Whatever else one wants to say about Iraq and Afghanistan, one cannot honestly say that Obama ended the wars in those countries. The U.S. continues to drop bombs on both, deploys soldiers in both, kills civilians in both, and engages in a wide range of overt and covert force, all without a shred of Congressional approval.
“We’ve ended two wars.” — Barack Obama, July 21, 2015, at a DSCC fundraiser held at a “private residence”
“Now that we have ended two wars responsibly, and brought home hundreds of American troops, we salute this new generation of veterans.” — National Security Adviser Susan Rice, May 20, 2015
“His presidency makes a potentially great story: the first African-American in the White House, who helped the country recover from recession and ended two wars.” — Dominic Tierney, The Atlantic, January 15, 2015, “America Will Miss Obama When He’s Gone”
Report from Airwars, August 2, 2015, detailing civilian deaths from continuous U.S.-led airstrikes in Iraq and Syria:
New York Times, today, headlined: “U.S. Planes Strike Near Kunduz Airport as Fight Rages On”
American warplanes bombarded Taliban-held territory around the Kunduz airport overnight, and Afghan officials said American Special Forces were rushed toward the fighting. … The situation for the Afghan forces improved somewhat toward midnight: American warplanes conducted airstrikes at 11:30 p.m. and again at 1 a.m. on Taliban positions near the airport, an American military spokesman said. … Around the same time, soldiers with the American Special Forces headed out toward the city with Afghan commandos, according to Afghan government officials.
How do you know when you’re an out-of-control empire? When you keep bombing and deploying soldiers in places where you boast that you’ve ended wars. How do you know you have a hackish propagandist for a president? When you celebrate him for “ending two wars” in the very same places that he keeps bombing.
All of this, just by the way, is being done without any Congressional approval, at least with regard to Iraq and Syria. As my colleague Cora Currier noted when reporting on the Airwars report in August, these civilian deaths are “a reminder of the extent to which the United States’ air war in Syria and Iraq has rolled ahead with little public debate over its effectiveness. Congress has still not passed a specific legal authorization for the war.”
Russia today announced that its upper Parliament approved its own imperialistic intervention and bombing campaign inside Syria, and that legislative body was widely (and not inaccurately) derided by U.S. commentators for being what the New York Times called a “rubber stamp.” The Obama administration, by contrast, does not even bother with the empty ritual of Congressional approval for its bombing campaigns; the president proved he is even willing to bomb a country after Congress rejected his authorization to do so, as happened in Libya. Indeed, the one and only time Obama venerated the need for Congressional approval for bombing was when he was pressured to bomb the Assad regime for crossing his “red line” but did not actually want to do so; as Charles Davis put it today, “Obama only seeks Congress’ authorization when he doesn’t actually want to do something, as when Assad crossed his ‘red line.'”
Whatever else one wants to say about Iraq and Afghanistan, one cannot honestly say that Obama ended the wars in those countries. The U.S. continues to drop bombs on both, deploys soldiers in both, kills civilians in both, and engages in a wide range of overt and covert force, all without a shred of Congressional approval.
Photo: U.S. soldiers inspect the site of a suicide attack in the heart of Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Aug. 22, 2015. The suicide car bomber attacked a NATO convoy traveling through a crowded neighborhood in Afghanistan’s capital Saturday, killing at least 10 people, including three NATO contractors, authorities said.
I guess the twisted legal framework is that if Congress hasn’t declared these to be wars, then the executive branch can call them whatever they want.
It’s fascinating to witness the Orwellian ways in which the Obama administration has attempted to literally redefine what war is. The U.S. War Powers Resolution says that “the constitutional powers of the President as Commander-in-Chief to introduce United States Armed Forces into hostilities, or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances, are exercised only pursuant to (1) a declaration of war, (2) specific statutory authorization, or (3) a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces.”
Basically, the President isn’t legally allowed to deploy troops into any kind of combat situation unless there is specific authorization from Congress or unless the country is under attack.
The administration tried to justify its lack of Congressional approval for the Libya campaign by saying that what it was doing in Libya didn’t count as “hostilities”.
So what exactly were these non-“hostilities” that the U.S. was carrying out in Libya? US Permanent Representative to NATO Ivo Daalder provided a nice summary to the press on Sept. 8, 2011: “the United States led in this operation… It led in the planning of the operation, it led in getting the mandate for the operation, and it led in the execution of the operation… It was the United States that took out the air defense system in Libya in the opening part of this operation and continued to suppress enemy air defenses throughout the conflict as well as provided a critical precision targeting capability by deploying armed Predators. It was the United States that provided the bulk of the intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information that was critical for the conduct of this operation in all of its aspects, at sea and in the air. It was the United States that provided the critical targeters who were able to translate information into targets. And it was the United States that provided the critical air refueling capability that allowed countries to sustain their combat operations in the air… the United States conducted more sorties than any other country in this operation, twenty six percent.”
War is peace, apparently. And of course a large number of Congressional Democrats see no problem with this.
(Daalder’s entire statement can be found here: http://nato.usmission.gov/libya-oup-90811.html)
And they call Putin a thug and the foolish say Russia is imperialistic.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/oct/03/three-medecins-sans-frontieres-staff-killed-in-afghanistan-hospital-bombing
US imperalialism murders doctors without borders and bombs hospitals.
You’ve been writing about Endless War for a long time now Mr. Greenwald. Thanks for dishing out the sad truth.
I steal some of your techniques in my own writing, hope you don’t mind. Here’s a blog post I wrote that nobody looked at. The subject matter is a bit too serious for my readers.
“Bombing and arms supply are not humanitarian relief.”
http://tysongibb.net/?p=156
Thank You Glenn for the truth
I was rooting for Trump as the next US president, but this guy has potential.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/10/02/jeb-bush-is-criticized-for-saying-stuff-happens-in-reaction-to-oregon-shooting/?_r=0
This guy was a governor? Let me get this straight, in response to pool deaths, the government shouldn’t mandate fencing to stop drownings….and in response to fatal car crashes, the government shouldn’t impose seat belt and airbag regulations…
Because, fences and seat belts don’t save absolutely everyone and they are a burden that (wait for it)…. makes it harder to protect liberty.
Let’s hear that again. The cumulative effect of passing laws in response to events….hurts the economy, and makes it harder to protect liberty.
I’d vote for Bush, I’m tired of all those milk pasteurization regulations. Sure, they drastically reduced the number of people getting sick, but my friend Fred died slipping on spilt milk. Fred’s life wasn’t saved by pasteurization laws. And anyway, so what if a multitude of so called “events” happened? Those events were all unique! Don’t give in to the impulse to deal with them. Think of the cost, the cost to the economy, and liberty!
And yet the cliche about governors running for prez is that they have executive experience. Experience doing what exactly, if nothing can be done?
Oh, right. Executing people.
A little taken aback by Russian imperialist claim.What does Russia gain economically or how is its its territory increased?
Could it possibly be they are tired of all our headchoppers destroying the peoples of the region,and want their ally to survive?
Maybe they are sick of being a western punching bag by the worst hypocrites who have ever existed?
They know who is behind all this anti-Russian hysteria,the Zionists,they aren’t dumb,and its about time someone upset their poison applecart a little eh?
War sucks,but Russia has not initiated any of this,the Zionists and their Western quislings have,and millions are strewn dead throughout the region,all with their blood on their and our collective hands(despite yuppie protestations ).
And this might be a quagmire for Russia,but at least in Syria’s case, most of the populace will be behind them,unlike most of our misadventures in foreign lands,where instead of flowers,we received IEDs.
And yes,all our misadventures are and were disasters,and until Yankee Comes Home,and the world enacts the prime directive,we are f*cked.
“But I was winning!!!”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zoh-5RnEbHA
Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one’s country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game.
……..
And now as I lie here, my body all holes,
I think of those traitors who bargained in souls,
And I wish that my rifle had given the same,
To those Quislings who sold out the patriot game.
“How would a patriot act.”
Would these be the wars that G>W> Bush got started? How many American troops did Obama succeed in bringing home?. Can what’s going on over there really be called wars when we have so few men fighting?
Read the article. Open the links. Then see if you are willing to specifically debate how “what’s going on over there” doesn’t qualify as warring with bombs, munitions, troops, surveillance and propaganda, with the results being destruction, death and injury to people “over there.”
Just now U.S. Special forces were actually on the ground, firing in self-defense as they seized the city of Kunduz from the Taliban……
Really though, the moral of this story is one we should know by now – from the meaningless congressional debates to the peculiar doings in Eastern Europe. There simply is no difference between war and peace. Or as a traditionalist might put it, “War is peace.” The false dichotomy was the first seal of the Revelation; we’ve pretty well cracked it. Six more to go.
Yeah, I’m with this sheriff here, the problem was that this school didn’t have enough weapons. Each student should be given a gun at the beginning of term, …unless they are Muslim of course. We wouldn’t want any school shootings.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2015/10/oregon-sheriff-umpqua-massacre-white-house-gun-control-newtown
It’s the American constitutional argument that I find personally the funniest. Imagine that the American constitution had an article that said that each and every American had the right to kick people in the shins “It’s my right to kick people in the shins!” That would be funny enough. Americans continuing to submit to random shin kickings from strangers, spouses, crazy people, because, “I believe in the constitutional right to kick people in the shins”
But we’re not talking about kicking people in the shins, we’re talking mass killing after mass killing, by people who acquire military grade automatic war weapons at short notice, without any checks as to restraining orders against them, their mental health, their criminal record.
Maybe I should have put it this way, let’s play “which one of these doesn’t belong”.
Freedom of religion
Freedom of expression
Freedom of movement
Freedom of speech
Freedom to own an Ak47, twelve automatic pistols, thousands of rounds of ammunition.
Americans once had the “freedom” to own slaves, yet somehow managed, albeit it took many deaths, to change their laws.
http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/gun_nuts_the_ultimate_thought_police_shutting_down_an_open_debate_after_yet_another_mass_shooting/
It’s about the freedom to defend oneself from a tyrannical government. A necessity in these Orwellian times laden with PR agent shills.
The tyrannical government isn’t shooting up schools and movie theaters.
Sounds like you are describing Israelis. Israel slaughtered more innocents in one month last summer than all US school shootings combined. Such slaughter was paid for by the American taxpayer; the parents of those killed in US schools.
America is awash in violence from the White House on down. It’s what America does best.
Who makes and profits from all these weapons?How do all these handguns end up in the inner city?Is free enterprise of profit over humanity to be our god?
I’m sure our government knows these answers,but is silent.
And the FFs surely didn’t think the future citizens of America in the 21st century would ever feel the need to defend themselves with an arsenal that could singlehandedly defeat GWs army at Yorktown.
Such is progress.hee.
The problem as the Economist sees it, is that Obama is too effeminate. Despite America currently conducting occupations, special forces raids, bombings in multiple Muslim countries, Putin is making Obama look like a wuss. What can Obama do? I know! More war in Afghanistan:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21669950-danger-russias-intervention-syria-and-americas-timidity-afghanistan-putin-dares
You mean a “surge”? Of a war Obama has already ended, multiple times? Perhaps there should be a counter on the wall of the white house, keeping track of how many times Obama has ended the same war? Something Vanity Fair noticed in 2014:
http://www.vanityfair.com/news/politics/2014/12/obama-end-of-afghan-war
So there you have it, life isn’t fair, Obama lies about ending the Afghan war, and gets no credit for it from Vanity Fair. And at the same time, Obama continues the Afghan war, but gets no credit for it from the Economist.
If only America’s wars had casualties, victims, refugees, war crimes, you know, like the Russian ones do, then it would be easier for the American press to remember, which wars have been ended, which are ongoing, and so on.
Lenk from way down:
Baltimore,
Rough ride for looking at a cop.
Clearly a potentially and actually deadly technique.
Deny this to them? The refuse to enforce the law.
I am sure you consider this an unfair evaluation of what happened. It might be an exaggeration, I do not know, but it is at least approximately what happened, and although those who did it are in big trouble, there is no indication of any significant change in policy that would stop it from happening again. Thus this policy specifically targets Americans, including those who have committed no crime.
“It might be an exaggeration, I do not know”
Then “know”
1) What a policy is
2) What happened in Baltimore
3) What Baltimore (Maryland) laws and regulations state with regards to officers who disregard policies
Then, you can attempt to make a valid argument.
1. What policies should be or actually are? That is, you cannot hide behind what a policy is supposed to be if something else is really happening.
2. You cannot know exactly what happened in Baltimore, but it does look very bad.
3. Irrelevant to what I am saying.
Of course, it is very easy for you to try to hold me to impossible standards while writing nonsense yourself.
“What policies should be or actually are?”
What you have to answer is what happens when the ones who supposed to follow the policy decides to disregard it. There is no policy in America stating a cop supposed to shoot an individual who stares at him/her. What is Baltimore’s leaders and lawmakers response when a cop kills somebody for just staring at him or her? If those individuals who supposed to uphold the policies disregard the cop’s actions, then your argument is valid, but since
“You cannot know exactly what happened in Baltimore”
then you are the one writing nonsense.
My point is extremely simple. Name ONE police force in America that has a policy of targeting and killing law abiding citizens. Providing a few cases of bad cops is not an example specially when the same police force has severely punished bad cops.
If you find those standards impossible then you are the perfect Greenwald’s supporter. You just have to wait for him to tell you how and what to think and you can view everybody’s else as being propagandized.
Policies are not what is stated by management, but rather a distillation of what happens. Your neat model of “a few bad cops” who then get punished is not reality.
Your model of a Greenwald supporter is just you turned around.
“Policies are not what is stated by management, but rather a distillation of what happens”
So, at least tell us what happened. Bring the evidence that there is ONE police force in America that consistently target law abiding citizens and kill them regardless of what is written in the paper. If you give an example of a cop who actually did that and then got punished for doing so then your argument is “nonsense”.
“Your model of a Greenwald supporter is just you turned around.”
No, because I challenge and bash everybody. Just because I do not trust the US government does not mean that a “journalist” who sometimes reported the wrong doing of the government is to be trusted all the time. Like government officials, that “journalist” has his/her own agenda.
I know how tempting it is to look at just one example, especially an extreme one. We all do it. But what really counts is the distillation. Sometimes a few incidents work against the trend while other times they illustrate it.
I can even make it easier for you by asking you to provide ONE example of a police force in America whose officers actions illustrate a trend among law enforcements to target and kill law abiding citizens. Hint: Trend is a scientific term. Scientifically police forces in America have even improved their human rights standards in the last 60-70 years. It is your show, prove your point with concrete examples. Sorry, not examples but ONE example.
Keep moving the goal post until you provide that simple example. It only shows how you and most Greenwald’s supporters are full of nonsense arguments.
I’m losing the will to poke fun at the Western press, it’s too easy. But there are always some that deserve special mention.
This writer makes a good point, the Russians shouldn’t use cluster bombs, only America and Israel should continue to use those awful weapons:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/10/02/russia-is-using-old-dumb-bombs-making-syria-air-war-even-more-brutal.html
And the BBC highlights an important point, unlike the Israeli and American bombings in Syria over the years, Russian bombers are “frightening” and cause “casualties”:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-34419768
The Daily Beast seems to be going out of their way to sell the idea America is trying to rid itself of cluster munition.
12 years on and we still make and sell cluster munitions to Israel and the Saudis.
We ARE trying to rid ourselves of cluster bombs. That’s why we and our buddies are dumping them as fast as we can.
“You rarely hear about civilian casualties from US-led strikes” Jose
That is weird. I have watched western media every day and I read/heard/ even saw civilian casualties from US led strikes since the beginning of the operations.
A few examples:
Oct 23, 2014: “US led strikes killed 32 civilians in Syria”, Reuters
Nov 23, 2014: “52 civilians, including eight children and five women are among those killed by the coalition air strikes in Syria” CNN
Have you compared those western news reports about civilian casualties since Sep. 2014 with those of current Russian news reports? Of course you have not, you just write whatever BS comes to your mind. Hence why I call you an ignorant.
60 Minutes isn’t what it used to be.
http://money.cnn.com/2015/10/01/media/hillary-clinton-60-minutes-planted-questions/index.html?sr=tw100115clintonassange0934PMStory&linkId=17527462
It may have been “convenient” for Clinton to hide these government emails in her basement, but their coming out now surely isn’t for her or CBS.
This does look pretty bad…but on the bright side, the average age of US network news viewers is approaching senility territory, so it will be soon forgotten.
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150930/17560132399/state-department-planted-anti-wikileaks-questions-60-minutes-interview-with-julian-assange.shtml
….on the other hand an (anonymous) 60 Minutes spokesperson tells Politico that “this email writer”…
(That would be PJ Crawley, senior US state department official, who is reporting directly to Hillary Clinton)…
is being “proposterous” when he reports directly to Clinton that he planted questions with CBS.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/10/hillary-clinton-emails-cbs-wikileaks-julian-assange-214342
So there are two sides of this story, and as they say on US news, we are going to have to leave it there.
Craig and Lenk have been busy.
https://www.rt.com/news/317188-putin-civilian-casualties-syria/
if the glove don’t fit you must omit
Glenn just called Obama a “hackish propagandist.” Oh, I couldn’t stop laughing.
Obama is such a smart guy, but I think he’s not handled Putin and Russia well (among many other things of course), when they were so friendly with him at the beginning of his first term, from what I remember. I really did believe at the beginning of his term that Obama’s presidency would be full of friendly handshakes.
I was just looking at the map. What the hell does Russia want in Syria anyway? Geopolitics is beyond my feeble mind.
Tartus naval base.
@ Lenk
I’m easy to find. When are you sending me that airline ticket to scary boogieman land so I can document the consequences of your policy preferences on innocent human beings? As soon as I get it maybe we can meet in person.
But until then I’m going to take everyone’s advice and ignore the ignorant and ethics challenged among us–specifically you. Besides this place needs an ignorant brainwashed American patriot who says childlike stuff like “love it or leave it”, “my country right or wrong” or “whataboutery x, y and z and their parade of horribles” because it demonstrates exactly how out of your intellectual depth you are among adults with the capacity for reasoned thought and valid argument not resting on supposition, blind trust and logical fallacies galore as is your apparent preference.
Actually asking a freeloader (FACT 1) who spends his day bashing the country on which he depends (FACT 2) to leave is not a “love it or leave it” argument. That is a sound opinion based on economics, which you are unable to understand even being “highly educated”.
“brainwashed American patriot…it demonstrates exactly how out of your intellectual depth you are among adults with the capacity for reasoned thought and valid argument not resting on supposition..”
Say the one who blindly repeat Chomsky and Greenwald without questioning their logic. If Chomsky or Greenwald said it, then it must be right. That is not a “childish” behavior, that is a stupid and ignorant behavior.
Hello??? I told you to send me your full name as it is in your passport and you will get your ticket from USA to Iraq within a week.
Again: I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY.
Again: I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY.
The US military is NOT in charge in Irbil, so you will be free to write whatever you want and ask the Kurds about the consequences of US policy on innocent human beings on their land. If you are man enough, and not a coward, then you can cross to ISIL country to see how their savagery is similar to what you experience in your country. You know, that country where that government provides you with free services without paying taxes.
Again I WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR YOUR SAFETY. This is not Iraq of 2004-2007, so the US military will not deploy assets to save your ass. Again, a brave man like you will not need an army of “mass murderers” to come to your help.
Pussy!!
That’s beautifully written. Certainly one must respect those who are willing to fight monsters. But as Nietschze said, those who fight monsters must take care not to become monsters themselves. Your argument could be used just as convincingly by a Crip talking to one of the “civilians” in his neighborhood about Blood territory.
It is not good enough to be better than ISIS. Everyone is better than ISIS. The question is, is America living up to itself?
“Everyone is better than ISIS…”
Statement like that will get you in serious trouble with Greenwald, rrheard (the freeloader), Mona….Better be careful!
I’m going to take everyone’s advice and ignore the ignorant and ethics challenged among us
Naw. Don’t ignore them all because they do need refuting at times. But the ones that prove intractable, illegible, unable to do anything but level insults, largely becoming one-note ignoramuses, those are a waste of your time and talents. ;-}
“unable to do anything but level INSULTS…”
“Fuck you and that tiny..”
“Your faux masculinity bullshit”
shorter lenk;
Serious question, was Steve Benen born yesterday?
Benen – ‘Still, before yesterday, I honestly can’t remember the last time I heard a candidate in either party explicitly endorse war crimes.”
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/carson-makes-rare-endorsement-war-crimes
I’m enjoying the latest crop of Republican buffoons as much as anybody, but, seriously, when asked about international law ramifications of his policies, George Bush joked about calling his lawyer. When asked why America wasn’t getting UN backing for the Iraq invasion, Bush told reporters “We don’t need anyone’s permission. Most people reading Greenwald’s articles are also informed of the continuity between Bush and Obama policy.
Now are the Republicans funnier than Obama, yes. But politicians endorsing war crimes, torture, illegal invasions etc, someone should tell Steve Benen at NBC that it didn’t start yesterday.
If the US had pursued the cause of international law, from 1945 onward, instead of corrupting it, sabotaging it, international law as a valid and legitimate political norm would be better entrenched in the international system, regardless of which powers come to the ascendency. But after betraying international law, on what grounds are the US and allies going to appeal when more powerful coalitions and factions emerge to take the West’s place as “global sovereign”?
http://www.thenation.com/article/you-must-follow-international-law-unless-youre-america/
Totally off topic, but it deserves praise:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/09/30/senate-approves-funding-bill-avert-government-shutdown/73032366/
The American government has voted to not shut-down…itself. Say what you will about the state of democracy in America, but, while governments elsewhere were changing tax laws, dealing with health services, modernizing education policy, spending on infrastructure, the Americans have taken it to the next level, actually affirming, their commitment, for now, to keeping the lights on, for a while.
It remains to be seen if this level of, I would call it “hyper-democracy” can withstand the rigours of political reality but time will tell.
The American congress is hilarious. But in this case it’s down to two things, Obama’s failure, when he had the opportunity, to enact universal healthcare, and the media’s failure to inform the public enough so they could see how funny their congress is. If everyone had the same basic health insurance, delivered the same way, the Republicans couldn’t go after just the poor people. But Instead of doing that, Obama reinforced the private insurance industry. And the media, they only repeat, either that Obama’s “socialist” Obamacare should be repealed, or…his “universal” programme, is awesome. How can a program that only covers some people, some of the time, be “universal”? Or “socialist”?
http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-davidson/cecile-richards-the-target-at-the-planned-parenthood-hearings
rrheard
I admire your tenacity down thread but, having witnessed so many others’ attempts at rational discourse with our blockquote-challenged co-inhabitant, I’ve decided that the chances of him ever really growing beyond the following sort of exchange is vanishingly small.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bfYPsB06EQ
You do much better than the 2-year-old above, much more informative and entertaining, but be prepared to be called a poopy butt whenever you step into that playpen. Over and over. ;-}
karl and lenk both need a mini-HTML class on ‘block quote’
I’ll try but without a preview I won’t know if the code will work.
"
You have to substitute “[” for “less than” symbol and “]” for “greater than” symbol. If you use the less/greater than symbols it just disappears into the ether. :-s
So, with that,
Italics: [em]Text to be italicized[/em]
Bold: [strong]Text to be bolded[/strong]
Blockquote: [blockquote]Text to be quoted[/blockquote]
etc.
(Fingers crossed this works and is understandable)
I’ve seen it done where the code is displayed without executing. I searched and found an example were [code] should have displayed “blockquote” inside the inequality symbols.
I use single letters [i] for italics and [b] for bold.
I’ve found this site works well for inserting
bold, gratuitous links, italics, etc.
“Mission accomplished!”
I’m never going to get back the valuable time I spent reading this Brookings institute article:
http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/order-from-chaos/posts/2015/09/30-new-cold-war-with-russia-krickovic-weber
I can see why Brookings is “America’s Top Think Tank”
http://www.brookings.edu/about.aspx
let me try to explain Brooking’s “innovative” idea to you…..You see….a new cold war between Russia and America is inevitable because Russia won’t promise not to upset the status quo….that would be the post WWII status quo of 1945 where America dictates to the world how things are going to go down.
And America, obviously, (I mean, get real!) can’t promise to carry through with any commitments it makes, as doing so would itself be a departure from the status quo behaviour of America.
…Therefore, cold war is inevitable.
Fun fact, the Brookings Institute is as popular with the Democrats as it is with the Republicans and appears on American corporate TV more than any other think-tank*.
*A think tank, to the best of my knowledge, is the American media’s solution to their antipathy to bringing on knowledgeable guests from the relevant realm of academia. Where university profs might introduce new ideas, stray from the script, speak in sentences longer than sound-bites, a member of a “think tank” can avoid all those pitfalls, and still play the role of non partisan expert.
Brookings? Isn’t that where Robert Rubin founded his Hamilton Project, the project to privatize EVERYTHING???
‘Nuff said . . .
“Surround everyone with everything we’ve got…”
I love this article, from August, It’s especially funny reading in the wake of the American comments about Russia’s moves. Obama has decreed to the world that certain rebels are “authorized”:
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/world/israel-middle-east/u-s-entrenches-itself-in-syrian-civil-war-as-it-vows-to-defend-authorized-rebels-from-assad-airstrikes
I love this, Israel will defend “its interests”, ….in Syria:
I like this bit:
To sum up, up till now, American media, have taken it as a given that Israel has “freedom of movement” in Syria, naturally, to defend “its interests”.
But now the Russians are upsetting the equation, rudely notifying Israel and the US that they are going to bomb Syria as well.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/following-russian-air-strikes-israeli-defense-minister-says-israel-will-defend-its-interests-in-syria/
“As Syria Reels, Israel Looks to Expand Settlements in Golan Heights”
They have a nice sized aquifer up there, would make a nice addition to the aquifer it controls in the occupied West Bank, it would also mean that Israel controls just about all fresh water in that region. Food (or no food maybe) for thought.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/03/world/middleeast/syria-civil-war-israel-golan-heights.html?_r=0
If there were any doubts about the myth of media objectivity, it’s fascinating to take a look at western coverage of Russia’s air strikes. Russia has launched about 20 strikes in the last couple days, while US-led strikes in Syria so far are around 2000.
You rarely hear about civilian casualties from US-led strikes, and official estimates are ridiculously low. Meanwhile, countless reports about Russia’s air strikes are saying that Russia is targeting “moderate rebels” or, alternatively, wantonly slaughtering civilians.
“You rarely hear about civilian casualties from US-led strikes, and official estimates are ridiculously low”
That is blatantly false. You chose to ignore multiple media reports of civilian casualties from US led strikes, so you can state the typical Greenwald’s view that most Westerners, except you and TI readers of course, are propagandized. Those reports started days after the strikes began and continued until now:
Oct 23, 2014: “US led strikes killed 32 civilians in Syria”, Reuters
Nov 23, 2014: “52 civilians, including eight children and five women are among those killed by the coalition air strikes in Syria” CNN
Jan 3, 2015: “There were reportedly 118 civilians killed by US led coalition last year in Iraq” CNN
Hence why I call you an ignorant!
I’m sure any reasonable person understands what I’m talking about. It’s not that there are zero reports on US-caused civilian casualties in from mainstream media sources, any more than there are zero mentions of Noam Chomsky. That’s not the point.
Your point is that those reports were “rare”. That is completely false and nonsense. I was reading/hearing/seeing those reports since the beginning of the operations and they never stopped. You ignored them because accepting this fact would contradict yourself and your boss, Greenwald.
Again, you are an ignorant. Private media outlets have absolutely no obligations to invite Chomsky to write his opinion. Yet, how hard has it been for you to read Chomsky?
It is very interesting that TI accuses media outlets of being propagandists (while the top writer gave his opinion on the same media outlets continuously) while I have never seen government supporters writing their opinions here. But again, like CNN that invites Greenwald and Chomsky to share their opinions, TI does not have to invite anybody that disagrees with its views. They are both private entities.
When discussing a topic like the Syrian civil war, it is malpractice to not be reading Robert Fisk:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/robert-fisk-on-syrian-crisis-5-things-you-need-to-know-1.3237373
Saudi Arabia sends troops to put down Arab spring movement in Bahrain, sends troops to invade Yemen…I think we need to add them to the “imperialistic” club.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/war-with-isis-if-the-saudis-arent-fuelling-the-militant-inferno-who-is-10024324.html
With its half dozen air strikes, (minuscule compared to the billions America and others have spent on thousands of strikes throughout the Middle East) I’d say Russia has already reaped a reward, Obama suddenly wants to negotiate.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/opinion/columnists/robert-fisk/whats-russia-up-to-in-syria-i-would-wager-theyre-after-something-big-retaking-palmyra-from-isis-31564912.html
*Also, a bit more timely, when discussing a topic like the Syrian civil war … ‘The Syrian opposition: who’s doing the talking?’ http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jul/12/syrian-opposition-doing-the-talking *note the date
What would a patriot do (h/t CraigSummers.)?
thanks bah’
Cheeky bastards.
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/638630682365968384
And how about the studied indifference in these parts?
Conspiracy! Nyet. Affinity. Da. ‘Elective affinity’ I think it’s called.
Glenn and fellow Intercepters:
see:
The Nature and Mission of U.S. Corporate Mass Media
https://zcomm.org/znetarticle/the-nature-and-mission-of-u-s-corporate-mass-media/
Mr. Greenwald
This is your strongest statement to date concerning Russian imperialism and support for two conflicts. With the recent Russian military buildup in support of the brutal dictator, Assad, even you can’t ignore Russia’s destructive role in Ukraine and Syria – and propping up the brutal dictator, Assad. This is a major turn around for you. Your very first article actually was written in support of Putin fighting the good fight against the Ukrainian fascist. Your article totally ignored the illegal annexation of part of Ukraine into Russia. Indeed, you ignored the illegal referendum conducted by Russian troops at gunpoint. You ignored that Russia is the prime suspect in the downing of the civilian airliner over eastern Ukraine murdering 300 civilians, or that Russian troops are on the ground in Ukraine. You published a statement by in support of a Russian area of influence in Ukraine by (anti American) political science professor As’ad AbuKhalil :
“…….Imperialism is to have the temerity to lecture and hector Russia about the evils of intervention in the affairs of its neighbor, Ukraine, where the U.S. and EU are blatantly conspiring against Russian interests there….”
In support of your weak stand against Russian imperialism, the Intercept published an article explaining how Putin controls the Internet in Russia. This was an extremely hard hitting article about the internet even as Putin supports the use barrel bombs, chemical weapons, chlorine and other brutal tactics to quell the insurrection he was responsible for starting in Syria in the first place.
The Intercept’s position on the wars in Syria and eastern Ukraine has been an embarrassment to journalism, but even worse, you have thrown the human rights of the people of Syria and Ukraine under the bus driven solely for political reasons i.e., anti-Americanism.
Russian Imperialism? Oh, really? Brutal tactics? Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Vietnam, central America, Iraq, ??? and many more.
Gosh learn your history! Putin controls the internet in Russia – have you been in Russia lately? Right!
“…..Russian Imperialism? Oh, really?…..”
Gee what happened to those fifteen countries under the control of the USSR when the evil empire dissolved? Most beat a hasty path to the EU and NATO. It is fairly easy to see why when you look at Russia tactics in Ukraine. Ukraine is a classic case of a failure of Russian intelligence. The SVR lost control of the situation, and the Russian puppet was tossed out of the country.
Thanks.
“Gee what happened to those fifteen countries under the control of the USSR when the evil empire dissolved? Most beat a hasty path to the EU and NATO. ”
Three states is “most” of 15? Huh.
Have you considered going back to school to get your arithmetic skills up to a 5th grade level?
countries under USSR control:
Latvia, Estonia, Czech Republic, Slokavia, Poland, Lithuania… I have already passed three and counting. All of them joined NATO under democratically elected governments. Maybe you can teach us about addition. Friendly advice: you look like a fool when your correction is blatantly inaccurate.
Yeah, but unless you can count to 15, you lose.
Lose? You said THREE states, while in fact there are TWELVE states, formerly under USSR control, that are fully members of NATO and other states such as Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan that have a very close relationship with NATO that even include sending military units in NATO operations.
Nothing surprising, another dumb ass Greenwald’s supporter!
You poor thing. There were 15 states in the USSR. Three of them headed west to the EU and NATO. Cooperation with NATO doesn’t count, since everyone does that. Even Russia.
If you want to talk about the 12 non-Soviet states formerly under Soviet control, that’s fine—but our pal Craig referred to 15 states, not 12. So perhaps you should go talk to him.
Just check his arithmetic.
“Let me enlighten you all on my opinion.
Thanks.”
C’mon CraigSummers. You’re better than that.
The Stars and Stipes Wars.
The US Empire stikes back with the brutal Craig Summers (the attack of the clone) at the phantom menace of Russia. With the US drone wars against a soveriegn country sees the return of Putin as the Russian force awakens to take revenge on ISIL.
Right out of Star Wars. When is imperialism not imperialism? When the country is any country but the US. You are a hypocrite Tom
Obviously, you did not read the article, but rather came here to spout propaganda. Take it somewhere else my friend. You’re dealing with an adult audience here.
CraigSummers is an adult and takes his fruit cup at 10AM …
he’ll skip the 11AM clap-a-long if there are no cherries, and be here, in a tantrum.
” Russia is the prime suspect in the downing of the civilian airliner over eastern Ukraine murdering 300 civilians”
Har, har, hardy-har, har.
Idiot.
Craig, you’re going to have to explain what you have against imperialism, or more generally, against countries acting to advance their geopolitical interests without much concern for anyone else’s. As far as I know, you don’t object to any of that on principle.
Well. All countries have geopolitical interests and all leaders (whether elected or not) advance the interests of the people of the state (or the government). The US is no different – just more powerful. When the US advances her interests, it is usually beneficial to other countries or governments whether for military or economic reasons. There are tons of examples. When the US ousted Saddam’s troops from Kuwait, the US protected the oil resources in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, but also the Kuwaiti people benefited i.e., human rights.
Greenwald’s only focus is US geopolitical interests. In fact he is far more one-sided than the US media who he criticizes relentlessly.
On balance, that’s not a good example. Sure, Kuwait might have benefited somewhat, but Iraq’s GDP dropped about 8-fold between 1991 and 2004. The number of excess deaths in that period is probably around a million.
US intervention is usually not beneficial on balance. Occasionally the US might get lucky or it might do something as a public relations campaign for the Pentagon, but typically the result is destabilization. We could go down the list of US-led and US-supported interventions. Often, the US has intervened against democratic governments in favor of autocratic ones.
Thanks Jose
You said “geopolitical interests” – not intervention. Most of the America’s geopolitical interests don’t involve intervention – and it generally benefits the countries involved. In the case of Iraq, the US leveled sanctions at Iraq in the interests of the US and those opposed to Saddam having WMDs. However, I agree that the sanctions didn’t work out well for the typical Iraqi citizen, but the sanctions and inspections served their purpose which was to get rid of Saddam’s WMD program.
This is probably the most weird way of negotiation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/08/world/asia/taliban-leaders-are-said-to-meet-with-afghan-officials.html?_r=0
“Still, for the past decade, the Taliban have mostly expressed a desire to discuss a possible settlement to the war not with Afghanistan, but with the United States, which it considers the real power behind the Kabul government.”
“…… And the patter of informal meetings with Afghan officials abroad this year has been taken by some officials as a sign that the insurgents will eventually be more willing to negotiate once the fighting season is over.”
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/12/taliban-attacks-could-be-negotiating-ploy-analysts-say.html
“Western officials, particularly those in the United States, have been hesitant to push Pakistan too hard for fear it could throw the nuclear-armed country into chaos, Motwani said. That had tragic results for the NATO-led military operation, he said.
“By the time Obama ordered the surge it was too late,” Motwani said. “One of the key reasons the surge failed to produce lasting results was that politically they didn’t want to address the real source of the problem, which is Pakistan. In many ways America subordinated its Afghan policy to its Pakistan policy.”
For any progress to be made, “There has to be a fundamental reorientation in how Pakistan engages with Afghanistan,” he said. “Until that happens, Afghanistan will continue to pay the price.”
Well said perfectly fits the situation. As long as AMERICA Political Leaders STICK the cardinal principle of READ MY LIPS ( not flexible as it should be) and NO BOOTS on the ground of Political Philosophy these things HAPPEN and we LOOSE precious LIVES of our Army”s Young Men and Women. Hope this reaches the Policy Makers of USA
“Russia today announced that its upper Parliament approved its own imperialistic intervention and bombing campaign inside Syria…”
How can Russia’s intervention be classified as “imperialistic” when the Syrian government itself requested their aid and therefore has a legal mandate to be there, unlike the US, UK, France, etc. who are all breaking international law by neither possessing a UN mandate nor receiving the express permission of the Syrian government to bomb their country.
If bombing a population with the permission of the local government is legal under international law, I can only conclude international law is lacking in some areas. What you’re bringing up has been discussed below already.
What we have here is a semantical confusion. When the Obama Administration says “Ended Two Wars”, the word “End” does not refer to “Terminating” them but rather, facilitate the fulfillment of their purpose – in this case the purpose of Waging a War (or Wars); which is “Business as Usual” for those in the War Business.
As the first POTUS to win a Nobel Peace Prize he has a high standard to live up to. Who knows how many more wars he can “end” from now to January 20th of 2017?
Keep up the good work, Barak. You sure pulled a good one on us (except that guys like Greenwald and Englehardt keep shining a light exposing the Emperor’s nudity).
Except for Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Jimmy Carter…
Good article, keep rolling ’em out Glenn. Goodness knows we need all the truly independent journalists we can get these days so as to counter the Official Line the corporate mainstream propagandist media (Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc) spews out.
What I’d really like to see sometime would be for someone at The Intercept to write an article concerning the Green and Libertarian Parties’ lawsuits against the Commission on Presidential Debates, and the whole background behind it (biased inclusion rules, arrest of national presidential candidates trying to get into the debate (ie, Jill Stein in 2012), and the refusal of the aforementioned media to air the Free and Equal Election Foundation’s third party debates). Without people even realizing they have alternate choices besides the warmongering Democrats and Republicans at the polls, it becomes very difficult indeed to affect policy change. Our election system smells worse than most people even realize.
You’re right, that would be a good and educational read. Maybe someone such as Ralph Nader would be interested and available to do as an “The Intercept” article. Others are quite qualified too, I’m sure, but I thought of Nader off the top of my head.
That was quite extreme, and I bet practically no one knows about it. Imagine if the same thing had occurred in, I don’t know… Russia.
But in Russia, entire country is under arrest!
Here is a segment about that from Democracy Now:
Handcuffed to chairs because “You might go wandering around.” — Said cops to Green Party candidates Jill Stein Cheri Honkala.
With all the recent hoopla about the removal of the Confederate Flag from the SC Statehouse, I find it interesting that the American Soldier pictured at the head of this article appears to be wearing a “Stars and Bars” (first Confederate National Flag) on his uniform instead of the Stars and Stripes. Although the flag appears to have some additional insignia in the middle of the circle of stars, the resemblance to the original Stars and Bars is unmistakable.
Each bomb dropped represents a lucrative profit for the MIC. It’s no wonder Japans’ Abe wants a piece of that action.
i guess the definition of “imperialistic” now includes “guarding the front gate in a neighborhood full of rapists because the mayor of another town set them loose”. these are the same folks who have totes “invaded ukraine”, after all. as for “rubber stamping”, i can see how people used to the US style of “governance” find immediate action so strange and foreign. after all, there’s certainly nothing urgent about the situation.
as for the main point of the article, not a real surprise. obama has been taking credit for “ending” the war in iraq since the iraqi people and the SoFA made the decision for him. and susan rice is still a delusional twat and the atlantic is still an establishment rag that’s wrong about everything all the time. so. moving on.
69 comments?
Make that 169. Oops, 170 :)
Imperialism is exactly what Russia rejects.
“Imperialism is exactly what Russia rejects.”
LOL!Tell that to the residents of “Novorossiya”. I mistook you for a leftist a moment ago, buy you are clearly a putinbot.
we tried to tell them but they couldn’t hear us over the shelling from the west. maybe some flash cards would be better? how does “the guys who just killed your family are heroes protecting you from your own ethnic group!” sound?
Russians and Ukrainian are different ethnic groups now? Interesting…
Coincidentally, it is the Western Ukrainians that consider that they are ethnically separate from the populace of the Eastern Ukraine–not the other way around. It appears to me that you really don’t know much about the situation over there. Nevertheless, it is good that you came here, since it may give you an opportunity to fill in some obvious voids in your knowledge base.
Take your “Putinbot” nonsense back to the juvenile sites where it belongs. This isn’t AOL, Salon or The Guardian. It is an adult site.
If you have a dispute with something that someone here says, make your argument as to why that persons statement is wrong or otherwise be silent. This “Putinbot” bullshit is disruptive and adds no redemptive value to the discussion. Grow up.
Do Putinbots dream of electric sheep?
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/apr/02/putin-kremlin-inside-russian-troll-house
I’m almost certain Gina is a Putinbot, probably you too “Brad Benson”. Hey I’m not judging, got make a ruble somehow, practically the only job left in Russia.
…and I’m not judging either, since it is pretty obvious that you’re a moron.
Citing the Guardian proves my point about you as made elsewhere. If you are getting information from the Guardian, you will be left without an argument. As I said before, grow up.
On the off chance that you are not a putinbot, please explain why you believe an ex-KGB spook turned President-for-life, whose critics all seem to meet with unfortunate ends, wouldn’t engage in propaganda?
On the off chance that you are not a moron, I’ll note that I have never made any claim that Putin does not engage in propaganda. What I did say is that there are people out there that recognize the difference between propaganda and truth, regardless of which side is engaged in the message manipulation. Right now, it is the West, which has manipulated the message in regard to the Ukraine and Syria.
We also continue to try to manipulate the message about Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Kenya, et al. A simple reading of the speeches at the UN General Assembly by both Obama and Putin should give you a pretty good idea about who is lying the most right now. I’ll give you a hint. It’s not Putin.
Putin is most probably a liar and a propagandist. He may also be a war criminal. That does not mitigate the fact that the US is now a criminal national security state engaged in numerous conflicts around the globe on behalf of its corporate interests. As such, the last two Presidents and their minions are most certainly War Criminals and would not fare well if they were suddenly shipped off to the Hague to account for their crimes.
Educate yourself.
Still doesn’t explain why you would doubt the existence of putinbots. They seem pretty obvious to me on the message boards of every story about Russia. Like our friend Gina here, does she comment on non-Russian stories? Usually that’s a dead give away. Tons of commentors who only comment on Russian stories and always take the Putinist line. Just because Russia lost its missionary faith doesn’t mean they given up on propaganda and disinformation campaigns. What’s interesting is that they cultivate the Left and Right. This very apparent if you look at a place like Greece where Syriza and Golden Dawn count on Russian support
?? ????????????
@Whendovescry: You have no clue sir. Leftist? You pretend to be a conservative without knowing what it even means. Ok, fyi, I’m not American – so if you ignore what I say, I can understand that (I have relatives there and love visit almost every year, so I know the country quiet a bit).
I’ve been a conservative-voter since I can legally vote (and due to dual-citizenship I can vote in two countries) – the US Republicans have barely anything to do with a conservative party. By international interpretation, the Republicans are a liberal party (search for the traditional definition of liberal) with capitalistic tendencies and the Democrats a liberal one with rather socialistic/left-wing tendencies. So yes, you’re unfortunaly close to living in an one-party country and it does not even make a big difference anymore who’s president. It is worth it to think a bit outside that corruptive party-system!
Funny also how most “real” conservatives disagree with NATO strategies and liberals rather not…so be careful what you say and which side you are on. You also seem not to understand what is going on in Ukraine, where a US-supported government coup (ask your friend Victoria Nuland or John McCain and their fascist Svoboda murders, where your hard earned tax money went) caused chaos in a pieceful country – which already was culturaly and by language divided, what is quiet common in many countries. That doesn’t mean tough that one part of the culture has no right to live there anymore, just because some crazy NATO-puppet-oligarch thinks it’s a good idea. But hey, I don’t blame you with all the fables CNN, FOX News and others present all day long.
But keep supporting your neo-liberal idols, insult everyone who questions stuff and keep living in an illusory world. Sweet also how the NATO-fools protect their “moderate opposition” in Syria – oh yeah, an opposition called the FSA, jihad-sunnits who like to share their US weapons with their good collegues al-Qaeda (even Pentagon confirmed that about 5 days ago). After all the 9/11-crying about al-Qaeda, they seem to be friends again with your US-politicians and media. Lovely, but make up your mind!
The US Founding Fathers would be shocked to see what happend to their country. They tried to get rid of the British Empire with all its cruelties and now would have to realize that their country turned into the same, if not worse Empire. The US (and also many countries in Europe) have been hijacked by corrupt politicians and instead of fighting against it, people like you care about who’s a leftie and who’s a Putin-lover – or use kindergarden words like “putinbot” to defame everyone who has a different/free opinion (which is a necessity for a democracy).
A government should be there to protect the sovereignty of its people and not the power of the financial oligarchy, the true rulers of many governments these days. Thanks to century-long mass-brainwashing and a fake, useless democracy we tend to feel that we live in something “better than anything else” … ohhh and we love to have those big common enemies (Bin Laden, Hussein, etc): We can shout at them together, cuss at them and are happy when their country gets nuked away. We don’t care that our politicians totally lie to us and invent ridiculous reasons to invade a sovereign country, cause when we are in fear they can tell us any lie. I mean the NSA is also only there to “protect us” LOL!
In case you belong to the tiny elite who benefits from all that corruption, please ignore my comment. Otherwise I would stop praising the enemies of a wonderful US constitution, which was created for the people and not the power-hungry.
“a wonderful US constitution, which was created for the people and not the power-hungry.”
What? You need a history lesson Boris. The Constitution was created by the richest land-owning slave holders in the country. One of the first things they did was raise a navy to teach the Islamic terrorists of their day a lesson. The shores of Tripoli…
Since 1776 America Has Been At War 93% of the Time, so maybe you’re right Ivan. But if you can’t even trust the Constitution? As I’m open to learn, I will look more critical at the foundation of the American government and try to learn about the Tripolitanian War, thanks for the advice.
“How do you know when you’re an out-of-control empire? When you keep bombing and deploying soldiers in places where you boast that you’ve ended wars.”
How do you know you have a hackish propagandist for a president? When you celebrate him for “ending two wars” in the very same places that he keeps bombing.”
How do you know you have a propagandist “journalist”? When he consistently disregard contexts, distort facts to rally an ignorant crowd.
Oh, please do elaborate on these disregarded contexts and distorted facts.
how do you know you’re leaving pointless comments that try to make a point then drop it after one sentence thereby making your claims ad hominem wank?
i’m seriously asking.
How do you know your comments are not pointless?
When others take the time to read it and define it as pointless.
How do you know you have an Establishment troll? When he makes unsubstantiated claims attacking the reputation of an independent investigative journalist.
Feel free to prove me wrong by providing some concrete facts to back up your claim, but I doubt you will.
How do you recognize an ass kisser?
Read Joshua H. comments
Putin finally taking away their toy ISIS. I hope for a soon relief for the Syrian people.
Quote from Putin’s speech at the UN on Sept. 28:
After Putin met with Obama:
You see this is the problem with leftists… they really believe in people like Putin and Assad. It doesn’t if they’re genocidal mass murders, as long as they’re exotic oppositional figures the Left will drink the Kool aid. Countless examples here Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot… now they don’t even have to be nominal leftist! (though I do believe Assad calls himself a socialist)
Glenn loves to rant about the evil of the Saudis, but everyone knows that they’re a bunch of savages, no one would really deny it. They just happen to be savages who pitched their tents over an ocean and that you can do business with, but leftist they really believe in guys like Putin and Assad
Evidence? Is W a leftist? He is the one who looked into Putin’s soul and recognized himself.
Well I thought Gina was one, but I believe she’s one of those danged old putinbots who turn up on every message even remotely related to Russia. God bless them.
You’re not a leftist and the term “Putinbot” identifies you as an under-informed little punk. Define “Putinbot”. You can’t.
I’m on the left end of the spectrum, but I don’t trust Putin anymore than I do my own country’s leaders (ie, the Democratic and Republican Party Establishment). Both occasionally have their moments (Putin letting Snowden stay in Russia; we still have some social saftey net programs here in the US), but the goal for people in each country should be to strive for better representatives/leaders in their governments.
Glenn as usual your analysis of foreign affairs has all the deep penetrating insight of teenager who has just looked up the word “hypocrisy” in the dictionary.
Is there something deep and penetrating and relevant? If so, please enlighten us.
At: When doves shit,
How can you think with all that crap in your head…and then again maybe you don’t.
Maybe your working from a script.
A paid script.
I think your working from a script…Putinbot what the hell that…did you think that meme up all by yourself.
When you come back, come back with something intelligent, not this nonsense you vomiting.
Something that’s concluded from critical thinking.
This infantile term is now frequently tossed around over at The Guardian’s Website, which has totally destroyed itself since Glenn’s departure. While systematically banning long time members for comments that disputed the official Western Lies citing Putin’s “aggression” in the Ukraine, the Guardian has also published several articles by their editors about the problem of “Russian Trolls” and their efforts to combat them.
Unfortunately, The Guardian’s definition of Russian Trolls is anyone who disputes the official story–especially if they are articulate and can back up their arguments with links to more informative articles on the same subject matter. As a result, their threads are now full of people tossing around complaints about “Putinbots”, but the fools haven’t noticed that all of the “Putinbots” have now been banned for life or that they are preaching to the boot-licking choir, which is all that remains.
please elaborate by pointing us to your website and all its infallible knowledge. or is there some “deep penetrating insight” i’m missing in your comment?
Way way off topic. Just a comment on economic issues and the environment.
I am sure many have read about the VW test fixing “scandal”
What really galls me about the press on the issue is the never never talk about the real criminals VW is owned by the Porsche and the Piëch families who have collected billions if profit while poisoning the environment and cheating their customers. The corporation has engaged in racketeering on an international sacal and the Porsche and the Piëch families have profited in vast amounts – and they are the ones who control the money all the companies revenue is theirs, it is their demand for ever higher profits ever larger market share and NO EXCUSES that is at the heart of this matter.
But because of corporate “law” they will walk away with billions more and never miss a payday.
the Porsche and the Piëch families have no god given right to their fortune there is no god given right that oligarchs always get to keep their fortunes, their fortunes have been made by corrupt and criminal behavior and their fortunes should be confiscated for the same reasons they confiscate drug dealers cars they are no different.
Good luck convincing the average American that selling cars and selling drugs are equivalent.
“the Porsche and the Piëch families have no god given right to their fortune there is no god given right that oligarchs always get to keep their fortunes, their fortunes have been made by corrupt and criminal behavior and their fortunes should be confiscated for the same reasons they confiscate drug dealers cars they are no different.”
This comment gives me a great Idea for an Intercept column. Contributors ought to be allowed to participate in a drawing that, if won, allows them to submit their off-topic rants for publication. However, they must be willing to defend their position in a no-holds-barred battle against all criticism.
Thanks Glenn for this long overdue issue: the windbags of Washington have been bloviating about “Iraq and Afghanistan military operations are now finished” for at least the last 2 years. But no!–nothing could be further from the truth. Such claims of “mission accomplished” are no more believable than when Bush said the same thing back in 2004 after the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. To say ‘the US military is now out of Iraq and Afghanistan’ is pure nonsense. What about the Green Zone in Baghdad? That massive military bunker full of American embassy staff, military, etc? Did you think they just gave that back to the Iraqis? Nope: full of American government and military staff busily working away. Everybody needs to face the truth: America is not going to leave Iraq or Afghanistan. Not for a very long time, if ever in the forseeable future. As always, you are being lied to by Obama the liar in chief. It’s all propaganda, this bullshit about ‘ending operations’. The best way to think of the Iraq and Afghanistan disaster is that it is both an invasion, and an occupation. The invasion chapter is long finished: we are now in the occupation phase which, in all honesty will probably continue indefinitely. And that really sucks :-(
It’s sad how people really trust the government to tell you everything. We’ve strayed so far. Oblivious citizens.
Glenn, Glenn, Glenn . . .
I’m sure the Lenks of the world will be around directly to disabuse you of your fundamental misunderstanding of the morality of these bombing campaigns as follows:
“Morality” is a function of intent and targeting choices. In other words, it is perfectly morally acceptable that civilians will necessarily and predictably be killed (which in the law we like to call “doing something knowingly” or at best “recklessly”) as a result of our intent to target people suspected of being terrorists. See how that works? It does not matter that a person knows the necessary and predictable consequences of their actions, so long as that person can state with a straight face that it was not his/her intent that a particular activity result in the predictable outcome, necessarily.
Under this particular moral calculus it is only the person who says “I intend to kill whoever stands in the way of achieving my goals (men, women, children doesn’t matter)” that can rightly be labeled an immoral human being as opposed to the person who says “I will achieve my goals by intending to kill only those who stand in the way of achieving my goals but knowing I will necessarily kill many innocent people (men, women and children it doesn’t matter) who do not in fact stand in the way of my goals.” This is a very fine moral distinction that eludes most non-patriotic Americans. The former is the position of organizations such as ISIS/ISIL. The latter is the position of organizations such as America and its allies. When ISIS/ISIL predictably and necessarily kills and dismembers those we deem to be “innocent” but who ISIS/ISIL members feel stand in the way of its goals, they are subhuman butchers. When America and its allies predictably and necessarily kill and dismember those we deem to be “innocent” and who predictably and necessarily get in the way of achieving our goals (you know because they made the mistake of living in a land where our “goals” and “interests” collide with their lives), it is an accident and morally acceptable collateral damage. See the real moral question is not “means” but “ends”. Two competing groups can employ the same means–predictably and necessarily causing the death of “innocents”–in pursuit of their goals without it being subject to moral scrutiny. The key moral question is the “ends” being pursued. If the “ends” or “interests” being protected, liberated or enhanced are ones which we deem to be “moral” (i.e. liberty, freedom, democracy, market penetration) then the “means” we use in their pursuit are irrelevant so long as we don’t intend to behead a human body with a metal blade (as opposed to exploding or dismembering with a high powered explosive propelled tiny metal blades known as shrapnel).
This is the foundation of America’s Just War Team America Global Police Actions Theory which states: if America has interests in a nation or region of the globe, it becomes a “moral imperative” for America to protect, liberate and enhance those interests by spreading “liberty and freedom” to the peoples of those nations or regions via the means of kinetic military actions. This of course is beyond question or polite debate, specifically the morality of the interests we claim to have in that nation or region and/or the means we choose to employ to protect, liberate and enhance those interests so long as we don’t intend to use a large metal blade as opposed to tiny metal blades to end human life.
Let’s take the global scourge of “terrorism” for example. Terrorism by non-state actors is of course the greatest threat to global stability since Hitler and Stalin. Promoting global stability is of course in America’s interest. Therefore, anywhere terrorism exists, America has an interest and the moral imperative to combat it with the means of its choice which is primarily tiny metal blades propelled by high explosives. The unintended consequences of killing and displacing large numbers of civilians, and destroying entire nation’s internal infrastructure and governmental stability is morally acceptable in this pursuit, because the intent of such kinetic military actions is to protect, liberate and enhance global stability. It does not matter that it is as predictable as night and day that in spite of our highly moral intentions and targeting decision making apparatus, that hundreds of thousands if not millions of human beings will have their lives prematurely ended, thrown into chaos or rendered refugees as a result of our global stability enhancing actions. This is also known as the Morality of a Few Broken Eggs in Pursuit of a Liberty and Freedom Omelet. In fact, under this moral calculus we don’t need to consult the popular will of the object of our interests (i.e. the human beings that will be the object of means and bear the consequences of same) regarding our goals or means, we simply state for them that this is what they necessarily need and then proceed accordingly.
So not to worry GG, it is an easy mistake to make when talking about the morality of America’s kinetic military actions all over the globe.
Rational people and nations do things in their best interest. Seriously, this is not a conspiracy.
The same make mistakes and policy errors. But to equate U.S. policy to terrorism “by another means” is so God damn stupid that I’m just totally flummoxed. Go live with the savages if we are no different.
@ Art Mooney
I’m well aware nations do things in their “best interest”. And I never suggested it was a conspiracy to do so. What I did suggest is that those “interests” should be democratically defined and determined, don’t you think? I mean in the interests of “political” legitimacy?
Please explain to me, rationally, how the necessary and predictable consequences of a chosen act/actions can result in an “error” or “mistake”. I’ll wait.
And what’s so “God damn stupid” in my opinion, and millions of others is the fundamental mistake people like you make in believing that so long as one’s “intentions” are good, the necessary and predictable consequences of an act/actions renders those consequences by definition “not terrorism” or otherwise “moral” acts/actions.
Let me put it to you very simply by way of analogy: If a man, intending to protect his daughter from further sexual abuse at the hands of her abuser, locates this man in a crowded movies theatre, and opens fire upon him with a machine gun or hand grenade that will predictably and necessarily result in the death or serious injury to “innocent” movies goers who happen to be in the theatre, would you call it a “mistake” or “error” of “policy” with regard to the innocent lives the man took?
Would it make a difference to you if the abuser was also suspected to have abused 10 other daughters of various fathers? If so at what point, and via what means, is it appropriate for the father to “protect” or “prevent” further harm to his daughter and the daughters of others, by taking actions that will predictably and necessarily cause harm to those who have done he and/or his daughter no harm?
As far as “living with the savages”, I think I already live among them if my fellow citizens are so blinded that they can justify as moral (or as a “mistake” or “error” of “policy”): the Iraq war, the Vietnam war with its attendant bombings of Laos and Cambodia, and any of a laundry list of “kinetic military interventions” all over Central and South America going back decades, all in pursuit of our purported “best interests” and not as a function of “mistaken” or “erroneous” policy rather the stated policy objective of our “best interests”. And to suggest such policy wasn’t implemented to “terrorize” the objects of our “interests” is delusional at best. It was in fact calculated to kill which in my book is morally worse than “terrorizing” someone which for sane people is the necessary and predictable consequence of actually trying to kill them. And the absolute numbers of deaths and dismemberments of the objects of our purported interests, and the horrific means employed (from napalm, to environmental degradations and starvation, to throwing nuns out of helicopters and machine gun murdering civilians–men, women and children) dwarfs anything the “savages” of ISIL/ISIS will likely ever accomplish in pursuit of their purported “interests”. Because, quite frankly, they don’t have the economic or military capacity to sustain such slaughter. And that is simply a logical and historical fact.
So the only reason you should be “flummoxed” is that your thinking on this subject is so far from “unclear” as to be aptly described as either purposely obtuse or incapable of comprehension in the first instance.
“Please explain to me, rationally, how the necessary and predictable consequences of a chosen act/actions can result in an error or mistake.”
One might kill ones spouse to save them from suffering from an incurable illness and then subsequently regret having done so upon personally facing like circumstance.
A president might make the decision to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima with the sincere belief that thousands of American lives would be saved in the process. But, with the benefit of hindsight, come to deeply regret their very existence.
Time provides us with the ability to more deeply weigh the moral implications of our actions. Gandhi was almost universally condemned for his view that it was better not to resist Nazi aggression than to oppose it by the taking of human life. This sensibility was governed by the perception that Man’s essential Self (Atman) is the imperishable and eternal soul that both reflects and is comprised of the universal Brahman (divine essence). According to him, a man who does not have intimate first hand knowledge of his own divine nature is given to making decision that reflect that ignorance. On the other hand, a person who achieves the requisite insight to appreciate the divine essence of his own soul might deeply regret any action taken in ignorance even though the necessary and predictable result of those actions seemed to be morally justifiable at the time.
@ Karl
Regret or subsequently being in like circumstances has zero to do with the morality of killing another without their permission, whether due to incurable illness or any other.
Again, regret has nothing to do with the morality of an act. Neither does one’s “good faith belief” in some speculative future harm to others.
Moreover, you haven’t addressed the sense of “error” or “mistake” I’m talking about. What I’m talking about is the volitional quality of an act or policy that will predictably and necessarily yield a particular result–that by definition cannot be an error or mistake, but a conscious choice to do an act knowing that it will yield a particular result. Now in hindsight you may regret or question the morality, effectiveness or necessity of engaging in such conduct (and in one sense you could refer to your prior analysis as mistaken or erroneous) but that doesn’t change the fact that you knowingly brought about a particular result.
No it doesn’t. The morality of our actions are a function of the moral nature of the acts in the present–not one’s subjective intentions, not hindsight and not the depth with which we may or may not have grappled with the same.
And for someone who believed coherently in non-violence so absolutely, he was 100% correct. The only problem is, most of us aren’t as coherent as Gandhi in our ethics, and we believe that it is morally permissible to employ violence to defend ourselves and others, if and only if, we or others are under objectively demonstrable imminent threat of, or ongoing violence, of a deadly nature or intended to inflict grievous bodily injury.
I don’t know anything about the divine essence of anyone’s soul because I don’t believe humans have souls, and have never seen any scientific proof we have souls, so I’m not sure how to address that idea.
Anyone is free to regret any action they may take in life. Or to try and atone for an act they come to later see is morally indefensible, one they regret, and/or one they later come to believe was wrong, immoral or hurtful to another. But “ignorance” is never sufficient justification for immoral or unethical acts. Again, I’d suggest taking a couple of courses in Descriptive Ethics, Normative Ethics and/or Analytical Ethics.
And while I have used the word “moral” in its philosophical “normative/prescriptive ethics” sense, I would concede that to do so is misleading and should have been replaced with “ethical” rather than moral in most instances.
I could answer you point for point but there is one response that is most central to the discussion. In response to argument that “time provides us with the ability to more deeply weigh the moral implications of our actions,” you argued, “No it doesn’t. The morality of our actions are a function of the moral nature of the acts in the present–not one’s subjective intentions, not hindsight and not the depth with which we may or may not have grappled with the same.”
Correct me if I am wrong:
In taking exception to the claim that one’s innate moral sense can deepen with time, you seem to be arguing that:
(1) all actions have a constant and measurable moral value,
(2) all moral values are innately self evident, and that
(3) the moral value of any particular action is readily perceptible at every moment in a person’s life
@ rrheard Here is a recent synopsis published by Robert Parry that seems germane to this topic, titled The Power of False Narrative.
https://consortiumnews.com/2015/09/28/the-power-of-false-narrative/
I enjoyed reading what you had to say.
“Work is love made visible.” KG
As Usual,
EA
So do smart sociopaths. I’m sure you can figure out what you’re missing in your philosophical observation.
Speaking of sociopaths, here is Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, (who is now working in Hillary Clinton’s campaign) telling “60 Minutes” that it was “worth it for 500,000 Iraqi children to die under U.S. economic sanctions over never finding non-existent WMD’s”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RM0uvgHKZe8
Those military “leaders” sitting in their offices at The Pentagon do not give a rats ass about Congressional authority, or about the funding they need, or about more equipment and bullets and bombs and planes and tanks and helicopters and drones. They get anything they want from Congress, no problem. It has NEVER been a problem. And their marching orders for full spectrum dominance go waaaaayyyy back to the 1990’s:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/syrian-war-islamic-state-isis-creation-timeline/5472680
And if there ever is a problem getting funding, voila! just tap into funds from the “black budgets” from dealing heroin from Afghanistan or cocaine from South America.
The U.S. government is a criminal racket and that includes the entire Congress , the Justice Department and the FBI.
Aren’t there RICO statutes that can be used to stop the international war crimes the United States and its “allies” are perpetrating?!
Is there a lawyer in the house?! Is there a lawyer in the house?!
“Let me put it to you very simply by way of analogy: If a man, intending to protect his daughter from further sexual abuse at the hands of her abuser, locates this man in a crowded movies theatre, and opens fire upon him with a machine gun or hand grenade that will predictably and necessarily result in the death or serious injury to “innocent” movies goers who happen to be in the theatre, would you call it a “mistake” or “error” of “policy” with regard to the innocent lives the man took?”
That is why I call you stupid and ignorant. Even if that individual was a cop, he will be arrested and convicted for murder. This amount of force would be illogical to apprehend a suspect in a place under the control of authorities. Again, your logic suggests that even law enforcers are just terrorists. If terrorists got into a mall and starts shooting shoppers one by one in the name of their god at what point would it be appropriate for security personnel to enter the mall and stop them by any means necessary knowing that civilians might be killed in the process? You gave a fictitious example, I give you the Wesgate Mall incident in Kenya. The Kenyan military, police, leaders could never guarantee that their own force would not harm civilians. Are you willing to describe the Kenyan armed forces as terrorist organizations for using lethal force in a mall packed with civilians?
And again, if your fellow citizens are so savage, are even worst than ISIL fighters, it might be the time for you to surrender your passport and leave. Obviously, you are unable to convince them with your arguments. That would prevent your tax money from buying more weapons. You could join Greenwald in Brazil, but you will not be able to convince him to surrender his passport. He needs the protection of the American “savages”. Put your money where your mouth is: stop giving your tax money to buy bombs. Surrender your passport and leave!
@ Lenk
Here’s why I consider you stupid and ignorant in part–you have yet to figure out how to blockquote, something any 10 year old can accomplish. And while I enjoy our little exchanges, they are starting to bore me because they are pointless. You are my moral and intellectual inferior, and nothing I say will change your mind because, frankly, you don’t appear capable of rational or moral functioning higher than your average 10-year old.
And yet when an American military member, or its political leaders, engage in policies that yield precisely the necessarily predictable consequence of killing and dismembering innocent people as a function of its stated policies–as described by analogy–nobody is arrested and convicted for murder, although they should be if there wasn’t a double standard for what individuals do as opposed to nations and their functionaries in the military.
You aren’t very good at understanding an analogy are you? Or whether an analogy is apt or not? The analogy wasn’t/isn’t to the US as “father” in isolation, the analogy is to the “father’s policy” of engaging in an activity/activities that will predictably and necessarily produce a particular result, and the morality of that policy and its results as it necessarily and predictably impacts innocent lives. But I don’t expect you to comprehend the analogy, or its applicability, because you aren’t very smart. Further, there was nothing about the analogy that depends on whether or not law enforcement is in a position to take actions other than the “father” took in my analogy. Because what you are apparently attempting to argue (by doing what’s called “moving the goalposts”) is “if police are in control, a father may not take the above actions,” or alternatively, “if police are in control, and they take the father’s action the police would be tried and convicted of murder.” The latter proposition is both irrelevant to the analogy and it is debatable as a function of the data on American law enforcement shootings of people who have been convicted of no crime (i.e. innocent until proven guilty) and are not an objectively demonstrable threat to the officer or others.
Are you suggesting that American law applies to the entire planet, or that America has the right to enforce whichever laws it chooses to enforce (America’s or other nations laws) by whatever means it deems prudent regardless of the fact it will predictably and necessarily lead to the death and dismemberment of innocent civilians? Because we are discussing “foreign policy” rather than the domestic law enforcement capability of any particular nation. In any event your examples have nothing to do with what is being discussed in Glenn’s piece or my comment.
By any means necessary? Again, the above has nothing to do with American foreign policy, unless you are suggesting that the America’s foreign policy is a function of “self-defense” or “defense of others in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm”. Because that certainly wasn’t the case in Vietnam, Cambodia or Laos as a function of American policy. Nor was it the case in Iraq. Nor is it the case with drone bombing of suspected terrorists in civilian areas. You know why? Because the predictable and knowable harm to innocent civilians is disproportionate to the speculative and prospective harm that has yet to be perpetrated by a suspected terrorist. Oh but I’m sure you are someone who believes that anyone targeted by the US government is necessarily a “terrorist” (i.e. someone demonstrably proved to have committed a crime). Of course rational moral people don’t sentence somebody to death on secret evidence known only to the government (assuming it exists and is sufficient to establish the targets culpability), or possibility that the suspected terrorist might or could harm others in the future.
But in answer to your question, it would be morally defensible, to use proportional means to defend others i.e. means that would not necessarily and predictably kill more innocents than purported bad guys and/or would prevent more innocent deaths
than would necessarily and predictable occur absent action.
I gave an example that is the precise legal standard in America used in determining culpable intent for a criminal offense i.e. “knowingly” or “recklessly” (which is not to say that you can’t also be criminally responsible in a few instances with nothing more than “negligent” intent which is “knowing that an act constitutes an unreasonable risk of harm to others and doing it anyway”. Another standard that America’s foreign policy could be determined culpable under . That you are not aware of this standard again does not surprise me because you appear not to be very smart or well informed as to the law or morality.
No but what I am prepared to do is point out, again, is that you fundamentally can’t comprehend the relevant analogy. The relevant analogy is to the morality of actions, as a function of policy, and the necessary and predictable results of carrying out that policy.
First, it would be “even worse” not “worst”. Second, I don’t think it is necessarily all my fellow citizens who are savages, just the ones who formulate immoral policies and those most directly responsible for carrying them out. Finally, I will never leave this country, because it is more interesting to attempt to improve this nation’s policies and do what little I can to ensure immoral morons like you don’t drive it into the moral gutter for all eternity.
Only people I’m not able to convince are morons like you with the moral compass of a serial killer who has convinced himself that he’s doing good by mass murdering people, but with good intentions.
Better yet, I have enough money so I don’t have to earn income each year to be taxable and I can still survive. That means over the last 3 or 4 years I haven’t paid any taxes toward buying any bullets or bombs for American. Thankfully. And I do it without taking any public subsidies or “welfare”, I live very simply thus putting my money where my mouth is. And the day I surrender my passport and citizenship is the day I’ve given up fighting for this nation to be better. But I’d certainly never give it up because of immoral morons like you.
“And while I enjoy our little exchanges, they are starting to bore me because they are pointless.”
Me, I love these exchanges. It showed how stupid and ignorant Greenwald’s supporters are. They make my case perfectly. You go too high with the age of 10. I know many five years old who will never get your “higher education” who have better arguments than you. How sorry do you sound (quotes? really?). I have a hint. If you see my name and then you see the word “ignorant” and “stupid” then I am probably referring to you.
“And yet when an American military member, or its political leaders, engage in policies that yield precisely the necessarily predictable consequence of killing…”
You cannot show us any POLICIES from ONE police force in America that specifically target and kill law abiding citizens. Yet, every single cop on duty might take actions on a daily basis that could yield the predictable deaths of these law abiding citizens. By not properly clearing his weapon before assuming duty, an officer might harm a law abiding citizen. Your logic suggests that officer is a terrorist because by allowing officers to carry weapons that policy will predictably yield to the death or serious injury of law abiding citizens. Your argument is stupid and invalid as you are completely incapable of providing ONE policy that a military member or police officer can provide that could GUARANTEE ZERO civilian casualties.
“You aren’t very good at understanding an analogy are you?”
Actually you are not. If you name ONE area in the world where authorities are capable and willing to apprehend suspected terrorists, but the US used drones or air strikes to target those suspects, then your analogy becomes valid.
“there was nothing about the analogy that depends on whether or not law enforcement is in a position to take actions”
Which makes your analogy stupid and irrelevant because the US does not use drones or air strikes in areas where local authorities are able and willing to apprehend suspected terrorists.
I think you are getting upset. That might explain your confusion. Maybe you should just stick to correcting my typos (on a website!).
“Nor is it the case with drone bombing of suspected terrorists in civilian areas. You know why? Because the predictable and knowable harm to innocent civilians is disproportionate to the speculative and prospective harm that has yet to be perpetrated by a suspected terrorist.”
This is the best part “speculative” and “prospective harm”. I do wonder what is so “speculative” about ISIL fighters. Would you give them the opportunity to establish their caliphate so we could see how “speculative” all these countries that are bombing them are?
You are making a fool of yourself as you are a complete ignorant of military matters. Another hint: you are not your family members. So, they might know, but you obviously do not know anything about military operations.
America’s policy in Japan during and after WWII is completely different than America’s policies in Vietnam. The same can be said for Germany, the Congo, Laos…So, if you are suggesting the policies used in Vietnam are the same used in Iraq in 2015, then you perfectly prove the point that you are stupid.
Moreover, it would be wise not to brag about your knowledge of the law. There is absolutely nothing contradictory with American legal standards when the US bombs Taliban fighters approaching Kunduz Airport or US drones bombs ISIL fighters approaching Yazidi refugees. However, a non violent individual or a propagandist like Greenwald might describe those bombings as immoral acts. Moreover, the “police of the world” argument is cheap and very ignorant. You need to familiarize yourself with the basic concepts of international law.
“Only people I’m not able to convince are morons like you with the moral compass of a serial killer who has convinced himself that he’s doing good by mass murdering people, but with good intentions.”
Take a deep breadth! breath…breath…breath…breath…Why don’t you tell us whom have you convinced for the last 60 years. According to you America foreign policy has not been better since Vietnam. In your own logic you are not doing a good job.
“That means over the last 3 or 4 years I haven’t paid any taxes toward buying any bullets or bombs for American. Thankfully. And I do it without taking any public subsidies or “welfare”, I live very simply thus putting my money where my mouth is.”
Actually, you also need to familiarize yourself with basic economics. Do you use American highways? Are there firefighters in your town? Do you feel safe thanks to the FAA controlling air traffic? These are a few services that you are getting for free by not paying taxes. So, you might not receive a ” welfare” check from the government, but you are taking public subsidies in non monetary forms. In other words, you are a freeloader. You can make that nation better by first paying taxes before you demand real taxpayers to follow your arguments. Or better yet, you can just surrender your passport, leave the savages, the mass murderers and go somewhere else. You would not have to freeload on their services. Be careful, you will have to pay taxes in Brazil!
tl:dr
It’s interesting how quickly you can pivot from talking about the use of drones to kill “suspected terrorists” (and how willing you are to pass a death sentence on “suspected” terrorists) to talking about the use of drones to kill ISIL fighters. The two are not remotely equivalent, except perhaps in their religious fervor. You do understand the difference between a “suspected” terrorist and a “proven” terrorist, I hope? Because you don’t seem to understand the difference between an adherent to a disorganized movement and a “fighter” in an organized military force, albeit one not officially recognized as such.
Is it the role of the United States to militarily intervene in the Middle East to prevent ISIL from establishing their caliphate? What is the pressing national interest that is threatened by them? Sure, they’re savages and killers and all the rest; but is it really a good idea for us to be the ones to go around cleaning up these messes? We have a decidedly mixed track record when it comes to that kind of thing…
Strictly speaking, they are. They use fear, backed by the threat of physical violence, to force compliance with a specific set of political ideas (as embodied in the law). They represent the power of the state, and threaten to use that power. The fact that they are legally empowered to do this doesn’t change that fact. That’s why it’s so important to maintain constant vigilance on how that power, that application of force and fear of punishment, is being used by our law enforcers.
“Strictly speaking, they are.”
Which makes it pointless to respond to any of your arguments.
I win!
“I win!”
Definitely. Among the dumb ass Greenwald’s supporters, you are the winner.
We need a better system than voting for accountability. We rely too much on the system to cure itself. So many people read these articles, don’t like what they are reading, and then have to get ready for the meeting in 5 minutes and forget about it. All corrupt entities benefit when people are too busy and distracted to actually do anything about it. The available option (vote out Demo and vote in Repub) sucks in terms of actually addressing the minutia of problems. We need a system redesign and reboot, but thats practically impossible to do. Half of us disagree with the other half, not to mention the people who just don’t care about anything related to politics or societal governance. It’s a broken system, and so we have to live with the results of that.
Look, if the Government controlled media says the wars are over, then they are over. There is no proof that magical flying ships are pooping explosives in a made up land across the ocean. I mean really, at the end of the ocean it just drops off into space and that’s where the monsters live.
The best we can do is offer to pay twice as much in taxes as thanks for giving us liberty and protecting our individual privacy as citizens. All I know is, Obama, the first black president has saved us from ourselves as a people, and completely healed our economy, not to mention eliminating the deficit.
Just love all of you commenting here who must be way better journalists than Mr. Greenwald. My question then is, why aren’t you posting your biting editorials on your own media outlets? You all seem to be so in the know with your foreign sources and political contacts.
War traditionally had an objective, and once achieved, the winning side could proudly photograph itself in front of a Mission Accomplished banner. Obama took away the mission, so in that sense he ended the war. In another sense, he initiated endless war, a war without an objective or a mission. That war is not limited to any particular country; it’s acted out an a global stage and talking about a war in Afghanistan is therefore meaningless.
So Obama ended war as a concept which is applied to a particular country such as Iraq or Afghanistan. Instead, global surveillance allows the US to identify individuals anywhere in the world, who are hostile to its interests, and eliminate them. As one generation of war ends, a new one begins. Countries used to need occasional interludes of peace to rebuild their arsenals, but as manufacturing becomes more efficient, that is no longer necessary.
I think in fairness you have to say that it wasn’t Obama who “initiated endless war.” That was done by the Bush administration; Obama’s sin is in continuing to prosecute that endless war. Obama did end our overt, large-scale military presences in the regions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he should get some small credit for doing that…but inasmuch as he has continued sub-rosa “special forces” involvement and drone campaigns in the name of the “war on terror,” his record is not one to be particularly proud of.
If anyone should get credit for ending the US occupation of Iraq, it’s Chelsea Manning.
We need to give credit where it is due: George Bush negotiated and signed a Status of Forces agreement with Iraq that set a timetable for the withdrawal of US forces. Later, when circumstances on the ground forced our otherwise flawless military and civilian leadership to reconsider the timetable, it was the Iraqis who insisted that we make good on our promise. Of course, there has always been some tension, with some factions wanting us to stay while others want us out, out, out. That was never more true than at present, when the largely untrained rabble that constitutes the Iraqi army is confronting a determined, well funded, well armed and ably led ISIS threat.
Surely we can all agree, however, that in his war on terrorism, his war on drugs, and his war on competition against American firms, President Obama, like his predecessors, will use all means available to kill his opponents. And, truth be said, a majority in Congress support him, and quarrel only with his restraint.
How can you be so stupid Jose?
Do you have a rebuttal or just name-calling as usual?
Some comments like yours above only deserve the appropriate descriptive name: stupid!
As far as Iraq goes, liberalrob, you are forgetting that Obama honored an agreement to remove forces in 2011 that was negotiated by W. Famously, Obama used all of his (pitiful) political skill to try to get out of that agreement, but the Iraqis would not agree to full immunity for our soldiers so he begrudgingly honored the original agreement. So giving him credit for pulling out of Iraq is a bit of a stretch. Meanwhile he escalated intervention in Afghanistan throughout his first term, and as the article points out, he is still calling in strikes there. Obama gets fair credit for (i) thawing relations with Cuba and (ii) getting the Iran deal done (with the crucial help of the Russians, I might add). Everything else he’s done has been an unmitigated disaster. And (this has been kept a secret until now!) he’s a terrible orator to boot.
I give him credit for not caving in to the warmongers who advised him to simply ignore the SOF agreement and keep our troops there beyond the negotiated deadline. You are quite correct that he only did so grudgingly and after doing everything he could think of to get the agreement modified.
You’re right, he should be given credit for not simply ignoring the agreement. Fair enough.
“Obama did end our overt, large-scale military presences in the regions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he should get some small credit for doing that…”
Iraq’s government, not Obama, called time on the U.S. troop presence:
“The (Status of Forces) agreement failed over a (standard) demand that American troops be given immunity from prosecution by Iraqis, a very touchy political issue within the Iraqi Parliament. Some experts said Iraqi leaders may not have been willing to take great political risk with their citizens in exchange for a relatively small American force.
But no immunity meant no sizable residual troop presence.
“When the Americans asked for immunity, the Iraqi side answered that it was not possible,” al-Maliki said in an October 2011 news conference. “The discussions over the number of trainers and the place of training stopped. Now that the issue of immunity was decided and that no immunity to be given, the withdrawal has started.”
Three years later, as the Islamic State advanced in the country and shocked the world, a CNN reporter asked Obama if he regretted the decision not to leave a residual force in Iraq. Obama said, ‘Keep in mind, that wasn’t a decision made by me. That was a decision made by the Iraqi government.'”
As I said above, he did have the option of simply ignoring the deadline. That he didn’t do so is to his (small) credit. You can be assured that a McCain administration would not have done the same.
These are new wars, that’s all. Just like TV has seasons and cars have new models every year, wars can end and new ones quickly begin. Look how many times the British ended their Afghan wars.
Hey, there’s a “new season” of Game of Thrones coming. Can’t wait!
Indeed… the matter of worrisome is that Israel which does not miss any chance to utter “Hamas and Hezbollah” has never taken ‘ISIS’ seriously (the fact the ISIS brutally has murdered Muslims and non-Muslims alike and destroyed large areas of Muslim countries… Iraq & Syria). Perhaps the reason could be, that Israel feels happy that what it (Israel) could do, the ISIS is already doing on their part. Or perhaps, there is something fishy about all that “mum” is the word—I believe!
Having said that… it is appreciative that people like Glenn Greenwald are out to clutch throats of ‘imperialists’ for advancing their self-interest oriented agendas in the countries that deny their dictations to be implemented in the region.
Why should these thug leaders from Europe be allowed to decide and promptly bomb the Muslim countries; just because the leaders of those countries refuse to implement their dictations – as compared to their (West) impotent response to vicious dictatorship elsewhere in non-Muslim countries such as Zimbabwe or Uganda etc? Is this because they are pushing in pro-Israel agenda or what…?
Imagine what could these thug leaders from the West could have done, had any Muslim country like Turkey, Pakistan or Jordan taken steps to get involved in Bosnia crisis (for the massacre of 0.3 million Muslims there (including women and children)!
Journalists in the West are quick to put tough questions to leaders from Syria, Pakistan, Iran, Turkey (and who boldly answer back) but only selective journalists are allowed to put selective questions to the leaders of West?
No western journalist questions France’s moral after bombing Libya to stone-age, to ask what good did the bombing do to Libyans after murdering Qaddafi? And yet France has audacity to say that ‘Pres. Assad’ has no role in future government!
Every country that those warmongering aggressive countries of the West have invaded, have achieved nothing. They have only and hardly been able to control “mere” Capitals of those countries ‘Kabul (Afghanistan) – Baghdad (Iraq) – Tripoli (Libya)’ (the notion of the war is to capture ‘Capital’ only – and these fellas believe that they have achieved much by capturing the Capitals of those war-torn countries).
For 14-years world’s modernized armies from more than forty (40) countries have been stationed in Afghanistan (including the powerful the NATO, US, UK, France, Germany) and “yet” they have been miserably failure to even secure the capital “Kabul” from frequent suicide-bombings (which often get inside diplomatic areas of world embassies).
To hide their impotency and misery, they have often blamed this on Pakistan or others… 40 countries’ militaries could not stop Osama from fleeing Afghanistan… 40 countries’ advanced armies have failed to achieve ‘peace’ in Afghanistan for 14-years – and yet these incompetent believe that they “still” have something to promise “peace” somewhere where they already have brought chaos!
I don’t recall any ISIS attacks on Israel or Israelis, though of course there may have been some. Meanwhile Hamas and Hezbollah have definitely attacked Israel and killed Israelis in the past; so it’s to be expected that Israel would emphasize the threat of organizations that have attacked them over those that have not. Still, it isn’t particularly helpful of Israel to rattle on about Hamas and Hezbollah when those two groups are actually opposed to the group their patron considers a top threat to their interests in the region.
Well, “protecting Israel” is part of it…more to the point, Islamic radicals in Afghanistan organized the 9/11 attacks and many others around the world, and similar radical elements present threats to the free flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to the West. Those are the primary justifications used to explain the need to bomb those countries. Whether those are sufficient reasons and whether the bombings are appropriate (nevermind effective, or even legal) are subjects of debate.
Actually Turkey was very active in the Bosnian crisis, especially diplomatically, due to their historical interests in the region. They lobbied very publicly for Western intervention. Pakistan and Jordan were quite unlikely to have gotten involved due to their distance from the region.
Well, it depends on your point of view. The invasion of Afghanistan was not primarily intended to establish a democratic regime there, it was to punish the perpetrators of 9/11. It accomplished that “goal;” the Taliban was ejected from power and Al Qaeda’s leadership was damaged severely. The invasion of Iraq was intended to establish a permanent military presence in the region to protect our oil interests and directly threaten Iran; that foundered due to incompetence, but at least for a time that goal was achieved, and as has been stated we still maintain an active military presence on a low-key basis. The invasion of Libya was done to end the Khaddafi regime’s bloody repression of the Arab Spring uprisings, and indeed the Khaddafi regime is no longer committing atrocities…unfortunately, as was the case in Iraq, removing the repressive regime merely released the pent-up ambitions, fears, and anger of those being repressed; so the bloodshed continues there, and will continue until either a new repressive force takes control or the various combatants exhaust themselves. That’s how it always is, and has been throughout history. To truly enforce peace on groups dead set on conflict, you have to be willing to either beat one or both sides down by force or just let them fight it out. Either choice results in bloodshed. Humans are awful.
Hey Rob, I hate to break this to you, but you are not a “liberal”. Moreover, your defense of the war crimes that have been committed in our names sounds very much like it was written from a pentagon script. It didn’t happen that way and I suspect you know it, but thanks for playing.
By the way, calling yourself a “liberal” as part of your internet meme is also a dead giveaway that you are anything but a “liberal”, which is a term that has long since lost any relationship to its original meaning and which has also largely gone out of use on the traditionally “liberal” left. It only has meaning for someone on the Fascist Right and your comments confirm this.
You’ve been exposed my friend. Your handlers will not be happy with your performance here.
I’ve been disappointing my handlers this way for decades…but their checks continue to arrive and be honored at the bank. Someday I’m sure they’ll fix the glitch…
If I understand correctly, you’re saying the part of the world you come from is really, really, really screwed up and white Christian males should do more to make your lives better because you people will never get your shit together.
One sentence.
That’s not what he said. <–one sentence
He said the West has been trying to bomb the Middle East into peace and harmony for 14 years and has bupkis to show for it, which is quite true. And why should we respect the promises of leaders who say it'll all work out if we just bomb them some more, also a good point.
His post is a rejection of the big-power politics that has made a bloody mess of the Middle East for centuries. There's nothing wrong with it in that sense.
Well states cmarco.
This is the time for clearly stated analysis.
Unfortunately, here in the U.S., across the spectrum, most of the analysis of US behavior and goals with respect to Ukraine and Syria is imbued with gross ideological distortions.
In my view Mr. Greenwald’s interpretation of Russia’s support of the legitimate government and legal sovereignty of the Syrian government as being on par with The U.S. history of expanding its imperium is not in the least bit cogent–as per this moment and context.
The false equivalence may be more palatable among the deluded and confused US intelligentsia–but it doesn’t bode well for developing a scenerio through which the Syrian people can destroy The Islamic State’s murderous rampage, and establish stable governance that reflects the authentic will of the Syrian people.
This Greenwald’s imputation of Russian “imperialistic” designs is very awkward and reflects poorly on his General understading of what is unfolding before our very eyes.
Given the clumsy and pathetic mass demonization of Putin, and the narrative that Russia is an existential threat to the U.S.–I understand Greenwald’s proclivity to engage this distortion, this false equivalence.
But this doesn’t help the more sane among us to get the cornered and delusional hegemon (the U.S.) to drop the knife and release its hostages.
Sad–but we are staring at potential world war. We desperately need brave and cogent assessment.
Thank you for those great words and support. The demonization of Putin also takes (or took) place in several European mainstream media (even though the alternative/free press with different views is getting stronger and stronger). I myself saw Putin as ‘reckless killer’ as well just a year ago, before I started to question our own politics because many things didn’t make sense to me anymore. As democrats (I’m NOT talking about the US Democrat-party) we always have to question what is told to us and sometimes it is worth to turn of that patriotic thinking where only the own country counts (also in my country!).
We should not forget that governments which are ready to harm the sovereignty of foreign citizens, usually also don’t have the right intentions for their own people (and history proves that).
Best regards and I hope you can spread your views to many people.
Russia will have to get in line:
China is an existential threat.
ISIS is an existential threat.
Voter fraud is an existential threat.
Obamacare is an existential threat.
Immigration from Mexico is an existential threat.
…and there are many, many more. So many existential threats!
Don’t look for it from the U.S. media…
Furthermore, President Obama is taking and getting credit for taking chemical weapons out of the hands of the Syrian government. As a reminder, that was a deal brokered the Russians in order to deprive the U.S. of a pretext for a ground war to remove Assad. So being outwitted by the Russians and having to restrain himself from starting a war he clearly wanted is now being touted as an accomplishment in pursuit of peace. “How do you know you have a hackish propagandist for a president?” Remember just a bit of actual recent history.
Indeed, thank the gods for Mr. Putin saving our bacon on that one…and now he’s doing our dirty work again, apparently, intervening in support of Assad against ISIS since we can’t, having long insisted that “Assad must go”…
Some time ago, I made a valiant attempt at totalling the number of wars Obama has said, and the media has repeated, that the US wars have ended in Afghanistan and Iraq, but it is difficult to reach a hard and fast number.
The reason it is difficult is because the professional, institutional reporters, who, having spent years covering the wars, somehow, can’t themselves discern the difference between war and peace. Obama says he “pulling out troops” from a country, and even though US bases remain there, the major papers dutifully report it. Obama carries out military strikes, after “ending” a war, and reporters show symptoms of short and long term memory issues.
But it is not only in the area of war that papers do this sort of thing. One thing I notice, in the wake of “Obamacare” being instituted, is the number of times Obama supporters cheer the implementation of “universal” healthcare in America, and his solving of the healthcare problem, even as millions of Americans still don’t have health insurance, and medical costs in the US, already significantly higher than costs in other advanced nations, continue to rise. Now did Obamacare do some good, yes, and did america withdraw some troops from Iraq, yes. But in falsifying the narrative, the newspapers deny the public a choice. The public deserves the right to choose between more war, and really ending the war and reaping the real peace dividend, between continuing to be fleeced by the private for profit health insurers, and having real universal health insurance with all its advantages.
As it is, the result, is a democracy in which voters make choices between corporate supported candidates, based on corporate supported news, which supplies an alternative version of reality, divorced from science, history, facts, and the needs of the vast majority of the inhabitants of the country.
Now, if you aren’t too busy working two jobs, and you have the opportunity to sift through the noise, the clickbait, the corporate and government propaganda, you can get a good picture of what is going on, which is fine when everything is awesome, but when your world is filled with poverty, student debt, medical debt, war,….Maybe in good times on the Titanic, it wouldn’t matter if private advertisers, obscured the emergency exit signs with misleading stickers that led to fur coat promotions and five course dinners in the ship’s dining room, but when the boat is sinking, we want a maximum number of people to see through the deception. A laissez faire attitude to real critical information is not sufficient.
But to end on a throwaway oversimplification, I wonder if Americans need worry all that much whether it’s another Clinton or a Trump who is the next to “end the Afghan war” or “solve the health care problem”. I’m not sure it will impact the average American either way. To imagine it would, is to invest in the dream that Obama, or the next president is actually speaking to a reality. There’s a recent column that questions even the validity of fact-checking someone like Trump when they become completely untethered from facts, arguing that it is a category mistake:
https://www.vox.com/2015/9/22/9368591/trump-global-warming
America’s leaders being able to talk nonsense with a straight face is more of a concern for the people at the other end of the candidates, the one percent, the candidate’s funders, bundlers, packagers, it’s the upper class that owns the system that really needs to worry that the next president, the next congress are sufficiently convincing, and are able and ready to deliver the lines “I’ve ended the Iraq war” or some such nonsense, with success.
“Imperialistic intervention” by Russia? The Syrian government asked for help, since they are out of options fighting terrorists. For years the West provided the “opposition” directly or indirectly with weapons and financial aid under pretense to support “the moderate opposition”. Russia always suggested (UN-Veto) to stop the support of these groups and to not intervene. Now we have the mess.
I work as a medical-assistant in a small hospital in central Europe (Switzerland) and could already talk to a bunch of Syrian refugees (you may have heard about the refugee-flood in Europe coming from US/NATO bombed countries). They didn’t flee because Assad tried to kill them – no! They seek refuge in other countries because they don’t see how their government can win the battle against those fanatics. Look at their destroyed cities and/or how some of these places are now ruled by ISIL – there is no hope in such places.
The US, Canada, Turkey, Gulf states and recently also France are pretending to be “fighting against ISxx” since a while, yet no results have been achieved, actually the situation has worsen – nobody wonders why?
I’m upset as well for the Syrians, that yet another country has to be involved. But Russia coordinates with affected countries (Syria, Iran, Iraq), while the Western countries bomb there without their approval – this is in my opinion a huge difference.
Unfortunately there is no peaceful solution anymore and it is too late for that. Talking about Russian “Imperialism” is a total incorrect analysis, since Russia never supported the intervention in Syria by foreign powers without approval of their legit government.
Us Westerns (and I’m one as well) have created a lot of misery in this world and are being lied to over and over by an extremely powerful system – after reading the book “No place to hide” and watching “Citizenfour”, I’m sure Mr. Greenwald is aware of that as well. If it was Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Ukraine, Syria and many others, we did very bad things, yet we believe the same untrue stories over and over without being interested in learning what could be wrong.
I also spoke with 3 Iraqis in the past who told me how they couldn’t understand why “foreign powers” had to remove Saddam Hussein who was a “strict but fair president who lead the country well”. But that’s another story…
If we don’t listen to other opinions, like the one of Putin, Assad or in the past to Hussein and Gaddafi – or even for once to the citizens of these countries – we are NOT better than those who ignore for example Snowden.
People like Snowden, Assange, Manning help us see the truth, yet most of us keep ignoring their messages as soon as they put us in an uncomfortable position. The Intercept is a very needed information source, which I recommend to many of my friends. I hope The Intercept will find more time in the future to research and explain such geopolitical conflicts and can fill the huge quality-gap to the extraordinaire text about NSA & co activities.
I hope my comment gets published, even though it’s a US website and I wish you Mr. Greenwald and Team all the best.
This is exactly the excuse used by the US for bombing Yemen and Pakistan – the governments wanted us to do it! – as well as for all sorts of interventions in Latin America, including El Salvador (we’re just helping them fight terrorists because they asked us to!).
Does that mean none of that was imperialistic?
Thank you for your response. We will learn in the future if the Russian intervention was an imperialistic one or not, if we look at imperialism as a tool to exercise economic and political control over a dependent territory. In my opinion it doesn’t seem to be like this at the moment but it is way to early to tell.
I unfortunately don’t know much about the Yemen and the Pakistan bombings, other than the mainstream news which are not very helpful to understand the situation. I supported many wars in the past without thinking about what they mean and because I didn’t take the time to understand what was going on. It needs a lot of time to learn about such events and I can’t answer if there are imperialistic intentions or not.
The Saudis are bombing strategic aims in residential areas; in Sa’ada for example, hundreds of thousands of civilians were harmed under Saudi bombing. The Obama-gov supports this Saudi initiative (inc weapon and fighter-jet support) even though it is against international humanitarian law. The whole situation with Houthi-rebels (possibly supported by Iran), foreign military forces, regime-change (Saleh/Hadi) combined with Al-Quada and other terror-network is a huge mess.
Thus we cannot only look at Yemen, but need to understand the hole picture in the Middle East, incl. how those terror-networks gained power over the years (Al-Quada’s raise was already supported by West in the 1979 Afghan War against the Soviets). Since years the US has their hands in Yemen and also supported dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. The air force base Al Anad is extremely important to the US and of course the good old oil… But anyways, I don’t want to go deeper into a topic I don’t understand well and what I wrote could as well be wrong. But the reason for those wars include several geopolitical and economical interests by countries which should not even be there – a common tool by such participants is to create chaos which can lead to regime changes or even a so called “failed-state” which usually only benefits the imperialistic interests and not the people who live there.
Each case has to be looked at differently. Back in high-school (around 2004, where Asad was already president) I learned Syria to know as a tourist destination and well developed (e.g woman’s equality since over 50 yrs), peaceful (with various religions) country. All that seems to be ignored by the controlled media and forgotten by the people. Now we only hear an Obama say (UN summit): “Asad bad guy, Asad must go” and follow these words like sheep (well fortunately more and more people wake up and start to question things).
What’s the alternative? I think we can discount humanitarian motives. (It’s ridiculous and self-serving when anyone claims that.) That leaves attempting to protect a vassal government, which is imperialistic by definition. Another possibility is that it’s just PR.
@Jose: Good question which I can’t answer. But I also wonder what else could be done? Syria is suffering and with random bombings and uncontrolled support of opposition the situation has worsen – also the whole refugee crisis affect many countries (incl. Russia) and it should be in the interest of everyone to stop the slaughter.
I think the options for good solutions are long gone and if Russia had imperialistic intention, they would have acted earlier (but that’s just an opinion). I don’t see what’s wrong in protecting a government which worked well (being in peace) before the war. The opposition which wanted Asad away does not represent a whole country and has not the right to decide over the fate of all the people.
Unfortunately it’s always difficult to understand and trust the intention of such actions until the end of such conflicts, thus it is important to keep a critical eye on every party involved in it, including Russia.
Are you stupid or you know most of your readers are stupid so you just act stupid?
Congress don’t mind. That’s the thing about Congress, Glenn, they don’t mind.
*now, if Obama was caught red-handed noodling some of the barnyard stock (Bohner is trying to clean up on his way out of the barn!) … well, that might be a different story. **see my book ‘The Iraq War & Impeachment of Bill Clinton’
The U.S. Is engaging an illegal strategy of removing the only legitimate government in Syria.
Russia has maintained long-term cooperation with the Syrian government–and has a well articulated and legitimate concern that the U.S. goals cause havoc and threaten any semblance of stabilization and general world order.
The assignation of nefarious and evil intent on the part of Russia is classic projection and spin.
As is apparent with the U.S. Intervention in Ukraine–the U.S. Hegemon has become unhinged and insane.
Putin is asking and beseaching the cornered psychotic, U.S. Imperium, to drop the knife and simply communicate.
But as the system falls apart the cornered psycho is incapable of rational assessment.
Thus we are staring at WWIII.
Sad.
While Putin uses similar means to carve up the Ukraine. Did not Mr. Berra have something to say about imperialism all over again?
Putin seems to have several friends here today. I do not understand “friending” Mr. Putin.
Some may be actual Russian government paid trolls but probably in this case we are looking at leftists who get so excited by the prospect of Putin being a legitimate adversary of American interests that they blindly jump on the pro-Russia bandwagon. The mistakes of several previous generations of leftists keep on repeating themselves.
So you could only be on Putin’s side, so to speak, in this debate if you are either (i) a paid Russian troll or (ii) someone whose political opinions blind them to the truth? What if the U.S. funded a coup to put fascists in power in Ukraine and also funded, armed (and, by the way, incubated at Bagram etc.) ISIS, Russia realized this and frankly spoke the truth and worked against these actions militarily as well, and the U.S. President continued to spout a narrative that no one, least of all the President himself, could possibly believe? What if that happened — then could I agree with Putin and not be a troll or an idiot? Just a hypothetical question.
So let’s say you are right about everything – so what? According to the leftist definition of imperialism – meddling in another country’s affairs when they are not currently attacking you is imperialism. It doesn’t matter if the country in question is led by men who are guilty of terrible crimes like Saddam Hussein, according to the definition it is still imperialism. Intervening in another country’s civil war is also by this definition imperialism whether you are on the side of the government or the rebels.
Be a Putin fanboi, its your right as a human, but don’t pretend what he is doing is something virtuous and pure.
Honestly, I didn’t realize the conversation hinged on whether Russia was being imperialistic. Reading S. Hunt’s comment, and my own, I’m even more convinced that it is beside the point. You’re using a red herring to demean people who are pointing out that Russia’s position in much closer accord with reality than the U.S.’s. Nobody claimed in this thread that Russia is “virtuous and pure,” but you can make up whatever you want to give yourself a winning argument — it’s your right as a human. Let’s say you’re wrong about everything — would you notice?
“in this case we are looking at leftists who get so excited by the prospect of Putin being a legitimate adversary of American interests that they blindly jump on the pro-Russia bandwagon.”
And you righties cannot imagine being wrong. Putin has so far shown the most common sense in this conflict. All he wants is to first deal with IS. This in cooperation with all the affected surrounding states. He even invites both Iran and Saudi-Arabia to participate in fighting a threat bigger than the animostiy between those two “sworn enemies”. By automatically dissing Putin just because your main stream media tells you to, you show that you righties are simple conformist people. Just rehashing what the Authority (main stream media, government and corporations) tells you to say. No original thought in the “conservative” grey matter. At least the “lefties” can claim they are not all the same, too many differences, because we like to think critically and thus we come to quiet different conclusions and even argue amongst ourselves. The U.S.A. way is just not good enough anymore folks. Just bully anyone or any nation that gets in their falsly selfperceived righteous way. The time has come for cooperation instead of bullying, and it is time the North American government and people realize this. If you want to keep playing along you will have to stop the bullying and start listening and play nice. The rest of the world has had about enough of your bullying. Period!
Putin took Crimea without firing a shot — exactly no one was killed. This was in a response to coup orchestrated by the U.S. (remember when Nuland was caught red-handed picking the post-coup Ukrainian President while saying “fuck the EU”?) Other than Crimea, Putin has not in any sense used “similar means” to what the U.S is doing in Syria, or at least there is zero actual evidence that he has. I am no “friend” of Putin, but I sure do like facts, especially when the alternative is demonizing a foreign leader for no reason other than base tribalism. I do not understand “friending” Obama in this case, myself.
Yeah, I know. All those Russian troops were there on the border to prevent a possible invasion of Russia by the Russians living in the eastern Ukraine.
But, on the other hand, I will not be “friending Obama either.
I wouldn’t call it nefarious and evil, but it can’t be anything other than self-interested. A lot of evil can come from actions that are predicated on advancing geopolitical interests, and it’s clear that you know that.
The U.S. Air Force ought to be removed from the U.S. Department Of Defense because the Air Force’s activities apparently no longer constitute the conducting of warfare as warfare is currently defined.
Alas, were we to do that, we would need to remove the Army and Navy also. The better solution is to revert to the pre-1947 name for that department: the Department of War. Because that is what it is.
Of course, we cannot set a precedent by naming governmental agencies honestly. I am merely being facetious.
“all without a shred of Congressional approval.”
Are you including Afghanistan in this accusation? Attacking the Taliban in Afghanistan has been continuously and explicitly approved since 2001.
I’m totally sure Russia’s involvement in Syria is purely humanitarian. It would be too cynical to analyze it in terms of Russia’s geopolitical interests.
Your media venture, The Intercept, has been a disappointment when it comes to covering the salient geopolitical fault lines, Mr Greenwald.
I am referring to Ukraine and Syria.
Indeed, your interpretation of Russia’s involvement in Syria as “imperialistic” is a projection, and a false equivalence.
Your analysis of Obama’s hypocrisy is biting–but now tie it to the U.S. Unipower’s larger goals. Try doing this sin a clear, intelligible manner…
Ah, a bit more difficult for you to engage.
There are, indeed, things it just wouldn’t be polite to say in a blunt manner.
I would have hoped that your media project would open new vistas in the blur of US state-approved memes and opinion–but I see from the content here that you folks (generally) stay within acceptable bounds.
Alas–funding is always a constraint on the final product. Sadly so.
Accusations absent arguments are [Looking for a word beginning with “a” to complete this sentence. Recommendations solicited.]
Perhaps:
• apocryphal,
• anecdotal,
• abysmal,
• abhorrent,
• analphabetic
asinine … abhorrent … anserine … a good way to embarass oneself.
atrocious
Ass backwards.
Ass backwards.
Anemic.
Argleblargle. (Yeah, I know it isn’t a real word, but you have to admit it IS rather descriptive of this sort of limpish hand-waving).
“Russia today announced that its upper Parliament approved its own imperialistic intervention and bombing campaign inside Syria”
It was *invited* by the Syrian government (unlike the West) to aid it with airstrikes against ISIS fighters. I’m wondering how that translates to “imperialism”….
That doesn’t make it right. An analogy: Saudi Arabia faces a popular revolt, and asks the US to bomb the rebels. Any external intervention violates the principle of self-determination. Of course, what’s going on in Syria is the opposite of self-determination, on all sides.
Which perpetuates the US myth (lie would be more accurate) that the CIA-backed contras are legitimate “Syrian opposition.” Well over 50% of the fighters in Syria are foreign, and over 70% of Syrians polled recently said they supported the Assad government (which was indeed *elected*, unlike the Saudis). A government – or “regime” as the West loves calling it – is not “illegitimate” or “oppressive” merely because it isn’t an American vassal.
It is, however, if it acts in opposition to American “interests” :)
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-21350437
CIA operating drone base in Saudi Arabia, US media reveal
[…]
Kristian Coates-Ulrichsen, an expert on Gulf politics at the London School of Economics, told the BBC that Saudi anxieties about the growing threat of AQAP would have been behind the government’s decision to allow the US to fly drones from inside the kingdom.
“The Saudis see AQAP as a very real threat to their domestic security,” he said. “They are worried about attacks on their energy infrastructure and on the royal family, so it fit their strategy to allow the drone attacks.”
Yes, and Yemen before this year is another clear example of the US helping governments deal with internal opposition. Historically, there are many well-known examples. It’s obviously wrong. In the case of Syria, a case can be made that the government is fighting external forces, which is different. I’m not sure that justifies even more external intervention in order to correct the problem, though. I just don’t know what principles would apply in such a circumstance.
The US was invited by the Republic of Vietnam to fight in its civil war too, was that not imperialism?
It was anti-imperialism (which means imperialism).
You make no sense, so I’ll ask again, why is the Vietnam War imperialism on the part of the US but Russia being in Syria is not?
Question: “The US was invited by the Republic of Vietnam to fight in its civil war too, was that not imperialism?”
Answer: “It was anti-imperialism (which means imperialism).”
Retort: “You make no sense, so I’ll ask again, why is the Vietnam War imperialism on the part of the US but Russia being in Syria is not?”
(Not the same question but let’s pretend that it is for the sake of continuity.)
New attempt at an answer, this time in a form even ghostyghost can understand: “Yes, it was imperialism.”
Answer to second question: “Yes, by your definition, Russia in Syria is ‘imperialism.'”
Hope that helps.
2 war ended yeah right… Why no one don’t know they war being continue in ” drone air strike ” in Pakistain ” Where Osama bin la din was hiding in Pakistain. Great drone air strike. Special war in drone air strike in Pakistain not over. Where terrorist hide created by George W. Bush. As Democrat. It piece of lie. That Geroge W. save U.S. live in 9/11… As new war started in Syria.. As the war in Libya capture ex: dictator Mohammar Gaddffai is over in 2013…
Well said. Good work.