Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: The impact of the 2014 Iraq crises on America's current 4T. - Page 2







Post#26 at 06-21-2014 01:34 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-21-2014, 01:34 PM #26
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-Shooting at American aircraft (i.e., YOUR aircraft) who were enforcing a cease fire agreement that the Ba'athists agreed to.
Technically they agreed to, but who wants to have foreign airplanes going over your airspace? And so what if they shoot at our planes? That justifies an invasion? Hardly. It might justify bombing anti-aircraft sites, which we did.

-An ex-American President (i.e, YOUR President).
Ha! They failed anyway.

-No. He didn't.
Yes he did. Horrible massacre on the road to Baghdad. In an unnecessary war.

-Which the UN wanted. Of course, there were plenty in the UN who benefitted from Food For Oil. One of the many reasons that the French, the Russians, and UN bureaucrats tried to keep Saddam in power.

And if the sanctions were such a big deal for you, then you should be happy that our toppling of the Ba'athist regime resulted in the ENDING of those sanctions.
The sanctions were unnecessary and cruel.

-I hope your astrological analysis is better than your memory.

The Iraqi people did rise up. Do you remember now?
Not until after the Gulf War, and long before the 2003 invasion.

-I understand that with the exception of Iran supplying weapons (substitute the French), almost the exact same circumstances pertained to Saddam in Kuwait, Desert Storm, and then the aftermath. The difference was that, unlike Syria, we were already at war with Saddam in 1991, and although there was a ceasefire in March, that the war never really ended (that's what "ceasefire" means, Eric).

I also understand that Assad hadn't spent his time shooting at US aircraft enforcing a ceasefire to which he agreed, nor did Assad attempt to assassinate an American.
Which is why we haven't gone to war with Assad. Supplying weapons to freedom fighters is another issue. And if you can't name them, I suggest you watch TV once in a while. They have been interviewed; I'm sure the name was listed underneath.

No, there was no uprising against Saddam before either war.

...Because we intervened as part of the ceasefire agreement, Eric. The Shi'a got screwed, and some Americans wonder why they don't entirely trust us.
We did give Kurds some protection.

-As you get to admitting in your final sentence, they were a lot fewer Shi'a terrorists than Sunni; the Jaysh al-Mahdi and the Badr Corps weren't representative of your average Shi'a in the way that Ba'athist, Al-Qaeda, and Ansar al-Islam/Sunna represented Sunni Arabs.
There were plenty of Shi'a terrorists in Iraq shooting at Americans, like whatzhis name Sadder.

-They were making most of the trouble. Considering that the Sunni Arabs had overwhelmingly been the oppressors before we overthrew the Ba'athists, would you have put them right back in power? We didn't do that Nazi Germany, did we? We didn't do that immediately in the South after the ACW, did we? When we finally did let the ex-rebels back in power, how did that turn out?
We had no business invading Iraq. Saddam was not a threat to us.

So, now that ISIS has made themselves big, fat targets in a place that we've mapped out fairly nicely, why not kill them there? If you want for the supposed "moderates" in Syria to get a boost, this would give them a leg up against ISIS.

Do you think not doing so will make ISIS your friend?
We might try making them our friend. Offer them statehood within recognized borders, if they stop threatening people beyond them. We'd have to monitor them and probably have those planes overhead, and if they shoot at us, we shoot back. But we don't invade them. That's the never-ending battle, and Americans are sick of it. You may not be, but so what?

Maybe the Iraqis can force them back and defeat them. But they can't as long as Maliki is in power. It's up to the Iraqis to wise up.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#27 at 06-21-2014 05:47 PM by katsung47 [at joined Jan 2011 #posts 289]
---
06-21-2014, 05:47 PM #27
Join Date
Jan 2011
Posts
289

838. Iraq crisis (6/14/2014)

All of a sudden,Iraq is in crisis. The second biggest city is fallen. Baghdad isthreatened.

Iraqisoldiers, police drop weapons, flee posts in portions of Mosul


CNN, Fri June 13,2014

"I only ...saw armed people, but not Iraqi military," said resident Firas al-Maslawiof his drive through Mosul on Tuesday. "There was no presence of anygovernment forces on the streets, the majority of their posts destroyed andmanned by (Islamist militants)."

The numerousreports of police and soldiers running from their posts in Mosul raised theprospect that the Iraqi government did not either have the will or resources towin this and other fights.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/10/world/meast/iraq-violence/



Iraqi securityforces, trained by Pentagon for years and well equipped with helicopters, tanksand armoured cars, vastly outnumber the jihadists, suddenly melted down in theface of ISIL rebels.

Consider Al Qaedajihadists are created and supported by the US to deal with its dislikes (suchlike Libya’s Gaddafi and Syria’s Assad) and the current Iraq government is apuppet set up by US in Iraq war, both sides are US’ assets. I think it’s adrama conducted by the US. You can see the leadership of Iraqi troops gave upthe city without any fight.

ISISbutchers leave 'roads lined with decapitated police and soldiers'

BySamGreenhilland Jill Reillyand Kieran Corcoran 12 June 2014


According tobitter Iraqi foot soldiers, their commanders slipped away in the night ratherthan mount a defence of the city.

One said: ‘Ourleaders betrayed us. The commanders left the military behind. When we woke up,all the leaders had left.’

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2655977/ISIS-militants-march-Baghdad-trademark-bullet-head-gets-way-control-north.html#ixzz34ZB9A5qo


US inside groupused to create a case, with which to ask for more power and money. E.g. the 911attack has been created to get Patriot Act and two wars in Mid-East. What is itnow for this Iraq crisis?


839. Iraqi crisis created to save dollar(6/18/2014)
In early June,Russia switches the oil payment from dollars to Euros.

GazpromSigns Agreements to Switch from Dollars to Euros

Global Research,June 07, 2014

Gazprom Neft hadsigned additional agreements with consumers on a possible switch from dollarsto euros for payments under contracts, the oil company’s head Alexander Dyukovtold a press conference.

“Additionalagreements of Gazprom Neft on the possibility to switch contracts from dollarsto euros are signed. With Belarus, payments in rubles are agreed on,” he said.

Dyukov said nineof ten consumers had agreed to switch to euros.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/gazprom-signs-agreements-to-switch-from-dollars-to-euros/5386049


This is veryimportant news. If people starting to abandon the dollar, US will be hurtseriously in economy. Yet the news was little reported by the mainstream media.Several days later, the ISIL rebel in Iraq activates an offensive. The puppetIraqi government retreats without any resistance. As a result, the oil pricegoes up.


Oilprices spike as Iraq violence flares
By Mark Thompson @MarkThompsonCNN June 12, 2014

Oil prices spikedThursday to levels not seen in nine months as escalating violence in Iraqsparked worries about crude exports.

Light crude oilfutures touched $106 a barrel, up nearly 2% and the highest price sinceSeptember 2013.

http://money.cnn.com/2014/06/12/news/oil-prices-iraq/


Since the moneyused in most oil trading is dollar, the higher oil price will force the buyerto keep more dollar in bank as purchasing power. It’s a big amount if futureoption is included. Manipulating oil price becomes a strategy to save thedollar. Iraq is a big country of oil production and exportation. Its politicalstability has huge influence to oil price. US has turned it into a switch toadjust the oil price.







Post#28 at 06-21-2014 11:22 PM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-21-2014, 11:22 PM #28
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Zerohedge
In the aftermath of the incongruous attempt by Michelle Obama to curry social media support with the #BringBackOurGirls campaign, many were left scratching their heads: was this meant to be a legitimate attempt at foreign policy? If so, it was clearly an abysmal failure because as Reuters reported yesterday, "Nigeria wrapped up its inquiry into the abduction of more than 200 schoolgirls by militants on Friday with little progress to show, reporting almost none had been freed after the initial kidnapping some girls escaped from."
So while the "heartfelt" plea (because the petulant picture accompanying it was clearly very sincere) of Obama's "Smart Diplomacy" failed, it certainly succeeded in being mocked not only on the right, but the left as well, and everywhere inbetween.

However, until this moment, mocking the administration's imploding foreign policy was largely a domestic issue, for the simple reason that foreigners were too busy annexing Crimea, taking over Kurdish oil fields, or repelling US-trained, if divided Al-Qaeda militants to spare time to troll the first lady.
That changed this past week when none other than the Al-Qaeda extremist spinoff which in recent weeks has overrun half of Iraq, ISIS, and which as we reported managed to "confiscate" an unknown number of US-made Black Hawk helicopters and Humvees, decided to use the same outlet, Twitter, to not only mock Michelle Obama, but US foreign policy in Iraq. It is here that Obama's foreign policy is currently paralyzed with the president seemingly unable to decide if he will send in troops, or he will not (and just "Military advisors"), whether he will side with Iran or with Saudi Arabia, whether he will protect the Maliki cabinet that until last week had America's blessing, or he will let it flounder even as the Iraqi PMI suddenly has become bosom friends with Vladimir Putin, and so on.
According to Al Arabiya, "the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) has made a mockery of the U.S. first lady Michelle Obama through series of tweets accompanied by the hashtag: #bringbackourhumvee."

The militant group photo-shopped a popular image of Michelle carrying a sign that reads #bringbackourgirls, part of a global campaign to rescue 276 Nigerian school girls who were kidnapped by Boko Haram last month.
The #bringbackourhumvee tweets being shared by ISIS members and their supports on Twitter refer to American-made Humvees confiscated by the extremist militants in Iraq last week, the UK-based Daily Mail said.

The image posted on Twitter by a self-proclaimed Oxford student shows
the alleged Humvee transported from Iraq to Syria. (Photo courtesy: Twitter)

The bitter irony: the U.S.-made military hardware seized by ISIS in Iraq could be used for in battles against the forces of Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
A senior official from the opposition Free Syria Army said ISIS moved Humvees and helicopters among smaller weaponry, like Kalashnikovs, across the border from Iraq to Syria, the International Business Times reported last Thursday. It is unclear if there they would be returned to yet another group of extremist Al Qaedans, the Al-Nusra front. It is unclear if and how much the US funds that particular branch of Al Qaeda as of this moment.
* * *
So while US foreign policy has sadly yet to generate one commendable result in the past 6 years, one can certainly say that if nothing else, it is resulting in a lot of increasingly louder laughter, first in the US and then globally. We hope that was not Obama's intention.

.... #pwnage.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#29 at 06-21-2014 11:28 PM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
06-21-2014, 11:28 PM #29
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

I'd hate to be supporting terrorism, here, but what I've seen of their social media campaign is fucking hilarious. I'll wait here until the black copters show up. I thought this, from the zerohedge site, was pretty funny too.



EDITED TO ADD OTOH, stuff like this, not so much: (NSFW)






Last edited by JordanGoodspeed; 06-21-2014 at 11:44 PM.







Post#30 at 06-22-2014 12:18 AM by JordanGoodspeed [at joined Mar 2013 #posts 3,587]
---
06-22-2014, 12:18 AM #30
Join Date
Mar 2013
Posts
3,587

Although maybe they have another plan:








Post#31 at 06-22-2014 12:36 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-22-2014, 12:36 AM #31
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

The long road to destruction

A historic perspective for this CF.

Quote Originally Posted by english.alarabiya.net/en
Iraq’s death has been foretold a long time coming. The stunning success of the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and its local allies in overtaking a large swath of Northern Iraq, including the country’s second largest city, Mosul exposed the Iraqi state as a house of cards. Once again Iraqis were burning their country, and as always with more than just a little help from their friends in the region and beyond. And once again Iraqis were being made refugees or displaced in their own country, uprooted from neighborhoods and villages because of their religious or ethnic backgrounds.
The ugly cancer of sectarianism is spreading fast in the already weak Iraqi body politics. The once diverse Baghdad, a bustling metropolitan with a rich human mosaic of Arabs, Kurds, Assyrians, Muslims of various sects, Christians and Jews (at the turn of the 20th century Jews made up 20% of the population of Baghdad) is now a pale capital of mostly Shiites, (75 to 80%) its old mixed neighborhood have been cleansed to become almost exclusively Sunni or Shiite. The fate of the Christians of Iraq, who helplessly watched their religious leaders being killed and their churches torched and burned, since the U.S. invasion is likely to be similar to the fate of the Jews. Already half the Christians of the various Iraqi churches have emigrated or sought temporary refuge in the Kurdish north as a result of a campaign of terror by radical Islamists.
Dark forces

The fraying of Iraq is part of a larger phenomenon of fragmentation, polarization and radicalization that is sweeping the region since the beginning of the season of Arab uprisings. The emergence of ISIS as a powerful non-state actor throwing its weight around in both Syria and Iraq is part of this new unprecedented nightmarish reality. The ability of ISIS to operate in both states, and Iraqi Shiite volunteers and militiamen entering Syria to help the Assad regime, in addition to sectarian demonization and violence led to the obliteration of the Syrian-Iraqi borders and the morphing of the two wars into a giant nasty one. But Iraq’s accelerated descent to hell in recent years was unique, and America had a decisive role in it.
The world is watching a once-important country die slowly and very painfully
Hisham Melhem
President Bush’s naïve and dangerous belief that the invasion of Iraq will lead to a wave of democratization in the region, instead opened the gates of hell and unleashed the primitive and dark forces of sectarianism, which became the rallying cry in the competition for power between the Sunnis and the Shiites, and the absolute violence of al-Qaeda and its offshoots, as well as making Iran the arbiter of Shiite politics in Iraq and the outside power with the most influence in the country that President Bush wanted to transform from a dictatorship to a democracy with American bayonets. While America’s role in the unraveling of Iraq cannot be denied, still the reality is that Iraqis in the main are responsible for their fate. By the time the U.S. withdrew its forces from Iraq in 2011, the country was relatively quiet, before the cumulative blunders of al Maliki’s government which totally alienated the Sunni Arabs were fully felt and led many Sunnis to acquiesce or reluctantly accept collaboration with a bloody terror group like ISIS.
Who lost Iraq?

The Violence on June 10th set in motion a torrent of events and reactions. In Baghdad, the autocratic and hapless Nouri al- Maliki government and its allies engaged in the kind of naked sectarian mobilization, that ISIS and some of its allies have been engaging in. The Kurds swiftly moved from their autonomous region to take over the prized city of Kirkuk and its environ, thus consolidating their control over all of what they consider to be Iraqi Kurdistan. The Kurds of Iraq, who paid dearly for their struggle for self-determination, find themselves today on the cusp of a truly transformative moment in their long history.
In Iran, the Islamic Republic, which sees itself now as the defender of the Shiites in the region, dispatched two battalions of its Revolutionary Guards to Iraq along with the commander of Iran's Quds Force, Qasem Solaimani, one of Iran’s most powerful leaders, to help set up more effective defenses. The Arab states in the Gulf held al-Maliki’s discriminatory policies responsible for the crisis and rejected outside interference in Iraq’s affairs, an implicit reference to Iran. Predictably, in the United States politicians and pundits engaged in the usual rituals that follow such disasters; finger pointing and the perennial question: Who lost Iraq, a variation on an old refrain of who lost China? Who lost Vietnam? And who lost Iran? As if these countries were America’s to lose. The president’s men blamed al-Maliki and or President George W. Bush for invading Iraq, while the critics blamed Obama’s failure to keep a residual force and his disengagement from Iraq. The sad truth is that the Iraqis themselves created this nightmarish reality, and they, as the rightful owner of Iraq lost Iraq.
A history of violence

Iraq’s short history as a state since 1920 was marred by political instability, coups and attempted coups and wars against some of its ethnic and religious components. Iraq fared better under the monarchy, where a semblance of political life, (parties, and parliaments) was tolerated. The violent fall of the monarchy in 1958 however, put the country on a long and bloody trajectory. The ascendency of the Baath party to power in 1968 and the emergence of Saddam Hussein as the strong man in the regime before he became president in 1979 signaled Iraq’s beginning descent towards tyranny, chauvinism, corruption, debauchery, wars and invasions.
Iraq’s slow death was set in motion by Saddam Hussein’s chauvinistic interpretation of Arab Nationalism, which led him to invade Iran and Kuwait, wage wars on the Kurds, and the Shiites of Iraq. Some of the roots causes of the current unraveling of the Iraqi state can be traced back to Saddam Hussein’s fateful blunder of invading Iran, a country three times the size of Iraq. What’s worse is that Saddam invaded a country undergoing a revolution, and such states can withstand tremendous violence, and fight back ferociously as was the case after European states attacked the French and the Bolshevik Revolutions. The invasion of Iran made Iraq a popper state, which led Saddam to Invade Kuwait to fill his coffers with the wealth of his tiny neighbor. The invasion of Kuwait was Saddam’s epilogue to the invasion of Iran. Of course the occupation and annexation of Kuwait led to the 1991 Gulf war and the defeat of Iraq and the imposition of a crippling sanction regime. President George W. Bush wanted the invasion of Iraq in 2003 to finish the mission his father did not complete, that is to topple Saddam’s regime and to use Iraq to transform the region. Iraq has been living in a constant state of violence, tumult, wars, civil wars, sanctions, uprisings and occupation since 1980. No wonder it is falling apart and breaking up.
Maliki’s eight lean years

Prime minister Maliki’s governing record has been atrocious. Maliki used the so-called de-Baathification law, designed to keep members of Saddam’s regime out of power, to target his political opponents. He pursued overtly sectarian policies to weaken Sunni politicians and to exclude them from senior positions, and he reneged on agreements for power sharing with them. His sectarian paranoia is legendary. He monopolized power by keeping in his hand the defense and interior ministries. His regime was marred by cronyism and widespread corruption. Al-Maliki labeled his critics as terrorists and worst he used violence when people demonstrated against corruption in 2011. The persistent Sunni-Shiite divide is the result of the failure of Iraq’s political classes in undertaking successful nation-building, viable and strong institutions and the adoption of exclusionary politics by the Sunnis when they ruled under the guise of Arab Nationalism (the Baath) as well as under the Shiites since the fall of Saddam’s regime.
The consensus in Washington is that unless al-Maliki is ousted nothing meaningful can be done by the U.S. and its allies to prevent Iraq from sliding towards civil war and partition. It remains to be seen if al-Maliki will quietly go into the night, or will put up a nihilistic fight that will accelerate Iraq’s unraveling. History shows that cunning local players have staying powers because they see their fights as existential, while outside powers don’t necessarily have similar tenacity or patience. President Obama’s decision to dispatch 300 military advisors (mainly special forces) is likely to be too little and too late to stop the unraveling. As retired general David Petraeus said the U.S. cannot afford to be the Shiite’s air force. The reforms that President Obama is correctly calling for in Baghdad may not be enacted in time to make a difference and they may never be enacted if al-Maliki remains in power.
Confusion

The American reaction to the unraveling in Iraq was initially slow, ambiguous and confused. The secretary of defense Chuck Hagel and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey admitted that they were surprised at the speed with which the Iraqi army that the U.S. trained and equipped melted away. Then the discourse turned a bit surreal, when Secretary of state John Kerry suggested that the U.S. will be open to cooperate with Iran politically and even militarily to check ISIS and the spreading Sunni uprising. This is the same country that trained Iraqi militias to kill hundreds of American soldiers, and helping prop up the Syrian dictator Assad. Then the Pentagon and the White House made it clear that Kerry was freelancing, and the secretary claimed later that he was misunderstood.
It was entertaining to see Kerry in bed with one of the administration’s harshest critics, Republican senator Lindsey Graham who said that the US should contemplate military coordination with the Islamic Republic. Another jarring sight was the legion of former officials in the Bush administration who were among the architects of the Iraq invasion appearing on television or writing columns denouncing Obama’s handling of Iraq or providing free advice without a shred of irony. Such is political life in Washington during the dog days of summer.
The end is near?

The partition of Iraq is already underway. Iraq, as we have known it for almost a century is dying. There is already a Kurdish state in all but name. The control of the oil rich Kirkuk will put the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in a strong position vis-à-vis the Baghdad government, and makes the establishment of an independent Kurdistan too tantalizing to resist. The KRG has its own armed forces, its own prime minister, its border check points and visas, and its own oil wealth. It has a thriving tourism industry and thriving universities. Most Kurds under the age of thirty barely speak Arabic.
The fortunes of the Kurds in Iraq have improved tremendously in the last quarter of a century, and particularly in the last five years with the marked improvement of relations with Turkey. Trade between Turkey and the KRG is more than $8 billion a year, and will increase further with the prospects of more Kurdish oil going through Turkish pipelines to foreign markets. The transformation of Turkey from an opponent of Kurdish self-determination to a supporter is one of the most significant political transformations in the region in recent decades. Following the takeover of Kirkuk, a spokesman of Turkey’s ruling party said “The Kurds of Iraq can decide for themselves the name and type of the entity they are living in," The spokesman Huseyin Celik added "The Kurds, like any other nation, will have the right to decide their fate". The prime minister of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region Nechirvan Barzani has told the BBC he does not believe the country will stay together, and that it would be "almost impossible" for Iraq to return to the status quo that prevailed before the fall of Mosul and Kirkuk.
Breaking up is hard to do

With the Kurds going their way, the Sunni Arabs will feel more marginalized in what is left of Iraq. This will harden their position and would embolden the Shiite hard liners in Baghdad. And unless a new political arrangement that would satisfy the Sunnis is found quickly, the situation is likely to revert to the dark days of 2006 and 2007 when Sunnis and Shiites visited untold violence on each other. This time there will be no American arbiter or a mediator. Iraqis will be on their own, and regional powers will be part of the problem not the solution. The breakup of empires and countries is rarely peaceful and usually happens in the context of conflicts and wars as we have seen in the Balkans and the case of South Sudan. There may have been a time when a decentralized system could have been created that would give Iraq’s main components the right to self-rule while maintaining a federal structure. That moment may have passed.
Just as the wars in Syria and Iraq have morphed into one, the breakup of Iraq could reverberate throughout the region and lead to further fragmentation in Syria and maybe Lebanon. The world is watching a once-important country die slowly and very painfully. And even if we are talking about chronicles of a death foretold, it is nonetheless awful to watch. Iran, the self-appointed defender of the Shiites will step in to defend a Shiite regime in Baghdad; the Arab Sunni majority states and Turkey feel threatened and are sullen but unwilling to take on Iran directly, and all of these developments are taking place against the background of unprecedented Sunni-Shiite confrontation on a long front stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean.

______________________
Hisham Melhem is the bureau chief of Al Arabiya News Channel in Washington, DC. Melhem has interviewed many American and international public figures, including Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, among others. Melhem speaks regularly at college campuses, think tanks and interest groups on U.S.-Arab relations, political Islam, intra-Arab relations, Arab-Israeli issues, media in the Arab World, Arab images in American media , U.S. public policies and other related topics. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese daily. For four years he hosted "Across the Ocean," a weekly current affairs program on U.S.-Arab relations for Al Arabiya. Follow him on Twitter : @hisham_melhem
Hisham Melhem's curriculum Vitae:

isham Melhem is the bureau chief of Al Arabiya News Channel in Washington, DC. Melhem has interviewed many American and international public figures, including Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush, Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, among others. Melhem speaks regularly at college campuses, think tanks and interest groups on U.S.-Arab relations, political Islam, intra-Arab relations, Arab-Israeli issues, media in the Arab World, Arab images in American media , U.S. public policies and other related topics. He is also the correspondent for Annahar, the leading Lebanese daily. For four years he hosted "Across the Ocean," a weekly current affairs program on U.S.-Arab relations for Al Arabiya. Follow him on Twitter : @hisham_melhem
I would say this is a well written synopsis as to why things are so screwed up in Iraq.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#32 at 06-23-2014 12:14 PM by The Wonkette [at Arlington, VA 1956 joined Jul 2002 #posts 9,209]
---
06-23-2014, 12:14 PM #32
Join Date
Jul 2002
Location
Arlington, VA 1956
Posts
9,209

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
If Hillary were President now instead of Barack Obama, she could probably console herself with how much she hates the Islamists for their misogyny and homophobia, and lead us into war, Gray Champion style; Obama, on the other hand, is trapped in the same dilemma as Robert E. Lee was when Lincoln offered him the command of the Union army: As Lee couldn't bring himself to raise his sword against his native state of Virginia, neither can Obama bring himself to raising his sword against the religious faith of his father.
What religious faith? From what I've read, Barack Obama Sr. was not a religious man.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008







Post#33 at 06-23-2014 12:56 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
06-23-2014, 12:56 PM #33
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by '58 Flat View Post
If Hillary were President now instead of Barack Obama, she could probably console herself with how much she hates the Islamists for their misogyny and homophobia, and lead us into war, Gray Champion style; Obama, on the other hand, is trapped in the same dilemma as Robert E. Lee was when Lincoln offered him the command of the Union army: As Lee couldn't bring himself to raise his sword against his native state of Virginia, neither can Obama bring himself to raising his sword against the religious faith of his father.
Which is precisely why I will never support Hillary. She's dying to prove she's the gray champion, and willing to March millions upon millions of people to their death for any cause that might crop up, no matter how insignificant, to prove it. I'm not okay with that.







Post#34 at 06-23-2014 03:15 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-23-2014, 03:15 PM #34
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Which is precisely why I will never support Hillary. She's dying to prove she's the gray champion, and willing to March millions upon millions of people to their death for any cause that might crop up, no matter how insignificant, to prove it. I'm not okay with that.
That's logical, but I don't think such a thing will happen. This is the last year (even maybe the last couple of months) in the potential-American intervention cycle, until it comes around again in 2025.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#35 at 06-23-2014 03:34 PM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
06-23-2014, 03:34 PM #35
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

It doesn't matter, you put some dippy idealist in the big seat and they'll find something. That's fine, sometimes, rarely, that's necessary. I'd much rather hedge my bets with someone whose not spoiling for a fight. They'll find something. Hillary wants a fight. If that's what you want to prove you bring to the world keep on trucking.







Post#36 at 06-23-2014 11:29 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-23-2014, 11:29 PM #36
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
It doesn't matter, you put some dippy idealist in the big seat and they'll find something. That's fine, sometimes, rarely, that's necessary. I'd much rather hedge my bets with someone whose not spoiling for a fight. They'll find something. Hillary wants a fight. If that's what you want to prove you bring to the world keep on trucking.
She's a blue boomer; it's the red boomers who want war, while the blue boomers want peace. She's more hawkish than some, but that doesn't mean she's a warmonger like GWB.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece







Post#37 at 06-24-2014 12:55 AM by Ragnarök_62 [at Oklahoma joined Nov 2006 #posts 5,511]
---
06-24-2014, 12:55 AM #37
Join Date
Nov 2006
Location
Oklahoma
Posts
5,511

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
It doesn't matter, you put some dippy idealist in the big seat and they'll find something. That's fine, sometimes, rarely, that's necessary. I'd much rather hedge my bets with someone whose not spoiling for a fight. They'll find something. Hillary wants a fight. If that's what you want to prove you bring to the world keep on trucking.

Agreed.

She's got .....




Quote Originally Posted by smirking chimp
As we sidle into the Next Big Election, many things have become "acceptable" to the average American that might not have been so last time around. Gay marriage is one. Gun control is another. Gun control at gay weddings, well, that's a whole different story, especially if you listen to the good folks at the NRA.
But I'm not here to talk about that. Thanks to gerrymandering, we will probably have a Repugnican Congress and a Democratic Senate again, after 2014. Doubtful that the Senate will go all the way R, but one never knows these things for certain. So, not much will change there. We can also expect a race in the Presidential elections coming in 2016 between Hillary Clinton, and some conservative guy that no one likes, not even conservatives (either because he's too extreme, or not extreme enough, and he'll do that simultaneously - not gonna be a woman candidate this time, sorry folks).
Benghazi.
I just thought I'd say that. Meaningless, but it's a fun word to say and to write.
Unless another candidate comes along who can truly energize the base, we will have another fucking Clinton in the White House in 2017. Bernie Sanders is too leftie, too much of a lecturer to connect with people. I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for him, I would. but he gets under people's skin the same way Mister Superior did last time around (you know who you are, Mr. Gore). Sarah Vowell described Al Gore's reaction to a dumb answer by Mr. Bush during one of the debates as "nerd snort". A kind of smug-ass laugh that only smartie people make when confronted by someone obviously less intelligent than themselves. And it really, really alienates people. I don't expect Senator Sanders to do the same thing (waaaaay too serious), but he'll figure out a way to let his nerdiness become his likability's Achilles heel.
Elizabeth Warren, now, there's a candidate who could give old Hils a run for her money. Schoolmarmish, she looks like the second-grade teacher you liked, because she reminds you of grandma. She's kind, and she has a nice smile. She's also incredibly smart, and very well connected with the folks at home (rather than the fools on the Hill). Hillary is the ultimate Washington insider, playing the game very, very well, and dancing for those that brung her. Elizabeth thinks they're just out for what they can get, and she doesn't trust them any farther than she can throw them, which is exactly the right place to be. And when she rips into them, you can hear the flesh tearing off in great hunks between her teeth.
I've said it before, what I dislike more than anything is this idea of political dynasties. We've had two Bushes in the White House - why does the left have to respond with a second Clinton? Can't we think of anyone who can express the country's rage in an articulate way? Because I don't think Hillary will be expressing rage, so much as smug self-satisfaction that she can do the job at least as well as her husband, and without getting caught having a nooner with one the interns. Sort of the difference between the two of them - he sees it as kind of a perk of the powerful, she sees it as a character defect.
Of course, the Right are having a field day with her looks, her brains, and her choices in clothing. Only one of which is relevant. Yep, it's the Pradas. (joking of course)
No, they say her brain has flaws, because she spent a little time in hospital dealing with a clot. Someone else has tweeted Mr. Rove, asking whether he thought Jack Kemp was qualified, even after the eleven concussions. (which are okay, of course, because football)
It's not the physical part of her brain that has flaws, it's the ethics, morals and policy part of her brains that has flaws. Anyone who's ever sat on the board of WalMart and not come away needing a three year shower has problems I don't want to elect. That her concept of relaxing after being Sec. of State was to write a book (which is generally thought of as a lead-up to running for Pres) means she hasn't read Huffington's new book, either. The one that says over-work and stress shouldn't be some sort of cultural norm.
No more names we've heard before. There must someone who can win who isn't related to someone who's already been in. Please.
I'll vote for some 3rd party person before I vote for that hag.

http://onpolitics.usatoday.com/2014/...ney-president/ <- Damn, that Walmart gig sure does pay well.

Here's the real deal



Fuck her.
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 06-24-2014 at 01:06 AM.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP

There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."







Post#38 at 06-24-2014 01:41 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
06-24-2014, 01:41 AM #38
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
She's a blue boomer; it's the red boomers who want war, while the blue boomers want peace. She's more hawkish than some, but that doesn't mean she's a warmonger like GWB.
I really don't think you can make that distinction here. The DLC really was responsible for mimicking certain republican policies in the 90's that brought them much farther to the right, and frankly, I don't think any of the members were being disingenuous about it. I don't think Bill Clinton's tough on crime policies or his habitual bombings were just politics, and I do think that Hillary is right in line with those sort of ideas politically. It's very similar to how GWB was very much in favor of big government spending, as long as it was his kind of spending. I think the Hillary Clinton's and Tipper Gore's of the world are earnest about their values. I think the only thing Hillary regrets about Iraq was that it became unpopular. I think she drags out the soccer mom shtick because she believes in that crap, not because she's exploiting a market.

I just simply disagree that they produce the kind of world I'd want to live in. These are the sorts of values that, were we still in the 3T prime with that level of technological sophistication, sure, it worked then. It doesn't really work now. I want someone who isn't just not hawky but frankly has to be presented with a significant amount of data that war is both justified and significantly worth the lives we're risking. That sort of person wouldn't say yes to Patriot Acts or vote to invade Iraq our let the man carpet bombing Kosovo continue to sleep in her bed while that's on going.

She's just not someone I'd ever feel comfortable voting for.
Last edited by Kepi; 06-24-2014 at 09:07 AM.







Post#39 at 06-24-2014 06:22 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-24-2014, 06:22 AM #39
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
I really don't think you can make that distinction here. The DLC really was responsible for mimicking certain republican policies in the 90's that brought them much farther to the right, and frankly, I don't think any of the members were being disingenuous about it. I don't think Bill Clinton's tough on crime policies or his habitual bombings were just politics, and I do think that Hillary is right in line with those sort of ideas politically. It's very similar to how GWB was very much in favor of big government spending, as long as it was his kind of spending. I think the Hillary Clinton's and Tipper Gore's of the world are earnest about their values. I think the only thing Hillary regrets about Iraq was that it became unpopular. I think she drags out the soccer mom shtick because she believes in that crap, not because she's exploiting a market.

I just simply disagree that they produce the kind of world I'd want to live in. These are the sorts of values that, were we still in the 3T prime with that level of technological sophistication, sure, it worked then. It doesn't really work now. I want someone who isn't just not hawky but frankly has to be presented with a significant amount of data that war is both justified and significantly worth the lives we're risking. That sort of person wouldn't say yes to Patriot Acts or vote to invade Iraq out let the man carpet bombing Kosovo continue to sleep in her bed while that's on going.

She's just not someone Is ever feel comfortable voting for.
I couldn't agree more.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#40 at 06-24-2014 10:36 AM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
06-24-2014, 10:36 AM #40
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
We can't fix them...
-We don't have to turn Iraq into the USA, it just has to be better than the alternative. I know you don't like the analogy, but South Korea sucked for decades, but it was better than the alternative.

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
...other than the possiblity of another oil stopage, they really don't have much to do with us. ISIS is not showing a lot of interest in bombing us, we should do the same...
1) Blood for oil, Mr. Horn?

2) I fixed it for you:

Quote Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon View Post
...other than the possiblity of another oil stopage, they really don't have much to do with us. ISIS is not showing a lot of interest in bombing us yet...
Do we have to do something to kick ISIS out of Iraq? Maybe not. Is ISIS going to conquer Iraq? I doubt it. Could ISIS maintain a foothold in the Sunni areas of Iraq? Maybe. Why risk it? FWIW, I think the Obamanation is doing roughly the right thing, except for this nonsense about replacing Maliki. That's the meddling that you think we shouldn't be doing. I agree. Iraqis seem to be questioning their choice themselves, FWIW.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Technically they agreed to, but who wants to have foreign airplanes going over your airspace?
-Uh, "technically" means they agreed to it. Full Stop.

They agreed to the cease fire in order to avoid a continued a$$-kicking by the US Army. Remember?

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
And so what if they shoot at our planes? That justifies an invasion?
-Yes, because, if one side violates a ceasefire (in civilian terms, "violates the contract"), then conditions return to those in place before the ceasefire. That's how ceasefires work.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Horrible massacre on the road to Baghdad...
-Nonsense on stilts:

1) Killing an enemy that is running away is not a war crime.

2) The so-called "Highway of Death" was grossly exaggerated anyway. Too bad. If we had actually inflicted the damage claimed, the Republican Guard wouldn't have been able to suppress the Shi'a and Kurds, and we wouldn't be in the fix we are today.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
Not until after the Gulf War, and long before the 2003 invasion...there was no uprising against Saddam before either war...
1) Wrong. Maybe you never heard of the rebellions, but the The Kurds had been rebelling for decades, and the Shi'a had been in periodic revolt as well. The just weren't successful before Desert Storm. March of 1991 was the best chance they'd had. President George H. W. Bush had told the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam. They gave it their best shot, and failed.

Are you really arguing that they don't deserve to live because they were too weak?

How do they differ from the Syrians, then?

2) Contrary to the "Highway of Death" myth, much of the Republican Guard escaped. They suppressed the Shi'a (although they never truly gave up, particularly in the Marsh Arabs) and threw back the Kurds.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
I...f you can't name them, I suggest you watch TV once in a while...
-Among the problems:

1) Many of these groups put on a happy face for the West, trying to appeal to suckers;

2) Even the happy face groups have plenty of Jihadis and other folk that even you would find less than pleasant;

3) The unabashed Jihadi groups generally just take what from the others, anyway.

The Kurdish group fighting the Ba'athists might be safe, and can (or could have been) supplied through the Iraqi border care of their fellow Kurds.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
There were plenty of Shi'a terrorists in Iraq shooting at Americans, like whatzhis name Sadder...
-Muqtuddar Al-Sadr's Jaysh Al-Mahdi did, but they weren't exactly representative, were they? The Badr Corps (of SCIRI) tilt pro-Iranian, but were smart enough to ally with us.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
...what I've seen of their social media campaign is fucking hilarious... OTOH, stuff like this, not so much...
-Different targets. The funny stuff is supposed to appeal to Westeners, with the objective of divide and conquer: Europeans who hate the US, Americans who despise the Obamanation. It seems to be working.

The ugly stuff is for the Arab/Islamic world; they respect and fear a winner, and despise a loser.

Quote Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed View Post
...A historic perspective for this CF....
-I saved myself a lot of time by moving on after reading "Al-Arabiya."

Quote Originally Posted by The Wonkette View Post
What religious faith? From what I've read, Barack Obama Sr. was not a religious man. ..
-Even tho' his real religion seems to have been Marxism, Sr. was ostensibly a Muslim. Remember: One the two major party candidates was the son of a polygamist, and it wasn't the Mormon...

Oh, and did you forget this?

http://www.politico.com/magazine/sto...1#.U6mL1cuA3ct

...The new president told the world, in his Cairo speech in June 2009, that he had special expertise in understanding the entire world of Islam—knowledge “rooted in my own experience” because “I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed.” But President Obama wasn’t speaking that day in an imaginary location called “the world of Islam;” he was in Cairo, in the Arab Middle East, in a place where nothing counted more than power. “As a boy,” Obama told his listeners, “I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk.” Nice touch...

Quote Originally Posted by Ragnarök_62 View Post
Agreed... F%$? her.
-That wasn't necessary. Not that I'm a fan or anything.

Quote Originally Posted by Eric the Green View Post
That's logical, but I don't think such a thing will happen. This is the last year (even maybe the last couple of months) in the potential-American intervention cycle, until it comes around again in 2025.
-Eric, Eric, Eric. Friends don't let friends make life & death decisions based on astrology...







Post#41 at 06-24-2014 10:55 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
06-24-2014, 10:55 AM #41
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Uhm, if we were going to make it better than it is, I think we would have started by not bombing their streets into a raw sewage flow, not dropping enough DU shells to give a massive increase in the rate in childhood leukemia, and then not imposed sanctions on the country which prevented them access to necessary equipment it heal their sick and injured, restore their infrastructure, and restore their nation. Call me crazy, but we've been in Iraq for most of my life, and it seems to me we destroyed a fairly prosperous nation and have shown no signs of actually wanting to make it better.







Post#42 at 06-24-2014 11:00 AM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
06-24-2014, 11:00 AM #42
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Uhm, if we were going to make it better than it is, I think we would have started by not bombing their streets into a raw sewage flow, not dropping enough DU shells to give a massive increase in the rate in childhood leukemia, and then not imposed sanctions on the country which prevented them access to necessary equipment it heal their sick and injured, restore their infrastructure, and restore their nation. Call me crazy, but we've been in Iraq for most of my life, and it seems to me we destroyed a fairly prosperous nation and have shown no signs of actually wanting to make it better.
-The sanctions were what Saddam was willing to put up with.

The infrastructure was fixed by 2009, including the sewage.

Iraq was never "prosperous," but we fixed the wartime damage to infrastructure (largely inflicted by INSURGENTS):

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/cen.../index20120131







Post#43 at 06-24-2014 11:24 AM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-24-2014, 11:24 AM #43
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
-The sanctions were what Saddam was willing to put up with.

The infrastructure was fixed by 2009, including the sewage.

Iraq was never "prosperous," but we fixed the wartime damage to infrastructure (largely inflicted by INSURGENTS):

http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/cen.../index20120131
Lies, not supported by your link.

What's more, Iraq was not only "prosperous" prior to being destroyed by America... it was the most liberal, modern, and highly-educated country in the region prior to the USA turning on the dictator which it had installed and been firmly allied with scant years prior.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#44 at 06-24-2014 11:39 AM by JDG 66 [at joined Aug 2010 #posts 2,106]
---
06-24-2014, 11:39 AM #44
Join Date
Aug 2010
Posts
2,106

Quote Originally Posted by Justin '77 View Post
Lies, not supported by your link.

What's more, Iraq was not only "prosperous" prior to being destroyed by America... it was the most liberal, modern, and highly-educated country in the region prior to the USA turning on the dictator which it had installed and been firmly allied with scant years prior.

1) Check increase in GDP after 2003;

2) We were fixing the infrastructure while the insurgents were destroying it. It's a thing insurgents do.

3) WE installed Saddam? That is a lie.







Post#45 at 06-24-2014 11:43 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-24-2014, 11:43 AM #45
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Uhm, if we were going to make it better than it is, I think we would have started by not bombing their streets into a raw sewage flow, not dropping enough DU shells to give a massive increase in the rate in childhood leukemia, and then not imposed sanctions on the country which prevented them access to necessary equipment it heal their sick and injured, restore their infrastructure, and restore their nation. Call me crazy, but we've been in Iraq for most of my life, and it seems to me we destroyed a fairly prosperous nation and have shown no signs of actually wanting to make it better.
This is typical in the post Cold War era. When the Cold War was our main focus, we made alliances, and backed them with resident troops. We still have troops in Europe and Japan for what is now approaching 70 years. South Korea is similar, but we've "only" been there for 60 years.

Of course, there are real difference besides persistenace. We also had very different national idioms to deal with. The argument that countries that are hard to conquer are easy to lead, and vice versa, is pretty accurate. Iraq, or any of the many Arab countries the Brits and French created after WW-I, are just geographical renderings occupied traditionally by tribes, nomadic and otherwise. We can roll over them in a walk. The same applies to the 'stans, though we only have to deal with the Afghans and Pakis. Neither offers and resistance on a large scale.

In short, there is no national ethic to draw on, nor is there broad-based loyalty to anything greater than ones own. The Otttomans seems to understand how to deal with this, but we're hopeless. We roll over these countries, then stumble trying to manage them.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#46 at 06-24-2014 02:48 PM by Justin '77 [at Meh. joined Sep 2001 #posts 12,182]
---
06-24-2014, 02:48 PM #46
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
Meh.
Posts
12,182

Quote Originally Posted by JDG 66 View Post
1) Check increase in GDP after 2003;
Or you could compare to before the US got involved. You know, if you wanted a real before-after comparison, rather than just cherrypicking the super low point as your bar for achievement.

2) We were fixing the infrastructure while the insurgents were destroying it. It's a thing insurgents do.
A lie made worse by the fact that US bombs destroyed the infrastructure in the first place, and kept it good and destroyed for over a decade.

3) WE installed Saddam? That is a lie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq In particular, start at 1963.

Juan Cole also runs it down pretty thoroughly.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc être dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant à moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce être dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch

"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy

"[it]
is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky







Post#47 at 06-24-2014 04:34 PM by XYMOX_4AD_84 [at joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,073]
---
06-24-2014, 04:34 PM #47
Join Date
Nov 2012
Posts
3,073

Time to help the Kurds and to formally consummate the alliance with Jordan.







Post#48 at 06-25-2014 01:44 AM by Kepi [at Northern, VA joined Nov 2012 #posts 3,664]
---
06-25-2014, 01:44 AM #48
Join Date
Nov 2012
Location
Northern, VA
Posts
3,664

Why would we want to help the Kurds? I mean, sure, I don't support genocide or what was done to the middle east after World War I, but they're spread across 4 countries of which they aren't seen as friendly in a single one.







Post#49 at 06-25-2014 10:49 AM by Marx & Lennon [at '47 cohort still lost in Falwelland joined Sep 2001 #posts 16,709]
---
06-25-2014, 10:49 AM #49
Join Date
Sep 2001
Location
'47 cohort still lost in Falwelland
Posts
16,709

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
Why would we want to help the Kurds? I mean, sure, I don't support genocide or what was done to the middle east after World War I, but they're spread across 4 countries of which they aren't seen as friendly in a single one.
That's not true anymore. Of all the countries now anxious to bond with the Kurds, Turkey is the least likely choice. Yet the Turks and Iraqi Kurds are getting on well. The Kurds provide a secure border for the Turks, and access to oil to boot. The Kurds get the same security, and a market access point for their oil.

I suspect that the final solution for this round of kill-your-neighbor will be separate enclaves for Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds, with both Maliki and Assad either dead or marginalized. Breath holding is not advised.
Marx: Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.
Lennon: You either get tired fighting for peace, or you die.







Post#50 at 06-25-2014 12:25 PM by Eric the Green [at San Jose CA joined Jul 2001 #posts 22,504]
---
06-25-2014, 12:25 PM #50
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
San Jose CA
Posts
22,504

Quote Originally Posted by Kepi View Post
I really don't think you can make that distinction here. The DLC really was responsible for mimicking certain republican policies in the 90's that brought them much farther to the right, and frankly, I don't think any of the members were being disingenuous about it. I don't think Bill Clinton's tough on crime policies or his habitual bombings were just politics, and I do think that Hillary is right in line with those sort of ideas politically. It's very similar to how GWB was very much in favor of big government spending, as long as it was his kind of spending. I think the Hillary Clinton's and Tipper Gore's of the world are earnest about their values. I think the only thing Hillary regrets about Iraq was that it became unpopular. I think she drags out the soccer mom shtick because she believes in that crap, not because she's exploiting a market.
I would make a distinction between somebody who might do some bombings, and someone who you describe as likely to start a war of civilizations in the Middle East. As I say, she's far from ideal, and a 3rd party vote makes sense (probably including mine), but for most people who have to vote strategically in purple states, I don't see a credible alternative on the horizon yet. The DLC was not a group I was in favor of, but Hillary won't be to the right of the Republicans. Exaggeration of the truth, does not get to the truth. Imperfect, she would be though; we can count on that.
I just simply disagree that they produce the kind of world I'd want to live in. These are the sorts of values that, were we still in the 3T prime with that level of technological sophistication, sure, it worked then. It doesn't really work now. I want someone who isn't just not hawky but frankly has to be presented with a significant amount of data that war is both justified and significantly worth the lives we're risking. That sort of person wouldn't say yes to Patriot Acts or vote to invade Iraq or let the man carpet bombing Kosovo continue to sleep in her bed while that's on going.

She's just not someone I'd ever feel comfortable voting for.
I think presidents seldom change the world that much. Maybe some have made it much worse. Bush II and Reagan, for example. I agree about your non-war preferences, certainly. My cosmic timing info gives me assurance that you don't have, though. Plus the mood of the people. Such a war in the next term, whoever wins, is highly unlikely.

I wonder if a Gore vs. Romney race is possible. They both have cosmic scores that indicate that they could win; they faced tougher opposition last time around on that score. The people might not go for the new crop when they seem so inadequate.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive,

Eric A. Meece
-----------------------------------------