What about plain imperialism? Libya had a non-aligned government. So does Syria. The US-aligned government in Iraq is in danger. Iran has a non-aligned government. Ukraine had one. Now it’s aligned, but threatened. Venezuela has a non-aligned government. I think you can literally go down the list government by government under this model, and it all fits.
@ la plaza:
The procurement of land and land resources {water,food, and mineral (oil, precious metals, etc)} through conflicts and wars is a major objective of the International Central Bankers. I agree that holding energy land resources (oil) transfers to economic gain for the elite.
The world control gambit was hatched in ancient times and is therefore, historically long. Basically there are three arms of control: economic, political, and religious. The economic part has been accomplished through the Central Banking System.
See: The Ring of Power – Control All Money [17 29]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xxoyFknv6U&index=17&list=PLB27102B532501E72
The full Ring of Power film (divided into 29 parts) can be accessed from this link.
ht`Terry5i35
Cui Bono?
“Until lately, the Saudis had feared a dramatic shift in energy influence to its Shi’ite-ruled neighbors in the Gulf, Iraq, and Iran. Riyadh has also expressed concerns about its own growing domestic energy consumption, which could cut into lucrative exports, as well as America’s success with hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. However, the Kingdom is still posting large enough budget surpluses to avoid damage to its foreign policy power from domestic consumption for at least another decade. And the likely reduction of Iraqi market share relative to previous projections means that Saudi Arabia is suddenly more capable to ride out the risk posed by fracking in part because of rising oil prices. Thanks to Iraq, it seems Saudi reasons to fear a looming U.S.-driven oil glut are essentially resolved.”
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/02/king-crude-how-iraqs-isis-crisis-restores-saudi-influence/
The problem is: THEY DON’T CARE WHAT WE THINK!
The global elite have been planning for all these ‘crisis’ and ‘terrorists groups’ since at least the 1960s (see Between two Ages). Total population mind control using the new technology is just one of their many tricks planned long time ago. Do you think they care what we think? We have to move on, we know what they are. We need to start planning how we are going to blunt their weapons of mind destruction. Having the police state break our skulls is not the answer. We need to get to the elite’s plan and break it.
“Washington Threatens The World”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Washington-Threatens-The-W-by-Paul-Craig-Roberts-Imperialism_International_Nuclear_Propaganda-140809-604.html
“The consequence of Washington’s reckless and irresponsible political and military interventions in Iraq, Libya, and Syria has been to unleash evil. The various sects that lived in peace under the rule of Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi, and Assad are butchering one another, and a new group, ISIS, is in the process of creating a new state out of parts of Iraq and Syria.
The turmoil brought into the Middle East by the Bush and Obama regimes has meant death and displacement for millions, and untold future deaths. As I write 40,000 Iraqis are stranded on a mountain top without water awaiting death at the hands of ISIS, a creation of US meddling.”
“As horrific as Washington’s recklessness toward the Middle East is, Washington’s recklessness toward Russia is many orders of magnitude greater. Washington has convinced nuclear armed Russia that Washington is planning a nuclear first strike. In response, Russia is beefing up its nuclear forces and testing US air defense reactions.
It is difficult to imagine a more irresponsible act than to convince Russia that Washington intends to hit Russia with a preemptive first strike. One of Putin’s advisers has explained to the Russian media Washington’s first strike intentions, and a member of the Russian Duma has made a documented presentation of Washington’s first strike intentions. By marshaling the evidence, I have pointed out in my columns that it is impossible for Russia to avoid this conclusion.”
I completely agree about Obama’s wildly irresponsible recklessness regarding Russia. So very worrying.
Get Carter
Genocide Guy was good!
Pretty Thankyou! Hat (with a new feather) tip and respectful nod to SP!
WG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GG00c6Zxqhw
Insect funk?
Bob Dylan cover..
My Hoarse is amazing.
A picture of health . . .
Worzel
@Lauren
Dark Hoarse
“Any old iron? Any old iron?
Any, any, any old iron?
You look neat. Talk about a treat!
You look so dapper from your napper to your feet.
Dressed in style, brand-new tile,
And your father’s old green tie on.
But I wouldn’t give you tuppence for your old watch and chain,
Old iron, old iron.”
Worzel x
Been working hard for Over a Decade for Peace in the Middle East… Start by freeing Palestine NOW!
I recall Lindsey Graham threatened us there’d be nuclear strikes on American soil if we didn’t do what he said. Seems all is going as planned. Good thing there’s a standing army in our midst, to help out when the panic sets in.
It’s like the Sorcerer’s Apprentice. Bomb a hundred water-carriers here, and a thousand pop-up somewhere else. Of course, that was understood, even perhaps wished for, in the modern tale.
“And everybody has a share.” – Milo
AKA – Exceptionalism!
“Excellent way to move public money into private hands.”
https://twitter.com/misterdevans/status/497926288162963456
“Implausible Deniability – West’s ISIS Terror Hordes in Iraq”
“The US has pledged assistance for victims of and even possible “airstrikes” against terrorists who have surrounded and threaten to eradicate thousands of religious minorities in Iraq. However, the terrorists themselves are a product of US foreign policy in the Middle East and North Africa, and instrumental in achieving Western objectives across the region. Punitive strikes and aid to the victims of what is essentially a Western mercenary army is part of maintaining plausible deniability.”
Link: http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/search/label/middle%20east
Thank you for actual truth and honest reporting. The staff of First Look is a true example of what journalism should be and not the crap that mainstream media feed the masses.
The Obama hatred being spewed in many of these comments is disgusting. One would think the world did not exist before Obama – or that it was some kind of innocent paradise. These Obama haters are delusional. The question is what is driving people to this when Bush, Reagan, etc. did pretty much the same things and are somehow saintly in their eyes. Can fear of an intelligent African American cause insanity? I guess so.
I defy you to find one commenter here (who isn’t a troll) who ever described Bush or Reagan as saintly or anything close to that. You don’t grasp even the most basic facts about politics if you cannot get a feel for the political leanings of people here.
You spew drivel, Presumptuous Insect.
The progressive left is always spot on in referring to it as spew. They spew this and they spew that. And it’s uncloaked a lot of latent racism among his voters.
Intelligent African Americans are rather commonplace, but Barack Obama is a functional sociopath, a moral idiot with paranoid tendencies. In this he represents the corrupt establishment, and neither of the races he embodies.
He’s representative of his voters.
Some of them, yes, but this is like reducing all G.W. Bush voters to Bush and Cheney.
Poll taken on 8/14
In general, do you approve or disapprove of
the job Barack Obama is doing as president?
Approve 40
Disapprove 54
Not sure 6
QED. :)
QED what? That you think being black makes one unpopular? Bush wasn’t black at the end of his presidency, yet his approval rating was in the 20’s. Bush’s Final Approval Rating 22 Percent
I hope you’re being paid to be this stupid.
For your sake and all our sakes.
Cindy
“…….Intelligent African Americans are rather commonplace….”
I find it rather interesting (in a post racial America) that you feel you have to qualify your criticism of an African-American President. Are you a Republican?
“And everybody has a share.”
woops, wrong thread
Reagan and Bush do not inhabit the white house nor control the military, Obama does. Is Obama worse than Reagan or either of the Bushes? Certainly not and nobody here has said that. Again, it’s beyond odd that you attempt to divert from Obama’s war mongering by suggesting that his critiques are toadies for Reagan or Bush or simply white racists who feign anti-war sentiments because donning KKK garb has run out of style. Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama all committed serious war crimes. When the next US president commits a war crime, he/she will be criticized as such.
Charles, I am not going to address this argument but I am just trying to give you a friendly piece of advice in the most friendly of spirits. This far into the game throwing the race card does not make you sound like an intelligent black man. It makes you sound like an angry child. No one cares what color the POTUS is. What we care about is that our country is being destroyed. He could be purple. It wouldn’t matter.
An excellent booklet The Origin of the Palestine-Israel Conflict by Jews for Justice in the Middle East. I highly recommend it and advise both ondelette and CraigSummers that it is required reading.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/history/origin.html
Thanks Seer. I’ve seen parts of this in the past, but I’ll try to take the time to read it. Just remember, this is their account/interpretation of the history of the conflict. They don’t necessarily present all of the facts. In addition, I’m highly skeptical of a source that in its mission statement attempts to delegitimize a “Jewish” state:
“……Through the money and weaponry provided by the United States, Israel is imposing an ethnically discriminatory nation on land that was previously multicultural. There is ethnic and religious discrimination inherent in its national identity, and a doctrine of the supremacy of one group over all others permeates its political, financial, and military policies…….”
Thus, the mission statement seems to support the dissolution of Israel as a Jewish state – which is classic far left wing advocacy e.g. Mona.
Thanks.
There is a universe of difference between a homeland where Jews can peacefully live with their neighbours and a nationalistic Jewish state that seeks domination over all territory in the region and racist and sadistic control of all people who do not fit the classification of Jewish combined with a certain racial purity. Soon that classification may exclude people who, though currently Israeli citizens, do not “think” in the approved manner whether they are Arab (Palestinian) or Jewish.
I think it is important to know that you, Summers, approve of sadistic cruelty and crimes against humanity; that you blame the victims for their suffering; that you cite as factual the world’s refusal to uphold international law as evidence that your opinion is correct.
As I have considered previously, you exhibit symptoms that you are devoid of heart, soul, and humanity. Yes, and you gloat that you are comfortably situated and insulated in a group of people similarly inclined, and a large group it is, too. Thinking outside the box it defines must require love of truth and humanity, and a courage you don’t possess.
OT, but Ferguson police have executed an unarmed black teen. In response to protests by local families, the police have brought out military equipment. https://twitter.com/AntonioFrench/status/498248648699150336
See the #Ferguson hashtag. Horrific.
The police all over have been militarized to an alarming degree. Disturbing? I prefer your word: Horrific. This is not really OT, by the way, as it exemplifies the loss of anti-authoritarian values the US used to pretend to believe in, but now (through propagandist media) feels is necessary to ‘keep order.’
We have sold our souls, for the rule of corporatist militarism. The establishment now embodies this.
“We have sold our souls, for the rule of corporatist militarism.”
So true, did you read that book?
“My Parents Open Carry”
#1 Best Seller in Children’s Government Books on ******!!!
This unique kid’s book will be treasured for years to come
and will be passed down to new family members.
Order your copies today!
If you open carry and have a difficult time explaining why to your family and friends, or if you want to learn about the open carry of a handgun, or if you’ve wondered if open carry is right for you, then this book is what you need.
My Parents Open Carry was written in the hope of providing a basic overview of the right to keep and bear arms as well as the growing practice of the open carry of a handgun. We fear our children are being raised with a biased view of our constitution and especially in regards to the 2nd Amendment. Before writing this, we looked for pro-gun children’s books and couldn’t find any. Our goal was to provide a wholesome family book that reflects the views of the majority of the American people, i.e., that self-defense is a basic natural right and that firearms provide the most efficient means for that defense. We truly hope you will enjoy this book and read and discuss it with your children over and over again.
“Outstanding, outstanding…every person should buy 5 copies of this book. Very well done…I believe long overdue.” James Towle, Host–American Trigger Sports Network.
“I love it…boy does this fill a vacuum!” Alan Korwin, gunlaws.com
“Love the book.” Mark Walters, Host– Armed American Radio
“Wow we have two geniuses…” “The book by Jeffs and Nephew makes me proud…” “a wholesome children’s book on the joys of having parents carrying guns openly.” J. Hood
“Delicious.” Doug Giles, Author and Host–Clash Radio
“Very good message in this book.” Jules Arnold–Sons of Liberty Riders
“Loved it, I ordered a copy for our school’s library” John Roshek, Founder–Citizens League for Self-Defense
http://www.myparentsopencarry.com/
This is a joke, right???
“This is a joke, right???”
Did you click at least on the link?
For your information I am a French citizen and found this in an article exactly here :
http://rue89.nouvelobs.com/2014/08/07/etats-unis-livre-enfants-glorifie-port-darmes-a-feu-254094
USA is a weird country (I have been there 3 times) when you think about it : do you realize that each new elected US President put his right hand (I think) on the Holly Bible when *enthroned* ?
Kafkaorwellian paradise.
Expanding on that story of police brutality – http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/08/09/hundreds-yell-kill-the-police-after-officer-fatally-shoots-allegedly-unarmed-teenager/
“A large crowd yelled “kill the police” while confronting a group of officers after one fatally shot a teenage male at a St. Louis-area apartment complex on Saturday.”
Saw a local news report. Witnesses said the teen had his hands up with no weapon and they still shot him multiple times. Some reports say ten times. The teen, Mike Brown, was to start studying at Vatterott College on Monday.
The killer is on leave with pay.
I don’t think people are going to pay attention to this militarism unless “high value” people are affected. I say that with all possible disgust.
“I don’t think people are going to pay attention to this militarism unless “high value” people are affected. I say that with all possible disgust.”
Definitely not off-topic as unsolicited violence and the over-militarization of our planet is what we are talking about.
Blitzkrieg, with lyrics – courtesy of Metallica
Save us from ourselves, before it’s too late…
“Definitely not off-topic as unsolicited violence and the over-militarization of our planet is what we are talking about.”
Excellent point!
Let us have peace, let us have life,
Let us escape the cruel night.
Let us have time, let the sun shine,
Let us beware the deadly sign.
The day is coming, Armageddon’s near,
Inferno’s coming, can we survive the blitzkrieg.
The blitzkrieg, the blitzkrieg.
Save us from fate, save us from hate,
Save ourselves before it’s too late.
Come to our need, hear our plea,
Save ourselves before the earth bleeds.
The day is dawning, the time is near,
Aliens calling, can we survive the blitzkrieg.
Blitzkrieg – Metallica
Yes, I believe it. It happens around these parts too, regularly. The police shoot innocent unarmed people and get away with it – two weeks leave with pay. It’s similar everywhere.
But I suspect it will not change even if value people are killed similarly. That event will be characterized as a tragic accident and the cop will get fired for his error so as to simulate doing something to correct the problem. The police are doing what they are permitted (instructed) to do – shoot to kill and justify it with, “I was in fear for my safety.”
A side note – this sort of violence and the endless humanitarian bombing for peace contrasted with Steven Pinker’s ridiculous proposal that we are much less violent now than in the past reminded me of this alternate realistic assessment from Edward S. Herman and David Peterson you’d likely appreciate.
Reality Denial: Steven Pinker’s Apologetics for Western-Imperial Violence
http://publicintellectualsproject.mcmaster.ca/democracy/reality-denial-steven-pinkers-apologetics-for-western-imperial-violence/
On leave with pay simply isn’t sufficient. I’m in agreement with the progressive left that It should be on leave with more generous pay.
seer, are you linking to a Glenn Beck site? That’s what the Blaze is.
I noticed that after I posted the link. I looked down at the comments and they invariably approve of shooting to death unarmed peaceful young black man getting ready to start college.
I landed there once before and felt icky. But you ought to be quite happy there. So why not comment over there where your perverse view of reality will be greatly appreciated. Rhetorically suggested.
I link to the Blaze sometimes here for writing on accurate reporting by them and others, but the ownership, Glenn Beck, is a shock jock who tends to blow with the wind on a lot of issues. I’m not a fan of the proprietorship.
But you and Cindy could use some remedial education on media, because it’s obvious you both don’t know a lot about genuine news outlets.
>” it’s obvious you both don’t know a lot about genuine news outlets.”
Obviously, my idea and Cindy’s of what is genuine is different from yours. As an Authoritarian that irks you no end – the fact that other people may not find your drivel enlightening.
Once again, I notice that your practice of Christianity looks and feels so far removed from genuine Christian Love, I hesitate to think what it is you worship.
As an authoritarian, progressive, libertine leftist, you mistakenly think forgiveness means permissiveness.
So if the progressive’s feeling or hurt, or the progressive doesn’t get her way, one isn’t being of a faith that the left derides and mocks anyway.
I don’t think that all. And I most certainly don’t believe, as you do, that you have any right whatsoever to impose your will onto people who do not agree with your way of thinking. That itself is an example of authoritarianism. It is no less ugly and oppressive in you than it is in leftwing authoritarianism.
I believe that all people have the right to their own consciences, their own choices as to how to live their lives, the right to self-determination, and to be free from coercion be it by government or any other busy-body self-declared Authority.
P.S. You seem a quite unobservant person – you can’t know what I think or my political position on any subject under the sun. You’ve never discussed it with me. You’ve only assumed everyone here is your worst nightmare of authoritarian, progressive, libertine leftists. There may be some like your description here, but plenty don’t fit that characterization at all, and I myself certainly don’t fit it.
Overall an extremely relevant point. The USG Security State has linked via the Dept. of Homeland Security directly to local law enforcement agencies. Local Law Enforcement agencies are buying up surplus DOD equipment left and right to enhance their respective shows of force which inevitably result in harassment, imprisonment, and or death of innocent civilians.
See this short article: “The overcriminalization of American people”
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/08/05/374174/the-overcriminalization-of-american-people/
Your other issues have already been addressed:
“You really seem quite naive, Summers, and that’s my generous assessment of you. The alternative is that you are a propagandist without a soul or any observable connection to honest humanity. That and you are simply a man who lies and deceives and makes his living doing it.”
“Good to see Mr. Summers is still alive and stupid.”
“Craig. You spammin’?”
“CraigSummers, my lord, here you are after all this time. Still spouting the company line….Nonetheless, good to see you, fighting the bad fight as always”
“Talk about unsupportable statements. That is simply untrue.”
That pretty much covered the substance of your posts; do you really need anyone else pointing-out your obvious dishonesty and ignorance?
You’ve been called out for both your despicable anti-Muslim slur as well as your cowardly attempt to deflect criticism with whataboutery.
Hi Doc
“……You’ve been called out for both your despicable anti-Muslim slur as well as your cowardly attempt to deflect criticism with whataboutery…..”
This is getting to be quite embarrassing, Doc. Have you ever stalked anyone? Your anger and repetitive hypocritical message comes through loud and clear.
What these various poster think of my posts is irrelevant to me also, Doc. What you have really exposed are posters who are unable to provide a good counter argument – so they resort to name calling i.e., classic Greenbots. How they respond to arguments is what’s important. Once they resort to name calling or charges of racism, I really feel like they don’t have an argument – like you for example or MIC. I enjoy posting on far left wing sites so if name calling really affected me, I would have left a long time ago for the Wall Street Journal.
You take care Doc and there is help out there. I’m genuinely concerned that the vein in your neck is going to burst. Stalking is a treatable disease.
I’ll be around if you want to discuss your fear of calling out political allies for antisemitic speech. Thanks.
“I enjoy posting” ~CraigSummers
RED or dead.
$$$$ GlennBots $$$$
Yeah, that kinda’ cracked-me up too.
Not that it’s anything other than typical, but do you suppose it’s more stupidity or mostly bigotry that blinds him to the hypocrisy in criticizing name-calling with name-calling?
Americans generally (particularly those in the establishment and all their establishment allies in other nations) need to rediscover honor and integrity, rather than “winging it” philosophically and hoping other people will consider them “right” simply because the establishment confirms the limited mindsets which perpetuate it. How you are perceived by restrained and brainwashed thought is way less important than how you actually and originally are. Seriously.
@ Cindy:
Oh…I concur. In the end….the only thing that really matters is that one can respect oneself for the choices one makes. Intellectual snobbishness does not constitute being politically correct. Fighting for truth in humanitarian issues and causes will win the battle of self respect.
BTW Cindy….farther downstream you posted a great link which I am re-posting here:
“Glenn Greenwald addresses the 2014 YAL National Convention”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QYUDaeMm_Zc
I’m all for coalitions that enforce the Amendments of the Constitution of the United States of America and for absolute retention of any individual’s inalienable right to privacy.
Thanks. The establishment underestimates us, the young, which gives me hope. They really think we want gadgets and popularity more than decency and a rejection of their entrenched bullshit, and they are wrong.
The young are my hope for the salvation of humanity and planet Earth as it is they who will be able to discern the truth through the myriad of surface lies. Keep up the fight. Together we can win the war.
Uprising:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8KQmps-Sog
Thanks Cindy. Here is a slightly different variation of the same song.
There is nothing to fear. Humanity on Earth has the gift of the feather – eternal Spirit. We are the ghost dancers.
“Ghost Dance ~ Native American ~ Power Drums ~ Spirit Pride”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYorIKf5L0c
Cindy why don’t you read a few newspapers to gain a firmer understanding of the world around you. You can find those in the college library.
Well, thanks for the tip!
Do you patronize much?
Why don’t you fuck-off la plaza?
This is exactly the same thing my generation said in our youth in the 1960’s. Things have only gotten worse. Each new generation wonders how the preceding ones could have made such a mess. In his youth James Joyce wrote, “History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awaken.” Being awake in the nightmare you think you can change the world. You’ll get over it.
@ larry:
The war between the factions of good and evil predates your generation. Just because that war is older than dirt is no reason to give up the fight. Life is all about choices and is, in fact meaningless, when apathy sets in and hope is lost.
@Terry5135
09 Aug 2014 at 2:48 pm
Couldn’t find a spot below to reply to you – so do please forgive the out of sequence reply.
And please do view this short video for a more realistic view of the subject of Jews living peacefully with their Arab counterparts than you acknowledge. At the 6:50 mark you’ll find a man discussing just this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMOtFy09ZmI&feature=youtu.be
Terry, I mistakenly replied to you, but just learned you were quoting the infamous Craig Summers, to whom I have given the above reply below closer to where he said it. So sorry for the confusion.
Nice to see you.
Regarding number 7, it seems that when you mention oil as a motive while everyone is screaming “humanitarian intervention,” you invariably get a violent, knee-jerk denial and an eye-rolling accusation of naivete or stupidity.
It is remarkable. I wonder what possible reason these people give for the US having the largest, most militarily well-protected “embassy” in the middle of Iraq? Are they there to give out food to the displaced? To give protection to women and children?
Iraq controls its own oil. Oil revenues go directly to the Iraqi government and are shared with the Kurds. If we can help them regain control of their oil production from ISIS, that’s a good thing. It’s Iraqi oil, not American oil.
@ PI:
Frankly, anyone who denies that conflicts in the Middle East have been deliberately generated for the purpose of oil-rich land acquisitions for the purpose of economic gain for the elite Central Banking establishment; is either ignorant, black-mailed, or reaping some reward from those gains.
Too much has been historically documented on that issue to give any credence to the overly intellectualized arguments to the contrary. Posted a few links below but the most complete historical background comes from Dean Henderson at:
http://hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/
He has written several books on this topic.
Oh yes, it is laughably obvious that oil is the thing. Which is why I find these preposterous denials so interesting. Thanks for the link. I’ll take a read.
Perhaps due to a burst of adrenalin from winning the World Cup, Germany is taking steps to assert itself. It is now circulating a note to all embassies requesting a list of all spies on their staff (article in Der Spiegel. I couldn’t find the English version but this links to a Google translate request which is reasonably understandable. It will be interesting to see which countries refuse to comply (US, China and Russia are considered to have the most spies on staff), and whether the Germans in return will then place restrictions on the activities of those countries’ embassy staff. This sort of pressure has a way of escalating.
Bruce Schneier speculates that the story about spying on Merkel and an number of other stories published by Der Spiegel did not come from the Snowden documents. He considers it possible that information may have come from some other leaker or even from German counter-intelligence. That would be interesting, since spying agencies have a “gentlemen’s agreement” to not expose each other’s spying, recognizing their mutual interest in maintaining the ignorance of the general public. The disaffection may be deeper than it appears.
Maybe it is easier to ask who is not a spy? I mean you can be a terrorist, you can be a spy or you can be Benito Mussolini… It is all about lost trust in integrity.
Dick Cheney is the New Hitler; Obama, his bastard son.
The progressive left has its death panels:
http://nypost.com/2014/08/09/chinas-long-history-of-harvesting-organs-from-living-political-prisoners/
Hmm. You think the CCP is the same as the “progressive left”? Do you think the National Socialist German Workers’ Party was part of the “conservtive right”? Or do you think that a leftist organization because it has the word “socialist” in it?
Skippy,
I know you’re embarrassed by this fact, but conservatives don’t join “Workers” or “Sozialisten” parties any more than progressive leftists join Tee-partei groups.
You’re seeing your own kind repeat that self denial when you distance yourselves from a progressive leftist Obama that loses the respect of the public in the same way your leftist antecedents denied the progressive socialist Hitler after the Nuremberg trials. The more things change, the more they remain the same.
And the New York Post reports ‘Batboy’ sightings. Less reputable than the New York Times, even.
Then you’ll have to link where, Cindy. Your way off-base comment suggests you do not have even a basic grasp on the media world.
And you’ll have to tell us why you think the Post’s China/body parts piece isn’t believable to you.
The great hope after WWII that the UN could prevent aggression and protect human rights through UN military and legal efforts has evaporated having been undermined primarily by the US militaristic imperialists. Now that they have disempowered the UN, humanitarian crises caused by imperial aggression serve as the excuse for further militaristic intervention.
I enjoyed reading this article. Thank you.
FREE PALESTINE!
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/gaza-protests-thousands-attend-pro-palestinian-demo-london-1460490
Kew gardens was quieter today than usual…
The situation in Iraq and Syria reminds me of the collateral damage dropped on Cambodia by those American B-52 pilots — the Khmer Rouge — which the Vietnamese had to deal with after pushing the French and Americans out of their own country.
What comes after tragedy and farce?
I asked a stupid question. The adorable Bennie M. laid it out in simple terms: arms sales follow farce.
“What comes after tragedy and farce?”
“I asked a stupid question”
No you asked a very good question and the answer is (maybe?) there :
Subject: Release of the National Defense Panel report, “Ensuring a Strong U.S. Defense for the Future”
“Our report stands on its own findings and recommendations. There were no dissenting opinions. This is a consensus report. We urge both the Congress and the Department to
take our recommendations to heart and expeditiously act on them.Our national security policies have served the nation well and every American has benefited from them. We must act now to address our challenges if the nation is to continue benefiting from its national security posture. This report examines our current and future security challenges and provides recommendations for ensuring a strong U.S. defense for the future.”
http://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/Ensuring-a-Strong-U.S.-Defense-for-the-Future-NDP-Review-of-the-QDR_0.pdf
Reader’s comments are welcomed…
The paper makes the excellent point that health care should be cut, perhaps even eliminated, if the US wants a military capable of launching humanitarian interventions across the globe.
I know many people are attached to their health care, but please don’t be selfish and consider all the people in the world who, for their own good, need to be bombed.
Please note that the group is therefore bipartite, representing the whole spectrum/arc of the security of *all official Washington*. His report was published under the aegis of an organism financed by the government federal and dedicated to the study of war, the name of which, in an Orwellian flawless logic, is the United States Institute of Peace. QFT ;=)
Please note that the group is therefore bipartite, representing the whole spectrum/arc of the security of *all official Washington*. His report was published under the aegis of an organism financed by the government federal and dedicated to the study of war, the name of which, in an Orwellian flawless logic, is the United States Institute of Peace…. QFT ;=)
your slimy facade is slipping into the cesspool.
I do get a bit overexcited reading these bi-partisan reports with their absolute sense of entitlement; it’s the confirmation bias effect. Just as I start to develop a trace of humanity, I get sucked back into the cesspool.
I’m reading it.
I take issue with the aggressive plans for some of the former Warsaw Pact countries. You said you wouldn’t do that. It’s very provocative.
Before I even get to the intro I have to say I take issue with your criteria for picking friends and enemies, in general. But that’s just one layman’s ignorant opinion.
*Glenn Greenwald addresses the Young Americans for Liberty 2014 convention*
http://www.dailypaul.com/323985/glenn-greenwald-addresses-the-young-americans-for-liberty-2014-convention
Highly recommended.
You mean he’s actually proud of addressing a libertarian pro-Paulist capitalist group? Jesus, this guy is such a freaking imperialist tool.
Excellent link. Thanks for posting.
For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, Chas Freeman’s latest speech is worth a read: “Obama’s Foreign Policy and the Middle East.”
http://chasfreeman.net/obamas-foreign-policy-and-the-future-of-the-middle-east/
Freeman’s piece on Snowden and spying should also be of interest. It made me wonder if things would be different, had Freeman not been AIPAC-hounded out of accepting the Chairmanship of the National Security Council.
http://chasfreeman.net/snowden-and-snooping/
Before Sykes-Picot, Arabs and “Zionists” were generally allies. Western money is made through chaos, through arming both sides, through rebuilding and re-distroying. The French, British and US made sure of that ever since the end of World War One.
The financial elite, besides increasing their wealth from price instability, increases their wealth like this.
What would happen if Israel took Gaza under its wing? Build some bridges? Some water treatment plants? Fix up some schools?
Peace maybe?? No, we can’t have that!!
This article and its seemingly infinite array of links, amounts to information that is a mile long and a centimeter deep. Comprehending all of this first requires reading your narrative then opening up the links and seeing whether it (a) supports your claim or (b) represents your claim. You’ve done it well in the past but not here. It is Journalistic ADD and piecing it together was quite painstaking.
Anyways, what do you suggest the U.S. do? Do they sit this one out, limit their efforts to dropping palettes of water into the area, hope for a political solution, react covertly (which they undoubtedly have been doing)? What would a make-believe President Greenwald do?
Also, for all your wailing about resorting to comparing an adversary to Hitler and the Nazi party, funny how you did the same thing just a couple weeks ago. https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/07/21/netanyahus-telegenically-dead-comment-original/
Those past articles and your article are both equally idiotic for resorting to this: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_Hitlerum
“Perspective and skepticism” from you!? Replace that with “Advocacy and Cynicism.” Skeptics don’t just question opinions that they hold dear, but are wary of all opinions. As for perspective, you have provided none during the Snowden/NSA ordeal nor do you offer any here. Here’s what Obama said in his speech:
I’d find much more value in somebody critiquing this statement.
What about the people up the mountain? There should be an alternative to bombing. What is it?
Napalm? I’m sorry, not the mountain, those mountains of shite, ISIL. Of course, no one’s thought yet of disarming them as they acquire another store of weapons. Why not? Just blow the whole depot and shame the devils.
This is what the Friends Committee on National Legislation recommends:
http://fcnl.org/issues/iraq/crisis_in_iraq/
ISIS didn’t just pop out of thin air. Its predecessors were (1) Al-Qaeda in Iraq, which itself didn’t exist before 2003, (2) the Mujahideen Shura Council, also part of the Iraqi insurgency, and (3) the Islamic State of Iraq.
ISIS was very little known before the Syrian civil war, though. That’s where it significantly strengthened.
ISIS is literally an evil spawn of American interventionism. The invasion of Iraq gave it life, and was strengthened thanks to US obsession with regime change in Syria.
Of course, some might see that as a feature, others as a bug.
The Iraq war did set off the chain of events, no doubt. And maybe that was your only point (One could be led to believe that you are blaming the US for ISIS’ actions but I dismissed that notion) but the real question now is how to deal with them and who to deal with them.
I’m not convinced it should be the US unless as part of some broader effort. Like most Americans, I am sick of being in the middle of conflicts. But on the other hand, we did help enable ISIS and create this environment in Iraq. Tough choices indeed.
Do I blame the US for specific actions of ISIS, such as attempted ethnic cleansing? No. But I do think US foreign policy (aided by its lackeys in Europe and the Middle East) is dangerous and a train wreck. That’s evident in many different ways. It’s not just a post-9/11 thing, but certainly things seem to be going downhill as of late.
Consider what’s going on in East Ukraine. Sooner or later these idiots are going to get us all killed.
An excellent idea. The countries that participate could be called the ‘Coalition of the Willing’. It would give them an opportunity to pledge their unswerving support to US foreign policy.
The mission would be a clear one – destroy the US made weapons that are being used by IS, and to give the Iraqi army new ones to replace those that IS took from them. This new model is enthusiastically supported by the arms manufacturers, since it creates a continual demand for new arms. Unlike the old model where the Iraqi client regime quickly became saturated with armaments, it appears to be completely sustainable. The US advisors did an excellent job of training of the new Iraqi army. The tactical advice, to drop their weapons and run when the enemy appeared, was a masterstroke. It means both sides in the conflict are using US made weapons, which may not be a first, but is certainly a coup for the arms industry. The crowning triumph of course is the direct involvement of the US military – so now three sides in the same war are all using US weapons. Four sides if you count the Peshmerga. That must be getting close to being a first.
Oh Gimmick Account. How can you type so much yet have it say so little?
You obviously don’t know very many politicians. For some, it takes many years to develop that skill; I seem to have an innate talent.
Bravo, Benito!
Additional data on history of US/ISIS/IRAQ at:
“US in Iraq: Geopolitical Arsonists Seek to Burn Region”
http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2014/06/us-in-iraq-geopolitical-arsonists-seek.html
Dear Glenn,
Although I mostly agree with your points (as far as I understand the situation), there were two points in your article, where you mention Iran in passing, that took me aback for the lack of accuracy I expect from you.
First, in point (6), you seem to imply that Iran received funding from the US. I don’t think there is any evidence for such aide since the 1979 revolution (except if you count the Iran–Contra deal).
Second, you mention Ahmadinejad as “the democratically elected president of Iran”, which is again a stretch of reality. Ahmadinejad was president for two consecutive 4-year terms. For the first term, he was “democratically” elected, with whatever twisted meaning of democracy permitted within the Iranian constitution/regime. The election by which he remained in office for the second term was almost openly fraudulent, which lead to the huge 2009-2010 Green-movement protests. There is overwhelming evidence for the rigging, and Mousavi, the would-be winner and his allies are as of today in house arrest or in prison.
These said, I really appreciate your historic perspective, and your bravery and integrity. What bothers me is when a descent person paints one evil less black in order to affront an opposing evil (which is what you are usually very careful to avoid).
Keep up with the excellent work!
WAKE UP HUMANITY!
We have moved from the Four Freedoms of FDR, to the Four Oppressions of Obama.
FDR told us:
“In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.
The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world.
The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world.
The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world.
The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world.
That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb.”—Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941
Obama and his puppet masters tells us:
We are in a New World Order that requires the FOUR Suppression$ and Oppression$ everywhere in the world that consist of:
ONE: No Free Speech – CONTROL and manipulations of Information, elimination of individual privacy and the suppression of Free Speech in all ways possible for the good of the 1% elite and global shadow corporate government.
TWO: No real freedom of Religion – Use of Religions to CREATE CONFLICTS, deceptions, hatred, wars and to control the unwitting public via manufactured “faiths” and “beliefs” for the good of the 1% elite and global shadow corporate government.
THREE: No freedom from Want – Creation of a world based upon SCARCITY, GMOs crop ruination, “weather wars” manipulation to create droughts, floods, deadly and destructive storms, depopulation, and consciously creating pollution of the air, earth and oceans for the good of the 1% elite and global shadow corporate government.
FOUR: No freedom from Fear – Create total FEAR through the use of the mind controlled global corporate government media in all forms, endless rolling wars, endless false flag events, lies, deception and using a Divide and conquer strategy to gain control of the world public opinion for the good of the 1% elite and global shadow corporate government.
The TRUTH will set you FREE. Face the facts. Don’t hide from the obvious.
Decide to Think for Yourself and Stand Up for your God give right to be FREE.
Together WE The People of the planet have the power to create all the needed changes.
We just need the will and the guts to DO IT!
Reference: http://books.simonandschuster.com/Fight-for-the-Four-Freedoms/Harvey-J-Kaye/9781451691436
NEWS ALERT
Breaking News Terror Alert Inside America?
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/08/08/breaking-news-terror-alert-inside-america/
This suggested radio broadcast is a great insight for those wanting to know what is happening in the world and who is behind all the never ending chaos. It is another a wake up call, one of thousands to a sleeping mind controlled public. Our corporate media does all it can to prevent you from knowing what is happening. SORRY – but if you believe the USA media you are a moron and you are just one of the people they gleefully manipulate and control to keep firm control. The American people are on their knees to — the 1% psychopaths and their shadow corporate financial media empire.
Hi David –
Your post on Four Freedoms vs. Four Suppressions was quite good and pretty on-point.
Just one *small* point. You label those who believe the U. S. media “morons.” That seems rather harsh; I also don’t believe it is that simple. Just yesterday I had a conversation with a former student and when I mentioned the plight of the Gazans, he seemed to just reiterate all the Israeli talking points. Having taught this fellow, I know he’s quite intelligent.
So I don’t believe it has to do with intelligence. I think it more has to do with being propagandized, even brain-washed; not seeking to look outside the box, for whatever reason. Some folks don’t have the time or energy to even educate themselves further (see your point about shortages). Maybe some are afraid of social ramifications – being called eccentric or “conspiracy nuts”; or even having problems with employment because of some views.
I know it’s frustrating (I can get very frustrated trying to talk over any politics these days with my own cousin), but we must somehow keep trying to at least get folks to investigate on their own. That’s when they will “get” it. I think Glenn also addressed this in a response to a questioner during a book tour date televised by one of the C-Spans (book-tv, I think.
So I do share your frustration. I just hope and pray enough people will awaken before it’s too late.
@ David:
Excellent post. I concur.
It is my contention, that Americans are presently unable to clearly isolate the problem. That being one of elite (0.001%) control of world populations through economic (International Central Banking) enslavement delivered via political systems (governments) and spiritual avenues (Religions). In order to fight the enemy, one must be able to recognize the enemy. That enemy is the International central banking cartel run from the Inner City of London(Crown).
To further your endeavors I am attaching another link which is old but concise: “Killing America”
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/03/07/killing-america/
Allit of zeros. Can it be moved any more decimal points?
Many hands make light work.
Bloody phone. Allot.
So long as there is more than 1 lizzard
Lyra1 and anyone listening. WE need to say NO to what these psychopaths are planning for humanity. It might seem like just saying NO, consciously and with all the spiritual power you have, couldn’t make a difference, but it really does.
The 1% elite are using forms of mind control magic on the population. If we don’t agree to their plans it won’t work and they won’t have the power they need. BTW that power they use comes from people who buy in to their mad plans. When enough people say “Hell NO!”, it has a psychic and powerful effect on what they can do and not do. Their power over us rests in their ability to make us believe their are no other alternatives to what they are going to do to us. The media is all about convincing people of this false truth/reality, dark illusion, the deadly deception and their psyop mind control manipulation. If we buy it, if we are good consumers, like they have trained us to be, we will get exactly what they want to give us and thus control our fate.
But when you say NO, Hell NO then their illusions can’t work. Say NO to their magic blood rituals of war, death, destruction and chaos and say YES, a powerful YES for a better future for all Humanity.
They are after our children and grand children and when they get them they will sacrifice them to their evil gods. Say NO to psychopaths, and say with all your heart and mind, a resounding YES for a better future for all Humanity and for all of our beloved children.
@ David:
I have been on that bandwagon for several years and will not waiver.
But…you can not force people to open up their own consciousness and listen to the inner truth of conscience. So many have willingly forfeited that opportunity. Mostly, those people have given up hope. Never relinquish that commodity as just one individual equipped with a high level consciousness is capable of restoring hope for all of humanity.
Each day, many more people open their hearts, souls, spirits, and minds to this true reality. To further the blossoming of the spirit of humanity in humans presently confined to slavery on Earth is my mission in life. But….I am ever the warrior of truth and will fight violently against those that instigate oppression. Do not assume that all that pray for peace are pacifists. Some will fight viciously when placed on the defensive.
I agree David. Don’t just say NO, say HELL NO over my dead body! The best defense is a good offense.
Hi again, David –
Excellent thoughts! Especially:
“Say NO to their magic blood rituals of war, death, destruction and chaos and say YES, a powerful YES for a better future for all Humanity. ”
We indeed must start rejecting those negative choices and ideas and start embracing much more positive and humane ones.
“Human beings, by changing the inner aspects of their minds, can change the outer aspects of their lives.” – psychologist William James
From the current front page NYT:
That is most of it, right? When our dictators are in trouble, the tough get going.
A “legal debate about legality?” “Targeted strikes…is obviously…?”
Frustrating to read! Does Mr. Greenwald still not have a copy editor? (sincere question)
I think the term is being used as a reference to single modality – targeted strikes.
Oil? Such cynicism. Haven’t you seen the heart-rending photographs of the poor women and children ISIS intends to massacre if we don’t ride in on our white horses? If the MSM publishes it, it must be true. //sarcasm//
Oil, schmoil. Don’t forget — the military-industrial complex is also hungry. It’s been so long since we’ve had an overt invasion. And the MIC so disappointed when front-page photos all those beautiful dead Syrian children lined up in neat little rows didn’t persuade Americans that we needed to fire “a few warning shots over the bow.” ISIS is a carefully-crafted answer to their prayers. Given the CIA’s track record, they’re probably arming them.
What? Birth defects until today from depleted uranium are not ‘Humanitarian’?
CIWS tech here… It just makes you have girls
I just love how everyone says that they don’t like Obama but compared to Bush he did not do much damage… NOT. Obama created a civil war in Syria and Ukraine. Egypt is his baby too. We just don’t feel Obama’s evil on our skins, we are trained not to care for pain experienced somewhere else in the world. The real problem is that Americans just have, absolutely MUST believe that the political system in this country is great, well maybe just a little out of whack but, hey, certainly best in the world, nobody is perfect and the same old broken record of self assurance keeps playing on and on, because if you don’t like it here, go live somewhere else. Sounds very familiar? Is it not EXACTLY the mentality of the vast majority of Americans who decide to have an opinion about the political system in this country?
Well, I think that this country has the best standards of living by many parameters and has the most to offer to an individual. However, the reasons to this is first and foremost the geographical position of the US and the beauty, diversity and richness of its land. Every other reason will come second and a rational person should remember this when thinking about how exceptional the political system or whatever else that might be that makes this country great.
The problem with the political system TODAY is that we deserve a consistently better leadership than Obama or Bush offered us. Not only that, it appeared in the last several elections (after the choice Gore vs Bush) that the choices were so bad that it was voting for the lesser evil. Let me remind those who claimed that Kerry is better than Bush that the former is no different than McCain based of the lies about Syria and Ukraine that this man told us and his apparent desire to create more world conflict.
Now the problem with any debate about all this political stuff is that it never ends in any resolution. I can see so may people disagreeing with me on, for example, Kerry’s case and perhaps they have good reasons to. However at the end of the day, we all feel unsettled with this crap that his on going, while nobody seem to pinpoint the real problem. In fact, the real problems were voiced millions of times but who cares? How can agree about the top problems we all face with the political system and unit around them?
See, Obama lied to us about the fact that he is going to go and defeat the business as usual in DC, stop very specific things from happening (for example illegal off-shore prison(s)) because they are against our core values. He promised other things too. He kept some of his promises but many cornerstone ones he did not keep.
We, again, can start disagreeing on what Obama did or did not do and whether he had sound reasons to not keep his promises, but is this argument going to increase chances of, first, having us an opportunity to elect a better president during next elections, and, second, give that new president adequate tools to do what we, people, will elect him/her for?
I doubt this. However, I do think, there are ways to increase chances of success. See, what we have plenty of in this country is opinions. Moreover, to be loud and clever about ones opinion is a must to have to be heard. That is just the way life works and that cannot be changed. However, it gets to the point when we need to be rational and use our collective common sense as human beings to make collective decisions for the better of all of us, we fail to do so. What is worse is that the very fact that we make our collective choices not at our best is used against us during all those political campaigns. Can we change this?
Yes we can. Here it how:
Accept that other people have the right to fundamentally disagree with you, not because it is OK (very often it is NOT OK and there is virtually NO WAY to come to an agreement) but because otherwise we will NEVER make collective rational choices. Therefore, neither right for an abortion, nor gay marriage, not even ending an ongoing war, not lowering or raising taxes, not even something more important that you can personally think of cannot shake the two principles of America that were taken away from us and/or are taken for granted by some.
Principle 1. The American people have a right and a privilege to know the truth.
50-70 years ago or so, American journalists were looked up to as someone who delivered the news to the nation. Truthfully and objectively. It is a relatively simple task, but it takes courage and often sacrifice. Truth from a news station means not an opinion and not relaying what they heard from other “news source”. It also does not mean relaying an opinion of some random person. Truth means an objective sum of relevant facts about an event. This kind of truth is not delivered by mass media in America anymore. Today this country’s propaganda levels arguably even surpassed what was in USSR decades ago. All major mass media in this country deliberately have no true voice, even including public stations. This is a whole big topic for investigation. The point is that something needs to be done about this and the initiative needs to come from the government. New laws are required to ensure that we have our free American news media. It is very simple to prove to anyone doubting that any large mass media around here that claims to be a “news” company deliberately delivering false information when it counts.
Principle 2. All appointed government officials must be accountable. Every bad action has a name behind it. Always.
It has been a consistent practice that the officials in primarily presidential administration and the CIA are almost never accountable for things they do to insult American people and to destroy the spirit of this country. For example, CIA spying on Congress is outrageous but nobody is really responsible. This is like spitting into the souls of each and every one of us. Whoever organized this, should stay in prison for life. This is like having an enemy inside the government but nobody can tackle it!. CIA providing false intelligence. CIA and presidential administration continuously telling lies (HUGE list here… appointing who is responsible for the chemical attack in Syria, WMD intelligence in Iraq, etc, etc, etc).
See, it is very simple, we should simply ask of our politicians of all levels to, first, promote the value of truth in this country by supporting the real news agencies (it is not very hard to do but is another topic on its own), and, second, keep all government officials accountable. Both efforts require political will and new laws. This is vital. EVERYTHING else comes next.
Sounds like you’re a victim to the same kind of mindset you’re criticizing. Most developed countries have better social mobility than the US (i.e. the “American dream.”) A handful of countries have a better standard of living (human development index) than the US.
This is not true because it cannot be looked at simply by a human development index. For example, America is the most diverse in its beauty country on earth, also it is a country that still virtually manages most planet’s money streams and politics. In other words, go and see how many Americans would like to go and live in Sweden. I doubt that many. Ask Swedes the same question and you just might be surprised about their answers. You may disagree with me but agree with this: America has the greatest potential of all countries except for maybe Russia. Sweeden or Norway, well they are just that and always will be. My point was how to fix things NOT how to pick something to argue about. You seem to be a standard minded American who does not want to fix anything but loves to argue about small things. Because of people like you we are in deep shit.
“How does one get an Avatar? I also have no idea how to format anything on this site.”~ AtheistInChief
Go to: https://en.gravatar.com/
Set one up. You can use the same avatar for a primary and secondary email. Easy to set up from the above link.
As for formatting, bold, hyper links etc someone else will have to help.. But i’m all ears too.
-Rowan-
Boardhost: Basic Message Board HTML Code Guide
http://www.boardhost.com/help/tutorials/html.html
Miss these types of pieces from you Glenn, keep them coming.
Waitress asked me how many bottles I said 23
With my Jays on.
So get like me?
H/T Lauren
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7CaiWxKYBo
The response that I get that baffles me most lately is – look at how bad it is now with ISIS in Iraq – see we were right going in before…. There is a rewrite of the obvious that shows us how reality based on waves of military industrial propaganda often dished up to save someone’s butt and the spun facts often to keep a job or make money is often constructed and becomes convoluted and useless in understanding complex human problems. That is why after time and a lot in-group think that the analysis is often so very bad that it even stumps the people offering it up with what sort of looks like a straight face. I guess we are left with looking at the expensive stuff falling out of the skies in all of these seemingly endless armed conflicts of our own interweaved making and take note that at least some things still say – Made in America. We can also follow the money and all the people making these decisions. No wonder why a lot of us have so little confidence in them all…. Turns out we really are not as stupid as they might have counted on… Then again they were not as intelligent as they pretended to be….. Boy, in the final accounting we could indeed be quite screwed…..
Why have people not stormed the US Congress, the White House, the Bureau of Investigation, the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency and countless others in Washington DC and elsewhere?
Because of fear. The same force that drives almost everything that happens in America. How could that much fear slinging not be by design? Certain religious factions come to mind as key fear slingers, but I suspect it is really much deeper and more sinister. Why is everyone so afraid? Michael Moore had an interesting documentary on the subject: Bowling for Columbine. I choose not to watch the news at all. I don’t even visit any US news web sites. Even educated people in America are easily led astray by the constant brainwashing that is broadcast by our “free market” media. It is perfect, absolutely perfect. Religion take a back seat to the future! The future is now. Wake up! Rise up! Stop wallowing in fear and apathy. What will it take? 9/11? Through all the conspiracies, isn’t it pretty obvious what the actual result of 9/11 was? It mainstreamed terrorism. It gave it real power to control. You just mention the word terrorist to any patriotic American citizen and it sends a chill of fear down their spine. The dog heels instantly…
Hi Glenn, the Intercept: thank you for your excellent work, in this instance as ever; please keep it up.
Hi esteemed commenting readers: thank you, too; I have learned from some of the sources some sometimes cite and often enjoyed the discourse. Keep it up.
With respect to the question of parsing belligerent statesmen’s invocations of humanitarian principles and the laws of war in their proposals and justifications for warlike acts I have found Jochnick and Normand’s “The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War” particularly instructive for a decade now. The essay was published in two parts in the Winter and Spring of 1994 in the Harvard International Law Journal (35 Harv. Int’l L.J. 49 and 35 Harv. Int’l L.J. 387) and features, first, a critical review of the historical development of international humanitarian law together with an examination of the behavior of states in wars during the same period, and, second, an argument that “the Gulf War” (of 1990-1) continued to demonstrate the thesis advanced in the critical history, to wit: “that powerful nations deliberately formulated the laws of war to advance the primacy of military violence over humanitarian concerns, despite noble rhetoric to the contrary.” I found the first part posted over here at scribd: http://www.scribd.com/doc/27835652/The-Legitimation-of-Violence-1-A-Critical-History-of-the-Laws-of-War-Chris-Jochnick-Roger-Normand, and signed on here to commend it to your collective attention.
Peace.
QOTD:
@ezraklein
America is using American military equipment to bomb other pieces of American military equipment: http://bit.ly/1oMYqyA
RiopsteOTD:
@billmon1
General Dynamics: “Why the fuck didn’t we think of this sooner!!” –>
ROFL
“we’re bombing the guns that we didn’t mean to give ISIS because we didn’t give guns to their enemies because then ISIS might get guns”
Freedom Bombs™
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UU7vVhkEfw4nOGp8TyDk7RcQ&v=xqMVg5ixhd0#t=22
Big dog Evolution
@Worzel – perfect – and perfectly creepy.
Teach me how to do the red hyper links….pretty please ;-)
Freedom bombs are good! Has your trade mark all over it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ks8nOvPSJfY
“I think it’s a good program and I don’t disagree with the basic policy that the Obama administration is pursuing now in that regards.” ~ former Vice President Dick Cheney, on CBS’ “This Morning,” Feb. 12.
WG
A google company.. “boston dynamics” you’d think google would try to remove/hide a video like this. Might hurt their image.
BigDog Beta (early Big Dog quadruped robot testing)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXJZVZFRFJc
@Worzel –
To Red/Bold hyperlink:
1) Sign up for The Guardian online account.
2) Use their comment section to compose remark
3) Highlight words & Cut/Paste hyperlink into them using “link” icon on top left of comment box (looks like a chain link)
4) If you want bold & red, type before and after hyper-linked text (w/o asterisk)
5) Test comment and link using Guardian “preview” button
6) Copy/paste comment to The Intercept
Note: As far as I know only the above transfers from Guardian to TI (the Bold, Italic, Quote may or may not work) & ignore the “strong” when previewing at The Guardian – it won’t show up at TI.
For bold use BOLD and for emphasis use italics (again. w/o asterisks)
May the force be with you!
I feared that the “strong” to make it bold might disappear despite inserting an asterisk…..
We’ll see if this works – So it’s at the beginning and then at the end of whatever you want to bold – w/o the spaces or periods between the greater/lesser than signs.
OK – how ’bout this:
For bold use BOLD (spelling strong correctly) and for emphasis use at the beginning and at the end (spelling “em” & keeping the “/” in each case.)
The red didn’t work for me…can do this
Luke Warmwater
last try for bold
@Worzel:
To make your hyperlink (or any word) bold, in between these characters place the word “strong” at the beginning and “/strong” at the end of the phrase or word.
What You Want To Bold
Those are the missing characters above…geez…why I’m not a programmer…
The AP story I read today at length and made zero mention of US authority to bomb another sovereign nation other than the big guy. Reuters reported the US was welcomed by “officials” and various ministries, (e.g., displaced people). Heard nothing official, if there is that anymore.
The USA has the unending knack of doing the wrong thing, killing and maiming millions throughout the Muslim world that past ten years alone, destroying whole countries, leaving them in civil wars and on and on. Maybe, just maybe, Obama really is just trying to protect the cornered Christians.
You had a typo. That should be “unerring” knack.
He had it right the first time.
“He had it right the first time.” Hmm, how very curious to me that you’d take sides in what amounts to no more than a little rudeness. Perhaps you know the participants and are feeling sentimental. Or like me, just annoyed at inaccuracy.
Well, you’re right and you’re wrong, if I may say. There was, you are right, nothing WRONG with “unending knack”. But at the same time, “unerring knack” would have been preferable, especially since the original comment specifically delineated a time span of ten years. Thus, “unending” could, technically, be considered contradictory.
But never mind. I still think of you fondly whenever I see Enda Kenny speak. Nice to see you after all this time.
And how are things in the archdiocese of Tuam?
‘un-nerving’ knack?
U.S. NAVY – War on Terror – MUST SEE
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6km3c_u-s-navy-war-on-terror-must-see_news
Ring any bells
(handy that music is not mixed to loud for those that could change it like me, sound engineer)
The Yazidis aren’t Christian,but a melding of several different religious sects.And this has been ordered from Tel Aviv,as the Ziomonsters have an intelligence operation going against Iran,among their many malevolent operations worldwide.Obomba bows to the masters voice.
But … but … this time … this time it’s the good kind of bombing.
Bombing for peace is the the peaceful warrior’s most promising path to peace and goodwill.
[This message courtesy of American Institute for Peace, Prosperity and Patriotism, an NPO organization of American defense interests building a better tomorrow.]
Mr.Greenwald: It’s too hot and too late for your cut and paste litany. In the time of the gassed Kurds and the genocided Marsh Arabs, more non-interventionist viewpoints in the media might have saved us from two decades of catastrophic adventurism.
But what about the baked Yazidi trapped up there on that mountain RIGHT NOW?
We should not allow IS to slaughter and suicide their way through Kurdistan, a viable state and potential alley, armed with our superior weaponry!
At this point it would be greater folly and most shamefully dishonorable, not to assist the Kurds in holding the line against the monstrous IS onslaught.
Hysterical hyperbole or snark?Kurdistan has never existed in history as a sovereign nation.More idiotic nation building by US and our masters,Israel.Divide and conquer.
But what about the OIL!?!
There are real humanitarian efforts underway as we speak to help the Christians and the Yazidis.
Amy Goodman’s Freudian slip: this morning she referred to Obama as “President O’bombing”. You couldn’t make this up. Listen for yourself @ 14:52 minutes into this morning’s democracynow broadcast.
Earlier in the week she asked the director of Human Rights Watch if the US along with Israel could be held accountable for war crimes since the US supplied the war materials for the assault. That’s a question no one in the MSM would ever ask.
Just watched it. Pretty funny indeed. That interview with Phylis Bennis is also quite enlightening on the situation. If not for DemocracyNow, we’d never get to hear from the likes of her. We’d all be drowning in Krauthammer.
To his credit, conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt just interviewed Phylis Bennis a few minutes ago. It was a typical Hewitt interview – namely, it was more like a lawyer cross-examining a witness than a debate, but still he gave her some air time. She made her case pretty well I thought.
There’s little hope for America. The Democrats don’t see that the problem is America. Rather, they blame the Republicans. The Republicans likewise fail to see the problem is America. They blame the Democrats.
Great recap and analysis.
As U.S. Airstrikes in Iraq Begin, Will Military Intervention Escalate Growing Crisis?
“It’s a terrible situation for civilians throughout that region. Having said that, the question of U.S. airstrikes is almost certainly going to make things worse and not better. This should have been the lesson we learned from what President Obama called the “dumb war.” He admitted this time around there is no American military solution, and yet he’s authorizing American military actions. It doesn’t make any sense. There’s no logic to it.
“The notion that there is going to be the need for airstrikes to protect the few dozen U.S. diplomats and a couple of hundred military people in Erbil, I think, is widely understood as a legal feint away from the reality. This is what allows the president, in his mind, apparently, to use military force without consulting Congress. We didn’t hear anything about his understanding of the War Powers Act, his understanding of his obligations to consult with Congress…”
— Phyllis Bennis
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/8/8/as_us_air_strikes_in_iraq?autostart=true
“If there was so much concern about these 40 or so diplomats and a couple of hundred military advisers — I’m not quite sure that they’re as threatened as some reports have indicated, but if there was that concern, that’s a completely doable thing to simply get them onto helicopters and planes and move them out. That’s a false, you know, rationale. It’s being used because both at the public level and, I think, for the Obama administration, their understanding of how they can use the limitations on acting unilaterally without consulting with Congress is shaped by the notion that American lives are at stake.
“If American lives are at stake on an emergency basis, it’s possible, under some circumstances, for the president to move. In this situation, there hasn’t been a move yet. There isn’t that level of urgency. You know, this is not a situation where there are not cellphones, where members of Congress cannot be called back to Washington, if necessary. They can be on a conference call. Technology makes many things available. We should let the White House know that; they seem to have forgotten. But if this was really so dangerous for those couple of hundred people, put them on a plane and get them out. That’s not a problem.”
— Phyllis Bennis
Related:
“Obama drew the line for ISIS advancement at Erbil which is a major oil hub with US energy companies Chevron, ExxonMobil, Halliburton and others having interests there.”
http://news.firedoglake.com/2014/08/08/obama-to-bomb-iraq-to-protect-advisors-he-sent-in-prevent-ethnic-killing-secure-us-oil-contracts/
But of course it’s not about oil.
There you go Cindy. Right on target.
“The Four Horsemen Behind The Oil Wars”
http://hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2014/08/03/the-four-horsemen-behind-the-oil-wars/
Tujays, I think there is a logic to it. The conclusion Obama comes to just isn’t the result of the logic stated. But if we start with the conclusion and work backwards, I think a logic can be established that actually does make sense and makes the conclusion perfectly logical.
The problem is that *that* logic, the real logic, is not ever discussed. It’s unmentionable, because it’s true, and truth has been tortured to death on the alter of the Mighty God of Lucre.
@ seer:
“The problem is that *that* logic, the real logic, is not ever discussed.”
Alright then. Who stands to profit from continuous conflict in the Middle-East and for that matter, the Ukraine, or any other place on planet Earth?
“Banking On War”
http://hendersonlefthook.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/banking-on-war/
Interesting site. Thanks Lyra, I’ll put it on my reading list.
Naming the source(s) of the money that snakes through the system is verboten, and as you no doubt have discovered, they’re hidden beneath charges of antisemitism. That is one of the reasons we need to liberate the terms associated with old prejudices and redefine them to reflect current reality.
Verstehen Sie? Of course you do. Thank you for speaking out and up.
@ seer:
Yes I understand and will fight by your side for truth and justice.
I couldn’t help but chuckle when I read this article regarding the U.S. warning Russia to stay out of Ukraine and that “The humanitarian situation needs addressing, but not by those who have caused it”.
Talk about irony.
http://news.yahoo.com/us-warns-russia-against-intervention-ukraine-154920623.html
Talk about lying through his nether region! The CIA brought the Ukraine crisis into being.
Yes, and the irony too. Rich, very rich!
From a missing Malaysian airplane to a missing story on a Malaysian airplane,the beat of propaganda moves on.
Really?
Seriously.
As if Putin bases his actions on what the US wants.
I told hubby that we’d never have known about those people on a mountain if the press couldn’t go tell it, but now we have to answer to those images. Then I read someone just came upon those who killed themselves at Jonestown? Hello? That was a documented murder/suicide pact. No one thought to go back and count? Guess who counts the dead who die in our Sonoran desert? Warren Buffet’s kid, go figure…
You don’t have to tell me, Glenn, my daddy dropped napalm, and ever since then I knew I benefited from destruction. He only married into the business of killing after Mom died. You could say he got paid for all that sacrifice. Why’d those plutoids demand his will not be done? I’m not crying anymore over that onion. I saw what it did to Antigone, and that ending “…is not for me.”
I’m more of a Gershwin Gal biding her time.
Bombs for humanity? Dear President Obama,once you help out Iraq,could you help me and my other fellow Americans? Help in the form of allowing goods and services to be of and from America for Americans. Could you turn off the money and weapons faucet for Israel,or better yet send Israel off on their own. Perhaps suspend all military expenditures,space explorations until any and all americans that want to work are working?
Obama sure seems to like bombing people. Obviously the drone strike in Pakistan the other day wasn’t enough for him this week. More ‘significant military action’ without congressional approval, too.
To my mind the establishment uses both parties as theater to dupe the masses into not thinking this through properly.
The wretched Republican lie that Obama is not being interventionist enough is supposed to rally the loud reactionaries into saying “He isn’t being as violent as he should,” and the absurd Democrat lie that Obama’s violence is surgical and only kills “bad guys” is supposed to placate the antiwar liberals – but note how both ‘sides’ of the establishment manage to convey the message that Obama isn’t being overly militaristic or imperialist.
This message is simply not true, but you can see how it furthers the corporatist militarist goals covertly, while most non-outspoken everyday people are on the whole reluctant to war with anyone. It also serves to feed the illusion that the ‘terrible threats’ out there really might be imminent dangers to the US, thus further sowing seeds of doubt and fear (and again silencing ‘non-aggression-principle’ adherents, libertarian or progressive).
*Obama’s Mythical Retreat From Military Force*
“Fox host Bill O’Reilly declared that Obama ‘has not acted as a dominant world leader.’ It’s not hard to figure out what these folks really mean. Commenting on the turmoil across the Middle East, TV pundit Cokie Roberts complained that ‘we just haven’t made a strong enough presence in that region to have people be afraid of this country.’ Time magazine explained to readers that Obama ‘hesitates’ instead of using military force, and ‘trouble follows as a result…’ …The Obama administration, often away from the media spotlight, has waged a drone war in Pakistan and Yemen – killing hundreds of innocent civilians. We led a military intervention to oust Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, leaving the country a more violent and chaotic place. And if you’re looking at the current crisis in Gaza, don’t forget that the United States has been a stalwart ally of Israel, our country’s top recipient of military aid. In short – does it sound like the United States is too ‘hands-off’? One of the big problems with our armchair foreign policy gurus – besides the fact that so many of them have been so wrong for so long about so many things – is that they try to convince the rest of us that the Obama administration has retreated from using military force. This is obviously false – just consider the drone wars and Libya and the massive escalation of the Afghan War, for starters. But the problem is bigger than that.”
http://original.antiwar.com/phart/2014/08/07/obamas-mythical-retreat-from-militaryforce/
Very well put, Cindy. Thank you.
Before the US/UK meddling in Middle East affairs, the current round beginning with the Bush Family’s wars in Iraq, religious differences were tolerated. Christians, Muslims, Jews, lived in harmony as they are all so-called members of “religions of the book” – that book is the Koran.
The current immediate threat is to a different and small sect, the Yazidis who practice a different religion, “syncretic but ancient religion is linked to Zoroastrianism and ancient Mesopotamian religions”*, regarded as Satanic by the Sunnis who comprise the membership of ISIS. We, the US, have brought this crisis to these people who, if they are genocided, will be eliminated without trace, for the crime of thinking differently from another group.
Let’s get it straight. The US/UK created the discord in the ME starting with the British occupation of Arabia and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire. The British intent for the region was to keep each country created by British decree, weak and unable to pose a credible uprising against British rule. That has continued with the US taking over the duties of managing the ME to keep it in disarray since 1953. With Bush’s 2003 invasion, sectarian Muslim violence was initiated by CIA and MI5 secret operations unbeknownst to the resident populations who believed the violence was started by the opposite sect.
The US has reaped nothing but rewards since then in terms of money and power, and the perverse pleasure the Elites enjoy while viewing the fruits of their treacherous power over the lives of innocent people.
The Yazidi people seeking refuge from ISIS should be removed from their vulnerable location and brought to safety and protection. I don’t know how this could be done. I just know it should be, and I have every reason to believe that bombing ISIS will only bring yet another round of unmitigated misery to all the people of Northern Iraq.
*from Yazidi page in Wikipedia
You think the Ottoman Empire should have been allowed to continue. Interesting. The greatest human slavery exercise in the history of mankind is better by far than US/UK “meddling”.
I think you need to keep studying.
No! I think the British portioning out territory that was not theirs was wrong, and then keeping the countries that were formed in it, weak and unstable was a crime! I think you need a remedial reading course.
Really. I never heard that claim before.
Well, of course the media doesn’t report on secret black ops. But it leaked out because a number of MI5 dressed as Arabs driving a car full of explosives, were caught in Basra shooting at local police and creating terror in an otherwise generally peaceful Shia city.
The imposters were arrested and a few days later the British used an armored tank to knock down a prison wall and free the operatives. It was covered up though. Initial reports mentioned salient facts, but then all was denied and the incident consigned to the memory hole. There are still remnants of it out there.
Here is one of them:
http://www.sott.net/article/124278-British-Governments-Agent-Provocateurs-Exposed
Uh,this whole shebang is divide and conquer,and what better way to do it,than false flags?
Why did the Ottoman Empire last as long as it did? Because of support from the UK, up until WWI broke out.
Gotta be some way to make it a Western evil. You’re grasping at straws.
The Ottomans, and the Seljuks before them engaged in many centuries of slavery. That slave machine’s legacy is still at root of many of the problems in Africa today. It’s the deservedness the Russians feel about Crimea. And the French went to war against the Tuareg in the 1940s over it, and Mauritania just banned it in 2001.
But hey, if it wasn’t the US/UK’s fault, you can do a rewrite. Just to keep the religion going.
Avoidance of responsibility for one’s actions – yes that’s the way to go onde.
Truth is Britain and the US are responsible for a great deal of suffering in the world. Avoiding that truth won’t make your case.
The preeminent internet straw grasper calls one of the most astute commentators with a history of facts a straw grasper.The arrogance of illiberalism and twisted logic.
Ondelette of the intervention,everywhere and anywhere,except Israel and Gaza.
You might see it differently, but pretty much anything is better than colonialism.
“allowed”, ondelette? Really? Someone DISALLOWED their continuance.
Perhaps you too could do some more studying.
B ut I notice that no one has challenged that highly specious characterization. Nicely done.
Meanwhile, the US has warned Russia that any intervention in Eastern Ukraine, either to help the people who are being massacred by Kiev, or even to deliver humanitarian aid, will be treated as an “invasion of Ukraine.”
Samantha Power is the one who said that. The most amazing part is her lack of self-awareness: “The humanitarian situation needs addressing, but not by those who have caused it,” she said.
http://www.startribune.com/world/270482121.html
@ jose:
Ah yes…Ukraine. The great USA coup d’etat instigated with national security state mercenary support by US taxpayers. So…let’s shed some more light on it.
See: “The U.S. Elite Run a Ukrainian Genocide While American Public Are Ignorant of It”
http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-U-S-Elite-Run-a-Ukrai-by-Eric-Zuesse-Ethnic-Cleansing_Genocide_Hate-Racism-Bigotry_Nuclear-Weapons-140703-248.html
This report from CNN is what is wrong with our mainstream media. The video is the announcement of airstrikes in Iraq — spewing the official line and referencing the “national security team.”
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/08/world/iraq-options/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
Watch the video and listen to the background music that practically romanticizes the decision. CNN did not seek ONE single fucking voice of opposition. Are you telling me there isn’t one elected official who opposes air strikes? How hard is it to get a Congresswoman or Senator on the phone who just MIGHT oppose bombs that will most likely disfigure and kill more innocent people than combatants?
These bombs WILL NOT achieve the results America is looking for — never, never, fucking ever!
Ever since Ted Turner lost control of CNN, they’ve become rotten to the core. When I was growing up, we used to watch CNN International, and BBC. I remember Richard Quest was a firebrand on the world of Finance News on BBC. Then he announced that he was leaving BBC and joining CNN International. I haven’t heard from him since. It’s like he regurgitates talking points now.
When is the last time CNN did investigative reporting? CNN today is Wolf Blitzer, and Wolf Blitzer is anything but News.
Wolf Blitzer – the Jewish Geraldo Rivera.
Geraldo Rivera, also, is Jewish, on his mother’s side I believe.
Well, whaddya know? I hadn’t any idea. Not that it means much.
Thanks, Chief.
Jerry Rivers.Just another serial liar.
To Serve Man
A modest proposal.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
A short timeline explaining the situation today:
2003 – America and friends invade Iraq to liberate them from weapons of mass 9/11 or something
2003-11 – America and friends, but mostly America, re-arms and re-trains the Iraq military it destroyed and disbanded.
2013-14 – America supports and helps arm groups fighting a war in Syria against Al-Assad
2014 – Parts of the Syrian civil war quit that theater and take their weapons and violence across the border into Iraq. When faced with a foreign invading force, the Iraqi Army does what it’s been trained to by the last foreign invaders, which is to abandon its equipment and run for dear life. The equipment falls into the hands of ISIS, and it’s left to the US to go bomb this equipment.
Far be it for me to call this a racket, but if not, the dictionary definition of “racket” needs updating.
You nailed it. Thanks.
It shows the utter stupidity of our leaders that they thought they could invade a country, depose its government, dismantle its army, and not have any of the consequences we are seeing now. If they can’t be tried for war crimes they should at
least be charged with criminal incompetence.
I can’t believe no one found this quote from Dick Cheney before his 2003 attack. It’s from 1991 “I think that the proposition of going to Baghdad is also fallacious. I think if we we’re going to remove Saddam Hussein we would have had to go all the way to Baghdad, we would have to commit a lot of force because I do not believe he would wait in the Presidential Palace for us to arrive. I think we’d have had to hunt him down. And once we’d done that and we’d gotten rid of Saddam Hussein and his government, then we’d have had to put another government in its place. What kind of government? Should it be a Sunni government or Shi’i government or a Kurdish government or Ba’athist regime? Or maybe we want to bring in some of the Islamic fundamentalists? How long would we have had to stay in Baghdad to keep that government in place? What would happen to the government once U.S. forces withdrew? How many casualties should the United States accept in that effort to try to create clarity and stability in a situation that is inherently unstable? I think it is vitally important for a President to know when to use military force. I think it is also very important for him to know when not to commit U.S. military force. And it’s my view that the President got it right both times, that it would have been a mistake for us to get bogged down in the quagmire inside Iraq. “
I did not post the entry above. Hacked perhaps?
More likely TI has got 2 Jonh Kelly’s. i.e someone’s using your name not your email.
Well that would be less worrying anyway.
-Rowan-
If you had an avatar you could rule out a TI error (as they are linked to your email)
Or, like most sites it could set up so that only one of a particular user name could be used.
You know, so nobody could rat-fuck somebody else with false posts.
————————————————–
Site under permanent construction
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
john.[email protected] ?
Thanks Franky…., I have contacted the editor.
How does one get an Avatar? I also have no idea how to format anything on this site.
Interesting the amount of rhetoric on how a humanitarian mission is enhanced by air strikes. It’s interesting that it isn’t joined by humanitarian organizations on the ground — where’s the Agency for International Dismemberment in all this? — and even if there were NGOs, the US should have learned in Somalia its military might not know how to work with them.
But Glenn has a point: so far this new campaign has a lot of official rhetoric up front. Mr. Orwell?
https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
Idk about ‘some ideal world’ Glenn. I keep wondering why recent officials in Washington DC seem so determined to undermine a world the United States was instrumental in creating?
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and
to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and
to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and
to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and
to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS
Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.
It’s a world-government framework designed by globalists. Land for the hq on the East River purchased with a donation by John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
There are good globalists and there are bad globalists … but, unfortunately, only one Globe.
*wrt uber globalist UN charter preamble above: imo as long as every Nation/State in the world, with geographical boundaries established, is a Member of the United Nations … the [potential] global anarchy ‘inherent in State sovereignty’ is, at least in some small measure, kept at bay.
Who are the good globalists?
The Nation/States who adhere to their commitments in the preamble etc. above.
*which, imo, is about the only thing (i.e. their collective ‘power’) in the world today keeping a rogue ‘super-power’, e.g., from putting a drone up their ass … anytime Obama is feeling frisky.
Why do you want ISIS to win?
Why is it always who wins ?????
Doesn’t anyone understand that wars and military interventions are now spectator sports!
We – the american public – do nothing but watch the spectacles of carnage and destruction all over the world, one crisis after another
“We – the American public – do nothing but watch the spectacles of carnage and destruction all over the world, one crisis after another.”
We don’t just watch, we fund it with our Federal tax dollars. Are you still faithfully paying your taxes?
A cleverly satirical question. Of course if the US doesn’t attack some group or other (ISIS, el Shabab, the WCTU) then it wants them to win, no two ways about it. Some other questions worth pondering:
1. Why does the United States feel responsible for every crisis, conflict and famine in the world, when its sovereignty used to be limited to the space between Cape Hatteras and Point Reyes?
2. If this crisis is in the upper Tigris/Euphrates valley, then why doesn’t its immediate neighbors, Iran and Turkey, do something about it?
3. Is this campaign going to preclude US intervention in Ukraine, or are we on a two-war capability again?
4. Will this help the next quarterly earnings report for Lockheed, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Boeing?
and of course —
5. How does shipping in weapons, and dropping bombs, relieve humanitarian suffering?
Erbil = oil= US companies worried= Obama jumps.
If ISIS wins,it will have to win over the population they control,and its not our call,as it’s not our nation,it’s theirs.
To me,this is just the blowback of the Iraq war,taking out Saddam,and the Sunni rulers,replaced by Shia,allied with Iran,and now our idiots are trying to restore an anti Iranian Iraqi government.
Incompetence made mainstream and believed by the poohbahs,who put out total poopie caca to the public,who eat it like caviar.
“If ISIS wins,it will have to win over the population they control,and its not our call,as it’s not our nation,it’s theirs.”
Mmmm sorry I disagree with your statement. ISIS like many other fundamentalist organizations of violence does NOT believe it has to ‘win over the population’ as in winning hearts & minds. If they want your land and resources and you fight them, they’ll just blow you to smithereens with their superior firepower.
And there’s the rub.
MORE profits for the military-industrial complex…and that’s what it’s all about.
Taken in isolation each humanitarian crisis seems to merit an “intervention.” The problem for our humanitarian interventions is so often the humanitarian intervention of today, is the result of yesterday’s humanitarian effort. And, the only agency we seem to have to enforce our humanitarian instincts is a military one. So we are endlessly obliged to mop up after ourselves. We forced our way in, and having done so, have no means of exit once disaster unfolds. We never seem able to step back when on the cusp of such an intervention to ask ourselves whether the law of unintended consequences will apply, as it surely always does. It’s simply assumed that we’ll find reasons and resources to persevere toward some imaginary end point where we get to declare victory and go home. And, that end point is always at the whim of some political calculus; the actual human beings on the receiving end of the intervention be damned.
I think it was George Will, in an op-ed a hundred internet light years ago, who posited that the poor were poor because of a cascade of awful choices. Each awful choice prompted the next awful choice until the individual – or family – was mired in poverty with no way out. At the time will wrote that op-ed I thought he had a really funny notion of choice set. The whole array of possible choices (good or bad) were not available to the individuals in question, as Will seemed to imagine (or, assume?) they were. I’m not sure the USA’s whole approach to foreign policy wouldn’t, however, better fit George Will’s analysis. One bad choice after another that begets a stage on which further poor choices are made. If our only tool is the military, every challenge gets a military solution which results in some n-best solution. Humanitarian interventions administered by our military consistently results in a cascade of lousy foreign policy choices in which a lot of innocent people suffer more than they might have if the first intervention had been forgone.
As a people, American citizens might want to help others in need. But, as citizens, we are subject to an incurable amnesia that this help we want to offer will be delivered by the hands of a truly corrupt political establishment. And, that political establishment has repeatedly demonstrated that its own preferences will be served at the expense of American citizens and the recipients of the aid American citizens want delivered. It never ends well for American citizens or the people we wanted to assist.
@TallyHoGazehound – Extremely well stated. Thank you.
The pursuit of happiness is confused by miserable people to be the pursuit of Mammon,and is a gene not shared by much of the planet,outside the avaricious west.
Oh,and we could call Congress to complain,but they are on a five week vacation,other than doing Zionist photo ops and pronouncements.And the WH?Fuggetaboutit.
Did anybody catch the end of Obama’s announcement at State Department??
“God bless our armed forces and God bless America” WTF?
. . . has any other President ending an announcement to the public put the military first before country?
Please note that all the headlines Glenn Greenwald includes in this article – no matter who’s figurehead President – are repeating the same and redundant arguments for catastrophic militarized interventions.
What’s playing out in Libya is the fact that all western nations who participated in that intervention have had to get out of the country due to “lack of security and threats” …. they can’t even defend themselves
The Christian-Jingoist-Pax-Americana foreign policy at work. We’ve been bombing the shit of the Middle East for ever and it has accomplished NOTHING except profits for the war industry.
You can never get enough of what doesn’t fucking work.
Meanwhile our local school board is cutting teaching staff. We have money for missiles but no money for math books.
This has nothing to do with a Christianity that the progressive left reviles, and never fails to invoke even when it fully understands it is appealed for by scoundrels of all shape.
La Plaza,
Though I can’t stop you, I would appreciate it if you didn’t respond to my posts. I think you’ve been invaded by a Koch-Bot.
Thanks
Although you may think otherwise, you’re not elevated by writing that.
Were the links too much?
Which is why I called it a John Bircher not long ago.. the Kochs were Birchers if I remember right. But Koch-bot has a nice ring to it, and has the advantage of being more current : )
Bullshit. There’s Christianity as taught by its namesake and Christianity as practiced by modern day evangelicals. Two entirely different animals.
Evangelicals are moonie loonies who hate Jesus Christ and all he stood for,and are actually OT racists who hate Jews and wish they would all be consumed by the fires of hell,as these morons ascend to heaven.
And the cynical Ziomonsters use them.Disgusting.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Jeshua ben Joseph did NOT teach ‘Christianity’. He taught a particular brand of Judaism, if anything.
Peace.
Well, obviously, but these evangelicals claim to follow and adhere to his teachings and they, quite obviously, don’t.
Ah, don’t forget profits for big oil too.
Brilliant timing, wrote a satire yesterday touches close… Of course, in the case of H & H (Hillary & Hitler) the real world facts are a bit closer to home than many would care to admit:
According to Mother Jones Magazine, in Hillary’s own words, she is under the spiritual tutelage of Doug Coe:
“Coe, she writes, “is a unique presence in Washington: a genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide to anyone, regardless of party or faith, who wants to deepen his or her relationship with God.”
And Coe, in his own words, is no stranger to violence in politics:
“Doug Coe offered Pol Pot and Osama bin Laden as men whose commitment to their causes is to be emulated. Preaching on the meaning of Christ’s words, he says, “You know Jesus said ‘You got to put Him before mother-father-brother sister? Hitler, Lenin, Mao, that’s what they taught the kids. Mao even had the kids killing their own mother and father. But it wasn’t murder. It was for building the new nation. The new kingdom” (Jeff Sharlet article)
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/08/07/saki-barf/ (Killer Women of the State Department)
Worked in some real world facts on Sam Power, Susan Rice and of course Victoria NuLand (and more)
Regarding Ambassador Stevens, I had suspected he had been sacrificed so as to cover up the transfer of arms from Benghazi to the al Qaeda militants headed for Syria. Are my suspicions correct, do you know?
I also suspected that the famous video that had been on You Tube for quite some time, was deliberately publicized to the Muslim world (on Pam Geller’s order or someone like her) to provide cover for the attack on the Consulate. The fact that Stevens had repeatedly requested better security and was denied, seemed purposeful, indicating someone high up knew what was to become reality. The Egyptian Copt who made the video certainly shared interests with Geller in insulting Muslims. And I had read at the time that he and Geller had shared at least one connection. Have you uncovered any of that?
Also, the Libyan Central Bank was privately run, but immediately after Gaddafi’s death, it was converted to membership in the global banking cartel run by Wall Street and the City of London.
What a flagrant corruption of meaning Doug Coe delivers to the DC criminal cartel –
I push the boundaries with satire, particularly because it is ‘tolerance’ has allowed for these cretins to accomplish as much negative phenomena as they have. If anyone were to behave as a human being in a positive sense, they should be accorded a modicum of respect as a general rule. But when killers can hide behind expectations of political correctness, tolerance has become inverted, necrotic phenomena. Or perhaps I should just say I’ve lost patience. It’s interesting that a White can be labeled racist for inferring a Black aspires to become White when the clear message is, the aspiration is not a good one. So, there is a twist… but here is my take on race:
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2013/08/12/native-americans-and-race/
Insofar as Bengazi, all I know for certain at this point is, one of the Americans killed on the building rooftop in the second (apparently separate) attack (Glen Doherty) is a man the Pentagon did not like by clear inference, he was a member of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation’s advisory board. As for the rest of the affair, it smells to high heaven but it is usually a couple of years before a picture begins to emerge from all of the smoke and debris generated by the ‘cover your ass’ people .. and I’ve not been studying that event (too many irons in the fire, is the expression)
Mr. Greenwald
“……..bombing for ostensibly “humanitarian” ends virtually never fulfills the claimed goals but rather almost always makes the situation worse…….There are often numerous steps the U.S. could take to advance actually humanitarian goals, but those take persistence and resources, and entail little means of control, and are thus usually ignored in favor of blowing things and people up with Freedom Bombs……..”
You really have no idea if western intervention made the situation worse or not in Libya. The war ended very quickly with the ousting of Gadaffi (who had murdered hundreds of non violent demonstrators), but has since devolved into a battle for power among the various factions in Libya. In Syria, the US decided to forgo any support for the rebels outside of some minor training and arms supplies which took a couple of years. The initial assault by Assad on democratic protesters morphed into a civil and regional conflict which is more or less a standoff. The result has been the death of over 170,000 (mostly) Muslims with millions displaced – and no end in sight. This happened essentially without US or western interference.
In fact, western interference in Libya could have saved lives. You really have no idea. A full scale civil war might still be ongoing. But the humanitarian interference in Libya (which I believe was the underlying motivation) was driven principally by the French and British – not the US.
“………Perhaps having Israel and the U.S. simultaneously bombing Arabs in different countries – yet again – will create some extremely negative consequences?……”
Of course, you are implying that there are implications for US policies in the Middle East such as “revenge” attacks. Bombing ISIS certainly could invite a revenge attack as we are interfering in their drive for power – like many Islamists organizations.
In the poll, you cite, there was never any questions asked by Zogby on percentage of Arabs that deny the Holocaust or what percentage believed that Muslims attacked the world trade center in 2001. Indeed, the poll skipped the obvious question: what is Arab opinion of Jews? According to a Pew Poll in 2009:
“……According to a Pew poll taken in 2009:
“………..The Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes survey conducted last year paints a worrying picture of attitudes towards Jews in the Middle East. In the predominantly Muslim nations surveyed, views of Jews were overwhelmingly unfavorable. Nearly all in Jordan (97 percent), the Palestinian territories (97%) and Egypt (95%) held an unfavorable view. Similarly, 98% of Lebanese expressed an unfavorable opinion of Jews, including 98% among both Sunni and Shi’ite Muslims, as well as 97% of Lebanese Christians………..In Turkey, which has seen tense relations with Israel since Operation Cast Lead last January, the number of people who said they had a “very unfavorable” attitude towards Jews jumped from 32% in 2004 to 73% in the spring of 2009………..Negative views of Jews were also widespread in the predominantly Muslim countries surveyed in Asia: More than seven-in-ten in Pakistan (78%) and Indonesia (74%) expressed unfavorable opinions…….”
Unjustifiable (predominantly) Muslim racism – plain and simple.
“……For quite some time, it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the democratically elected president of Iran who left office peacefully at the end of his term and who never actually invaded anybody –who was The New Hitler……”
Two things on that Mr. Greenwald: the candidates who run for President in Iran are selected by the Guardian Council. There are 12 members of the Guardian Council – six appointed by the Supreme leader who is never elected. Thus the President must be approved by the Supreme leader – hardly a democratic process.
Secondly, the last election of Ahmadinejad was highly disputed leading to the Green Revolution where a pro-democracy movement was violently crushed by the Iranian state. It is really pathetic to refer to the election of Ahmadinejad as “democratic”. As usual, you throw ordinary people, in this case, Iranian people who bore the brunt of attempting to bring democracy to Iran, under the bus to make a point.
Finally, Ahmadinejad – well known for advocating free antisemitic speech sponsored the Holocaust Denial Forum in Tehran while President. This was a state sanctioned conference. Nothing like sucking up to Ahmadinejad for his “peaceful” record of sponsoring terrorism, Mr. Greenwald.
Craig. You spammin’?
sure is.
Craig, are you familiar with surveys on racism in Israel. For example, a 2007 survey found that 75% of Israeli Jews don’t approve of Jews and Arabs sharing apartment buildings. Would you characterize that as “unjustifiable (predominantly) Jewish racism – plain and simple”? In other words, would you say Jewish are generally a racist people?
must say Israeli here (not jewish) Typo?
“In other words, would you say Jewish are generally a racist people?”~Jose
I meant Jews. Craig is outright saying Muslims are racist, based on survey responses. Would he think it’s acceptable to say Jews are racist?
OK. sorry.
“……For example, a 2007 survey found that 75% of Israeli Jews don’t approve of Jews and Arabs sharing apartment buildings…..would you say Jewish are generally a racist people?”
There is no other way to characterize that other than racist – but it’s still not quite the same situation, Jose. Israel is not at war with the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese (outside of Hezbollah) and most other Muslim nations in the world. As I’ve mentioned before, Jewish and Palestinian hatred and bigotry has been exacerbated by over a century of mutual distrust and conflict. It’s hard to conceive of racism not playing a role in this conflict (even between Israel Arabs and Israeli Jews). I wouldn’t characterize Jews or Muslims as racist peoples, however.
It’s not justifiable that Arabs (or Indonesians) have an unfavorable opinion of Jews (in general). That’s collective punishment of Jews for the policies of Israel. Greenwald had an entire article exposing five Muslim leaders on an NSA target list just for that reason. However, there is a reason that the Jewish population in Arab countries has dropped from about 800,000 to less than 4500 since 1948 – and it’s the same collective punishment mentality. The poll reflects that attitude. There is a significant amount of anti Jewish bigotry today in Europe because of the war in Gaza – and that’s wrong for the same reason. Polls taken on European attitudes also reflect that – as well as the typical Jewish tropes that have been with us for centuries..
Thanks.
Craigsummers — I believe you are basically saying jews racism against arabs is ok but arab racism against jews is not ok. Go it.
That’s not what I’m saying . It’s what you wish to believe I’m saying. How would you interpret the poll which shows quite clearly how many Muslims feel about Jews?
… and why is it that all the western nations who intervened in Libya have had to flee the country and get out in armed convoys because they cannot defend themselves?
Good to see Mr. Summers is still alive and stupid.
He’s not stupid, just astonishingly biased, and stubborn. He will not accommodate any factual evidence he has not, by predetermination and without fresh analysis or benefit of meaning derived from its context, categorized as true. Thus he is not on a quest for truth, but for consistency with his propagandized belief system. It’s a form of protected ignorance which is curable but only if its victim desires the cure – open-mindedness.
“……He’s not stupid…..”
Thanks, but that’s a typical response from 024601 in which he made no attempt to respond to what I posted. So I usually don’t pay a lot of attention to him/her. I am used to living in a political lion’s den. I have seen the same arguments advanced for years although, your arguments were new to me. I enjoyed them, but you also advanced some false arguments like the Jews immigrated and stole land and killed Arabs:
“……When the Zionists arrived that is when the problems began. They terrorized the Arab Palestinians; killed them; stole their land; bulldozed hundreds of years old olive groves; destroyed the peace in the land….”
I still would like to see a source on that seer. When you immigrate with a plan to create a Jewish state on Palestinian land then problems are going to develop with the locals. No one can deny that. We have seen the same kind of results all over the world from European colonialism. We also saw similar problems in China (Tibet), Armenia (Turkey) and more recently in South Ossetia and Abkhazia with the help of Russia.
Thanks.
Oh, so you’re the one busily editing all references to the terrorist beginnings of Zionist Israel from the Wikipedia pages that dealt with it.
That simply is not what was intended by the British or the Palestinians who agreed to welcome home the people of the diaspora. The Jews who had never left Palestine lived in peace with their Muslim and Christian neighbours, and so those residents expected the new immigrants would conform to the standards of the neighbourhood. But no, they brought violence with them, and racism.
You really seem quite naive, Summers, and that’s my generous assessment of you. The alternative is that you are a propagandist without a soul or any observable connection to honest humanity. That and you are simply a man who lies and deceives and makes his living doing it.
“…….The Jews who had never left Palestine lived in peace with their Muslim and Christian neighbours, and so those residents expected the new immigrants would conform to the standards of the neighbourhood. But no, they brought violence with them, and racism…..”
Yes, Jews lived peacefully with their Arab counterparts, but Jews were second class citizens in Arab society (much like in Iran today). But, again, you said this seer:
“……When the Zionists arrived that is when the problems began. They terrorized the Arab Palestinians; killed them; stole their land; bulldozed hundreds of years old olive groves; destroyed the peace in the land….”
which is indefensible. No one can deny that Zionism was not going to be acceptable to the Palestinians. Jews planned to create a home for the Jewish people. It was a nationalistic endeavor. But the Jews immigrated peacefully and bought land legally. They didn’t kill Arabs. Remember that Palestine was under the rule of the Ottoman Empire and the Jews did not have the protection of the British until after WWI – about 20-30 years after they began immigrating.
Thanks.
“Thanks, but that’s a typical response from 024601 in which he made no attempt to respond to what I posted. So I usually don’t pay a lot of attention to him/her. ”
But, Craig, Jesus Christ made no attempt to respond to anything Pontius Pilate said either. Not even to direct questions. What are you implying? Perhaps there were reasons in both cases.
“Yes, Jews lived peacefully with their Arab counterparts, but Jews were second class citizens in Arab society (much like in Iran today).”
Talk about unsupportable statements. That is simply untrue.
“……..Talk about unsupportable statements. That is simply untrue……”
Jews (and Christians) were classified as Dhimmis and were subordinate to Muslims within the Islamic empire. However, in general, it was a step up from their treatment in Europe.
@CraigSummers, I mistakenly thought Terry had said what YOU had said, and mistakenly gave him the following message as a result. Now I give it to its intended recipient who really, really, really needs it.
@Terry5135?09 Aug 2014 at 2:48 pm
“Yes, Jews lived peacefully with their Arab counterparts, but Jews were second class citizens in Arab society (much like in Iran today).”
Talk about unsupportable statements. That is simply untrue.
Couldn’t find a spot below to reply to you – so do please forgive the out of sequence reply.
And please do view this short video for a more realistic view of the subject of Jews living peacefully with their Arab counterparts than you acknowledge. At the 6:50 mark you’ll find a man discussing just this topic.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMOtFy09ZmI&feature=youtu.be
Your “brownies” slur reveals quite clearly how you feel about Muslims. No interpretation is necessary for either the poll or your comments: both are despicable examples of hate and bigotry.
Hi Doc
At least you have refrained from your cowardly habit of posting at the top of the thread so no one can read my response to your comments. That’s a step in the right direction.
“…….Your “brownies” slur reveals quite clearly how you feel about Muslims. No interpretation is necessary for either the poll or your comments: both are despicable examples of hate and bigotry……”
What is interesting on political threads – especially far left wing sites like this one – is how racism is perpetually tossed out for political reasons. It’s meaningless, Doc. You (meaning you, Doc) cannot seem to successfully debate the issues so you resort to the old charge of racism. This thread has exposed some bigots in which you not only allowed the statements to stand unchallenged, but still refuse to condemn them calling it whataboutery. Your refusal to condemn them is a glaring admission that this is politically motivated. Again. I cannot take you seriously, but by all means, keep posting the same drivel.
Thanks Doc.
CraigSummers, my lord, here you are after all this time. Still spouting the company line. One must admire persistance – which could be construed to mean that one doesn’t actually learn anything after the age of 16, but just accumulates more details. Well, of course, I can’t say if that’s the case and even if it were, I’d put it down to the education system.
But really, ondelette is the poster you want to study. He’s the ulimate friendly fascist apologist, but he’s very well informed and he’s very subtle, so he’s really good at it.
Nonetheless, good to see you, fighting the bad fight as always.
I have always been an admirer of Ondelette. He is very good – and very well informed. Unfortunately, I’m stuck with me, craigsummers. I graduated with an undergraduate degree from Fox News and a masters from Rush Limbaugh. Are there better degrees out there? At any rate, I disagree that I am a fascist apologist. I have always condemned Hamas.
Take care. Good to see you
PS, Craig. This piece about Libya might help you, though I’m not terribly optimistic:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/libyas-green-resistance-did-it-and-nato-powers-are-covering-up/5305409
You know Terry that GlobalResearch.ca is a anti American conspiracy site. They published that the US government knew about 911 before it happened. The guy who wrote this piece is a nutcase:
“……….Al Qaeda has been a group of mercenaries employed by Washington and London since 1980. President Reagan called them “heroes” and “freedom fighters”. The US and Britain sends its Al Qaeda mercenaries to the Balkans, Libya, Syria, Chechnya, Somalia, Sudan, and other places that NATO wants to infiltrate, destroy or destabilize……..NATO pays Ayman Al Zawahiri, the so-called leader of the Al Qaeda mercenaries, to advance NATO imperialism by recording videos and audio-tapes; over 60 of them so far. Zawahiri repeatedly called for the death of Gaddafi, and now he repeatedly calls for the death of Syria’s President Bashar Al Assad…..”
What would Ondelette say about this? And you expect me to buy into this, Terry?
Thanks
>”The guy who wrote this piece is a nutcase:”
That’s what they always say about the truthtellers. It’s a badge of honor, old boy.
I mostly agree with your points, Glenn, and yet in this case for the first time in my life I support American bombing. In Libya it was propaganda about the alleged gigantic massacres that were on the verge of happening. In Syria, we’d have been intervening against an evil secular dictator who, however, allowed women to walk around in public and didn’t allow sectarian violence. The groups most likely to benefit from us bombing Syria would have been groups like ISIS. Going further back, we were Saddam’s allies when he actually did most of his biggest killing. There was no humanitarian excuse for Iraq.
ISIS, though, really does seem to be as bad as everyone says and it keeps expanding and is likely to commit genocide if not stopped. I’m not sure that any rule of thumb is something one should always adhere to–sometimes there are exceptions. This might be the extremely rare case where US bombing is the lesser of two evils.
I think Glenn is just trying to warn us not to believe everything hook, line and sinker. ISIS maybe evil. But his point I think is that every time someone is bombed, they’re first portrayed as the new Hitler, and then everything that is done to them is justified. I think all he’s saying, and I personally appreciate it, is, just be careful what you believe.
ISIS does look like a horrendous entity that is simply motivated by conquest, much like any empire. I just don’t trust that the US is good at fixing the messes it has created, nor that its motives are “humanitarian”. The fact that it likes to pre-select the governments that will later be “elected” is a non-starter and will never result in stability.
ISIS is a creation of Israel,the USA,Saudi Arabia and maybe another ME oil sheikdom.How could anyone be more evil than that collection of murderers?Isis is just another appendage of the ALCIADA bogeyman,to put fear in sheeple,and keep them in line with all the other Zionist propaganda which makes fools of Americans in not seeing the really evil bastards,US and our master Israel.
@Donald, I pretty much agree with your sentiments. There is an awful similarity between ISIS and the Khmer Rouge . . .
And it works well,that nonsense propaganda,see above.Wasn’t the Khymer Rouge,at the least,a response to American depredations?The Israelis are shooting humans in a barrel,and the Khymer Rouge get brought up?Holy moly,talk about stupidity,or is it just misdirection.
@Donald, I agree with your thoughts that ISIS seems to be a bunch of pretty bad actors. They appear to be chillingly like the Khmer Rouge . . .
Glenn,
You better let this post through, along with my last comment, and you better answer this one too. How is it that a site that allegedly posts leaks from the mind slavers of this world (the government), is reviewing and probably censoring the comment section; which is possibly useful information to some people? Because only this web site knows how many comment posts are not being published behind the scenes. No one else does. Obviously we don’t. But moving forward. WTF?
Don’t forget that Putin is now likened to Hitler by Clinton, Rasmussen and the other usual suspects.
Is it possible that albeit he is no nice guy (like Saddam wasn’t), he is also being framed here for these particular crimes?
I share entirely your concern for US actions in the Middle East, but I have to point out that if the neo-cons get what they want in Ukraine – a war with Russia – all other questions will be moot.
Anti-gay laws and press restrictions in Russia are repulsive, but a war with Russia, even if it is by NATO-proxy, would provide a blanket justification for all the wildest intel-corporate-neo-con fantasies you can imagine.
Making war on people over gender and LTGB rights might be the most idiotic actions in history,and show the unseriousness of those adherents,who’d rather see the objects of their compassion?(propaganda) killed,and LGBT in those nations ostracized as traitors.
Who are the real intolerant,those who live and let live,or those whose highway is the only way?
Ha, this piece was so predictable! If only Glenn G. had been president during WWII. We could all be speaking a foreign language now, like German or Japanese.
So?
Better than Hebrew(didn’t they make it up last century?terrible job,sounds like marble grinding),any freakin day.
Yeah. So?
<>
And if Glenn had been President during the American Revolution, we’d all be speaking English now.
If Glenn had been President during the American Revolution, he’d be dead by now.
Or would he?
Is that what we speak, Mr Higgens?
Glenn,
You forgot to mention those sagging approval ratings, and the very real possibility that Obamacare will not be the legacy our illustrious leader had hoped for.
I’m going to take a wild guess and say the reason people see U.S. as a threat is because everywhere in the world there a conflict going on, the U.S.; aka World Police, is somehow involved. This mentality definitely started for U.S. with the Monroe Doctrine back in 1823. We may have also earned this wonderful reputation from those wars that we bailed England out of. Some of you may have heard of them: WWI and WWII. It can’t be because of the oil though; do you really think so? I’m not trying to be funny here. The U.S. is now the number one exporter of oil in the world. I mean, we’re fracking the shit out of everything here. If anything, I think this is probably just to help some of our “friends” out again, but I really don’t know anymore. Our foreign policy has always been awesome, for lack of a better word. It’s not like people in Nigeria are saying, “what’s our foreign policy, and why do we need one?” Exactly, and look at the difference! Lol, who cares what people think anyway. There’s too many people in this country for U.S. to even give a shit. I mean, it’s going to happen if America keeps oppressing people all around the world; which I’m not totally for or against btw. We will always have the bigger guns though. Always, damn it. If someone gets it before us, we”’ throw them a dirty blanket. By the time they recover from the dirty blanket, we have already walked away with the bigger guns, and now we have the bigger guns again. Middle finger to what you heard. That’s why America will be forever awesome; at least until I die. And if anyone finds that disturbing, well, fuck you. Anyone who has a problem with that can do whatever they want about it, as long as it doesn’t involve me being physically touched anyhow. And my family and friends. Well, nevermind, that’s asking for too much. Just me.
I thought this might be a good place to pose this question.
I have been noticing on blogs, FB and the like that there are several people commenting about the lopsided coverage of networks like CNN & MSNBC etc. Only THEY are saying these networks were over the top on the side of Gaza. This was another thing that has me totally confused about this horrible event.
I couldn’t watch CNN …or..MSNBC for more than 10 minutes as they seemed 200 percent up Bibi’s butt. I am wondering if this is some sort of PR distraction attempt so people will NOT begin to analyze the disproportionate time spent in favor of Israel.
OR, have I become so biased myself that I am just seeing it that way.
Glenn,
Okay. I followed your logic and your train of thought. Given the history of US involvement in Iraq you so clearly depict, it may very likely be the case that it is the oil that ISIS now controls, that is the primary motivator for US involvement.
But what about the Yazidis? Would you concede that there may actually be ‘some’ humanitarian driver this time around, if the goal really is to clear that region of ISIS?
But I do take your greater point. Given the sectarian nature of the Maliki government, who is to say that ISIS is really any worse than the current Iraqi govt. in it’s outlook to peace and ethnic and religious harmony? I do get that now, for the first time. So thank you.
What about them? Did you even know that they existed before last week? What about the 10k women burned alive for dowry in Mumbai alone, year in and year out?
If I thought that this was about helping anyone I would support it. It’s not. When will you learn?
No, I didn’t know about them. It’s not like there are millions of them. But I do know about them now, and I feel more strongly about them than the 10,000 women who die in Mumbai. I don’t know why. It may be because I don’t want a culture to be wiped out. I’m not saying one atrocity is worse than another. I’m just saying this is how I feel. I’m human. I can’t control how I feel. I feel fucking terrible for these Yazidis. That’s all I know.
What’s it about then Bill??
A very good guess is that it’s about saving the al-Maliki government, or replacing it with something that is still sort of acceptable to the US.
“……or replacing it with something that is still sort of acceptable to the US……”
The Maliki government isn’t acceptable to the US which has been pushing to get rid of him. Maliki has marginalized the Sunni population leading to the current crisis in Iraq. But his replacement must also be acceptable to Iran which has a heavy influence on the Shiite dominant government.
The US is only providing limited air power to help the Kurds who have been very good allies of the US. US personnel stationed in the Kurdish city may be a pretext for that help although the Libyan embassy murders must weigh on Obama’s mind.
And it’s about the oil fields. Did you open a link or two, Summers?
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/up-front/posts/2014/06/23-oil-iraqi-civil-war-pollack
I think oil production is a concern, but not the primary concern. Obama has been reluctant to even use drones while the current political situation in Baghdad remains unresolved. Obama seeks a political solution – one in which the Sunnis are no longer marginalized by the Shiite dominant government. Thus getting rid of Maliki is the main political objective for the Obama administration.
Obama should understand better than anyone. His negotiations failed to keep a residual US force in Iraq. The US served as a political arbiter for the new government in Iraq – and helped represent Sunni interests. After the US left, the Maliki government failed and the Sunnis joined forces with ISIS. The rest is history – or about to be.
@Bill Owen,
“10k women burned alive for dowry in Mumbai alone, year in and year out”. 10K?? Really?? Would you please cite the source?
And even if that were the case it is a neither radical militant group with enormous resources, neither a state entity (Govt. of India) that is doing the violence but rather individual citizens which makes it a law & order problem, not a military/strategic one and therefore so your analogy doesn’t apply.
A rather brutal lead and feature story in the Economist some years back put the figure of missing girl children at 100 million, mostly in India and China. “Gendercide,” they called it.
http://www.economist.com/node/15606229
However, if state action — genocide or some variant of it — is what qualifies as a humanitarian crisis warranting intervention, I don’t remember the US being too solicitous about the Muslims of Gujurat, or the Tamils of Sri Lanka, or the Rohingyas in Burma, or the Uighurs in China, just to mention a few examples from that part of the world.
>”What about the 10k women burned alive for dowry in Mumbai alone, year in and year out?”
Isn’t that whataboutery? And are we bombing the men who burn them? ‘Cause I’d be against that, too.
“…in that graveyard of American ambition” -Peter Baker, NY Times
There are too many of those. Way too many.
When you’ve got a lot of ambition, you wind up with a lot of graveyards.
Excellent Post. If you listen to NPR this morning on the Dianne Rehm show, it is religion that is causing so much pain and suffering and “you can’t negotiate with people who believe God is on their side” as one BBC commentator put it. They would all do well to read your post. We have not learned the lesson of bin Laden; that we were attacked not for freedom but for our actions and policies. Sadly, because we have not learned we have not “Change”d(TM).
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2014-08-08/friday-news-roundup-international
On (5) the Deep State can never have enough enemies.,
If the US truly cared about humanitarian causes, then every member of the Congress who is in bed with AIPAC would condemn Israel for its atrocities in Gaza. What hypocrites!
Another problem with all these military campaigns is that they drain us of resources. Already we are not the country that can send astronauts to moon. Our economy now might be bigger than ever before in dollar terms, but after paying down debt, maintaining infrastructure, and payin Social Security and other entitlements, there is little slack left to do great big projects. US government can still borrow cheaply but if something does not change cost of borrowings will slowly go up (over long term) and we will find it harder and harder to function as a country.
SS and Medicare aint entitlements,but earned.Now the banksters,the MIC and Insurance monopolies,that’s entitlement.
Thanks Glenn for emphasizing another sordid chapter in USA’s Book of Stupidities. With the debased Obama thinking about his pension check and library we have, amazingly, HRC looming on the near horizon. What a sad old world!
He’s not called Obomba for nothing!
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/08/obama-authorises-iraq-air-strikes-against-isis
Some rich irony there.
To: Glenn Greenwald.
I don’t know what you’re talking about. America is exceptional nation. We promote freedom and democracy. We are the one indispensable nation on the planet. As Reagan rightly informed us and Obama later concurred, we are the shining city on the hill. The last best hope on earth. Both Condi Rice and Hillary Clinton said the world looks to us for leadership. A superpower doesn’t get to retire. We will never tire of ridding the world off of tyrants and terrorists. You are obviously a rogue journalist. You need to spend some quality time with our heroic national security officials to appreciate their efforts to keep us safe from the bad people who are trying to hurt us.
Granted, up until now, bombing Iraq has generally made things worse. But there is a point where things can’t get any worse, and in that scenario, bombing can only make things better. You can’t expect the US to do everything; if the US does the bombing, surely Iraq itself can then take care of the easy part, the humanitarian development.
In all the countries that have been attacked, there have been local voices crying out for America to drop bombs on their enemies. So the US is only responding, in a good natured manner, to the pleas of the local population. While helping others is certainly its own reward, the goodwill that is earned will be repaid in all sorts of ways.
The only unfortunate part is the US military doesn’t have infinite resources and on occasion can’t launch a full scale invasion. But in these cases, limited air strikes are generally feasible, and this fulfills one of the objectives of testing new weapon systems on the battlefield (this objective of course being secondary to the humanitarian one).
Politicians have finally learned that the first six months of a war are the most popular. After that, people start to become dissatisfied with the lack of progress and growing casualty counts, so the news networks move on to other stories. Long drawn out wars can even harm a President’s political standing. So the new mode of operation appears to be limited, shorter wars, followed by a period of withdrawal before attacking again. The beauty of the American system is its flexibility and ability to adjust to changing circumstances.
Indeed, Duce, and as we saw in the recent threads, the recent free-fire exercise in Gaza was an opportunity to rotate US ammunition stocks in Israel. And limited ground and air intervention can test new weapons systems, as we saw in the Spanish civil war, when the new Fiat, Messerschmitt and Polikarpov systems got a good workout, along with various new ground-warfare tactics. Trouble is, these exercises have a way of becoming a quagmire, as Albania in 1939 and Libya in 1940 proved.
The Dow Jones average is up 151 points just now, so they’re not complaining.
And it’s not like Iraq hasn’t had air bombardment before. The RAF did plenty of that starting in 1920, and they learned (excuse me, “learnt”) a thing or two.
https://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/169-history/36386-british-air-power-and-colonial-control-in-iraq-1920-1925.html
What are your coordinates sir?Not forthcoming?
What’s the end game here?
War with China and Russia.
No big deal.
What’s happening with Russia is a very dangerous game for everyone. Kiev is butchering hundreds in East Ukraine, as if trying to get Russia to intervene. Every week the media pushes the narrative that Russia is amassing troops for an invasion. Russia has escalated the situation by retaliating to sanctions, which is affecting European markets already. This could easily lead to bigger escalation by the West. Let’s hope cooler heads prevail.
I agree Jose. I have watched the propaganda accumulate until so thick those light seeds of truth are buried too deep to proliferate.
All these new tensions I believe are a continuation of policies established as a result of 9/11. They are deliberately created and justify so much of what we criticize – perpetual war, creation of Terrorism™, and deeper, wider spying capabilities.
Cooler heads may have no power to change a preset course that could wipe out millions (possibly billions) of human lives (and animal). Though, like you, I hope for better…
“Internationalism” is a national policy inevitably leading to war. It’s opposite is not “isolationism”. It is sanity.
Exactly. It’s a false dichotomy. It’s not true that most countries in the world are “isolationist.” They trade and collaborate. They simply aren’t imperialistic.
Go global. Let´s produce together oil in the arctic – the Americans (ExxonMobil) and the Russians (Rosneft)… It is not sane for the environment and the locals but better than war. Maybe?
What’s your strategy for dealing with ISIS then? Wring your hands in despair like the UN while they systematically slaughter 40,000 people? Ask them nicely if they wouldn’t mind stopping their genocidal tendencies?
Once again, the rest of the world fails to step up to the plate and the dirty work is dumped at the feet of the least-worst superpower. Why aren’t Russia, China or at least Iran doing something to help?
How much collateral death, how many millions of wasted dollars, how many new enemies, how much US economic austerity, how much military mssion creep does it take to assuage your anxiety about the cuelty human beings are willing to visit on each other and your personal sense of powerlessness?
Stop funding and arming them. Stop interfering in the business of other nations and peoples. And stop creating tensions where none exist – i.e. CIA instigated coups in countries the bankers want control of.
A sane person’s strategy – nu?
They are actually funding themselves. The NYTimes reported them to have around $2 Billion in assets and revenues in the millions.
What is your solution? The clear stated intent of ISIS w/resp to the Yazidis is that they told the Yazidis to “convert, flee, or die”. The “flee” consisted of going up a mountain with no access to food or water in the desert heat. Clear intent to destroy in whole or in part a religious or ethnic group.
It doesn’t have to be what people have done, or decided elsewhere, you’re free to pick what you want to do. But it really is incumbent on you and Glenn Greenwald to state what should happen as an alternative, not regurgitate his favorite 4 year old polling graph which he trots out for any and all discussions on foreign policy because he’s basically an idiot on the subject of other parts of the world.
The Yazidi are threatened with genocide. If you need to know what that is, here are Articles I and II of the Convention:
Decide anything you like, advocate any course of action for the world that you like. If you advocate not preventing genocide, you can and should be judged for what you advocate. Even if you do have a graphic from a 4 year old poll that is irrelevant to the current situation. There are a large range of solutions, and it’s a tautology that the press has not elucidated all the options available, nor have world leaders considered everything — neither ever happens.
But if you are sitting on the sidelines catcalling, then since the issue is in fact genocide, you get to answer the “What’s your solution?” question. Doing nothing results in genocide. Ditto if all you can do is tell us what you think is wrong with history and then say it shouldn’t be repeated. We know that. Get off your comfortable ass and tell us what to do. Do you think airlifting food and water in is right or wrong? What do you think should be done to prevent what will surely happen if those people stay up on that mountain without access to necessities?
There are a lot of dead people in the Nuba mountains whose souls stand judgment of your do nothing philosophy. The humanitarian workers (that’s the proper use of the term, not Greenwald’s or Obama’s) could not get to them. There are a lot of dead people in Sri Lanka whose souls join them. And in Kivu. And in CAR. All victims of the deadly rampage of genocide. A crime the nations of the world pledged to prevent, not just to punish.
Tell us what you think should be done. The worst you can do is to be wrong, the world needs the suggestions. Far, far more than it needs empty diatribe, old polls, and weak logic.
See my comment here: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/08/us-bombing-iraq-redundant-presidential-ritual/#comment-66426
My philosophy is truly humanist. For the sake of being fully human and fully aware, I refuse to go along with policies designed for profit motives only and that bring further suffering.
So your response is that you believe that the Yazidi should be magically transported out of their dire situation, you don’t know how.
I guess you need to keep thinking. Because, as they say, the devil is in the details.
You’ve got a lot of criticism for seer’s lack of an answer; do you have one?
Some Yazidis are being rescued. So tell me, onde, what are you doing to rescue people from mountain tops? What is your government, which created this nightmare, doing to rescue these desperate people?
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/middleeast/2014/08/kurds-rescue-yazidis-from-iraq-mountain-201489135227783157.html
>”They are actually funding themselves. The NYTimes reported them to have around $2 Billion in assets and revenues in the millions.”
Yes, *now* they are self-sufficient! But don’t you find it of interest that if you withdraw a couple thousand dollars from your bank account the NSA is immediately informed, and if it’s determined you once had a ‘bad’ thought, they have the ability to create a reality in which you may find your account confiscated.
But what’s truly amazing is that with tentacles reaching across the globe, the NSA and its global banker cohort are unable to see to it ISIS’ financial transactions are intercepted. Really onde, a smart person like you should be able to put 2 + 2 and arrive at 4 without too much difficulty.
Other countries generally respect the fact the US has ‘first bombing rights’ in the Middle East. But once the oil in the region runs out, America will likely ease back a little, and those countries will then be welcome to launch as many Middle Eastern humanitarian wars as they like.
Do you think Russia should intervene in East Ukraine to stop the massacre that’s going on there?
In the case of Iraq, I think the US has done enough already, and it needs to stop. Whether it should be the world’s responsibility to fix Iraq is a different matter altogether. Maybe it is, and in that case the US should obviously foot the bill, but stay out of it otherwise. When Iraq stabilizes again, if it does, the US should pay additional reparations.
The people of Kosovo might disagree with some of the absurd generalizations in this piece.
They might. But if you’re fully informed they won’t disagree. The US only got involved in Bosnia and in Kosovo, once people realized that Muslim militants from Afghanistan and other places were trying to come to Europe to help fight the Serbians on behalf of Bosnians and and Kosovans. It’s one thing to let Bosnians die, looking like the ghosts from World War II. But it’s quite another thing to let these Muslims get into their heads that they can start infiltrating Europe with their AK-47s to help those Bosnians. So let’s put a stop to all this nonsensical thinking and bomb the hell out of the Serbians.
It’s not quite as humanitarian as you would believe. I was only a kid back then. But I followed the itsy bitsy amounts of good reporting that flowed. And remember, it’s okay to question US motives on most wars, and people do. Things only got real skewed after 9/11 in terms of reporting. All, but a few, brave reporters fell in line. It’s as if the whole world had now become Israel. Criticism is now not to be tolerated.
It wasn’t so during the conflict in the Balkans. Go back and read the news of the time.
It seems if those displaced and starving on an Iraq mountaintop, and in need of humanitarian assisstance, fired a few crappy rockets at ISIL – the USG might green-light ISIL “defending themselves…”
Thank you, Mr. Glenn, and this zombie oil war begs the question how many decades the new TAPI pipeline will also be “protected.”
And before Hitler they used to say, “worse than Napoleon”.
Tomorrow, it will be, “worse than Glenn Greenwald”.
ISIS would not exist if Bush had not invaded Iraq. US usually fails at destroying all the monsters it creates.eg: Al Queda- like groups now stronger than ever, despite trillions spent on War on Terror.
Irrelevant.
Let’s summarize how the West treats ISIS:
(a) Ally in Syria
(b) Neutral in most of Iraq
(c) Enemy when threatening Kurdistan
Let’s stop pretending the hawks truly cares what ISIS is or stands for, what matters is who they seem to be attacking.
ISIS stands for what the CIA compartment that assisted in developing it understands it means: mother of Horus.
Just as “shock and awe” was Shekhinah.
How fucking pertinent!
It underscores my long-held belief that the United States cares more about money and property than it does about human life. As the most powerful nation in the world, it should set an example to other countries and leaders. Instead, it acts like a bully on the playground.
Methinks that Obama is trying very hard to counter the charge by Republicans that he left Iraq too soon. It doesn’t bode well for the withdrawal of US troops from Afghanistan next year. Some excuse will be concocted to “stay the course”.
Of course we won’t leave Afghanistan willingly. That’s admitting “defeat.” But Obama did ultimately pull the troops out of Iraq at the end of 2011 so if the Afghans stand their ground, it’s likely he’ll follow through there as well. A Republican administration would of course have ignored the agreements and remained in both places until Doomsday trying to achieve some kind of “victory.”
Well what the hell is Obomba doing,but the same?
I don’t think that’s enough. Do they have a right to intervene whenever they decide to? Who is there to independently oversee that they are intervening for the right reasons, and that the evidence available warrants intervention?
Glenn said, “For quite some time, it was Mahmoud Ahmadinejad – the democratically elected president of Iran who left office peacefully at the end of his term and who never actually invaded anybody”
Ummmmm, elected when only state approved candidates are allowed to run is exactly what I call Democratic.
Iranian citizen: Can I have a Leader?
Ayatollah Khomeini: Sure, you can have any leader you like, as long as it’s the one I approve of.
(You can have any pony you like as long as it’s pink)
Ah yes, the American way, where money decides the viable candidates…that’s the real fucking deal. That’s the goddam standard.
Money only influences as it obviously does you. Which party did you vote for in the last election? May I suggest you start at the beginning by voting for independent House Rep. You do know you can punch any slot on the voting form, don’t you? You need only have the courage.
You’re right, that’s so different to how it works in the US and other western countries.
that’s it, keep your eyes shut and your head in the ground. If that works for ya…..
>”keep your eyes shut and your head in the ground” – That’s what you’re doing, Mr. Vox of things harmful and untrue.
Really, how insightful of you…..
America is not a democracy, not even close.
It’s a democracy now, just like the DPRK and the former GDR and Democratic Kampuchea.
But America does have freedom to choose their own leaders. Of course, they always choose incorrectly when the vote Republican or Democrat, but at least there are alternatives on the voting ticket. Albeit, virtually silenced by the hoard of Gazillions of dollars by the Republicans and Democrats.
Communist and communist-lite countries like the U.S. have the fredom to choose their own leaders too. You can have Hillary or Obama or Bill or George just like the Soviets could under Brezhnev.
The countries you refer to can only do so by use of force, which is exactly how they stay in power. Thus, only force can be used to remove them. Where’s the freedom there?
First, let’s establish some grounds rules on “force” vs. “violence.” Force is a natural law, and is used to defend one’s self against violence. Force has different characteristics depending on how it’s applied, including that of an informative nature.
The more totalitarian former states of Hungary, the USSR, Bulgaria, East Germany, Romania, Vietnam, and to an extent China, all were reconstituted into less-leftist, less-socialist governmental structures by applying, and adjusting, only information.
So, which of these concepts you so acutely define applies to the US political landscape and which applied to Communist countries? Are they the same as you equate the US and Communist political landscape? You asserted Communist countries have ‘freedom’ and I rejected that notion. So, provide us with explanation that shows the equality you assert, because freedom doesn’t equal oppression by force, unless I miss the point.
Vox, I’m arguing that the same information campaigns used to awaken the public in those formerly more socialist countries can be used with success all over, including to awaken a public from the siren song of socialism over here.
And what I’m saying is that disseminating information to change leaders in one country is helpful and in other countries usually gets you imprisoned or shot. I’ll let you decide which countries this applies to Communist or Non-Communist.
In those Communist nations,they can only vote for Communists,and here in America,we can only vote for capitalists(Gus Bell?).Separate but equal.
In the Syrian presidential election of 2014 there were 24 candidates. The elections were widely dismissed as illegitimate.
And just where do those dollars come from?
When businesses fund governmental affairs, you have the textbook definition of fascism.
“America is not a democracy, not even close.”
What d’ya mean? It’s what’s called a narrow democracy. You get to vote for candidates from one party and then, after, you do what you’re told.
Are you suggesting that here in the US we have democratic elections? If so, you are dreaming.
Fact is, no one gets to become a candidate for the office of president unless they are vetted, shown the dirt the CIA has collected on them, thoroughly trained to take orders from the Elites, and piss on the US Constitution while pretending allegiance to the People.
Seer said “act is, no one gets to become a candidate for the office of president unless they are vetted, shown the dirt the CIA has collected on them, thoroughly trained to take orders from the Elites, and piss on the US Constitution while pretending allegiance to the People.”
LOL….Please prove everyone of these statements. Provide evidence, not your unsupported wild-eyed delusional fantasies….LOL.
Read a book: Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
[snip]
https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf
Read this too: President Carter Says America Has No Functioning Democracy
http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/17698-president-carter-says-america-has-no-functioning-democracy
I’ve been saying this ever since the Supreme Court interjected itself in presidential politics. The real problem of our politics is two-fold. One, we have the mass media telling the mass stupid that their only choice is between R or D, when in fact , the real choice is R/D or Other candidates. Two, the power distribution between our branches seems incapable of defending their own boundaries and the constitution and now work cooperatively and place a higher value on Party over Country. Nuff Said.
@Vox Vocis Res Publica
08 Aug 2014 at 4:14 pm
I am afraid you are grossly misinformed. The US has not been a functioning democracy for very many years now. Citizens United was a nail, one of the last nails, in american democracy’s coffin.
Iran has a better democracy that US,as their last few leaders have not been related and listen to the will of its people,unlike our own aristocracy of the worms and traitors.
How Ironic. If it weren’t so serious, it would be funny. It was the U.S. that secretly gave anti tank weapons to the Syrian rebels in the first place, who then gave them to ISIS.
Now Obama is lobbying congress to give another $500 million to “vetted” Syrian rebels.
Just how long will it take these weapons to be in the hands of ISIS? And how long will it be for the next “humanitarian” bombing to take place?
It does seem like just yesterday we (the US) was talking about arming the rebels in Syria. Now ISIS has taken over a big percentage of Iraq and we are having to bomb them so they don’t engage in genocide against minorities there. Hindsight is 20/20, but if we had simply started bombing them from the get go, the Iraqi government forces might not have been scared and abandoned their posts.
Exactly! ISIS is funded and armed by the UK/US perpetual war machine.
Side note: The US dropped supplies for approximately 50,000 Yazidi people including “The planes dropped 72 bundles, containing more than 20,000 litres of drinking water and 8,000 pre-packaged meals.” 8000 meals for 50,000 hungry people. Waiting to hear adequate supplies are arriving.
http://news.sky.com/story/1315089/isis-violence-all-warning-signs-of-genocide
My favorite humanitarian sales pitch for a new American war came from Debbie Wasserman Schultz last year while she was trying to gin up support for bombing Syria:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/sep/3/wasserman-schultz-justifies-syria-attack-jew-never/
So far what we’ve seen is US planes bombing an ISIS artillery position which was itself bombarding Kurdish troops defending Erbil. That’s very different from the “humanitarian bombing” of Libya, Serbia etc, which means destroying bridges, factories, government buildings, TV studios, water supplies etc.
I hate “humanitarian intervention” as much as anyone, but military on military action, if it stays limited to that, is in the circumstances understandable. I’m in pause mode before I start any reflexive condemnation.
You know, that’s the first time I had anyone ask others to wait, that this time, military action will be precise and surgical. That, now that, does have a storied history of ever being true.
Problem is we never actually had a debate. Just bomb first then go in “pause mode”? Not really how democracies are supposed to function.
Reflexive condemnation? I think you mean educated disgust. What glorious country has bombed more countries than any other? Mine. No other country comes anywhere near close to our bombing record. You’d think somebody was making money off of this shit or something….Sickening.
Thanks, Glenn, for another great article.
You progressively promote for the Big Gov’t that makes it happen.
Evidence?
Then state for the record whether you’re for Big Gov’t or small gov’t.
A nice little box you like to put people in? I am in favor of government big enough to take car of the needs of its people, yet small enough to not be able to invade other countries on a whim. Does that fit your moronic big government narrative? The narrative used by people without any specific inteligent complaints. Something’s wrong… gleek, lurch, sproing~~~~ “big government”!!! Somebody is getting a free lunch. Oh no!
Do you believe this government needs to substantially downsize?
Do believe your tax burden by it needs to be lessened?
Do you believe in asset redistribution at the muzzle of state firepower?
La Plaza doesn’t believe in evidence.
Vox,
The evidence can be found on his prior, authoritarian, Big Gov’t-endorsing posts where he explicitly inveighs against the 2nd Amendment right to own guns he that he deems the public shouldn’t have.
John Kelly is an authoritarian.
John also wrote he likes to listen for talking points from Jon Stewart and Cenk Uygur.
I believe the tax burden needs to be shifted BACK to the rich like it was when we had our most prosperous decades in this country. When the marginal tax bracket for the rich was well above 50% and the gap between the rich and poor was nowhere near what is today… communism~freak out!~ When workers had a say in the work place… fancy that. The income and wealth-gaps are higher than they have been in many decades. The MIC is stronger than ever, big oil, big pharma, big assholes all stronger than ever. A perfect little storm of Fascist delights… you should be so happy, instead, you think socialism has taken over. What a foolish pathetic little John Bircher type thou art.
Oh shit, it’s on the record… be afraid. I am “on the record” against the stupid and unwritten version of the 2nd amendment touted by gun fetishists everywhere.
Thanks for noting that I like Cenk and Jon, both very intelligent people. Jon Stewart is sometimes a little too easy on war criminals for my tastes but still smarter than 95% of those on the TV machine.
Anything else you would like to know? You seem very interested, although you really do have poor reading comprehension skills, and your interpretation of my views is skewed by your reflexive spotting of a commie under every bush.
Just debating Vox. But your prior posts indicate you have inuendo on your mind.
Greenwald is being a fool. I like his work compiling of all the lies trying to justify previous bombing attacks by the USA. This latest incident does not belong in the list with all the other examples.
The USA is at war with full supporting paperwork on the books and strong support from war-weary Americans and legitimate requests for help from the Iraqis, when it comes to stopping genocide underway by Al Qaida in Iraq.