The U.S. today began bombing targets inside Syria, in concert with its lovely and inspiring group of five allied regimes: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan.
That means that Syria becomes the 7th predominantly Muslim country bombed by 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Barack Obama—after Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and Iraq.
The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed: Empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason (indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force, and very few people seemed to mind that abject act of lawlessness; constitutional constraints are not for warriors and emperors).
It was just over a year ago that Obama officials were insisting that bombing and attacking Assad was a moral and strategic imperative. Instead, Obama is now bombing Assad’s enemies while politely informing his regime of its targets in advance. It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters it that it will be at war, always and forever.
Six weeks of bombing hasn’t budged ISIS in Iraq, but it has caused ISIS recruitment to soar. That’s all predictable: the U.S. has known for years that what fuels and strengthens anti-American sentiment (and thus anti-American extremism) is exactly what they keep doing: aggression in that region. If you know that, then they know that. At this point, it’s more rational to say they do all of this not despite triggering those outcomes, but because of it. Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug. It is what justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War.
If there is anyone who actually believes that the point of all of this is a moral crusade to vanquish the evil-doers of ISIS (as the U.S. fights alongside its close Saudi friends), please read Professor As’ad AbuKhalil’s explanation today of how Syria is a multi-tiered proxy war. As the disastrous Libya “intervention” should conclusively and permanently demonstrate, the U.S. does not bomb countries for humanitarian objectives. Humanitarianism is the pretense, not the purpose.
President Barack Obama makes a speech during the Nobel Peace Prize Concert at Oslo Spektrum on December 11, 2009 in Oslo, Norway
Photo: Sandy Young/Getty Images
Let’s not forget that most of what is going on with these wars is MOSTLY to DEFEND the DOLLAR!
Dollar Defender Infographic: http://blog.chinadaily.com.cn/blog-1453444-22570.html
.jpg or .pdf (with links) downloadable at: https://www.idrive.com/idrive/sh/sh?k=h6f5a6x8e4
The Obama “Un-Presidency”
Column: Politics
Region: USA in the World
5646546During the last months of the Bush administration, a Secret Shadow Government (SSG) was created to sabotage President Obama, politically, economically and, in particular, on issues of foreign policy. “Transition conferences” were held, procedures enacted, roadblocks created.
In every aspect of government, parallel command structures answerable to former officials and special interest groups were created. In many departments such as those tasked with enforcing laws, regulating financial institutions or even commanding nuclear forces, new positions were created giving not only broad and unaccountable authority to minor officials but new regulations protect them from oversight or even detection.
In some cases, State Department officials overseeing intelligence and policy functions report, not to Secretary of State Kerry but to private “think tanks,” many tied to extremist elements of the opposition party.
“SSG” moles forge language on intercepts, distribute misleading analysis and photoshopped “evidence” and, most recently, have altered translated statements from the Russian government over the Ukraine to be full scale ultimatums where, in reality, such language has never been used.
In the worst cases, drug and human trafficking and even terrorism is involved. In one case, the Army psychiatrist, Dr. Hassan, responsible for the mass killings at the army’s Ft. Hood facility not only took part in a “transitional conference” at George Washington University but consorted with known terrorists while under the protection of powerful political friends in the Bush administration.
THE “UN-PRESIDENCY” OF BARAK OBAMA
If Obama administration policies make no sense, and to any moderately informed observer, that has to have come to mind, there is a reason. When Obama took office, the previous administration, the most corrupt and even “demonic” in history, had embedded its most venomous acolytes into key strategic positions.
The most visible historic carryover from the Bush administration has been tied to the extensive privatization of intelligence functions necessary to maintain the flow of tons of heroin from Afghanistan and to maintain the “testy” relationships with the Mexican and Latin American drug cartels.
The rationale for “not letting go of power,” for failing to hand over the reins as it were is, ostensibly financial in nature. With control of events through the control of intelligence and, as with JSOC, or the Joint Special Operations Command, the quasi-political/privatized black ops group believed to still be commanded by Cheney and Rumsfeld though out of government, full military operational capabilities have survived where leaving public office should have brought that to an end.
Where the “carryover” has surfaced in an undeniable and most threatening fashion is with America’s nuclear forces. In 2007, nuclear weapons were illegally loaded onto a B 52 at Minot Air Force Base in South Dakota. The command of this nuclear base and its missile wings, perhaps the most powerful offensive force on earth, had fallen to a religious cult dedicated to bringing about a nuclear apocalypse.
In one of the rare successes of the Obama administration, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, has in a series of lightning strikes removed the entire nuclear command of the US Air Force.
Similarly, General Dempsey has removed dozens of ranking military officers and Pentagon officials revealed to be answerable to the “SSG.”
THE “MOVES” AGAINST AMERICA
345345Obama inherited a government “infected” by the secret societies John F. Kennedy warned about only hours before his assassination. Using names of their own choosing, Illuminati, Federalists, Freemasons, Dominionists, Evangelical Zionists, Temple of Set, Neocon, a virtual army of “moles” were planted at every strategic juncture in America’s bureaucratic and judicial apparatus.
1.Through control of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, over $3 trillion was created without authorization or underwriting through Treasury Notes and distributed into a network of European banks through Bank of America and Royal Bank of Scotland. In a single act, Timothy Geithner misappropriated more funds than anyone in world history.
2.A 5/4 majority in the Supreme Court not only legally underwrote the overthrow of the American electoral system in 2000 with the “appointment” of George W. Bush but certified through its silence the suspension of habeas corpus (encompassing all guaranteed rights of individual due process) in 2005, authorized blanket wiretapping, torture, defendants’ rights and legalized “execution by drone” without due process. In recent years all electoral financing controls guaranteeing constitutional “equal protection” were overturned.
3.Through the process known as “gerrymandering,” electoral districts were reapportioned to guarantee that over 200 million Americans would be denied congressional representation, eliminating entirely their real voting franchise.
4.Through blocking Obama judicial nominees and control of all regional Department of Justice officials and the FBI, with few exceptions, unprecedented criminality has been able to flourish throughout America. On issues of 9/11 alone, dozens of prosecutions, investigations and civil actions that easily exceeded prima facie requirements were quashed. In a well-planned and coordinated multigenerational operation, including “talent-spotting” at the earliest educational levels, a virtual army of semi-robotic automatons were injected into the American legal system insuring decades of abuse and injustice.
5.Through control of service academies, extremist groups tied to bizarre religious sects, many deeply rooted in satanic practices, key areas with in the military and intelligence communities fell under control of secret societies.
For those who really understand the “Washington dynamic,” the real disappointment has been Obama’s unwillingness to remove not just obstructionist bureaucrats that sabotage policies and keep billions in public funds flowing directly to Bush run organized crime but the even greater threats such as we have seen during recently weeks.
UKRAINE “CRASH”
By this time, one thing is clear. Whatever legacy the Obama presidency wished to have has been destroyed by the debacle in the Ukraine. The gaffs are mounting up, the most recent one today when the New York Times was forced to withdraw an article accusing Russia of sending special operations forces into the Eastern Ukraine.
They had snatched photos from internet social media, did some “doctoring” and were, within hours, caught fabricating another story. Similarly, the Anti-Defamation League, a New York based lobby group closely tied to the New York Times had, only a week before, been “busted” for orchestrating the anti-Semitic pamphlets passed out to Ukrainian Jews.
It goes further, more than phony news stories, down to training terrorists, planning attacks, murdering demonstrators.
NOODLEMAN
Vickie Noodleman, or as she is now known, Undersecretary of State Victoria “Nuland,” was never a particularly noteworthy or capable individual. Her primary skills were her willingness to marry archconservative fanatic John Kagan and then to accept a position working for Dick Cheney, the infamous “Darth Vader” of American politics.
Noodleman wasn’t always the jowly cow we see today. By Washington standards she was a “hot babe.” Her marriage to John Kagan, the intellectually shallow head of the anti-Putin cabal at the Brookings Institution, assured her a quick run through the “pecking order” at the State Department, even under the flawed oversight of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Clinton, were she paying attention, would have “strangled Noodleman at birth” as the proverbial saying goes, before damage could be done. It was Noodleman that supplied the “talking points” to Undersecretary of State Susan Rice during the Benghazi investigation, a political disaster for Clinton.
Little did the “half blind” Obama administration know that the Benghazi attack had been planned and underwritten in Washington, the Potomac Institute, PJ Media (a Mossad front group), the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and “carry-over” operational units “formerly” under command of “former” Vice President Cheney.
As with recent investigations that have traced the training of the Maidan Square snipers to secret CIA facilities in Poland, Benghazi was also a CIA operation. Few care to remember that Reverend Terry Jones, of Koran burning fame, in another life spent 12 years in Germany running Gladio operations.
Erased from history but brought back for this brief moment is a news story from that day:
“WASHINGTON, Sept 12 (Reuters) – General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff, spoke with Pastor Terry Jones by phone on Wednesday and asked him to withdraw his support for a film whose portrayal of the Prophet Mohammad has sparked violent protests – including one that ended with the death of America’s envoy to Libya.”
When backtracking the funding of the Jones film credited by General Dempsey for inciting what we now know to be the “cover and deception” operation leading to the Benghazi attack, the names Kagan and Nuland/Noodleman are seen repeatedly along with the front for the broadcast, PJ Media and a series of conservative think tanks.
Thus, Washington “Stink Tanks” as they are called, assisted by a YouTube Psyop media company and coordinated with corrupt elected officials murdered an American ambassador and used “SSG” insiders in the State Department to push blame onto the Obama administration.
This same method is being repeated in Syria, the Ukraine, with the Palestinian peace talks in addition to the sabotaged relationships with both Russia and China.
NO ONE WOULD BELIEVE IT
There is a clear agenda, one intended to “burn” Russia, China and the United States “to the ground.” Inside Washington and other capitols around the world, “SSG” moles, working in concert, are pushing the world to “August 1914.”
Why they may well succeed is simple. No one would believe it.
Gordon Duff is a Marine combat veteran of the Vietnam War that has worked on veterans and POW issues for decades and consulted with governments challenged by security issues. He’s a senior editor and chairman of the board of Veterans Today, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/
And let’s not forget that Kerry, Obama, the US government, and Beltway media lied to us about the identity of the culprits responsible for the use of chemical weapons in Syria.
“Nazis were executed for precisely what Washington is doing today.”
– Paul Craig Roberts
from December 2013
Deceiving the US Public on Syria
http://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/09/deceiving-the-us-public-on-syria/
September 2013
How Intelligence Was Twisted To Support An Attack On Syria
http://truth-out.org/news/item/18559-how-intelligence-was-twisted-to-support-an-attack-on-syria?tmpl=component&print=1
September 2013
Obama’s Case for Syria Didn’t Reflect Intel Consensus
http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/09/obamas-case-for-syria-didnt-reflect-intel-consensus/
April 2014
Media blacks out Seymour Hersh exposé of US lies on Syrian gas attack
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/04/08/hrsh-a08.html
December 2013
UN Syrian chemical weapons report exposes Washington’s lies
http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/12/16/pers-d16.html
April 2014
Barack Obama pulls a George W. Bush: Lies, misinformation and chemical weapons
http://www.salon.com/2014/04/10/barack_obama_pulls_a_george_w_bush_lies_misinformation_and_chemical_weapons/
5646546During the last months of the Bush administration, a Secret Shadow Government (SSG) was created to sabotage President Obama, politically, economically and, in particular, on issues of foreign policy. “Transition conferences” were held, procedures enacted, roadblocks created.
In every aspect of government, parallel command structures answerable to former officials and special interest groups were created. In many departments such as those tasked with enforcing laws, regulating financial institutions or even commanding nuclear forces, new positions were created giving not only broad and unaccountable authority to minor officials but new regulations protect them from oversight or even detection.
In some cases, State Department officials overseeing intelligence and policy functions report, not to Secretary of State Kerry but to private “think tanks,” many tied to extremist elements of the opposition party.
“SSG” moles forge language on intercepts, distribute misleading analysis and photoshopped “evidence” and, most recently, have altered translated statements from the Russian government over the Ukraine to be full scale ultimatums where, in reality, such language has never been used.
In the worst cases, drug and human trafficking and even terrorism is involved. In one case, the Army psychiatrist, Dr. Hassan, responsible for the mass killings at the army’s Ft. Hood facility not only took part in a “transitional conference” at George Washington University but consorted with known terrorists while under the protection of powerful political friends in the Bush administration. CONT:
First appeared: http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/
http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/
How do you manage to get all the links in one post and have it go through?
What a farce!
http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/
`felinexvi
re:
[snip]
“Obama’s September 24 speech at the UN is the most absurd thing I have heard in my entire life. It is absolutely amazing that the president of the United States would stand before the entire world and tell what everyone knows are blatant lies while simultaneously demonstrating Washington’s double standards and belief that Washington alone, because the US is exceptional and indispensable, has the right to violate all law….”
-Paul Craig Roberts
http://www.unz.com/proberts/will-russia-and-china-hold-their-fire-until-war-is-the-only-alternative/
Hi Suave –
Whoa – I’m glad I checked the comments on this story today. Paul Craig Roberts didn’t mince words, did he?
One thing struck me about it: it’s highly unusual for a President to preside over the Security Council. So why was it done for this particular vote? I can’t help thinking there’s also some symbolism involved (TPTB seem to love symbolism) – maybe to emphasize who’s boss – and as a consequence “cloak” Obama in an ‘Emperor’s robe.’ Does that make any sense?
http://journal-neo.org/2014/04/30/the-obama-un-presidency/
Armies, like dogs, exist to be exercised.
This is really too serious to be the butt of word-play, but I just can’t help myself.
“O’bamBush should have been awarded the Ig-Nobel Pieces Louse prize.”
.
The latest Economist cover.
http://www.economist.com/printedition/covers/2014-09-25/ap-e-eu-la-me-na-uk
We are amused.
As collateral damage gradually mounts from American and its allies aerial bombardments, the general mood among moderate Moslems is likely to strongly shift towards favouring ISIL, and result in suicide assaults to set Persian Gulf refineries and oil fields ablaze, meaning, ultimately, that China and Japan and parts of Asia and some European countries whose economies are hard hit by such actions that cut off oil supplies and causes oil prices to spiral will strongly demand — and likely get — an end to such attacks.
If that happens, America will have suffered a military defeat greater than Vietnam and have no allies left in the Middle East other than Israel and a crumbling Egypt which will be militarily busy fighting a losing battle against ISIL-supported fighters attacking it from Libya.
How soon is this likely to happen? I seem to recall that nobody even as recently as a year ago suspected there would ever be an Islamic State.
Possibly my favourite so far. Since starting this publication, if I’m not mistaken, I think Greenwald has more and more started to use the language demanded by the bad people in the world. I love that he has gone from the effects to their causes to the people undeniably and unforgivably complicit. There can be no beating around the bush for me now, I want to name names and call out these tyrannical humans who are selfish enough to allow any atrocity in the pursuit of what they want. Writing like this that describes the broken systems and condemnable actions in the world appropriately – and for me that is glaring and passionate – writing like that is one of the greatest consolations there is.
Well said. I want the same. I am just sick of lies.
Although me and Greenwald would probably disagree on several issues (I am a slightly Right leaning Libertarian), I respect the man immensely. He is honest and demanding. Exactly what a journalist should be. He is a sound writer too.
I pray for his safety and all the whistle blowers out there, especially Snowden.
I wonder if Greenwald knew Michael Hastings? He should do an expose on Hastings’ murder.
Well the recent spate of mass shootings late summer stopped immediately after David Rockefeller’s son died in a small plane crash after attending his 99th (could be earlier) birthday party. Richard Mellon Scaife died a week later…NO mass shootings. Could be a concidence, divine providence…who knows? There were mass shootings every three days up until the unfortunate plane crash of David Rockefeller’s only child who would speak to him. David of course runs the Council on Foreign Relations. I think there have been a few more mass shootings this week.
“Could be a concidence, divine providence…who knows?”
—
I’d go with divine providence, the same guy who prevented the Holocaust.
Yes Michael Hastings was murdered on the same day as James Gandofini, aka Tony Soprano. What do they have in common ? The movie Zero Dark Thirty and the firing of General Stanley McCrystal. This dual hit was a warning to journalists, actors and the greater media that no one is safe. By the way WTF is wrong with the Guardian they pre moderate my comments. I thought they were somewhat righteous- don’t say zionist conspiracy or false flag globalist war profiteers or they will block you.
More on the deployment to Iraq. Seems it’s the 1st Infantry Division HQ. Just the HQ, so far.
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140925/NEWS/309250057/-Big-Red-One-HQ-will-deploy-Iraq
Captain’s Log, supplemental.
http://www.militarytimes.com/article/20140925/NEWS/309250063/Retired-3-star-Americans-don-t-understand-ground-troops-win-wars
In which we do have the gravamen of the situation: Americans do understand that that ground troops can win wars. They can also lose wars or get inextricably enmeshed.
which is exactly WHY tptb are not really doing it – think about it? WINNING is NOT what tptb want – they want chaos – chaos ensures that there will be a demand for military presences practically everywhere. Until sick in the head people stop joining the military this will go on and on
Apparently America cannot any war. We lost WWII , as the global Fascists have clearly seized power.
Aren’t you speaking at a libertarian love-fest in October? So you’re a Randian capitalist. I’m wondering how you square your views while simultaneously referring to yourself as a “radical” and a “leftist.”
Who are you talking to?
I heard ‘the stoopid’ reigned supreme here, but couldn’t believe that people could be so utterly ignorant. Well, there’s egg on my face now.
I would have said travel back about a year and read all the intelligence gathered when the U.S. initially sought intervention in Syria, including the dire warning of doing nothing as these extremists, remnants of Al Qaeda in Iraq (you know, those killers who killed a shitload of U.S. soldiers) were FESTERING on the Iraqi/Syrian border. But then I realized that this site is nothing more than an offshoot of FoxNation, full of ignorance and teabaggery (you know, making shit up). You people are a lost cause. On the bright side, it is highly entertaining.
So, how’d that Kim Dotcom overthrow of New Zealand go? Hahahahaha!
As you have correctly surmised, and as your own post demonstrates, stupidity is universal.
Kim Dotcom, as is proper for anyone who challenges authority and doesn’t succeed in overthrowing it, will end up in a jail cell.
Talk about political opportunism of the worst kind.
How Greenbacks can show his face in public after that fiasco is anybody’s guess. He and his obese friend had their asses handed to them though.
But hey don’t miss the Greenback Libertarian show in October in NYC when Greenback and his capitalist buds like Balko and Scahill promise to teach us how to liberty.
Greenbacks, Snowed In, Snowjob etc…is that the BEST you payed off trolls for the 4th Reich can come up with?? Or do you just repeat the phrases that your billionaire masters have written down for your sub-standard IQ? Let me tell you a little about your paymasters, since some of your co-workers have told me things like “did you ever think this is the future, get used to it” and (early in the day before Putin gave Snowden asylum) “Nobody is going to jail, because everyone does whatever they want. They’re gonna get Snowden, like they got Bin Laden…it will just take some time”.
Your depraved pathetic excuse for a human being puppet masters, who pay you to post this disinfo crap make Caligula look like a paragon of sanity, virtue and chastity by comparison. I have no doubt they are all knee deep in every illicit trade on earth that degrades mankind. These generates are the most evil people and thanks to technology, the most powerful, that have ever inhabited the earth. And they may be the end to us all, but take whatever crumbs they are offering you…you piece of Sh*$T. Maybe you’ll get a spot in the 4th Reich.
Just out of curiosity…who told you that you will be spared? You do realize you are dealing with/paid/taking money from a bunch of psychopaths. Do you seriously expect them to honor their word?
Please post on how one gets paid for putting up comments. I could use the dough.
http://www.airforce.com/
Well if you have an bright Orange or Yellow Car/Truck/Van you drive around Long Island and make some cash right now.
Rodger, I’m not exactly sure how the internet trolls and physical stalkers are recruited and paid, but it’s a great story. From what I understand, many of them are long term unemployed and are not fully aware of what they are participating in and how their actions effect the “target”. So please forgive me for my tirade, sometimes I get angry at the wrong people. That anger really should be reserved for the people at the top who are orchestrating this divide and conquer madness, not some poor soul trying to put food on the table.
US policy in the Middle East brilliantly explained in a few sentences
http://bit.ly/1rb5Iip
One tangent on the theme of endless war is that the US and the terrorists have swapped tactics over the past 20 years.
The US now launches discrete attacks against high value targets. A political leader here, a bridge there, a refinery in Syria – all are the subject to bombing using stealth drones. The goal is not to occupy territory or win a battle; rather it is to slowly weaken your opponent and hope that other forces will take the opportunity to finish them off. This satisfies the desire to ‘do something’, and mobilizes support for a cause, but it is essentially a war of attrition. You conserve your limited resources, inflict damage opportunistically and attempt to outlast the opponent or provoke them into a counter-productive reaction. You do not put ‘boots on the ground’, i.e. seek a direct confrontation. These were traditionally the tactics of the terrorist.
By contrast, the terrorists of IS use ground forces to capture territory and set up local governments which are subject to their authority. These were traditionally the tactics of nation states.
What IS doesn’t know, which the US has learned, is that governing is hard work. You can set up a system of laws for Iraq and hold elections, but the local population is surly and uncooperative and at any moment is liable to revert to fighting amongst themselves. Why anyone would want the burden of governing such a country is puzzling. But the US learned from its mistakes and hopefully IS can too.
And neither tactic seems to have worked particularly well.
All due respect Mr. Mussolini but the US has done more than “swap” tactics with terrorists.
In fact the US has literally manipulated and colluded with the various factions of “terrorist” groups to advance their empire building objective – retention of petro-dollar supremacy in World currency markets. This requires access to all Middle-Eastern Oil fields and reserves. The regimes of Syria and Iraq are critical as is the final objective, Iran.
Playing factions of Muslims against one another with CIA infiltration and assigning various names to the “terrorist” groups has been critical to promoting the “War on Terror.” War, as you know, is lucrative business for elite controllers, weapons and equipment manufacturers, politicians, and governments.
Anyway…IS grew out of Al Qaeda which has since spawned children by various names. Tony Cartalucci has addressed this matter in detail in many past articles.
Here is one which discusses US allies and use of IS terrorists:
“US Aggression Drags World into Age of Global Anarchy”
http://rinf.com/alt-news/editorials/us-aggression-drags-world-age-global-anarchy/
“Without a UN mandate or even a cohesive narrative, the United States and its regional allies have begun unilaterally bombing targets in Syria. Together with Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar – the very sponsors of extremists groups fighting inside of Syria, including the Islamic State, its offshoot al Nusra, and other Al Qaeda aligned factions – the US has opened a new chapter on global anarchy.”
the point you are missing is that ISIS is actually popular compared to the US
The Party’s three main slogans–WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH–are begging to make sense.
Day by day, bomb by bomb. General Wesley Clark’s revelations are coming true. Yes, the timing has been delayed a bit for the MIC’s plans, but that is because of brave American’s like Greenwald, other alternative media outlets, and our US military saying no. We still have a lot of work to do exposing these war mongers however…
Clark’s revelations:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166
Nice post Mr. Liberty.
Succinct and to the point.
Perhaps this article will help with “exposing” the real war mongers:
“Engineering Empire: An Introduction to the Intellectuals and Institutions of American Imperialism”
http://www.hamptoninstitution.org/engineeringempire.html#.VArNoGNgjyU
“Educating yourself about empire can be a challenging endeavor, especially since so much of the educational system is dedicated to avoiding the topic or justifying the actions of imperialism in the modern era. If one studies political science or economics, the subject might be discussed in a historical context, but rarely as a modern reality; media and government voices rarely speak on the subject, and even more rarely speak of it with direct and honest language. Instead, we exist in a society where institutions and individuals of power speak in coded language, using deceptive rhetoric with abstract meaning. We hear about ‘democracy’ and ‘freedom’ and ‘security,’ but so rarely about imperialism, domination, and exploitation.”
Well worth the read.
Thanks for the lead Lyra.
Check out this doc when you have time. An excellent film that supplements the book you suggested I bet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8ERfxWouXs
Article* not book sorry!
Linked here from Facebook. At “The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed,” I started think, “wow, this guy/gal’s an idiot if he/she’s unfamiliar with the AUMF,” which, whether you think it’s a good idea or not (I don’t really think it is) is sufficient “legal authority” for the current action. “Who could be dumb enough to write this?”
[Scrolls up]
“BY GLENN GREENWALD”
Oh.
Obama needs to keep Kardashian Nation distracted from the fact that the US economy is a complete and total house of cards on the verge of collapse. He thinks ISIS is bad? Wait till Food Stamps stop cashing and cable goes dead.
“What makes us omniscient? Have we a record of omniscience? We are the strongest nation in the world today. I do not believe that we should ever apply that economic, political, and military power unilaterally. If we had followed that rule in Vietnam, we wouldn’t have been there. None of our allies supported us. Not Japan, not Germany, not Britain or France. If we can’t persuade nations with comparable values of the merit of our cause, we’d better reexamine our reasoning.”
[The Fog of War]
And some more on that point:
“Big Lies Launch Lawless Wars”
http://www.thepeoplesvoice.org/TPV3/Voices.php/2014/09/25/big-lies-launch-lawless-wars
“All wars are based on lies. Big ones launch them. They’re based on deception.
What worked throughout history applies more than ever now. Instant communications facilitate war-making.
Managed news misinformation circulates with electronic ease. Propaganda wars precede hot ones.
They reflect deception, popular fiction and Big Lies. They repeat with disturbing regularity.
Ordinary people are carpet-bombed round-the-clock. Truth is systematically buried.
Washington’s imperial war machine is humanity’s greatest threat. It rages out-of-control.
It targets one country after another. It ravages and destroys them.
It leaves tens of millions dead, wounded and/or displaced. It turns nations into dystopian wastelands.
Throughout its sordid history, America glorified wars in the name of peace. They’re waged against invented enemies.
They include mass slaughter and destruction. America refined the art of killing. It’s more able to lay waste to vast areas than any nation in history.”
I second Dabney.
Very nice quote.
What do you all make of the anti-terrorism resolution the U.N. Security Council passed – with the Pres. presiding?
`felinexvi
.. a distraction.
[snip]
Back here at home, the dispute over the Senate Intelligence Committee report on Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) torture, a hot button issue earlier this year, has also benefited, largely disappearing from sight. The meticulously researched Senate report, covering 6000 pages and including 35,000 footnotes, apparently concluded that torturing terrorist suspects was not only illegal under the United Nations Convention on Torture, to which Washington is a signatory, it was also ineffective, producing no intelligence that was otherwise unobtainable.
Since a “forgive and forget” forward-looking White House has already indicated that no one will ever be punished for illegal actions undertaken in the wake of 9/11, why is the torture issue important beyond the prima facie case that a war crime that was authorized by the highest levels of the federal government? It is important because of its constitutional implications and its impact on rule of law in the United States, which is again being flouted by the Administration in its rush to “destroy” ISIS, which is little more than a terrorist group du jour being exploited to terrify the American public. The constitutional issue, in its simplest terms, is that the CIA works for the president and when it operates without legally mandated oversight by the legislative branch and judiciary it does so in defiance of separation of powers, making the Agency little better than a secret army run by POTUS.’
-Mr Philip Giraldi
http://www.unz.com/article/senate-torture-report-vanishes/
Hi Suave –
Distraction du jour, eh? Yes, I’ll buy that TPTB are only too willing to distract us from these underlying issues. And most folks, it seems are too busy trying to survive or too propagandized to dig any deeper. Besides, things like Constitutional rights, rule of law, separation of powers are so abstract, aren’t they?
Thanks for the excerpt from Mr.. Giraldi’s article; he really lays it out. If I have a moment and remember, I’ll check out the entire article.
BTW – seeing ’16’ in Roman numerals was pretty cool…
@ feline16:
It means that the “Pres” has full UN backing for the never-ending proxy “War on Terror” which is being waged for the same reason that all wars are: profit acquisition for the few at the expense of the many.
Also…the words: Infinite quantities of bullshit deception – come to mind.
See Froomkin’s new post:
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/froomkin/
Thanks avelna2001.
Hi Lyra1 –
Full U. N. backing for the “War on Terror”, eh? You would think the U. N. would be more cognizant, but I guess not – we probably hold too much power there still..
And the idea that wars are for profit…. can’t say I’m surprised after knowing even a bit of history… but it still makes me shake my head in dismay. Won’t we ever learn?
To David –
I couldn’t reply to your reply, so I’ll reply here! Thanks for replying and sharing lots of interesting thoughts. I think your first paragraph is particularly on point.
Have to agree – we Americans all need each other (BTW: my Mother said so!)
feline16 – We must have the same Mother. That makes us sister and brother.
My/Our Mother says we are all family.
Nice to meet you, bro. Indeed, we all are family. Mom is ALWAYS right!
Horrifying? Yes. Surprising? No.
Pelosi & Co. refused to impeach Bush because doing so would have negated all the glorious precedents he set for illegal and perpetual war, the expansion of the surveillance state, and the consolidation of executive power. The Democrats’ nefarious intentions were painfully obvious the moment they took Bush’s impeachment “off the table”.
So here we sit. And the next administration — whether it’s Democrat or Republican — will take it all a few steps further still.
It’s 2 minutes to midnight. Where do we go from here?
Yeah
My comments have not been posting. How about this one?
Hmmm. In many ways, this so-called allied offensive against the recently created Islamic State almost feels like a much larger Islamic version of the Spanish Civil War. If this comparison is correct, the outcome will reshape the gas and oi-rich Middle East in ways that could crush many major global economies and, further, is a probable precursor to a much larger conflagration — just as the Spanish Civil War was a military and political testing ground for the Second World War in Europe.
They have gone off the deep end. The only scenario that makes even twisted sense is they can’t stop the wars or the economy will collapse. Twisted as that might be at least there is some reasoning going on in their insane minds. Or perhaps there is no reason, twisted or otherwise, to be bombing yet another ME country. I have written emails several times a week to our illustrious congress and probably the only thing accomplished is getting on a terrorist watch list. I know others here are having similar experiences to mine. The populace seems to be in a fog and could care less about our insane world. People are more interested in their FB page and Twitter with no thought to the greater world around them. I’m discouraged and disappointed by these people but I can’t stop protesting and speaking out and I’ll continue the emails unless someone can tell me what else to do. I can’t just sit around and do nothing. How about y’all?
We have clearly “gone off the deep end”, as you say and, speaking to this point, Cointelpro-style ops are in full-swing on U.S. soil. For some good information, please check out http://FightGangStalking.com. (The phrase “gang stalking” — probably invented by the feds — is all wrapped up in “crazy”, but the site tells the truth about what’s happening in the good, old US of A.) Good, decent, law-abiding folks are being targeted. And it must be stopped.
re: Corey Robin’s piece on sovereignty (h/t TallyGoHound)
http://coreyrobin.com/2014/09/18/barack-obamas-upside-down-schmittianism/
Aaron Bady, also writing about sovereignty, captured this dynamic in existential terms
http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/the-sovereign-double-standard
The brinkmanship of law, in of itself, defines its parameters.
http://electronicintifada.net/blogs/rania-khalek/obama-cites-israeli-supreme-court-justify-killing-americans-without-trial
Empire is the context. “Humanitarianism” is out of context.
oops, that should be h/t TallyHoGazehound
https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/#comment-78544
BenjaminAP – extremely well formulated and documented post. Thank you.
Thanks. Three links so I wasn’t positive it was going to show up.
I also like this Kierkegaard quote on sovereignty, he kinda turns it on it’s head..
Hard to be humble with a gun, if ya know what I mean.
Kierkegaard has it right, we must teach with humility and a real understanding of what others realities are; and interestingly I found the same sentiments echoed by retired CENTCOM Commander General Anthony Zinni a few days ago while he was plugging a new book on The Daily Show. In case you missed it:
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/extended-interviews/knk3nr/tony-zinni-extended-interview
A Salon story that parallels this one, and worth a read.
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/24/lies_the_media_repeats_about_iraq_phony_patriotism_fake_syrian_moderates_and_the_very_real_end_of_empire/
Interesting quote: “‘We will not allow geography or borders to prevent us from taking action,’ Secretary of State Kerry remarked a few hours after the bombing in Syria began late Monday.” If we don’t bomb them in Syria, we’ll be bombing them in Dearborn, that what you mean?
Mary had a little lamb,
It followed her to school,
A Raptor also followed them
And blew them all to Poole.
— Coram Nobis’ “It Could Be Verse”
Email
56
Comment
65
Share on Google+
America’s establishment is apparently unhinged. Too bad the Republicans make the Democrats look better, since both groups are apparently mad as hatters:
“The administration’s response to the conjunction of this weekend’s People’s Climate March and the International Day of Peace? 1) Bomb Syria the following day, to wrest control of the oil from ISIS which gained its foothold directly in the region through the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Jordan funding and arming ISIS’ predecessors in Syria. 2) Send the president to UN General Assembly, where he will inevitably give a rousing speech about climate and peace, while the destruction of the environment and the shattering of world peace is on full display 5,000 miles away.” (Dennis Kucinich)
*The Real Reason We Are Bombing Syria*
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dennis-j-kucinich/syria-isis-war_b_5869964.html
I would gladly vote for the “Mad Hatter.”
Unlike these war criminals, he had a creative sense of style and was not heartless.
Authoritarianism is evil.
Once more: Authoritarianism is evil.
Okay, one more time: Authoritarianism is evil.
Got that? It could be your religion, your country, your parents, your spouse… Of course, then, you should not fight this evil with authoritarianism of your own! Coming up with more diplomatic and inclusive measures than imposed force, coercion, is precisely the basic challenge of human existence still unanswered and now your responsibility.
Remember please that authoritarianism is evil.
It will help you better understand the articles here, and the sincere movements of your own heart.
THE FALL OF EMPIRE
“Empires bomb who they want, when they want, for whatever reason.”
Empires come and go. We all will witness the Out Going of an empire.
Change is on the way.
A new civilization that respects the dignity of each and every person on planet Earth is unfolding right NOW.
Be Ready. Get Ready. Have no Fear. Stay Calm. Help educate people. Do the right thing. Things are about to happen.
God Bless Everyone
I was with you until “God Bless”.
PRICKNICK, If you like How about – The Source, The Creator, The Mother/Father God, or what ever you like, but the the Blessing sticks.
Language is not perfect and does not always reflect the heart and soul of each one of us.
The most important thing is that we learn to listen with our heart. The brain breaks language and ideas into little pieces and once you do that you loose the wholeness and essence of what is being communicated.
Just Blessings
WELCOME TO PLANET GREENWALD
Please Do Not Remove Your Wisdom Mask. The Air Is Filled With Deceptive Particles.
I usually expect a tougher challenge from Mr. Greenwald. This one is so low that I feel he may be just disrespecting the readers’ intelligence. However, I give him credits for using a few facts in his argument. For instance, the title is correct. I would just add “…2009 Nobel Peace Laureate Saving More Muslims.” because the targets of these bombings have been organizations that have killed hundreds if not thousands of fellow Muslims. There is nothing shocking with that deceptive title. Mr Greenwald has always been more anti American than pro Muslims the same way he is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian. Let’s review the other misleading points of his flawed article.
” Empires bomb who they want …for whatever reason”.
I am still wondering which one of the seven countries he is referring to support this statement. It cannot be Afghanistan because the “Empire” specifically targets the Taliban, which has been directly responsible for killing thousands of civilians (mostly Muslims) by sheltering terrorist organizations when it was in power and by completely ignoring the civilian population when targeting foreign forces. 74% of civilian casualties (8,615) in Afghanistan in 2013 was due to the Taliban and its allies while 4% was due to the international forces!
http://www.unama.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=12254&ctl=Details&mid=15756&ItemID=37692&language=en-US
Moreover, since the “Empire” started bombing Afghanistan in 2001, 5,7 million Afghan refugees went back to their country. WOW there must be something good about that bombing. Why so many refugees are going back home while their country is being bombed by the “Empire”?
http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4f9016576.html
So, maybe Mr. Greenwald, just maybe, the “Empire” bombs Afghanistan to kill Taliban members who have openly supported and helped terrorist acts against not only the “Empire”, but also other predominantly Muslim countries. Again Mr. Greenwald, maybe these bombings are not careless and done for “whatever reasons”.
About Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. Is Mr Greenwald referring to these countries? No, it cannot be because in Pakistan the “Empire” uses drones to target the Pakistani Taliban and its affiliates (yes, those who tried to kill a 12 years old girl in a school bus because she believes in education). In Somalia, the “Empire” targets Al Shabaab, (yes, those who tried to kill as many civilians as possible at the Wesgate Mall in Kenya). In Yemen, the “Empire” targets AQAP (yes, the organization that attempted to blow up a Northwest Airlines on Christmas Day 2009). Maybe Mr. Greenwald, the “Empire” bombs these groups because the countries in which they are located are unable to stop them (Somalia, Yemen) or unwilling to face them (Pakistan).
About Irak? Definitely not. Because in Irak, the “Empire” is bombing ISIS at the request of the elected government of Irak that specifically states it cannot destroy ISIS alone. I wonder how many Muslims ISIS has killed so far? Maybe we can get a count by looking at the videos of the ones it has been executed publicly for being Shia Muslims!
Maybe Libya in 2011? No, because the “Empire” targeted the Gaddafi regime in order to protect civilians under threat of attack (by the Libyan government) following United Nation Security Resolution 1973 requiring member to take ALL NECESSARY MEASURES. Is Mr. Greenwald suggesting the Libyan intervention was a disaster because a dictator was removed from power or because different tribes in that country are unable to negotiate between each other after the departure of the dictator? I am not sure whether the “Empire” should take the blame for the inability of tribes that are older than the “Empire” to get together and solve their differences.
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/1973%20(2011)&Lang=E
Maybe Syria? Again, that would not make sense because the “Empire” is not bombing the Assad regime that has used chemical weapons against its own people. The “Empire” is bombing ISIS that is responsible for the displacement of 140,000 refugees to Turkey in one week!!
http://www.unhcr.org/54214ed19.html.
Let’s see another point. “Six weeks of bombing hasn’t budged ISIS in Iraq”. Mr. Greenwald should have gone to Mosul before he made that statement. Or he should have just embedded himself with a Kurdish battalion fighting around Irbil, or simply talked to the Yazidis. I am just assuming that Mr. Greenwald did not get the proper information, because he would not try to misinform his readers, would he?
Mr Greenwald, I am getting very close at calling you a complete ignorant of Middle Eastern politics. I suggest you start reviewing history textbooks to understand that anti Western sentiment in that region is hundreds years older than the American Revolution. While American and European interventions in that region through religious crusades, political supports, military coups, unfair oil contracts and other illegal activities have always been used as recruitment tools, the anti western sentiment is rooted in deep religious beliefs. Moreover, you need to be more consistent with your outrage that is quite invisible whenever these extremist groups are openly and proudly killing civilians most of whom are Muslim.
Although humanitarian interventions such as Kosovo in 1999, Sierra Leone in 2000, Pakistan Kashmir 2005-06, Haiti in 2010, and Uganda 2014 (search for Kony) are rare I am wondering whether Mr Greenwald feels bad for the Taliban, ISIS, Al Shabaab, or AQAP whenever the “Empire” or anybody else bombs them.
Let the UN declare every state, border disputes or no, to be members of the ICC just by asking. Honest brokers need to sort out all the nonsense, but now that includes all former heads of state who are accused of war crimes. How would you feel about Bush/Cheney/Blair being extradited to the Hague?
Blah blah blah
I would be ashamed if I would have an American citizenship
Just because of Steb? I doubt he is a U.S. citizen. In fact, “I am getting very close at calling [Steb] a complete ignorant of [American] politics.”
I’m guessing Steb lives in NY but has loyalties “elsewhere”
Ditto.
I think you should challenge the contents of my comments and stop worrying about my citizenship. Again, if any of you are incapable of challenging my opinion, then fee free to ignore them.
“……I usually expect a tougher challenge from Mr. Greenwald. This one is so low that I feel he may be just disrespecting the readers’ intelligence…..”
This article is ridiculously bad by Greenwald standards – but you have to remember the primary readership of the Intercept (oh, how Fox News viewers are criticized by the left, but what’s the difference?).
“…..Mr Greenwald has always been more anti American than pro Muslims the same way he is more anti Israel than pro Palestinian……”
True for many if not most of his principle readers.
Good comments, Steb.
You and Steb need to get a room.
Maybe you are unable to state anything intelligent, but you could at least try.
They are both at this moment in the blue and white room with a six pointed star on the ceiling.
I do not understand your points Dahoit. Are we supposed to be upset whenever you reply with your childish comments? Are we supposed to go at your level and provide similar responses? I suggest you use your brain and your time in a more intelligent manner. Millions of people have been displaced, thousands have been massacred (some of them live online), criminals are now proud of kidnapping kids to make them slaves. So (assuming that you care), be useful and provide some analysis on how the most powerful countries can change or improve their foreign policies because these countries do have the ability to at least reduce the madness in the world. If you cannot, I would not blame you, then ignore those who do want to share their ideas.
I think there are two extremes represented here. On the one side – no matter how much I enjoy Greenwald – no, I don’t think it’s a matter of the US simply bombing whoever it wants whenever it wants, I consider that deliberately bombastic language (I mean, it’s not like people read his work in order to bask in the polite understated restraint of it all). On the other, your logic seems to be something like “Well of course you should bomb people when bad things are happening!” By that logic, if I see a parent slap a defenseless child in the supermarket, I’m quite justified in running them over with my car in the parking lot, because hey, that was *bad. Now, I do think the US has acted with good intent in the scenarios you mention, and the best way for us to *show that good intent is to show that we learn from our past mistakes. If something had consequences that we couldn’t foresee the first time around, and we care (which I think we do) about building a stronger global community, of course we will try to mitigate those consequences the next time.
As to this paragraph:
“Mr Greenwald, I am getting very close at calling you a complete ignorant of Middle Eastern politics. I suggest you start reviewing history textbooks to understand that anti Western sentiment in that region is hundreds years older than the American Revolution. While American and European interventions in that region through religious crusades, political supports, military coups, unfair oil contracts and other illegal activities have always been used as recruitment tools, the anti western sentiment is rooted in deep religious beliefs. Moreover, you need to be more consistent with your outrage that is quite invisible whenever these extremist groups are openly and proudly killing civilians most of whom are Muslim.”
I’m not sure what your specific referent in the article is? This seems to be the (by now) familiar to me “You don’t get it – that’s just how Muslims are!” line of thinking. But even if you believe in your heart of hearts that they are simply going to hate us because of their Muslim-ness – again, I don’t see what that has to do with the above article. Judgements of whether or not you think a foreign policy is a good idea shouldn’t rely on your personal regard for the people it’s aimed at.
Can you describe any mistakes that “we” have learned from over the past (let’s say) forty-five years?
The fact that you phrase the question that way makes me suspect very strongly that a) Your answer is “No there are none!!” and b) That being the case, you’ve already made up your mind and it would be pointless to talk about it. I do think we have made progress – progress and new mistakes, no doubt – in foreign policy over the last almost fifty years, and you can hardly say our foreign policy hasn’t progressed in almost half a century. But if I talk about increased ability in negotiating trade agreements I suspect you will start talking about elites, if I talk about procedures to minimize civilian casualties you’ll likely tell me how Orwellian that all is.
I think we would both agree foreign policy has *changed in the last half century, how about that? From there, you can subjectively interpret it however you want, and again, I’m pretty sure we would just see it differently. I think that, again, as we become stronger in one area, as with many things in life, we move on to another where we start making all new mistakes – but I do think we learn from them eventually.
This is an excellent observation. The US leads the world in innovation and making mistakes is no exception to this general rule. In fact, the rate at which the US thinks up new mistakes and puts them into practice is probably without parallel in history. This is a good thing, since on average you must make 100 mistakes before striking on something new which actually works. I just made this up, but you get the idea; the more mistakes you make, the more progress you make. The only caveat is they must truly be new mistakes; repeating the same ones over and over doesn’t count as progress.
Yes Nic, I have a pov. As do you. I’m provoking yours because it doesn’t make sense to me. You say “we care”, and have logically deduced this based on the American capacity to “learn from our mistakes”. So you’re establishing the compound intent of a Leviathan security complex, an immense clusterfuck of externalized motivations, and characterizing it as “caring”. OK, the way I see it, a cursory read of the last half century, hell the last 12 years, belies that notion. So yes, I’m asking you for examples where the patterns are improving, as opposed to reinforcing and repeating themselves.
“You say “we care”, and have logically deduced this based on the American capacity to “learn from our mistakes”.”
Could you kindly point out where I said this? What I recall saying is that if we care (which I think we do) we *will show this by learning from our mistakes. I believe I used the future tense. As to the rest, I defer to my earlier post. No example I give you will be adequate, so why bother? If *you think no such example exists, and you know some cursory history, I think we’ve already established this.
I am referring to the part of the article in which he states military intervention is the main creator of enemies of the USA in that region. Of course, extremist groups will always use Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib to recruit more jihadists. However, a basic understanding of the multiple interpretations of Islam would help you understand that the hate for western culture is deeper and older than all military interventions the West has done in that area. You need to wonder why wealthy Saudis or even Qataris are financing extremist groups in Mali or Somalia or possibly Nigeria. Those extremist groups are killing local inhabitants who have probably never seen a US soldier. Do we stop these groups from .kidnapping school girls to make slaves or we do not intervene
Do we stop these groups from kidnapping school girls to make them slaves or we do not intervene because they will use our intervention to recruit more jihadists?
Hmmm – maybe this is a nitpick on my part, but in the paragraph I think you’re referring to the word he actually uses is ‘strengthens’ (twice), which to me has different connotations than ‘main creator’. To my mind you can’t ‘strengthen’ something that doesn’t already exist, after all. So I guess I interpret this one differently than the way you’re reading it.
Yeah, you’re right. Greenwald loves ISIS. We all do. We’re terrorist-lovers, all of us. Loser.
Hint: whenever you see someone use “Planet _____” they’re aping Alan Dershowitz’s lame rhetoric — “Planet Chomsky.” Tells you about all you need to know.
You did not even challenge my points, but yet you describe me as a loser. You say more about your lack of understanding than about me. You are the perfect target for Mr. Greenwald. An individual without the simple ability to analyze others’ opinions. Feel free to ignore my comments if you do not possess the elementary intellect to comprehend them.
Think the United States couldn’t get any more disgustingly evil than bombing without warrant or legality? Try governmental tweeting of pictures of the resulting corpses. How do you like that, my fellow Americans?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2768554/State-Department-tweets-photos-four-dead-ISIS-jihadis-battle-hearts-minds-ratchets-UN-Security-Council-wins-pledge-prosecute-foreign-fighters.html
I am amazed at how insane we humans can be; insisting on using violence despite the repeated observation that more violence ONLY begets MORE VIOLENCE. If America is so brave and amazing why does it wage war with “enemies” that are 7,000 to 10,000 miles away? WHy does it wage war with people who do not have an air force or gun factory? Why does it wage war with people who can barely afford a plane ticket? Why does it wage war with poor people? The answer is super simple. It is not “waging war” instead it is in the process of waging “murder” of people they do not want getting in the way of their resource theft around the world. The green movement, if stirred right, could be the solution to the problem for Americans who actually LOVE our country but unfortunately the green movement has been hijacked by the gray industry. Sad.
Rule One in international law is the sovereignty of nations. Invasion or attacks not allowed unless in self-defence or to prevent genocide, the latter with UN agreement.
Obama’s constitutional authorities vs Congress are almost irrelevant. The whole gang wants war almost always. Democrats, Republicans. Doesn’t matter.
Imagine. Seven Muslim nations attacked, invaded, occupied and often destroyed by Bush and Obama alone. Seven and counting. Plus what the CIA et al do secretly, which is horribly plenty.
It still throws me how the US and NATO perverted its limited UN mandate in Libya to essentially assassinate Ghadafi. Nice mess they left.
And my doesn’t all this hell-raising nicely justify the total surveillance state here at home. Aren’t the corporate media chipping in nicely too – scaring the hell out of us.
It’s surreal. Looks like we’re trying to take on 1.6 billion Muslims. While the voters who put these global goons in office nod off.
Very simplistic analysis. Check the seven countries on a case by case basis
Iraq, Afghanistan, invaded and occupied. Tens of millions killed, maimed, displaced. Countries destroyed and living on sheds of humanity left.
Libya deliberately destroyed. How smart was that?
Obama’s ongoing drone attacks against whomever (Muslim) he chooses? That’s an act of war and murder. History books have to record this guy as a monster.
This is crazy what is going on and the guys calling the shots better listen up.
Intervention against genocide:
Should we have intervened in Iraq when Saddam was using chemical weapons against the Kurds?
Invading Iraq in 2003 was wrong, but do you feel bad for the Saddam Hussein?
I do not feel bad for the dictator, but I do have some concerns for the civilians who are still dying. However, I know and you should know that most of them who died and are still dying are victims of old sectarian conflicts that have nothing to do with America.
Afghanistan
You need to review political, economic, healthcare, and human rights reports on Afghanistan before you state that it has been destroyed by the USA. If you believe that your statement is correct, then you have to explain why so many refugees have returned after the US intervention.
Yes, one can dissemble, as you do, about any situation.
Assange says Guardian gave a quarter-million Wiki cables to Mossad.
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2014/09/did-guardian-give-251000-wikileaks.html
The Guardian is dead,as far as a real antiwar and truth seeking org.
Propaganda via social media:
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-us-brought-its-islamic-state-bombing-to-social-media-1
Although the US forces do have to worry about friendly fire on social media.
http://blogs.militarytimes.com/battle-rattle/2014/08/28/15th-and-13th-marine-expeditionary-units-launch-twitter-war/
I don’t remember the IDF Twitter feed being this dissonant.
Mr Greenwald,
Why don’t you write to Mr Al Bagdadi and ask him to stop beheading our people? With your influence maybe you can finally bring some peace.
We live so far apart. We have nothing to do with them nor they with us. So why they provoke us to fight when they know only we will ever win when there is a fight. Downright stupid and uneducated they are. Why don’t you educate them, Mr Greenwald? We are itching to fight, no point in trying to pacify or ridicule us like you are doing.
H
‘Our people’. Saudi Arabia, our ally, beheads more folks in a month than any muslim group has beheaded whites, or Christians.
Oh, right, they’re brown…don’t matter.
So you despised Bush, and now you hate Obama. Who do you like in 2016? Plausible contenders only, please.
Plausible contenders only, please.
People who limit the event horizon for their own lives shouldn’t presume to do so for others.
Pedinska — Your reply is to Roger Lodger quite sufficiently communicates what needed to be communicated . I was about to write something similar, only not at all like that. I was heading more into something like, ‘F’off, Roger Lodger’.
Kashama Sawant interview with Dennis Trainor. (Nearly seven minutes). She is impressive. And on the subject of electoral politics; she puts that into almost perfect perspective–in the scheme of things.
“……Your reply is to Roger Lodger quite sufficiently communicates what needed to be communicated . I was about to write something similar, only not at all like that. I was heading more into something like, ‘F’off, Roger Lodger’…..”
That’s what you are good at, Kitt. Certainly not logical arguments.
By “plausible contender”, you mean a candidate backed by corporate folks, correct?
Beheading is faster than injection people and causing them pain. The end result is the same.
We need to bomb North Korea next as they have actually threatened us with fake nukes. At least Mr Greenwald cannot say we are partial to any religion.
How about we write”Take this you fat little dictator”on your forehead when we drop you on them.
ISIS will criticize and threaten the USA as well as harm/murder its people because they are ideologically opposed to the existence of the USA, they are opposed to its foreign policy, and they want to draw in recruits. As Greenwald points out, when the US or any foreign power inserts its military into another country (either troops or any type of attack, such as air strikes) the group or groups it is attempting to oust from power almost always gains recruitment. From other articles I’ve read, ISIS has had the problem of people under their control generally disliking them. This is not just because ISIS is a terrible group but because most of its members are not from the places they are fighting in so areas in Iraq under ISIS control are really being occupied by ISIS and the locals perceive them as occupiers. The only provocation from a radical group that I can recall that actually led to a drop in a radical group’s numbers was 9/11; from reading I’ve done in the past (a couple of years ago) I’ve heard that many al-Qaeda members actually thought that killing thousands of people at once in a horrible and fiery explosion went too far. Obviously not enough for the entire group to disband, but it changed the group’s demeanor.
At times, a college freshman level debate is the right path… so…
At what point does the world consider debating “enlightened colonialism”? Yes, we are going in, and yes we are doing it on purpose, now we start building schools and courthouses and desalinization plants for farms, yes, we will use your oil to pay for it, and yes we are well aware of the potential for corruption and abuse thanks to previous centuries, and it’s true the USA JUST FAILED (so far) at this in Iraq and Afghanistan, and we don’t know how to deal with fundamentalism domestically let alone anywhere else. And the UN’s track record of peace keeping is… mediocre.
But we’ll (the US) set up voluntary oversight with our friends the Brits, French, and Germans… or invite the Germans to take the lead and we’ll do the accounting… as I write this unicorns are hanging out with me watching the rainbows shooting out of my screen, but what other options are there?
Failed states are an existential threat to the world. Staying away from failed states simply enables sub-human survival of the fittest warlord campaigns that chase the holy grail of power. Any victors in failed states inevitably use a combination of extremist premodern patriarchal ideologies and unspeakable brutality which still leads to exporting an existential threat to the world at worst, and at best generations of terrible abuse of an unlucky majority.
Premodern theocratic states are also an existential threat to the world, but constant ongoing diplomacy with the Irans of the world is the vastly preferred solution, war against these types of states is a terrible idea.
Choosing to stay away from states that have failed and creating an uber surveillance world and becoming super paranoid to deal with the rare but inevitable and potentially devastating pre modern value system attacks on the modern world simply encourages fascism and severe loss of freedom of expression and creativiity in the developed world.
A sidebar: US is deploying a division headquarters to Iraq, according to the Army Times.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS08/309230066/Army-chief-Division-headquarters-will-deploy-soon-Iraq
“It’s unclear how many soldiers will be sent, or how long they will deploy. Division headquarters average between 100 and 500 soldiers and deploy for one year,” says the story. Of course, a division headquarters exists to command a division, which could involve a number of maneuver battalions and maybe 16,000 people, but OK.
More from Army Times.
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS/309230058/Attacks-Syria-beginning-sustained-war-Pentagon-says
At least someone’s being frank about it.
What better way to mark the centennial of the War to End All Wars? And we won’t be back till it’s over Over There.
As a German EUROPEAN and also a nobel peace laureate (2012) I can´t see any problem with Baracks prize.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2012
The Nobel Peace Prize 2012 was awarded to European Union (EU) “for over six decades contributed to the advancement of peace and reconciliation, democracy and human rights in Europe”.
We should parse this. The Nobel prizes commemorate Alfred Nobel, the inventor of dynamite. And to tell a little secret, what Mr. Obama got was the Nobel Piece prize, for the use of explosives to blow the most people into the most pieces in the most places. No low-tech beheadings for him, no sirree, but the latest word in bugsplat. Not only are we in Syria for the first time, but this was the grand opening for the F-22 Raptor, according to Army Times, and our first attack on the Khorasan Group (which sounds like a Wall Street investment bank, but I digress).
http://www.armytimes.com/article/20140923/NEWS/309230058/Attacks-Syria-beginning-sustained-war-Pentagon-says
Now are we clear?
Not only are we in Syria for the first time, but this was the grand opening for the F-22 Raptor,
The risks you mentioned have been reviewed. The consequences of not doing anything have also been reviewed. Mexico is not a good example to support your point because 1) the Mexican authorities are fighting the Zetas with their own military forces. 2) the DEA, the FBI, the CIA and the US military have been helping the Mexican government to fight the drug cartels.
What is your point? Are we supposed to feel bad for ISIS because the US is bombing them?
No, it’s just that if we wanted a live-fire exercise for our new toys, we can always use Aberdeen or Yuma proving grounds. And this was supposed to be a war on ISIS, not this new group. Thing is, we need to know what our mission is to begin with, and Obama is using the original 2001-2003 war authorizations to expand the war into Somalia, Yemen, Syria and maybe other places. Mission creep. Used to be that if Congress declared war, or authorized some imitation of it, we knew what enemy and what land area we were dealing with.
It’s what they used to teach us in Command & General Staff Course, that principles of war include objectives (clear ones) and mass (not dissipation of effort). And of course there’s irony in that the Nobel Peace Prize laureate has morphed into being Thor, God of Thunder. Hope and change it ain’t.
if the ‘the imitation of it’ can be decided retroactively, I don’t think it’s mission creep anymore.. it seems like it’s just “the misson”. Congress can refer to arbitrary borders and authorize the use of force within them, at their leisure. So that’s nice.
The mission is to disrupt and destroy Al Qaida and its allies. The mission regarding ISIS is the same. Disrupt and destroy ISIS and its allies. In the UK, in France, in Indonesia, in Germany …there are law enforcement agencies that apprehend Al Qaida suspects and there is a proper judicial system that can determine whether they are guilty or not. So, there is no need for military operations in these countries. In Somalia or Yemen, the governments have made it clear they are unable to fight Al Qaida alone. So, the US use drones to target those terrorists in those countries. In Iraq the US is using military force at the request of the elected government of Iraq that has made it clear to the world it is unable to fight ISIS alone. The use of advanced weaponry has greatly reduced civilian casualties. So, if your primary concern is the death of innocent civilians, which I doubt since you are against bombing an organization whose past time is to proudly kill civilians, then you should actually praise the use of the Raptor that has more precise guided systems.
The worry is (a) that we don’t get inextricably involved, (b) that we don’t commit forces we may need elsewhere and (c) that the mission is in fact what they say it is. A precision weapon is all very well, but it requires some form of intel as to what and where are its targets. It may also, by eliminating these groups, aid other interests in the area, including Assad’s government and the Shiite (i.e., Iranian-backed) interests in the region, and “the enemy of my enemy” isn’t necessarily our friend.
The Zetas in Mexico also kill civilians, engage in beheadings and pose a security threat to the US but these same criteria don’t seem to justify US military action there — however well-targeted.
The Americans used to need elaborate frauds like the weapons of mass distraction in Iraq; Colin Powell had to sell the lies; the U.S. Congress had to approve the attack, a masquerade of democracy like that. Today there’s only one lie needed – a fucking toothpaste – so the Americans could gleefully condone ravaging of yet another country and killing God knows how many innocent civilians.
I could not care about the fascist government, the murderous Nobel Peace Price winning puppet installed in the White House or the corporate interest in making a buck or two anymore. All I care about is the despicable, impotent, cowardly nation that STILL approves mass murder and rejoices when its bloodthirsty rulers go on another murdering rampage. (for decades and decades)
The U.S. government and its beloved dear leader (“murderous puppet”) would NOT be able to keep killing all over the world if the Americans would tell them NOT to kill and maim and destroy. Do not ask for whom the funeral bells in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan… toll – they toll for the American lost soul.
Andrew –
You said it! Agree 100%.
The empire’s consciousness of itself and its operations (in)visibly and conveniently mirrors a subconscious force, but of course this is only for pretenses of deniability and irresponsibility–the reality is that its teleology is one total consciousness, i.e. total awareness and total control and yet the model and modes of the human subconscious continue to have necessary uses, especially in its confabulatory interactions with the “bewildered” human “herd”.
lightbulb rises from skull: is he doing this to prove he’s not Muslim?
Glenn Greenwald: The Blairs now own 8 homes. Number of family members enlisted to fight in all the wars Tony advocates: zero [link omitted]
Nathan Fuller: How many would have to enlist to make advocating war justifiable?
Glenn Greenwald: It wouldn’t be justifiable no matter how many did. You completely missed the point: the ease of advocating wars w/no risks.
There can’t be any doubt about it: That’s essentially the same “chickenhawk slur” that Greenwald once considered “inane on its face”. He might quibble and say that the point of the chickenhawk slur was to deny a person’s right to an opinion (deny standing), but it comes down to the same thing: inane ad hominem instead of a real argument against the war. Coming from one who was once committed to making evidence-based rational arguments, this is very disappointing.
A broader search than I had previously performed turns up a total of five examples to add to the one today. It’s not about pointing out hypocrisy as Mona surmised – Greenwald really means it.
There are all kinds of decent, rational and sound arguments to be used against people advocating war, and the chickenhawk ad hominem is one of them. Not all rational arguments are about the truth of proposition X (apodictic reasoning). Ad hominem reasoning can reveal the equivocal nature of your opponent’s commitments, thereby weakening the strength of your (or others’) identification with them, along with your willingness to take what they say at face value. Then it becomes a spur to rational thought, not the other way around.
Furthermore, warfare has changed since 2005, when Greenwald called the argument “inane on its face,” and drone strikes and bombing are now supposed to be “the only game in town.” That means the risk is dramatically lessened for Americans advocating war because, unlike in 2005, large numbers of them are not being sent to fight. In 2005, the chicken hawk argument was used primarily against powerful leaders or influential media figures who advocate war in order to appear tough, without having to make any personal risk or sacrifice. In this case, Greenwald is using it against people who advocate a war that they think is just, but also relatively risk-free (pre-emptive, aerial warfare).
Just because Greenwald has started using a form of argument that in 2005 he considered “inane on its face” – but nonetheless valuable, if you actually read what he said about it – doesn’t mean its an invalid or non-rational argument. That someone now argues in a different way than they used to is hardly proof that they are not arguing rationally.
@WiseChoice – Comments that were submitted hours ago keep popping up. I think it took a full 8.5 hours for your reply to appear. I just noticed it now, and I don’t think I could have missed it all this time. Sorry, I’ll just have to let it stand, at least for tonight. Thanks.
Mr. Greenwald is saying that (1) our policy of endless war is self-evidently wrong-headed and (2) that the people who advocate endless war are (nearly to a person) people who will not fight in those wars.
I’m not sure why you think that’s an “ad hominen” attack.
If a doctor advocates everyone taking a certain medicine otherwise our society will face a serious health crisis, and when asked if he will be taking that medication says, “Of course not!” – that’s not advocating the doctor take the medicine he’s prescribing. That’s simply pointing out 2 wrongs.
“Ad hominem” doesn’t imply an attack; it’s a fallacy. Wikipedia: “An ad hominem (Latin for ‘to the man’ or ‘to the person'[1]), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument.” The point here is that one’s willingness to serve in the war that he’s supporting is irrelevant to the value of the argument he’s making in support of the war. Greenwald knew this back in 2005:
Any question about the significance of “never fought in one” versus “willing to fight in one” (there shouldn’t be) is answered by the two examples of the “chickenhawk slur” Greenwald linked to in the recent “Americans Now Fear ISIS Sleeper Cells…” column (item #6):
My intention isn’t to catch Greenwald up by comparing his opinion today to what he believed nine years ago. I’m only making this criticism because I believe he was clearly correct in 2005, and the “chickenhawk slur” really is “inane on its face”.
That analogy would only work if everyone were required to go to war for the war to be successful.
Americans Now Fear ISIS Sleeper Cells Are Living in the U.S., Overwhelmingly Support Military Action
Oh, it is anything but inane; it is potent and shaming, which is why those asked these questions do not like it one bit.
Ours is a “volunteer” armed services, in the sense that the great majority of enlistees are there for an education and/or job security. One seldom sees young people 18-25 signing up if they can pay for a ride to a respected college and then graduate to a well-compensated job.
We have the parents of those kids sending the less fortunate people’s children off to wars.
I object to a draft on civil libertarian grounds, but just barely. Conscription, with no educational deferments and the like, would add great clarity to the decision-making of those who decide for war.
Ok, so you’ve decided that Greenwald has changed his mind about the chickenhawk argument that he once considered inane on its face. (And so you’ve changed your mind also, or did you challenge him in 2005?) I first want to point out, that, back then, he was so dismissive of the chickenhawk “slur” (as he recently referred to it) that, in mid 2006, he actually redefined it:
So, he REALLY thought the original chickenhawk argument was completely worthless. And since then he’s apparently completely reversed his opinion.
As for “those asked these questions do not like it one bit”, I don’t see that in the tweets at all. Kory gave the perfect answer, the obvious answer, the same one Greenwald would have given in 2005-06. Daniel Harder’s reply is also quite effective. As for the rest of what you wrote, please see my followup below.
Barncat, could you not interpret GG as attacking the premise that isis is a threat? “If you believed what you say, then you would be expected to do X. You have not done X and therefore do not believe what you say.” That is modus tollens in form and suffers from the weak initial premise in this case (that if you think isis should die, then you would want to fight them), but it would technically be an argument rather than a fallacy, no?
“That analogy would only work if everyone were required to go to war for the war to be successful.”
No, the analogy is spot on. Like a doctor who recommends a necessary medicine that he himself would never take (and would oppose his family taking), the pundits & talking heads who vociferously argue for the need to start a war every few years (like buying a new car or new wardrobe) to send OTHERS into a battle that they would never fight in, is crucial to the stakes of US foreign policy in the 21st century.
If this was 60 years ago, before the US became an aggressor nation that routinely starts wars, then the argument about think tanks and pundits not needing to serve in war to support war might hold some weight. But US foreign policy today has been turned completely upside down. We have changed drastically from the nation that fought AGAINST aggressor nations in WWII. WE are the aggressor nation now! War is seen as a routine task of the US government – more routine than infrastructure repair or providing necessary services. And since US media steadfastly refuses to cover the images of the wars we start, the very idea of war for pundits to blithely say, “This is necessary”, carries no more weight in their lives than a chess game.
You’ve changed the analogy. You first said “a doctor advocates everyone taking a certain medicine” which is equivalent to advocating that everyone goes to war. Anyway… if a doctor were to argue that a certain percentage of the population (<100) must take a risky medication in order to avoid “a serious [public] health crisis”, but refuse to take the risk himself, that would in no way undercut whatever argument he is making for the necessity of the drug. That’s the point. I previously drew some analogies of my own here, if you’re interested. Note Pedinska’s reply.
Note Pedinska’s reply.
The following is the part of that reply that I considered most significant and/or pertinent:
@Pedinska –
I no longer think it’s a possibility that he’s pointing out hypocrisy or mocking anything or anyone. Looking at all those exchanges, it seems clear that he means exactly what he’s saying. “Yes, my solution is that able-bodied people screaming that ISIS must be chased to the gates of hell sign up to help do that” – he really means it. After first denying that he’s using the chickenhawk argument, then “guessing” that he’s using it to point out hypocrisy (both in a previous thread), Mona is now defending the chickenhawk argument as “potent and shaming” (neither of which contradict inane, btw). So, we can disagree on this point. Just about all the possibilities have been covered, I think. Only Greenwald can say what he has in mind. (I was recommending your reply mostly for the first paragraph.)
The idea that all ad hominem arguments are a fallacy is wrong, as philosopher Charles Taylor has so lucidly explained. It presumes that moral reasoning follows the same rules of validity as naturalistic apodeictic reasoning, rather than seeing it as a valid form of practical reason with its own, very different, purposes and standards of validity. Taylor offers a helpful example of such practical reasoning:
…
(from “Explanation and Practical Reason“)
The point is not that one can’t support a war without fighting (or being willing to fight) in one. Quite obviously, people do so all the time. Rather, the point is that one’s commitment to the cause of such a war may be substantially less than what one took it to be, before strong evaluation is applied to one’s own desires. (“Do you really want such a war? If so, what are you prepared to sacrifice for it?”)
Many children want to have a pet very intensely (and insist that is what they really want), until they are told what it involves, and that taking care of the pet will be their responsibility. Now, the point here is not that war is an individual responsibility, the way taking care of a pet (might be). The point is that war is not for children, nor is it to be waged by those who cannot reason morally.
Sorry for the incorrectly placed italics. For convenience’s sake, here’s my last paragraph again:
Many children want to have a pet very intensely (and insist that is what they really want), until they are told what it involves, and that taking care of the pet will be their responsibility. Now, the point here is not that war is an individual responsibility, the way taking care of a pet (might be). The point is that war is not for children, nor is it to be waged by those who cannot reason morally.
But the reality is that the great majority of people in the US today, when evaluating the cost of the war (against ISIS in Iraq and Syria) to themselves, do not have to consider the possibility that the cost may include their own lives. It’s true – this is a factor that makes it easier for most people to support a war. But that’s ultimately just another way of saying that the US’s overwhelming military superiority makes it easier to go to war. It’s only necessary for a small percentage of the population to be directly involved and risk there lives. So, what can be the point of asking “what are you prepared to sacrifice for it?” when it is known what sacrifice is actually required?
Let’s say someone says, “no, I would not support the war if I had to risk my own life, or the lives of my family members.” You seem to be arguing that that would demonstrate “that one’s commitment to the cause of such a war may be substantially less than what one took it to be”. But “commitment to the cause” has nothing to do with it. One who supports a war will argue that the benefits outweigh the costs to society as a whole(*). The cost-benefit analysis is performed with actual perceived costs and benefits, not hypothetical ones. The “commitment” is to the argument one is making, and the analysis one is performing with real variables. To ask someone, “if the situation were completely different, would you still support the war?” is meaningless.
When we had the draft, it was understood that only young men (and older career soldiers) would have to participate in the fighting. Was everyone supposed to evaluate the war as if they were a young man eligible for the draft? No, everyone is always supposed to evaluate everything as things really are. The situation is basically the same today. We know who is and isn’t going to do the fighting.
No, that is the point. This statement by Greenwald is the point: “Yes, my solution is that able-bodied people screaming that ISIS must be chased to the gates of hell sign up to help do that.” That’s what you need to justify to disagree with me.
(*) To argue that I oppose the war because of the costs to me personally makes as much sense as I support the war because it will help my portfolio. The only arguments for or against a war that any reasonable person will listen to will consider the costs and benefits to society as a whole. How the costs and benefits are distributed throughout the society is a separate question.
The idea that one might be committed to a war because they weighed the “costs and benefits” for society as a whole, is no less absurd (not to mention morally bankrupt) than weighing its impact on my portfolio. Moreover, you seem not to grasp that the rhetorical appeal used to incite war has nothing to do with costs and benefits, but rather with evil, patriotism, honour, etc. The things that cause ordinary people to support a war are visceral and emotional, not based on rational calculations. That is precisely why moral arguments of the ad hominem kind are entirely appropriate here.
People making these appeals wish to make the stakes appear very high. But if they really believed they were so high, they would do more than just talk about it. Just like if you were really convinced that global warming was a serious threat, you wouldn’t just talk about it, you would do something, whether you think there is an easy fix or not. Otherwise, your very credibility is at stake, not just in this case, but all cases. How can you fail to see that?
Alex: Global warming is the greatest threat humanity has ever faced! We need to take action to prevent the worst!
Sarah: Are you going to reduce your carbon consumption, or have you already done so?
Alex: Don’t make this about me as an individual!
(Alex’s credibility is extinguished, debate is over.)
The chickenhawk charge is legit no matter what it is called: slur, or hypocrisy that could make a nine year old blush. There is nothing inane about the term. It applies.
The GWOT disaster is about money. The Offense Department and the incestuous, bottle fed weapons pushers have no interest in defending anything but their cash flow. If a million people need to be butchered, so be it. Today, chickenhawks are shocked at a situation others predicted in March, 2003. They are just now awaking to their own humiliating defeat, years after it actually happened, and now they are in a hurry to to bomb the rubble and destroy as much of their own product as they can — tanks, artillery, M-16s, etc. — in order to increase demand and avoid a business slump. And don’t forget the oil. Americans bought it from Saddam Hussein, the Saudis, and the other Gulf states. The oil companies will kill to minimize the impact of potential IS business regulations, but if they must, they will buy it from IS too. Doing business with IS may be a bit more complicated, but Americans could have taken that into consideration before they destroyed Iraq. So here you are. “It is what it is.” The indoctrinated American mind sees no alternative to the dropping of thousands of bombs because reasoned, constructive geo-strategy necessitates not running the US like a business. (Now we know what happens to a country that’s run like a business.)
D. Harder… What a piece of work, making noises about the humane thing to do. His statement about the volunteer system is mindless, flag waving ideology. The volunteer system with outsourcing has created unaccountable and uncountable mercenary armies doing as they please, and some of them threaten US citizens who openly criticize their actions. A draft would immediately and consciously put Americans’ skin back in the game and make them a little more circumspect when the war pushers come calling. (Mind you, their skin is deep in the game, but the volunteer system delays perception; it takes years of blowback for some to ‘connect the dots’.) And quality? Hmm… I remember W’s recruiting standards were quite low; neo-nazis were welcomed to the Iraq killing binge, and now they’re well-trained, blooded, and back in the good ‘ol USA, biding their time.
Chickenhawks: You want profits? Earn them. Shut up and do it yourself.
Error: The chickenhawk charge is legit no matter what it is called: slur, or hypocrisy that could make a nine year old blush.
Fix: The chickenhawk charge is legit no matter what it is called: slur, or term for hypocrisy that could make a nine year old blush.
I want to add: the complaint about the “chickenhawk” argument denying anyone’s right to an opinion is another huge lie. Chickenhawks own the MSM. Their opinions saturate this country, 24×7. Their speech is 100% protected, and amplified. Others, not so much.
The twitter conversation with Nathan Fuller continued:
Then how to explain this tweet quoted above?
Regarding the tweet about “western elites”, in those five other examples I gave, the same retort is being used with random twitter users. (Kory, who replied so effectively, has 87 followers.) So… it’s the chickenhawk slur. If average citizens advocate wars more readily because they have no fear of direct involvement, that has no bearing on whatever arguments they are making for the war. Same goes for elites. If the “all-volunteer” standing army (or elite privilege) makes it too easy to decide to go to war, that may be an argument against the all-volunteer army, but not any particular war.
“If average citizens advocate wars more readily because they have no fear of direct involvement, that has no bearing on whatever arguments they are making for the war.”
Wrong, it does bear on those arguments. The ultimate argument made for any war is that the benefit to the nation will outweigh the cost, but the chickenhawk allegation contends that the arguer is inadequately assessing the costs (perhaps willfully) because he or she won’t pay them personally. It may not appear to bear on the simplest of arguments (e.g. ISIL is a threat to us), but that leaves out the essential follow-up of every argument for war (e.g. … and therefore we should go to war with ISIL). The chickenhawk allegation does happen to be a good argument against the all-volunteer army, but it’s also an argument against any (and every, in our society) particular war. And given how well insulated most of today’s opinion leaders and decision makers are from sacrifice, I’d say it’s a powerful one.
You could just as reasonably say that those who will be personally involved in the fighting (including through family members or friends) are exaggerating the costs. The costs and benefits of the war accrue to the society as a whole. How they are distributed is a secondary question which is touched on below in my exchange with Mussolini.
Yes, but none of this makes the questions “inane” or irrelevant. How society distributes those costs and benefits is a different question, but that’s not the point; the point is that this distribution is corrupting the argument. You seem to claim that the chickenhawk charge has no place, but in fact it’s as valid a challenge as any other (regardless of its effectiveness).
Barncat,
Couldn’t one interpret Glenn as saying “If you believed ISIS posed the dire threat you claim, you would personally fight or send your kids to. Since you aren’t fighting or sending your kids, I don’t believe you believe ISIS is such a huge threat.” That would be a weak argument but an argument (modus tollens) nonetheless. Granted, probably Glenn isn’t making this argument but is indeed
We are on the cusp of a world war and Glenn is one of the world’s most famous journalists. If you were him, would you use ad hominem if you thought it would be effective?
I agree with Mona that the chickenhawk charge can be potent. Here is Ron Paul putting Newt out his misery in the 2012 GOP race, basically simply by calling him a chickenhawk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDHjPL3Pfoc I can’t a follow up video I remember from the time by someone random, shaking his finger at the camera and saying with clear disgust (to Newt): “Ron Paul called you a chickenhawk — cause you are one!”
The end of the first paragraph was “…trying to discredit his opponents personally rather than give a counterargument.”
Yes, I already covered that possibility in a previous reply to Mona (different thread): “If someone argues for the necessity of a military action, but declines to participate in the fighting, and does not satisfactorily explain their unwillingness to fight, is that supposed to indicate a self-contradiction? If not, what is the point of the question? If so, isn’t that still totally inane on its face?” That argument just seems completely invalid to me, and I doubt very much that Greenwald is making it. At the time of that reply to Mona, I was still trying to figure out what argument Greenwald was making, but to me it’s become clear with the additional four twitter exchanges that I’ve seen since then. I could be wrong of course…
I also agree it can be potent (effective) with a mainstream audience, but no, I wouldn’t use it. It’s an excellent question, though, and I’ve actually wondered if that’s what Greenwald has decided: that in matters of life and death, he will go with any argument that has a chance of working.
It’s a really good question for me because I wouldn’t use the argument based on principle (and I expect Greenwald to be principled), but my notion of “principle” is that benefits are realized in the long term, and if a serious danger is imminent it may be appropriate to prioritize the short term, so… Maybe that’s what Greenwald is thinking – that’s really what I’m curious about. If he has changed his mind, I’m sure he thinks it’s for a good reason. I’d like to know what it is.
Cool, thanks. Sorry I missed that you covered the first point.
As far as getting a reply from Glenn, I wouldn’t hold your breath. I know he’s busy, but his engagement his limited to:
1) Thanks for the correction.
2a) You can’t read.
2b) Not what I said.
I don’t think any of those work well for your concern.
I also appreciate the additional explanation barncat. Unfortunately, I think Macroman is right about whether or not there will be a response. One of the things I miss most about TI is Glenn’s semi-active participation in the comment section. :-s
Hey Barncat. Did you know that the sky is purple?
Glenn Greenwald’s argument is absurd. He is implying those taking the risks of war should receive some of the benefits. That is like arguing that people should be paid for their labor, above some certain minimum needed to survive. Creative activity is critical and should receive the bulk of the reward; i.e. those who devise the brilliant rationales upon which wars are launched are entitled to the profits. Those who fight the wars are merely expendable laborers.
Glenn Greenwald is attempting to shoehorn war into a straight jacketed narrative of class struggle. As you rightly point out, it amounts to an ad hominem attack on the ruling classes. The merits of war should be judged independently of who benefits and who pays the price.
Both are always given in a general way. War is always presented as benefiting everyone (if successful); if the argument is that it will benefit some more than others, the reply is why should war be different than any other project in that regard? If society’s product is distributed unequally in general, the same can be expected of the benefits of war. And it’s the same with the costs. All the normal inequities of a society will be visible in the war project. It makes no sense to base opposition to war on conditions that are normal and generally accepted. Perhaps a change in the normal conditions is required to avoid war. Maybe that’s the way it works.
If society’s product is distributed unequally in general, the same can be expected of the benefits of fiscal policy.
Do you now see how it makes no sense to decouple these things in the way that you have? On the other hand, “Perhaps a change in the normal conditions is required to avoid war.”
Yes, given that endless war (for the benefit of the very few) is now normal, that would absolutely follow.
So a society’s injustices can be disregarded in the war decision merely because they’re pervasive? That’s mighty immoral. The problems with the distribution of the costs and benefits of a war are not excused by the fact that we can’t conduct a war without them. That doesn’t necessarily make war morally impossible, but it’s a pretty good basis for opposition.
“If average citizens advocate wars more readily because they have no fear of direct involvement, that has no bearing on whatever arguments they are making for the war.”
Wrong, it does bear on those arguments. Every pro-war argument is ultimately that the benefits to the nation outweigh the costs, but the chickhawk allegation charges that the arguer is (perhaps willfully) underestimating the costs because he or she has no expectation of paying them personally. It may appear that this has no bearing on the simplest of pro-war arguments (e.g. ISIL is a threat to us), but that’s only if you ignore the necessary conclusion of every argument for war (e.g. Therefore we should go to war with ISIL). The chickenhawk problem also happens to be a strike against the all-volunteer army, but the allegation itself is still a direct challenge to any argument that endorses any particular war. And given the fact the today’s decision makers and opinion leaders are generally so well insulated from sacrifice, it’s a powerful one.
I replied to you above. If you’re a first-time commenter, I think that’s the reason you waited so long for your comments to post.
Indeed. Thanks.
that may be an argument against the all-volunteer army, but not any particular war.
I could be wrong, but my impression is not that he uses the argument against any particular war, but rather against the pattern of support for multiple, indiscriminate wars we have been experiencing. In the context of having that argument on twitter, his objection is likely to be raised against a specific assertion made in support of a given military incursion, but that doesn’t mean that that is necessarily the entirety of the context that he intends when he makes those comments. Again, this is an unfortunate consequence of the limitations of having these discussions via twitter.
Glenn is fucking brilliant!
@barncart
Without actually promoting the idea that words and actions should correlate, and understanding that bravery and morality most often begin and end with the mouth–but there is a point when my “orgies for abstinence” plan becomes farce.
Everyone wants to sign the card, but very few want to chip in for the present.
I don’t really think pointing out that truth is a grand sin.
Everyone wants to sign the card, but very few want to chip in for the present. I don’t really think pointing out that truth is a grand sin.I agree with both statements. If Greenwald were to stop at “you know, that fact that you don’t have to risk your own life makes it easier for you to support the war”, that would be ok. That’s good to keep in mind. But he’s gone way beyond that. If it’s true that he’s hammering away with an argument that’s “inane on its face”, I do think that’s a grievous sin.
There is a point where words and actions deviate enough that we call those words a lie.
We can never really know what is in someone’s heart, but if every time we go out to dinner I forget my wallet, there is a point when my intentions and your politeness become less important than your bank account.
I’m not sure how you mocking and shaming me in order to change my behavior now makes you the sinner.
Sure, but what this discussion is really all about in the end is how decisions are made in a (purportedly) democratic society. War is declared and waged by the whole society (not just the fighters); when debating a war, each individual is deciding on the behavior of the whole society. To make this decision, an individual needn’t consider the role that s/he will play in the war – it’s a separate question. That’s why the chickenhawk argument is inane ad hominem. It’s an irrelevancy. The war must be evaluated in terms of the costs and benefits to the whole society, and if the decision is to go to war, it has already been calculated that it will be possible to assemble an adequate fighting force.
So, let’s say a dozen people are sitting around deciding whether to go to dinner at a pricey restaurant. If paying the check is analogous to fighting the war, either that’s already been decided (standing army) or a subset of the group will be selected to bear the cost using criteria that have already been decided (conscription). The point is that it isn’t necessary or desirable or practical for everyone to pay the price. Others still contribute to the dinner with witty conversation and good suggestions for wines.
So, what this shows, if nothing else, is that going to war is in no way analogous to dining out, and if that’s true, the sin is yours.
@barncat
1) All analogy is cooperative.
2) People lie all the time.
They lie to others and they lie to themselves. One of the best and oldest ways to determine when people are lying to themselves is to compare their words to their actions. This sort of comparison is a gift not a curse. That this gift tends to come from our enemies is a different conversation.
That as a society we rely on specialization is not an argument against calling people out for saying one thing and doing another. The fact that I am not a doctor has nothing to do with the fact that my pronouncements about how physically fit I am are belied by my belly and my general lazy demeanor. That I can hire someone to do my heavy lifting seems beside the point.
People talk out of their ass all the time. People call people out for talking out of their ass all the time. So what?
All will be named and shamed. This is a gift. Think of the chicken hawk argument as imposed empathy.
@thelastnamechosen –
But read what I wrote again; there is no lie! What do you consider to be the lie? Also, please scroll up and read what I wrote at 25 Sep 2014 at 11:16 am in reply to WiseChoice. In that comment, I address the notion that the chickenhawk argument can reveal “that one’s commitment to the cause of such a war may be substantially less than what one took it to be” (WiseChoice) – in case it’s that false or weak “commitment” that you consider to be the lie. In my analysis here and there, there is no “saying one thing and doing another”. What is being said by an individual is that there is a good argument for the whole society to go to war. The “commitment” is to that argument. The individual is not saying anything about what he or she will do, and I thought I made that clear to you. “To make this decision, an individual needn’t consider the role that s/he will play in the war – it’s a separate question.” So where do you see this “lie”? Where is this conflict between saying and doing?
@barncat
Would you be open to an “anti-tax hawk” argument? In other words, would it be appropriate to point out the contradiction when a person argued that the government should go to war, but also argues that all taxes are immoral. If society is going to war than taxes need to pay for that war. Would it be ok to point out the hypocrisy here? Is it ok to extend that argument to someone who reluctantly agrees to pay taxes, but wants the war off budget. Isn’t responsibly financing a war the societal equivalent of fighting in that war? What about someone that doesn’t want the government to pay for medical care for veterans? Would it be appropriate to point out the hypocrisy here?
Also, am I correct in extrapolating your views on the chicken hawk argument to assume you see a draft as very, very immoral? If telling someone that wants war to volunteer is a sin, then forcing someone against war to fight in a war must be a whopper of a sin.
I don’t disagree with your basic premise, I’m just not that opposed to imagining yourself the hangman as imposed empathy through shame.
One of the first things I did when I moved to the country was to raise, slaughter, cook and then eat several chickens. I wanted to know how much I really wanted meat. The abstraction of killing should be constantly challenged.
@thelastnamechosen –
I’m not sure exactly what you’re intending, so I’ll cover the two possibilities I can image. If I’m supporting a war, but also saying I don’t want to pay for the war (because I think taxes are immoral or for any other reason), but I want others to pay for the war, that’s equivalent to the chickenhawk case, and my unwillingness to pay for the war has no bearing on the validity of whatever argument I am making for it. On the other hand, if I want no one to pay for the war because taxes are immoral, that’s a practical contradiction, and not the same case. That would be equivalent to saying I support the war, but want no one to fight in it, and it wouldn’t seem to make any sense.
Telling someone that wants war to volunteer is a “sin” because (the premise right now is) it’s a “sin” to use an argument that is “inane on its face” no matter how effective it may be with some audiences. The sin is using the chickenhawk argument. (You wrote, “I’m not sure how you mocking and shaming me in order to change my behavior now makes you the sinner.”) There is no way to extrapolate the sin of using a bad argument to the sin of forcing someone to do anything. Do you mean it would be a whopper of a sin to argue that those who are against the war should be willing to fight in the war? I don’t see any logical connection between that and the chickenhawk argument. If someone says they are against a war, it would make no sense to challenge them to prove their commitment by fighting in it. Equivalent would be if they were challenged to refuse to serve in the war and accept any punishment or difficulties that entailed. That would be the “chickenchicken” argument, and my view of it would be the same.
I’ve already said I’m ok with pointing out that not having to risk one’s own life (or take other lives) makes it easier for one to support a war. Neither would I have a problem with asking someone whether they have fully considered the costs of a war to the families of those who would be risking their lives and health. But most people are not going to consider the chickenhawk argument to be making those points (only). That’s not how Greenwald interpreted it in 2005-06. It’s certainly possible to make those points more clearly without bluntly challenging people to join the fight, or insisting that they do so.
@barncat
@thelastnamechosen –
Right, even long-range bombers can be enough to make the discussion moot, before we get to drones and robots. All it takes is the ability to attack from a position of safety. That removes the “chicken” from the equation. Thanks for holding that card until the end of the game. And thanks for another enjoyable conversation!
“If it’s true that he’s hammering away with an argument that’s “inane on its face”, I do think that’s a grievous sin.”
sweathart u mite wanna luk in u own drawurz firs befoor cummunting on watts in Gelnnz.
lasnaemshowsum hunnee u doin gud jawb. i luv u lon tiem. don tel bahmihummerbung pleez. don wanna hurd mihummerbungz fellinz butt u bof furree spayshul don u no.
@Mabel
I will love you a long time too. Or two very short times that could over generously be described as successive. Note the ambiguity concerning the word “short.”
And I will love every minute of it!
Good to see you Mabel:)
What should really be investigated is – who is funding ISIS/ISIL?
Though the threat they pose to America is clearly being exaggerated for propaganda purposes, their resources and organization did not materialize out of thin air. I don’t believe that they simply overpowered Iraqi police and other military groups that America was arming and training. Someone is funding them. And by “someone,” I mean a government (or two or three) that is using them to obtain some strategic advantage.
It is just too convenient that a year after Americans overwhelmingly rejected military intervention in Syria we have this so-called Al Qaeda splinter group getting so much airtime and thereby providing the justification for exactly what the Establishment was pushing for a year ago. Except of course this time Assad is our friend rather than Satan.
With all the draconic measures taken and enforced on ‘allied’ nations’ banking systems to track-and-trace the funding of terrorism, it should be a piece of cake to publish about this subject. The fact alone that we don’t hear anything about it makes me wonder what there is to hide.
“What should really be investigated is – who is funding ISIS/ISIL?”
Agree.
But the truth is, that much has been written in other alternative news sites, regarding this critical matter….just not on TI. In fact, I have personally posted several articles regarding the origins of ISIS in the comments section here which are overlooked. Here is one more:
“The War on Terrorism is Terrorism
How the US Helped Create Al Qaeda and ISIS”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39745.htm
There are many more articles pertaining to this. ISIS has CIA written all over it, just like it’s parent Al Qaeda. From there is is easy to see who is funding IS.
Dear Glenn and everyone else:
You might be interested in this recently released video of Obama discussing the issue of authority with members of Congress; I can’t believe this hasn’t gotten wider play: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IJ24f6S_Phc&feature=youtu.be&t=51m28s
Nations used to gear up periodically for major wars but this is not economically efficient. It created an economic boom as a country expanded its production to support the war effort, but then a depression would follow once the war was over (not immediately, but eventually). In the new paradigm of continuous war, these peaks and valleys are eliminated. You don’t mobilize as many resources of course; a program of limited bombing and logistical support is sufficient to maintain a continuous war. In fact, there is no point in trying to ‘win’, since that creates a delay as you remobilize to fight some new opponent.
Thankfully, talk of ‘surges’ and other destabilizing strategies has long been silenced. President Obama recognizes the new reality that the US will always be at war in the Middle East. The goal of strategists is to eliminate uncertainty and the new paradigm will support superior long term planning. When Obama speaks of not having a strategy against ISIS, he is not referring to whether the US will be at war – that decision has been removed from the strategic realm. He only means he has not yet chosen all the members of the coalition who will join the US in this particular war effort. The US has demonstrated great generosity by allowing other nations to reap some of the economic benefits of waging war.
Should the major proponent of a war based economy have won the Peace Prize? I think so. In a permanent war, the parties make less effort to kill one another, since there is no rush created by the pressure of working to a deadline. So it is quite likely that fewer people will be killed overall.
Bravo, Duce, bravo!
But, of course, those economic benefits are not meant to trickle down to the peons. And it’s nice for those who do reap the benefits to have the peons fighting the war on their behalf.
The choice for eternal war in the ME was made even before the first Gulf War, but it became obvious when Haliburton moved its HQ to Dubai.
Indeed, Duce, and Emmanuel Goldstein pointed this out:
This Emmanuel Goldstein seems like quite the visionary. If such advanced social thinkers are heeded, utopia may be attainable after all.
He didn’t even mention the sense of satisfaction that war produces. Human beings have a primal urge to combat evil, and war satisfies this urge. Merely consuming material products, once basic needs for food and shelter have been met, can’t provide anywhere near the same level of fulfillment. The fact that war cements the social hierarchy and keeps people occupied to prevent them from indulging more destructive impulses (such as challenging their leaders) is just icing on the cake.
nicely worded – but you are clearly insane
Thank you. I’ve managed to adapt myself to the world I live in.
Thanks Glenn. Keep up the good work!
This new war against ISIS is not an unexpected event. Like Osama bin Ladin was a US ally during Soviet war in Afghanistan, similarly these ISIS militants were getting weapons and funds from US and its allies to fight Assad’s notorious regime.
ISIS changed its focus from fighting in Syria against Assad to fighting smaller communities in Syria and Iraq is may be due to the Israeli terrorism against Palestine.
The Nobel comment in the title is a cheap shot. Obama didn’t ask for it, probably didn’t want it then, and certainly doesn’t want it now.
As to Glenn’s points, all true. But what is Glenn’s solution? Let ISIS continue to terrorize the ME, and create a safe haven for itself to develop plans to target the west? That didn’t work out so well last time.
Here ‘s an animation that contains all those who involved in this war to Syria. Its a short animation parody of angry birds. You will understand who is who in that video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70ae3Zzuqzg
Makes perfect sense, Nobel mad his fortune manufacturing and selling explosives…
The ME region is so complex I doubt anybody could plot a way through it all. Even Einstein who was a pacifist. I support the attacks on IS but this is not a long term solution to the problems in the ME. It is to stop them raping, torturing, and slaughtering. The attacks will have consequences, doubtlessly. Nevertheless I continue to support. I suspect IS is way overextended in Iraq and will collapse there almost as fast as they rose to prominence in that country, at least I hope so. Syria is another story.
>”The ME region is so complex I doubt anybody could plot a way through it all.”
Obama is not confused Mr. Summers… his plan is to bomb complexity back to the stone age
The ‘reality-based community’ is not complexed either, Tom:
*an aide to G.W Bush later attributed to Karl Rove
Who then will stop our minions from raping, torturing and slaughtering?
On two occasions Obama refrained, even though he had every opportunity to go in and plunder if he wished to. The first one was Iran, which would have been hugely profitable while simultaneously gratifying our good Saudi friends. The second time it was Syria, where we has a genuine reason to start bombing, as opposed to pretend reasons that we usually have. Both these wars would have led to many more deaths and would have directly encouraged the same calipate that we are now on course to eradicate. So Obama deserves some credit. Nate is right and I agree with him even though don’t get paid for posting comments here.
“the … calipate that we are now on course to eradicate.”
That’s nonsense, both in the assumption of the likelihood of this group being or becoming the caliphate it aims to be and in the assumption that anything will be eradicated by the U.S. approach.
This whole article is based either on total stupidity or is sponsored by ISIS. Obama is not bombing for “whatever reason”. ISIS and muslims are a REAL AND ACTIVE threat to world peace and to the freedom which are now happily used to write uneducated articles like this one. Please learn some more or move closer to the borders of Syria – or visit the country – to understand that muslims are not innocent targets but they are aggresive animals which cannot be controlled in any other way than by force. Helping to overthrow Asad was a major mistake as he was the only one capable of controlling his own society, which still lives by medaevial rules.
” understand that muslims are not innocent targets but they are aggresive animals which cannot be controlled in any other way than by force”
Typically only paid trolls wear this much bigotry on their sleeve while claiming others are instead somehow being ignorant.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt…
Wow. Aggressive animals?? All of them???
Israeli mole who lives on the fat of Europeans.
“indeed, recall that Obama bombed Libya even after Congress explicitly voted against authorization to use force”
Damn that statement makes me dizzy. In the author’s topsy-turvy world, voting against authorizing force be used *for an entire year* is the same as voting against force, period. To add to that, if the House votes against something, that means both the House and Senate voted against it (which would be required to truly say that Congress voted against something). The spin in this article is as ridiculous as the overextended geopolitical fantasy the author has imagined. Somewhere, buried under all that garbage, is a good point about the hubris of the prize committee and reasonable criticism of inconsistent reactions to excessively violent movements, but the author doesn’t bother to dig, and instead notices a kitchen sink and then shrugs, “good enough”.
The comment section is really showing the problem we face around the world in communicating with others. Although we all use a common language, it seems that our use of it must come from what we remember, and not from any facts that might be pertinent. Everyone is speaking from their past or perspective when we need to be seeing what common ground we share right now. The past is what everyone thinks about, and it is where most folks live, so we cannot deal with what is happening in or world until it is over. We need to deal with these things before they happen folks. Wake up!
Looky looky….who’s the terrorist now? bunch of hypocrites..Sam says “Lets make war…with war! and i need YOU!.” *full sarcasm*
I would like to copyright this idea but have decided to give it to the world:
First Look Media=Blame America First Media.
Please onpass to all bloggers, left, right and center
Who in their right mind would blame the U.S. for its bombing?
Oh, how original.
I can’t help but think the incredible pettiness and dysfunction of Congress contributes to the current disregard the executive branch has for it in regards to decisions about war ( and domestic policy as well,these days). There is a built in tension of laws and precedents–to put it crudely Commander in Chief authority vs. War Powers Act–and Congress is clearly not up to the task of being any sort of legitimate check on going to war.
What a ludicrous way to frame this issue! It isn’t about the IS, it is about Glenn’s imaginings that this represents some level of irony.
The dishonesty and spin is stunning. Let me count the ways:
(1) Obama gets the bombing of Iraq and Afghanistan as notches on his belt, as if he could just hit a stop button on his first day in office; (2) because we haven’t defeated ISIS in 6 weeks, it is somehow discredited and futile; (3) because intervention inevitably results in adversarial recruitment, we apparently should sit on the sidelines with our hands over our eyes hoping all ends well and pretending there might not be real consequences stemming from non-intervention; (4) the implication that Obama is some knee-jerk reactionary/Warhawk because he wanted to punish Assad for GASSING his own people and crossing his “red line”; (5) the claim that Obama isn’t doing this to take out IS, but for some other reason (supposedly to line the pockets of contractors and for the mere goal of “endless war”) and that if I want to find out, I need to read the article of a guy who agrees with Glenn’s predetermined bias; (6) the talk about humanitarianism being used as a pretense despite the US literally saving hundreds of Yazidis, (7) the perceived hypocrisy of the Middle East allies joining the fight because in Glenn’s mind they are all equally as bad as IS, and (8) the inability to ever challenge his utterly predictable viewpoints, (9) his unwillingness to focus attention on the actions of IS and even consider the threats they present to Iraq and the larger ME, and (10) most pathetically, his utter lack of articulating what he’d do in this situation. Glenn is a self-righteous contrarian, capable of casting stones but unwilling to provide his view of the proper action to take. Fox News caliber tactics. You can’t ever be wrong if you don’t put in your two cents.
In his defense, Glenn’s point about a lack of justification, along with all the other commentators who’ve said the same, is correct.
Therefore, I rate this Greenwald post one notch above “utterly useless bullshit”
That’s not so bad: you’ve rated it two notches above yours.
yeah….this is the quality of response I’ve come to expect around here. Pick the most insignificant part of the post and run with it. You sir, have pulled a “Kitt.”
“…….this is the quality of response I’ve come to expect around here. Pick the most insignificant part of the post and run with it. You sir, have pulled a “Kitt.”….”
Actually, that’s is just Doc – a completely useless and braindead commentator on this site. Thankfully the idiot rarely comments. Just ignore him. By the way, really good comment Nate.
Few will be surprised that Craig Summers is a Nate fan. Everybody must have their someone, after all.
But Craig, you have not replied to my comment addressed to you: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/23/nobel-peace-prize-fact-day-syria-7th-country-bombed-obama/#comment-78648
@Mona
That’s an interesting comment coming from the biggest brown-nosing Greenwald fanboy around these parts of the Internet.
Zionist reacharounds might be the most disgusting thing on the internet.It rivals MSM Zio reacharounds.At least a thousand Ziopropagandists spewing their poison daily.
oh hey a peanut
I think we should drop bombs and support sectarian death squads. Afterall, it’s only made the problem worse. On the other hand, we might also consider dropping bombs and supporting sectarian death squads.
Who are the “sectarian death squads” you refer to?
Nate –
I would rate this article as pretty good! I find this especially important: “The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed”. Aren’t we supposed to be a nation of “laws”? How is it that we don’t seem to be concerned about what officials are doing in our names – when they’re supposed to be following and upholding the law – not be above it? The fact that so many are not engaged on such issues troubles me greatly.
And I’m increasingly concerned about the violence in the world – wars, fighting, etc, including such things as violence here at home. It seems we are just increasingly feeding into that. I think Glenn makes good points about that. I really wonder sometimes what will become of all us if we humans don’t keep resorting to violence so much of the time.
You may not agree with Glenn’s “conclusions” but I feel he’s asking the right questions and poking at the correct spider webs.
Nate, have you completed your assignment yet? You know (1) romping through a park where people are videotaping friends and kids, and(2) demanding they stop filming and grabbing their cameras? Have you done that yet, Nate?
(For the uninitiated, Nate believes such behavior, at least in New Mexico, is legal. I’ve asked him to test this theory and, upon making bond, to share his experience.)
Mona with the broken record response, ego still bruised from getting the law laid down by a layman that can Google and read NM statutes.
Nobody is talking about this “assault” anymore because nobody other than the handful of malcontents on the TI user forum actually drew such a conclusion in the first place.
To think you practice law is frightening.
Nate translated: “No, Mona, I have not gone about grabbing people’s phones from their hands to make them stop recording because — tho I’m not gonna admit it here– I know that is illegal, and am in any event, too cowardly to make the determination by trying it out to see.”
Is what I thought.
I hope what you’re saying is some Internet-based outlet for venting frustration and not similar to your actual courtroom antics.
On second thought do you even practice law?
PS I am in NM right now asking people take video of me and then pulling their phones down as you asked. No assault charges yet but boy – I am having so much fun! This exercise proves something relevant, right, right!?
Now, now, Nate. No lying. When you *really run about demanding that people stop recording and grabbing their phones from their hands, then, and only then, will you have demonstrated that you are confident this is legal behavior.
I can wait.
I’m grateful for Greenwald’s default “there are no humanitarian wars” position which he articulates deftly regardless of the circumstances and is always valuable to consider. And I agree most of the time with those including Greenwald who point out the continuing bad policy decisions based on fear reactions to terrorists. But thanks for your reply, Nate.
I think it’s clear the horrific relations between this President and this Congress is why legal justification for this current action is basically nonexistent, horrific relations due to lawmakers on the right practicing a scorched earth policy of opposing anything Obama favors, the recent War Powers example being Congress refusing to support the President in punishing the Assad regime for using chemical WMDs.
This is different, or at least much more nuanced, than asserting that there is an “utter lack of interest” in legal justification that is somehow attributable to the US acting like an Empire, with a capital “e”. I think it’s more accurate to assert that there is a current “utter lack of hope” felt by the political actors in both the legislative and executive branches that the President engaging Congress over the current situation in Syria and Iraq in an election year would result in anything other than a tragic disaster of posturing and confusion.
The use of “Empire” as a rhetorical flourish isn’t particularly useful to me. There is definitely a battle between modern and premodern thinking going on in the world, and to gloss over the fact that tribal warriors using a morality that is umpteen centuries past its expiration date but has potential access to weapons created by societies far beyond them, but rather to imply every action by the US, however misguided it might be, is selfishly based on expanding power is wrong. To imply that Obama wanted to bomb Syria last year simply because the US is an “empire” that needs to be at war is inaccurate.
Reframing inadequate and weak performances by Congress exercising its War Powers oversight as heroic principled non interventionist votes, when they actually were more of the same abhorrent scorched earth anarchist opposition behavior from conservatives is just being provocative and inaccurate.
I personally disagree with the bombing campaign. But attributing its existence to the bloodlust of an Empire when it is due to governing dysfunction doesn’t help things.
“Glenn is a self-righteous contrarian, capable of casting stones but unwilling to provide his view of the proper action to take.”
Nate, this does not appear in the least to be a treatise in which, according to you, a morally superior writer is judging some esoteric events – it is a piece that is well documented with facts and evidence (most are well linked in the article) to back up the assertions being made by the author.
Did you even read the articles or information used to corroborate the authors premise? Or watch the video regarding the same?
Yes or no; and if not, why not?
It’s tiring to continually see you casting aspersions like this without this type of backup for your own arguments, let alone have you accuse authors whose role it is to provide the facts and evidence in order for the reader to come to their own conclusions.
With regards to the supposed “unwilling[ness] to provide…the proper action to take” – That you are unable or unwilling to reach your own conclusion is your problem – not the authors.
It seems what you want is akin to a diner who arrives at a restaurant expecting, despite that you can read the menu as well as anyone else, to instead demand that the chef decide for you what to eat.
That’s simply called laziness. I’d call it intellectual laziness – but it’s not even close to that.
“Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay – others will easily undertake the irksome work for me.
– Immanuel Kant, An Answer to the Question: What Is Enlightenment?
Well, it’s hard and tiring to do all one’s thinking for oneself. Most people avoid any and all thinking, in my experience.
Yes. Not only that, those challenged, like Nate here, as to whether they even investigated the claims in order to make informed counter-claims almost never respond – and if they do, it’s almost always an ad hom attack or red herring in order to discredit those asking or attempting to redirect and therefore ignore the questions altogether.
“Chickenshit is so called – instead of horse- or bull- or elephant shit – because it is small-minded and ignoble and takes the trivial seriously.” – Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers: E Company, 506th Regiment, 101st Airborne from Normandy to Hitler’s Eagle’s Nest
Nate, in general I almost look forward to your drama queen WHY GOD WHY?! responses to Greenwald’s work, but they have taken on a bit of a nasty tone recently. Less hyperbolic, more vitriolic. You can accuse me of an ad hom if you want, but I think we both know I’ll respond by going back to your OP and plucking supporting lines, so you’re also welcome to save time by just skipping that step. Anyways, you sound personally pissed off at Greenwald lately, what gives? Is it because he is neglecting the comments section to go hang out with millionaires on exotic islands? I agree he is a great big stupid head for that, but in the meantime, no point in letting your own writing suffer with a bitter tone.
Nic – my tone is commensurate with the degree of distortions in the article.
I wouldn’t have characterized your response as an ad hominem. Just an uninspired response that focused on the tone of my post instead of the contents. You left me little to work with.
Fair enough. I do disagree with many of your points – why should journalists be responsible for formulating foreign policy plans and why are you hypocritically not giving your own plan; why the focus on the Yazidis when we have not intervened in much larger scale humanitarian crises, etc. – but I feel too blasé about it to respond this time, and perhaps I chalk that up to your tone. Maybe it’s me, though – futile internet debates are an amusing sport for awhile until they’re not, I guess.
Because if a journalist makes his or her living in the realm of opinion and commentary, much of which is critical or adversarial, is it asking too much that he say what should be done? Anybody can sit on the sidelines and nitpick; what’s difficult is articulating what you believe is the proper solution. I believe Glenn is hesitant to do so because he does not handle criticism well and if you don’t lay out a plan, you aren’t at risk of being scrutinized. Therefore he creates diversions by pointing out ironies and hypocrisies. And that stuff is important for context, but when it’s your default strategy, people are going to start noticing you are just an indignant.
I have provided my plan, just not in this post.
On August 26: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/08/26/fun-empire-fighting-sides-war/#comment-73539
September 10: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/10/americas-incomprehensible-isis-policy/#comment-76440
September 11: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/11/news-organizations-finally-realize-obamas-war-plan-messed/#comment-76720
September 17: https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/09/17/u-s-falling-islamic-states-trap/#comment-77964
Also September 17
One last one:
Lastly, as I alluded to earlier, I reject the Administration’s use of the 2001 and 2002 AUMFs. Unacceptable.
Therefore, I’m no hypocrite. My thoughts are sprinkled throughout these forums and I’m not afraid to be wrong.
And now the wait for my post to appear; I tried to keep it short but had several quotes.
TI needs to fire the staff or contractors responsible for its comments section, or accept that filtering comments punishes normal users. Perhaps provide a “report user” button instead to eliminate spammers and the sort.
And I suppose I should apologize for calling Greenwald a stupid head, even though I am sad about his absence from the comments at the new site.
I assumed you were being facetious when you said it in the first place. He comments from time to time, which is a pleasant surprise compared to the majority of journalists. Glenn deserves praise for being accessible and showing interest in what his readers have to say.
Aw, now I feel bad that I was pissy with you too Nate. C’mere you, group hug. ;)
Say Craig Summers, you know that plucky little democracy you defend so ardently, wondering why some focus so heavily on her? Well, in today’s Jerusalem Post, a director of the Jewish Outreach Center of Ra’anana sends out the call for the Jews to adopt the white (Jew’s) burden and exterminate Arabs, for the good of an ungrateful world:
Torah. Forces of light. Savior and beacon.
I’d say ya has some singling out Israel — and Jews! — as super-duper EXTRA special, wouldn’t you, Craig?
I really had no idea this comment was here. Use Craigsummers (one name) and I will find your comment next time.
I don’t believe he is calling for the extermination of all Arabs, Mona. He is calling for the extermination of Islamic fanatics like “….Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Qaida, IS, the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamist fanatics relentlessly seeking to take over the world……”.
In addition, he is the opinion of one man i.e., one Jew. He does not represent the Israeli government. He certainly doesn’t represent all Israeli Jewish opinion let alone Jews world-wide. However, even if he was calling for the extermination of Arabs world-wide, only you are capable of extending his opinion to all Jews – like Imams have never made any bigoted comments. Here is the crux of his opinion piece.
“……For the darkness of Hamas and their ilk is not merely a physical one, it encompasses an entire worldview. Its darkness is intellectual, social and moral as well, a philosophy and approach to life – or better, death – that casts a deadly pall over civilized society and serves as the very antithesis of human enlightenment.
In the twisted view of Hamas – and its compatriots Hezbollah, al-Qaida, IS, the Muslim Brotherhood and all the other Islamist fanatics relentlessly seeking to take over the world – all noble expressions of the human spirit, save the worship of Allah, are blasphemous and forbidden.
To them, the pursuit of happiness, mutual coexistence, personal choice, freedoms of expression, assembly and worship, recreational activities and “Love thy neighbor” are treacherous “Western weaknesses” that have no place whatsoever in their code of behavior.
Instead, they believe it is the domination of others, extreme violence, zero tolerance of dissent or diversity, division of humanity into the Faithful and the Infidel, and above all, bloody, merciless, unending jihad that will either bring the world around to their way of thinking or destroy it entirely…….”
There is an extreme amount of hatred on both sides, Mona. This is hardly amazing considering the death and destruction that has accompanied over one-half century of war and terrorism. Most people on both sides have lost people they care about – including Rabbi Weiss.
Thanks Mona.
hey guys and gals, i’ve been looking for evidence of Syrian/US cooperation for a bit now and came across this article last week. Syrian jets with extraordinary targeting abilities. hmm.
http://en.alalam.ir/news/1632660
The media have raised many question about the air strikes targeting posts of ISIL during the past few days in Raqqa, where information indicates that “those raids achieved precise objectives and differ from previous raids.”
Editors,
Is it correct to say we’ve “bombed Syria” when the state was not the target? Wouldn’t it be better to say we “bombed targets within Syria”..? (And by ‘better’ I mean more accurate… and less inflammatory.)
If you believe that these attacks are not part of a plan to further destabilize the state of Syria and its neighbors, it means you are willing to believe the words of one
of the biggest liars who has lived at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. However, from another perspective, you are correct that the state of Syria is not the main target.
This attempt to cause the collapse of Syria is a way to further isolate Iran and its resources for a hyper-militarized corporate takeover.
Obama is unique in his ability to use lofty words while pushing a Fascist agenda. Most Fascists leaders have made angry demands, but Obama tells pretty lies to
push things along.
Oil? Who said anything about oil?
Glenn, your once grand enterprise is becoming more and more of a student paper in terms of standards and appeal. Whatever you think of Obama’s decisions, being a Nobel laureate and bombing countries which happen to be Muslim is like accusing white presidents of ‘bombing countries with brown people’ (a charge which has long been leveled against them). Stick with the facts. Any attempt to sensationalize your stories — even if at their core they are solid — will hurt you in the long run professionally. I wish you great success.
I agree. I was very disappointed by this article. What is happening is not about bombing Syria it is about attacking ISIS. Instead of that rant, how about some positive suggestions about how we (the world) should react to ISIS. Its a very difficult topic with no easy answers but doing nothing does not seem like a useful response. Positive ideas please and no more one-sided rants. I agree with many of the concerns expressed in the article – but it is a shallow piece of sensationalist writing in my opinion rather than a carefully thought out article with sensible strategic suggestions. I am very disappointed and concerned to read such stuff I expected much better from Glen.
Here is a “positive suggestion”: All those that think “doing nothing does not seem like a useful response” can gather up their blood and treasure and hold hands with Assad and leave the rest of us out of it. If you cannot fathom that doing the same thing that created this mess won’t fix the mess, i.e. doing nothing would be better than something, just like in the financial crisis, you really should either get a grip on reality or put your money where your mouth is (as opposed to your stupidity where my eyes are). Funny to note that your entire comment is asking others to make “sensible strategic suggestions” you won’t mention yourself. There is only one “sensible” strategy, one Glenn advocates (and you know this already because you even mention “doing nothing”), but you dismiss it outright because of how the world “seems” in light of your brilliance. You expect much better from Glenn — what do you think he expects from you?
And I’m disappointed with your idiocy.ISIS sprang from the head of neolibcon policy.It is a self serving narrative to demonize Islam,and expand the wacko racist state of Israel.
And all those little dictator nations that back US in this assault will crumble from within,as their people hate their leadership,and freedom,though untidy,is an aspiration all should welcome,although of course the Ziomonsters will disagree.My crystal ball has had a 96% approval rate.
The article is a student paper only in the sense that a (in this case, self-appointed) teacher is grading it based on what he wants to see rather than what the paper is. Just like the anti-intellectuals I encountered in high school: Though your paper is “solid,” I read an attempt to “sensationalize.” You should “stick with the facts,” despite the “fact” that I can’t point out where you didn’t. Your grade is a “C.” Please don’t complain about this being unfair — grading my betters is all I have in my life. And I’m just trying to help you, you see, “in the long run professionally.” No one likes sensational yet accurate stories, stupid!
Where did he deviate from the facts or sensationalize? Please be specific.
Will the real Glenn Greenwald please stand up, please stand up, please stand up.
The American government is obviously in the business of selling wars. And Obama is a smooth salesman. He failed to sell us the Syrian conflict a year ago despite all those photos of dead kids. Beheadings and claims that Isis is at our borders and we’re all going to die (Lindsay Graham) are much more effective. Fear motivates.
And re. the way our government’s aggression fuels anti-American sentiment: interesting observation. I hadn’t thought of that but you are right.
To clarify, I know American aggression fuels anti-American sentiment. But the idea that our government powers-that-be are banking on that had not occurred to me before.
Keep dreaming
Keep pretending to say something profound.
Thank fuck he’s a peacemaker huh?
Otherwise he might be murdering people all over the place.
One of the reasons I questioned the Iraq war under W 10 years ago is because I didn’t think that the government would sustain itself after we left. I thought it might collapse after we pull out the same way South Vietnam did. It has already partially collapsed only 2 or 3 years after the withdraw of our troops. Will bombing ISIS in Iraq and Syria help? I don’t know. I don’t see the Iraqi army moving back in to Shiite controlled territories in Iraq. They seem to be losing militarily despite our giving them aerial assistance.
The problem with our strategy is that we want to see President Assad leave power, but at the same time we are bombing the ISIS rebels that are trying to overthrow him. The other problem is that we have supported rebels in Syria, which created a power vacuum, which allowed ISIS to gain strength and then move into Sunni areas of Iraq that are friendly to ISIS.
I am not sure that bombing ISIS in Syria and Iraq will accomplish anything without ground troops. It may only serve to keep ISIS out of non-Sunni territory. Time will tell I suppose…
Typo fix (since there is no edit button): I meant to say, “I don’t see the Iraqi army moving back in to Sunni controlled territories in Iraq”.
Peter Hart of FAIR Blog quoted from several different mouthpieces, Obama “The Reluctant Warrior.”. Jonathan Karl, David Gergen, Erin Burnett, David Brooks and more. Then Hart slammed home his point about how ludicrous that is by posting the title and link to: “Syria Becomes the Seventh Predominately Muslim Country To Be Bombed By The 2009 Nobel Peace Laureate.”
Obama made it clear. ISIS (who the U.S. created) must be destroyed. In classic Bush administration style he announces the new nail that needs to be hammered. What “nail” am I talking about? The nail that general Wesley Clark was talking about when he famously blew the whistle on the Bush Neocon Pentagon following the 9/11/01 false flag attack on our nation. General Clark famously confessed on the ‘Democracy Now’ program with Amy Goodman that only days following 9/11, the U.S. had already made the decision to invade seven countries including Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Lebanon, Sudan, and Somalia. This had been already alluded to and was consistent with the Rebuilding America’s Defenses paper put out by the Bush Neocons in 2000. Clark said he was told the decision had already been made. Notice how the real-time events happening in our world fit in so perfectly with this plan? Clark famously explained on the Democracy Now program that he was told word for word: ‘I guess if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail’.
Read more at http://globalpoliticalawakening.blogspot.com/2014/09/strategy-revealed-make-syria-look-like.html#AH0rEFfXpwideypD.99
Well,isn’t this elimination of all those potential threats to isreal and when this elimination precess would likely be shifted deep inside Pakistan.
There is a dimension to this topic which Mr. Greenwald leaves out in these articles about “perpetual war” – The sovereign nation state has run its course and cannot survive much longer, already their failures are evident. The internet and Isis don’t respect borders and there are other even larger forces moving the world away from the order of discrete sovereign nation states. These wars in the Middle East are really proxy wars for the great powers over how the world will reorder itself. Further, it is quite likely this conflict will continue for most of this century. BRICS is perhaps an early formation of some kind of different order, the EU could be as well if it can survive the punishment of Calvinist/Neoliberalism currently forced on it by Merkel and fix its “birth defects”
So these (
Sorry hit the send too soon:
So these (or this) war in the Middle East is a proxy for a long long war until the new order is agreed.
NOT BAD 5 OUT OF 7
“We’re going to take out 7 countries in 5 years: Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan & Iran..”
Video Interview with General Wesley Clark
http://www.globalresearch.ca/we-re-going-to-take-out-7-countries-in-5-years-iraq-syria-lebanon-libya-somalia-sudan-iran/5166
AMERICAN MEN HAVE GIVEN UP THEIR RIGHTS TO FREEDOM
What are American men doing? They love football, baseball and all the sports shows feed them by Mind Control TV. They love to have a good time and pretend they are on some fu#king reality TV show. They eat at fast food places where they get their fix of “weaponized” food. The All American Food that makes you dumb and complacent. They have their ears and eyes on their cell/iPhone/computer/transhuman/facebook/twitter/ etc while the bad guys rape and pillage the Fu$king planet in the name of the good old USA. American men are so out of reality with what is really happening it is a joke. They don’t question the corrupt government system. They don’t really care if we bomb and kill women and children all over the planet. They won’t get off their ass and speak their mind and take actions because it isn’t they thing to do, making money and having a good time is their goal in life. Guts, courage, and the spine to take back their freedom from OBVIOUS criminals is a cowards way. They do nothing! Do they write letters to congress, do they protest, do they gather together for the common good, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> American men today are not like the men who protected America during WWII, they aren’t even like the men of the 70’s who went to streets to stop a war. American men, IN GENERAL, are exactly what the phony government wants from its men today. What will history write about American Men of 2014? Lazy asses who were lost in self interest and let the world go to hell.
Hey, lighten up!
“Lighten up” I have tried for 69 years. Maybe I need to try harder. Always thought the next generation would rise to the challenge. But – No. American men are the intense target of a gigantic psyop that has all but turned our men into “girls”, sorry except for football and all that self distraction stuff provided by the bad guys to make us believe we are actually real men. I am sorry for having to write like this. I am disgusted with myself as well. So much to do, the need is so great, the criminals are so cleaver and we America men have let our country fall to into the hands of Despicable men who have no heart or soul and will do anything, say anything and promise anything to get their way over us.. WE have failed our women, our children and our grandchildren. Time is short. Like a herd of cattle being rounded up for the slaughter we American men are just following the leader, and that leader works for the slaughter house.
Somebody give me some hope. Tell me I am wrong. Tell me that American men will stand up and act like men and protect the freedom and future of America,.
Hey David –
Men into “girls”? Shame on you for that analogy! For what it’s worth, American women need to wake up, too. All of us need to educate ourselves as to what is going on. All of us need to work together to make some progress.
feline16 – you are right and I believe that to be the truth and way ahead.
BUT …. how do we get the men who have been put into a social responsibility COMA by mind control, the Weaponazation of our food supply, the propaganda separation and hate, fear of a police state, confusion and lack of understanding about world events, TV news that serves the elite, job insecurity, a future that says endless war and no beautiful future ahead for their families, a society that wants men not to really be men, and a government controlled and manipulated by money and elites to keep men running in circles that go nowhere.
How do we break through to their male loving positive power that is needed to protect our freedom and dignity?
And BTW women and girls are picking up the slack for the boys and men who have been under attack mentally, emotionally, and physically by this social PSY OP that has succeeded in confusing men as to their real role in a society.
This PSY OP has been decades in the making and its purpose is to emasculate the male population of the USA, because if they didn’t they could never take over the world and have their NEW WORLD DICTATORIAL ORDER. They would say, “Why fight American men when you can destroy them psychologically and with mind control.”
WE need to help break men out of their IDENTITY FOG.
WOMEN CAN DO THIS FOR THEM.
WOMEN, MEN NEED YOUR HELP MORE THAN YOU KNOW!
“Lighten up” is exactly this stupid American attitude. True criticism isn’t light anyway.
“Lighten up” is exactly this stupid American attitude he is talking about. True criticism isn’t light.
True, so true. You see it every day. People blinded by self gratification not caring about anything else. (I was such a person) The turning point was getting divorced and reading news other than CNN. Most people currently only use (in my opinion) one news source. (Which is insane considering the internet today). People do not dig for the TRUTH.
I’ve actually had idiots disparaging the internet as a bad news source,and that reading the NY lying Times,the Daily (J)News,and the NY Jerusalem Post is reliable .
One nut left an explosion stain on my ceiling when he screamed at me for saying,”Why would Russia purposely blow up a Malaysian airliner”.After declaring Putin as Hitler he stormed out,never to return.And I knew this person for 50 years.Sad,the strange eggs in the weird baskets of people’s minds.
True
@Glenn, let’s not forget spy planes covering Iran and car bombings to kill their scientists. I know this isn’t nearly the level of all out bombing. But give it time, Hillary or Joe need to have a first term objective.
Mr. Greenwald,
Coincident with the recent global climate change march that garnered 300,000+ marchers and the UN Climate Summit today, please consider writing a TI article in the near future regarding the carbon footprint of President Obama’s wars.
Thereafter, consider writing a new book something along the lines of:
Climate Change Consequences of the Global War on Terror
Subtitle: The Carbon Footprint of America’s Endless Wars
Every politician concerned about climate change who calls for a carbon tax only on non-military industries and yet habitually votes to continue the war on terror is abjectly hypocritical. We voters need the most recent data and estimates by scientists and engineers regarding the carbon footprint of war to challenge those for whom we might vote in the upcoming election and then later on for deciding who should be our next president.
I can think of no one else who might have the impact that you could have in this debate, given your excellent collating, writing, and critical thinking skills.
It does make one wonder if the Nobel Prize Committee’s records place an asterisk (*) by those – questionable awards…
From today’s Democracy NOW!:
“The New York Times reports Obama is overseeing extensive rebuilding of nuclear weapons at home, including at a new plant in Kansas City, dedicated last month, which is larger than the Pentagon and employs thousands of people. According to a recent federal study, the United States is poised to spend up to $1.1 trillion over the next three decades on modernizing nuclear weapons.”
Just makes you feel all feel warm and fuzzy about OUR world’s possibilities for peace…
I’m betting the Nobel Prize Committee has honored their last USA president – before the time in office has been completed.
Well, that’s one way to lower the unemployment rate I guess. Whatever happened to the Non-Proliferation Treaty?
I cannot help myself, I must return to the work of Carl Schmitt as a means of making the Nobel Peace Prize–at least those awards given to heads of states–a thinkable quotient:
“When a state fights its political enemy in the name of humanity, it is not a war for the sake of humanity, but a war wherein a particular state seeks to usurp a universal concept against its military opponent… whoever invokes humanity wants to cheat…to invoke such a term probably has certain incalculable effects, such as denying the enemy the quality of being human and declaring him to be an outlaw of humanity; and a war can thereby be driven to the most extreme inhumanity.”
Whatever legitimate point Glenn wants to make is buried in an ocean of exaggeration and hyperbole. Of course the prostrate masses who worship him think he strikes the right notes. And wait to hear Lord Snowden and Earl Assange weigh in. Note to climate activists: the latest war has knocked the big parade of two days ago out of mass consciousness. Switch signs and march against O’s bombing campaign, why doncha. While the public is aware of climate change and its controversy, most of the public is not aware of controversy over O’s latest humanitarian incursion.
Meanwhile, Rodger has more apples to polish…
Such as?
There is nothing exaggerated or hyperbolic in Glenn’s piece.
Translation: Since I’m incapable of factually disagreeing with anything stated in this article (which I didn’t in the first place), I’ll pompously claim it’s all “exaggeration and hyperbole” and hope someone will listen to me.
I’m curious Rodger Lodger, a few years ago I heard of a plan where the ultra wealthy would live forever and “population explosion” and “limited resources” weren’t a problem. Now every time there is an article on climate change, there are “trolls” who extoll the virtues of planet earth with 1 billion people (ideally 500million) and earth world be a paradise for the people left. Of course, they neglect to say what would happened to that 6 billion surplus population. I assume the ultra-wealthy would need some people to be their serfs/servants, farmers, shopkeepers, bankers, hence the 1 billion number…they don’t intend to kill every last one of us. Just the freethinkers, artists, writers, journalists, professors, dissidents…the usual under totalitarian regimes. And HOW will they kill us…well Virginia they are testing those experimental weapons now on a non-consensual population. But don’t worry, if you’re a good soldier to the “homeland” aka der heimat, you might live until the 4th Reich. Good luck everyone, it’s really f*$cking ugly and the entire US government knows it, including the completely corrupt congress up for election in November.
Too much money to be made by WAR:
The 3.2 million employed by the Pentagon make money…
the weapons manufacturers make money…
the private defense contractors make money…
the intelligence agencies make money…
the private intelligence corporations make money…
the construction and industrial builders make money…
the energy companies make money…
the media companies make money…
the technology and software companies make money…
the transportation industry (airlines, trains, buses) makes money…
the medical device companies make money…
the pharmaceutical companies make money…
the lobbyists make money…
the bankers make money…
the attorneys make money…
the investors make money…
Thank you to Systemic Fraud. You have just about said it all with regard to what is going on here. And – a BIG THANK YOU! to Greenwald, Poitras, Snowden, Assange and Manning. I continue to grieve that Americans (and world citizens like Assange) of the high moral and intelligence caliber of Edward Snowden have to live outside this country or incarcerated in it. I continue to pray that it won’t always be this way. Just think, instead of these fine Americans we have to endure the likes of moral cowards such as Brennan, Clapper, Feinstein, Obama,…
Wait – so which is it? Wars cost us trillions and put us in terrible debt? Or wars create so much employment that they keep the economy afloat? Could someone please explain? No, really, I don’t understand.
There’s a difference between creating jobs and creating wealth. Military jobs are jobs but they don’t make us wealthier, because civilization isn’t made richer and better by bombing pre-dominantly Muslim countries, for example.
The economics of war are little different. It create extreme wealth for a very small number of investors over a short time period by spending trillions of dollars to destroy an imaginary threat in this case. A false pretense of national security trumps everything [1]. See how easy and quickly Congress approved $500 million to train and equip more Syrian rebels [2] and jumped to a military attack without having an estimate on much it will financially cost the country [3]. Compare this to the time and effort it takes Congress to approve a fraction of this money for social programs or even keep it at it’s current levels.
Creating jobs and building an economy is not a priority. It has a slow return on investment and is not guaranteed to increase profits.
[1] http://www.tomdispatch.com/blog/175877/tomgram%3A_noam_chomsky%2C_why_national_security_has_nothing_to_do_with_security
[2] http://www.politico.com/story/2014/09/house-vote-syria-rebels-isil-111075.html
[3] http://blogs.rollcall.com/white-house/isis-news-war-cost-still-unknown/
and
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/09/22/press-briefing-press-secretary-josh-earnest-9222014
Thanks for the links Wesam, and your comments. Macroeconomics are complicated, and certainly a big blind spot for me.
Wars cost us trillions …
That’s right, and you have to only find out where those trillions end up to understand why we need the wars.
Dabney, There is no profit in destruction. Though war rearranges some resources (and some people get rich), it is a net loss for society as a whole, always and everywhere. Net employment cannot increase because the resources used to fight the war must be taken from elsewhere (in a world of scarcity), and hence those resources cannot be used to employ people productively (you know, making things instead of destroying them). The all time classic on this topic is by Bastiat: http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html (see section 2: The Demobilization). It is eloquent, straightforward, and correct — a rare combination.
Thanks Macroman! I will look at that link.
Very edifying. Thank you Macroman.
Obama’s repeating virtually everything we were told by Dubya about the need to fight the “terrorists”, in a somewhat more subtle, educated-sounding manner:
Where have we heard that before?
Um, sure.
And:
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-on-syria-strikes–war-on-islamic-state-will–take-time-145136550.html
Lather, rinse, repeat ad infinitum, ad nauseam.
Let’s not forget that the Palestinians and Ukrainians have also been bombed and brutalized with the approval of the U.S. and NATO.
Even as I realized in 2008 that Obama was a corporate-owned predator (like almost, if not all, of Washington Inc.), I never suspected he would give this new dimension to the position of “community organizer.”
No doubt this corruption will be used as a means to vilify those people who work as community organizers in order to help other people (in contrast to Obama’s position as a community organizer). Surely, the majority of voters in the U.S. will be led to never trust another “community organizer.”
Washington is replete with Psycho killers.
They aren’t just creating “terrorists” over seas, they do it within the US too. If you search “gangstalking” you will find a sea of disinformation and a small amount of real information, but the point is this form of torture really is taking place and it ultimately forces one to commit suicide or violence on your perceived attackers. The Navy Yard shooter Aaron Alexis was telling the truth and he wasn’t “crazy” as the media tried to spin it. Here are declassified documents showcasing the weapons they used to torture him inside his apartment http://www.scribd.com/doc/30906628/Bioeffects-of-Selected-Non-Lethal-Weapons
Pay special attention to Microwave Hearing.
I agree. But we don’t know who exactly is running the program. I have had almost every single weapon used against me after breast clips/chips (that no one had ever seen before) were implanted by a top Long Island radiologist. My advice take some medication to deal with the pain, be aware when the attacks are happening to help you cope. There is very little you can do to shield yourself because they constantly change weapons and tactics, partially to to sensitize you to a particular stimuli, but also to never allow you to get used to a particular tactic.
Go for a walk. You can test the range of the weapons, unless they are in a Van/Truck mobile and following you. Websites say that the Directed Energy Weapons range is 300 feet, the real range appears to be half a mile. Folks, that means that means they just need a neighbor or an empty lot within a half mile of your house.
Make a complaint to everyone Congress, Law Enforcement etc… Short and sweet. It’s useless, but make it anyway. Sooner or later someone will leak this horrific Stasi stalker/ experimental weapons nightmare. And there’s gonna be hell to pay…
“…Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, and Jordan.”
The perfect allies for a freedom-loving Nobel Peace Prize winner.
“…….It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters it that it be at war, always and forever……..As the disastrous Libya “intervention” should conclusively and permanently demonstrate, the U.S. does not bomb countries for humanitarian objectives. Humanitarianism is the pretense, not the purpose…….”
While that’s one possible interpretation, I’m more inclined to take the rapid change on alignments as proof this administration just has no idea what it’s trying to accomplish, and is simply reacting to events as they come up. I highly doubt Obama WANTS his efforts against ISIS to backfire, if only because it would badly damage him politically and in the eyes of history.
I am not sure where the suggestion that he did came from. Has the bombing in Iraq “backfired”?
“…At this point, it’s more rational to say they do all of this not despite triggering those outcomes, but because of it. Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug. It is what justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War.”
This seems to imply Obama wants his campaign to create more enemies and thus require more interventions in the future, which I can’t see helping him politically. Recall that the failure in Iraq was a major reason for the Republican losses in 2006 and 2008. Furthermore, the Obama administration was in complete denial about the disintegration of Iraq until the capture of Mosul made it impossible to ignore, which hardly suggests people with a well-thought out plan for the region.
If one accepts the premise – and I do – that America’s war machine essentially wants to be at war, then it should raise serious concerns about America’s vast and complex domestic security industry. Surely the same dynamic is at work in the sprawling shadowy industry of agencies and security-intelligence contractors employed by the government and corporations.
The difference is that you can’t hide a bombing campaign. Counterintelligence activities (such as Cointelpro, and the scheming aimed at Greenwald and WikiLeaks that was uncovered by Jeremy Hammond) stay mostly below the public’s radar. It is inconceivable that this huge sector of current and former agents are kept busy exclusively with legitimate operations. I would love to see The Intercept aim even a tiny portion of its resources at investigating who are the targets of that industry – and specifically, what has given rise to the ongoing published news reports of dirty tricks harassment and surveillance archived at Fight Gang Stalking.
If ever there was a news group that could expose that slimy ecosystem, it is The Intercept. That “Spooky Business” report on corporate spying featured last year on Democracy Now! and elsewhere was the tip of the iceberg. The Military Industrial Complex has a domestic tentacle just as disturbing as the foreign interventionism. It too involves perpetual warfare. It’s sanctioned and perpetrated by the same general tribe that brought us MK Ultra and Cointelpro – programs for which virtually no one was punished (a lesson that was not lost on the perps).
I, too, am aware of COINTELPRO-style operations being conducted in the U.S. Jacob Appelbaum (and others) know, as well:
“The #COINTELPRO tactics and general strategy are being heavily used by those who oppose transparency, accountability and limits on power.”
https://twitter.com/ioerror/status/415627455668318208
Jacob Applebaum via video titled “Farmhouse Conf 4 COINTELPRO – Past, Present, and Our Shared Future”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ftfEXxFC4Q
We have a war, of a sort, in progress on U.S. soil and it’s running well beneath the radar of most. What’s transpiring is vicious, sadistic, and most certainly isn’t consistent with the rule of law. And yet it continues. How much longer will the victims of this program — many of whom are good, decent, law-abiding citizens — be allowed to suffer? Anyone who knows and does nothing is, in effect, complicit in crimes against humanity.
It has to stop.
My comment at 12:43 still hadn’t posted by almost 2:30, so I posted another. Please excuse the duplication.
Cointelpro is alive and well in U.S, but the media appear to be turning a blind eye. “Home of the free”? Not for some Americans, including the law-abiding. (There’s a Stasi-like apparatus operating from coast to coast, but mum’s the word.)
“That should be the solution, that should be the slogan for republicans, for the long term is that we’re tired of being black American, gay American, Hispanic-American. Let’s just be Americans again, we got these people we have to kill. Number two, we have to start finding people who charm and do not chafe. We should have a zero tolerance for the shrill, the hysteric, the witch.” Greg Gutfeld, Fox Five.
War is a great uniter, regardless of which corporate party is in power.
A double play by the Ministry of Peace and its inspired Peace Prize laureate. Seems that they hit ISIS and a second group, so it looks like we’ve got built-in escalation, the Cambodia phase of this war, let’s call it.
http://www.juancole.com/2014/09/shock-never-works.html
Also, Erdogan of Turkey just had an interview with Charlie Rose (I’m still looking for a link) in which Erdogan seemed oddly disinterested in intervening. If he’s this apathetic about this unpleasantness on his immediate border, then it’s curious why Mr. Peace Prize is so eager.
More on Operation Twofer.
http://thinkprogress.org/world/2014/09/23/3570666/the-us-bombed-not-one-but-two-terrorist-groups-last-night-in-syria/
Public law 107-40 declared war against enemies to be named later. Bush named al-Qaeda and the Taliban, Obama named al-Qaeda associates and now he names new enemies on Tuesdays, perhaps while having tea and scones on the portico. ISIS/ISIL have been named as enemies by someone, since the putrid law says nothing about who can name enemies.
This law is still in effect, no matter how hard people ignore it in the deluded hope that it will go away by itself.
Nobody gives up power voluntarily. No US politician will give up the awesome power of this law. No US politician has tried to repeal this law, even after 13 years.
This law started the DAFT war, the war to forever prevent all future terrorism by military means. This war has no limits, geographical or temporal. Since everybody everywhere has the potential for future violence, everybody everywhere is a potential future terrorist and must be dealt with by military means.
This law was modeled after the Reichstag Fire Decree of 1933 Germany, which gave to Hitler almost unlimited power to stop ‘Communist violence’. Do you think that he would EVER have said that the job was done and he didn’t need that power anymore?
Do you think that any US politician will say the all future terrorism has been militarily defeated?
This DAFT war is the wet dream of the PRICs (Psychos really in charge).
We must repeal Public Law 107-40. We must end the DAFT war or it will end us.
It is the economy stupid , it keeps millions employed & generates for corporate America !
“Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.”
Benito Mussolini
* profits *
And, throw a little religion into the mix. The Vatican saw fascism have its first capital right at their doorstep…and welcomed it.
Really now,how many divisions had the Pope to combat fascism in Italy,and how would the Vatican have survived the backlash from Italians who wholeheartedly backed Mussolini,until they suffered the results of his idiocy?
Picking at old wounds leaves scars.Today’s present moronity has enough to critique.
Keep on screaming Glenn. The perpetual war was what woke me up and I’m sure more are stirring every time they take it on the road.
Corey Robin put up an interesting column and cites:
It’s worth a look. Defined the sovereign…. That’s worth thinking about by itself. So, every 4 years the inhabitants of the empire, ostensibly, “elect” a sovereign who will decide ex nihilo to apply the empire’s hammer to some designated nail. What’s not to love about such a scenario? /s
Corey Robin’s site is now a bookmark for me. An extremely relevant and informative one for understanding the mechanisms of the madness we’re submerged in.
See Cory’s book, “The Reactionary Mind”. Insightful and funny too.
Two Glenn articles in two days? It’s like Christmas around here! :)
Honestly, I can’t really believe that wars to perpetuate ill will and more war are conducted on purpose, explicitly for that reason, because that is just too far outside my understanding of how human beings work. I just don’t think human hearts and minds, deep down, are capable of things like that. But I do think humans are very much capable of motivated reasoning and that motivated reasoning is incredibly difficult to see because it ‘feels right’, and this is almost always our final guide when putting together narratives. And I also think that motivated reasoning is strongly influenced by inadvertent reinforcement. And that I can see. I mean, if nothing else, politicians probably go to Washington with all kinds of plans and ideals, and are roadblocked constantly by opposing forces. If military action is about the one thing that gets you popular support rather painlessly, I can see how it would start to look appealing.
The popular support thing does trouble me – it’s not as if all this has been done against the will of a kicking and screaming public. Quite the opposite – it seems that the public flipped out and almost demanded this action. And honestly, that factor does bother me, because it seems kind of whiny and selfish (I am not capable of comprehending Nefarious Mastermind thinking, I guess, but apparently I know whiny and selfish, ha ha), and I don’t see that as an honorable state for the American people. When I look at the news, the atrocities that people in other parts of the world are facing are unspeakable. The suffering that some are facing in our *own country is unspeakable. To me it’s Spoiled Princess (ok, Spoiled Princess With Artillery) behavior to say that at the first hint of *any possible danger to an American citizen, no matter how remote, and, honestly, at this point infinitesimally small, we’re going to start bombing people. Maybe there are other factors here that I’m not aware of, i.e., somehow this is a strategic move that will protect much larger interests in that region in the long run for the US, or really help the situation in the Middle East. If that’s the case, I’ll reconsider, but overall this looks rather reactionary to me as an outside observer.
It’s easy to get emotional about these events. And often seems so futile to argue or even discuss the minutiae, although readers comments are so often enlightening. I read a few Benito Mussolini posts before catching up on the news. His detachment has a calming effect in addition to wonderful insight and style.
Grazie Duce!
“Honestly, I can’t really believe that wars to perpetuate ill will and more war are conducted on purpose, explicitly for that reason, because that is just too far outside my understanding of how human beings work”
You and too many more to count. What you suffer from is a normal human affliction, a sincere belief in the good nature of humanity. But to believe this, you have to overlook the Nazis, at least I would propose in regards to your second point of more war conducted on purpose. Insofar as the first point you make, I would offer John Ashcroft as a rebuttal. If you happen to truly believe in literal Armageddon will precipitate the return of Jesus, and I mean this as a sincere, personal, theological belief, and further that theology holds “Muslims are the Children of Satan” as is taught in the advanced Bible studies of Ashcroft’s Assemblies of God church, then what Glenn has stated makes perfect sense. I referenced the interview with Mikey Weinstein in my earlier comment and he’s on-board with the idea legitimately insane people hold sway over the most lethal arsenal in the world and he tells you just where they want to go with it (literal Armageddon.) He’s a former military officer and has been investigating this necrotic phenomena for years. Now, I’ll point to to another source that is an eye opener:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Behind
^ Our Pentagon (as well, NATO generally) is badly infected with people who actually believe this non-sense, it’s the mentality that actuality, sincerely, desires to generate war through generating enemies until the entire thing blows out of control and it opens the door to ‘anything goes’
Well, I believe human beings are capable of all sorts of perverse horror, but even the Nazis had a story about it all being for the greater good. I think it’s rare-to-almost-never that you would find a human capable of saying: “I realize I am creating war – including the bombing of innocents, shattering of countless lives, and creation of terror in the world – pretty much because I would like to have a bit more power and influence or make a few extra bucks.” Ok, possibly even that much I can see, some people have poor impulse control. What I don’t see is: “Also, I like that idea so much that I want to think ahead about how to make the next war, so I am going to strategically think about how to unsettle other parts of the world juuuust enough to keep this war going, again, mostly because I’d like to buy another Benz this year”. I think when unfortunate dynamics like that happen, they are created inadvertently, specifically *without conscious awareness of patterns. In this case, Americans are kinda, sorta, a little bit acting like a bunch of crybabies; we get caught more in a pattern of putting out small fires when emotions flare and less in doing the dull, hard work of helping to strengthen the global community before crisis situations; and politicians probably want to take action that they can actually take without being bogged down in endless bureaucracy. I think if the American people suddenly took an equally fervent interest in some other area, political policy would follow suit, though.
Well, good luck with that thinking. I just googled ‘at the pentagon bible study’ and came up with this
http://www.christianembassy.com/content.asp?contentid=360
Actually I was looking far a cartoon image of our generals trying to figure out what Jesus would do … “bomb now or bomb later”
Weinstein is a Jew who didn’t want Christianity thrust upon him by the overwhelmingly Christian(heretic)military hierarchy.He can go join the IDF,those other heretics.
Yeah,the public was all jumping up and down in Times Square calling for more war.What the MSM says we think,and what we actually say and think are 2(at least) different things.
Ever heard of manufacturing consent?
Mr. Greenwald
“…….It seems irrelevant on whom the U.S. wages war; what matters it that it be at war, always and forever……..As the disastrous Libya “intervention” should conclusively and permanently demonstrate, the U.S. does not bomb countries for humanitarian objectives. Humanitarianism is the pretense, not the purpose…….”
That’s an absurd conclusion, of course. However, bombing the ISIS in Syria is convoluted for several reasons. A primary US policy in the Middle East is regime change in Syria. Indeed, there can be no political settlement in Syria while Assad remains in power – and the Syrian rebels have made this the minimum requirement in talks with the regime. Currently, the Assad regime is being propped up by Russia, Hezbollah and Iran who support Assad for geopolitical reasons. Bombing the ISIS in Syria certainly must help the Assad regime – and provide a boost to morale to their supporters (especially Hezbollah which is knee deep in that war).
The Obama administration has been all over the map in the Middle East without any discernible or consistent policy. Bombing the Assad regime was the right step, but Obama missed that golden opportunity. Now the Assad regime looks like it has been fighting the war on terror when the reality is much simpler. They define terror. – plain and simple.
As persuasive as any of your myriad other unsupported assertions, Craig.
Mona in a another classic drive-by shooting, but I always appreciate your comments……regardless.
She was shooting at dead fish in a leaky barrel.
“Obama missed” the “golden opportunity” to bomb the “Assad regime” — What about the fact that the only thing holding back ISIS from complete control of Syria are some relatively weak Kurds in the north and Assad? Your policy proposal would have amounted to handing ISIS Syria in the name of defeating ISIS (is that not the simplest of contradictions?). You assert that “bombing the Assad regime was the right step,” yet recognize that “the Assad regime is being propped up by Russia, Hezbollah and Iran.” Yes, Mr. Summers, open war with a country whose head of state resides on a Russian destroyer (in the middle of an entire fleet that includes nuclear armed submarines) is clearly the best move. Same for your assertion that “there can be no political settlement…while Assad remains in power.” Well, guess what? Assad is going to remain in power — the only person on this planet that can kill him is Putin, who won’t. The “political settlement” (most would refer to it as the end of the war) will occur when all the rebels die, not when Assad dies. All this is obvious to everyone but you and the President and probably a few children.
Can Sawant run for VP or president, under the constitution?
If she can’t, let’s change the constitution.
She cannot. Let’s not. And what does Sawant have to do with anything?
The execrableness of the policy lies of course in the displaced and dead hundreds of thousands, principally in Near Asia and the Middle East consequent to hegemonic attempts at resource control and the optative emasculation of statal rivals. But, ultimately the operating vision is one of an “empire of the mind,” whereby American imperialism qua mental state (in the dual or triple senses of the phrase) incessantly expands, colonizes, Ebola-like, the mental territories of billions of human minds with the psychological and even somatic patterns and dynamics that sustain this virtual ever-replicating, mise-en-abyming empire that rather thinks it hax lifted itself by virtue of the conceptual and technological into the deterritorialized sphere of the Internetic “cloud” and beyond. The question is will this true “empire of lies” have fully engulfed us within it before we could become aware of its systemically contradictory demise, and/or will the psychosis of infinitely mirrored and mirroring lies have irreversibly trespassed and transferred our human consciences into a new and irrevocable transhuman state, in line with the robotic, cybernetic, and in general the technologico-economic: the singular, unitary, and ontologically anti-communal? Isolated in a shared hell of permanently damaged inhumanity?
Don’t forget the oil angle
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/23/iraq-s23.html
Preface to Glenn’s first book is on line.
I posted a comment on the political site, dailykos.com, and the comment had two of Glenn’s tweets. Two Obama supporters responded by noting that Glenn supported W’s wars and hence nothing that Glenn said should be taken seriously. Someone else made a comment about how often this ploy has been used and gave a link to the preface to the book.
I read the book years ago. Rereading the preface was interesting.
Like Glenn, I was not following politics much since I assumed that it was working OK. I was in the streets 65-67 at Berkeley protesting the Vietnam war, but dropped out of politics for almost 40 years.
Glenn was in Manhattan on 9-11 and supported W Bush’s strong statements and the invasions. Then the torture and lack of due process got his attention and he realized that the constitution was in danger from the encroachment of executive power. He started a blog and within 3 months had 10,000 followers. His powerful style is there from the first.
Here is the link to the preface to “How Would A Patriot Act”
https://www.bookbrowse.com/excerpts/index.cfm?fuseaction=printable&book_number=1812
The more dishonest Obots do this literally all the time on Twitter. For example, “The Obama Diary” daily posts a screen cap of a few sentences from that Preface (without saying that’s where it comes from), to make it look as if Glenn had been a starry-eyed Bush supporter. Nevermind that this is a Preface (which the don’t cite or link to) to a strongly anti-Bush book.
I think the US is bombing ISIS in Syria now for the following reasons, all of which have occurred recently:
– ISIS has captured considerable territory in Iraq, in addition to the territory it conquered in Syria
– ISIS has declared itself to be not only a state but a Caliphate, the first such proclamation since Ataturk abolished the last claimed Caliphate 90 years ago
– ISIS has beheaded Americans in Syria
– ISIS forced the flight of tens of thousands of people on the basis of them not being Sunni Muslims
and that, as a result of these actions, US policymakers have decide
GG, by contrast, thinks the real motivation is to strengthen our enemies. Not that this will be an unfortunate outcome, but that it is actually the goal of policymakers. I wonder, does he think that the only reason the US bombed the Taliban and AQ in 2001 was to strengthen our enemies? That the 9/11 attacks were not the “real reason” for that action? And is this a Bush-Obama era thing, or has it always existed? Going back in history, I think the reason the US fought a war with Mexico was because the US wanted to expand, and Mexico decided it’d be a good idea to shoot at American troops. Were those not the reasons? Did we secretly just want to create enemies?
Does this standard apply to any country but the US? For example, I think Russia has annexed Crimea and supported breakaway areas of Ukraine because Russia wants Crimea to be part of Russia and wants to keep parts of Ukraine under its influence as Kiev leans toward Europe. Does GG think Putin’s real goal is to strengthen Russia’s enemies? What about in Chechnya, was that the goal there too? If so, that one was really unsuccessful, since Russia reconquered Chechnya, nobody cared, and the Chechens still spoiling for a fight went elsewhere.
You can argue a policy is misguided without saying baseless things about a country’s motivations. Countries, and leaders of those countries, often misjudge what the best way to achieve their interest is, but that doesn’t usually mean they secretly long for an endless stream of enemies.
Before addressing that I’d like to bring notice that you made up a number of questions and scenarios that were all your own, as you pretended that you were addressing the thoughts of someone else. That’s called posting a fuck-load of straw men and then knocking them down. It’s an old and stale tactic.
Now to your, “but that doesn’t usually mean” comment. That’s a twofer straw man because no one said what it “usually” means. There is ample factual evidence that the US keeps creating enemies — and also seeing to it that they are provided with weapons. Endless war doesn’t happen without some effort.
If We Stop Arming, Funding and Training Terrorists, then Maybe We Won’t Have to Bomb Them Later
U.S. foreign policy is schizophrenic.
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says we need to attack the Sunni militants in Syria.
The deputy national security adviser to President Obama says we should go after ISIS in Syria.
Okay …
But the U.S. and our closest allies have long supported Sunni militants.
And the U.S. and our closest allies have been arming and training Islamic jihadists in Syria for years. And see this, this, this and this.
You don’t have to be a rocket scientist or a fortune-teller to have known this was a bad idea. –Washington’s Blog
(snip)
The quotation is loaded with links, which can be seen and opened at the original link.
“At this point, it’s more rational to say they do all of this not despite triggering those outcomes, but because of it. Continuously creating and strengthening enemies is a feature, not a bug, as it is what then justifies the ongoing greasing of the profitable and power-vesting machine of Endless War”
Thank you Glenn, for the courage to state this in no uncertain terms. Also, it can’t hurt to point out the people who profit from the ‘greasing’ the machine are what former White House attorney Mikey Weinstein calls ‘Christian al-Qaida’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N-a7AYQblig
His interview with Cenk Uygur (link, above) is really worth a watch
And speaking of Christian al-Qaida, satire insists…
http://ronaldthomaswest.com/2014/04/07/thuck-norris/
…B movie heroes are on a par with Nobel Laureates
One should absolutely read “Syrian Wars of Proxy” that Glenn links to at the end of his piece: http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-wars-proxy
The myriad wars-within-wars-within-wars — the now regional nature of the Syrian “conflict” — make it especially absurd for the U.S. to be involved on any of the multitudinous sides. ISIS gets all the attention with the beheading and kidnapping, but it is hard to see how bombing in that region can actually and solely eliminate that particular entity.
As the author supports with enumerated points:
Shrieking “ISIS!” is, at best, an unintelligent argument in favor of the U.S. getting involved.
War is peace.
“The utter lack of interest in what possible legal authority Obama has to bomb Syria is telling indeed”
Isn’t he using, or at least purporting to use, the 2001 AUMF? Which is significant in its own right, particularly when the main warnings issued by people who oppose it (both then and now) were that it would enable perpetual war.
Of course when trying to remember who was the lone anti-AUMF vote, I come across this.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/may/07/aumf-durbin-barbara-lee-defense
This goes to the heart of the debate, how open-ended war is now part of the national identity.
While it may appear to be a layered “proxy” cake of regional schemes, all of the blood-drenched layers share the same underlying self-serving, cynical avarice.
There is only one item on the menu in this predatory capitalist restaurant, but it is listed under numerous names and descriptions and every serving of it is more foul than the last. Obama is just one of the waiters who are there to trick the gullible into becoming part of the meal.
The Professor… link is not working.
“The Professor… link is not working.”
Are you sure? It did for me. It’s here:
http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/syrian-wars-proxy
Yes, I was sure when I tried it several times and saw ‘error whatever’ come up. It’s working now, though.
I’ve had it up for 15 minutes. Works for me.
excellent article on Syria multi-tiered proxy war
can you believe 8 proxy wars going on at once?
balls in the air?
how totally stupid our foreign policy has become …..
new generation of nuclear weapons to reduce the world to look like Gaza?
why can’t someone run for president (and the legislature) and be against wars, against nuclear next generation, against Israel’s genocide, against the war on the environment, against treaties that go so far as to give corporations more power than governments, …..
it takes real courage to stand up to the embedded power that runs the place
People who share those concerns and opinions have run for president and other national offices, but they are pounded down, sidelined, ridiculed, lied about and so on … you now the drill.
But here is a spark of hope about a successful run for office by someone other than the usual corporate controlled war monger or lip-service fake peace candidate. She puts the Israeli War Criminal backing Elizabeth Warren to shame:
The MSM would ignore and deprecate such a candidate,but at this point in time,I think that tarring would be in the candidates interest,as only ideologues(Zionists)and their mammonian quislings are in favor of all those stupid US actions.The true nationalist would win in a landslide,if given the chance.
And if not soon,Da Fuhrers ghost is in the wings,waiting for the abject moment to arrive for his unleashing,and given the current trajectory,he will arrive.I’m curious if the German media of the time of Hitlers ascending was the same abject anti German(what else are all these stupid wars and economic policies but anti-American people)out of touch criminals as our own Zio inspired cruds._
lol. The thing is, if one is shot and falls off the roof to be hit by a car and has a heart attack, you simply cannot accuse the doctor of not noticing the ebola. That’s the situation in the Middle East now. So anyone’s spin is as credible as the next. Of one thing I am sure though; you wouldn’t have this situation if everyone had the oil&gas they claim they have. Must be the last drops we are using.
GG is racist, you think Obama did this? Your just saing it cause he is a black man. How ignorant bigoted and teabagging of u. Go back to the 17 century with it!
Satire or not? It’s *so* hard to tell these days.
Please be advised that Barack Obama is the President of the United States.
“Warren4prez”
You are obviously too desperately in need of your delusions. Obama and Warren work for the same predatory corporate church. It is the same church which owns the republicans, democrats, and libertarians.
Obama’s racial appearance was used to elect him by the corporate masters because they knew the majority of voters wouldn’t be able to see beyond his skin color to the corporate tool he was in the Senate and is today. With Warren and her hero Hillary, their gender (questionable) is the new distracting glitter which is the basis of insuring a continuation of corruption. No matter the skin color or gender, the predatory dick-ishness will continue as long as desperate people like you fail to see reality.
Enjoy your blood-covered delusions of pragmatism.
This comment must be a snark. The author uses the hash tag #Warren4Prez which came up when I did a search on the author name
Is this comment going to be used by some group when searching for comments about Warren? or Glenn?
Warren says she is not running for president but there are supporters out there and some of them are at the twitter feed
The “warren” may be a reference to a historical or other figure, Earl Warren, Warren G. Harding, Rabbit Warren or Warren Peese. As for the reference to the 17th Century, I’m not sure what the Thirty Years’ War or King Charles II (and his mistresses) have to do with the discussion at hand.
Signor Mussolini, white courtesy telephone, please.
Dead men, rabbits, and puns does sound like a more beneficial political campaign!
As for Charles II, why not include James II (or VII in Scotland), Charles I, and Cromwell?
The divine right of slaughterers is still thriving.
Maybe it was meant as a comment on slave trade, but “Warren4prez” fails to remember that there were Africans who profited from enslaving other Africans.
HAHAHAHA Coram, you’re still the funniest on the board. The Marx Bros. “Fredonia’s Going to War” video was excellent.
However, I do want to thank Obama for the medical care I now receive through Medicaid. Will Rand Paul offer me free medical care?
Thank you.
Anybody who want’s to piss all over the Zionist tool Warren is fine by me.
That statement had bile written all over it.