I suspect so too. But my breath will flow freely.Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon
- Join Date
- Jul 2001
- Location
- San Jose CA
- Posts
- 22,504
I suspect so too. But my breath will flow freely.
Hey, let's save a step. Syria's bombing them for us. How's about we hand a few B1's and drones to him, eh. Plausible deniability and all of that.comes in handy you know. We say, "we'll ignore those chemical weapons for you. You bomb ISIS for us, deal?"I'm sure our spooks can sneak a few over to him. Like, uh we bribe 'ole Putin to put Russian stickers on them, for example. So here's the plan: We ship the stuff over to France, first. Next France sells them with their stuff to Russia. Russia then stickers them up and gets them over to Syria. Ain't it grand? Rags came up with a nice spook plan that covers up the origin of said military hardware.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2
Technicalities? Hell, this an insurgency. Who needs "technicalities"?-Uh, "technically" means they agreed to it. Full Stop.
http://www.acdc.com/us/video/dirty-d...one-dirt-cheap <- CIA/NSA/FBI/Homeland Insecurity/etc. etc. theme song.
We have Syria now. Assad can do our dirty deeds done dirt cheap now.They agreed to the cease fire in order to avoid a continued a$$-kicking by the US Army. Remember?
See above. What good are proxies if you don't make use of them?-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.
Uh, lessee. The SEALS took out Bin Ladan. Now this is why Shrub was a dolt. If the aim was to dispose of Saddam, why didn't he know to do a hit job? Oh yeah, he's not an Xer like Obama. Xer's are pros at getting the most BANG for the buck, so to speak.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.
Judging by the number of spam calls I get, the US is chock full of suckers.1) Many of these groups put on a happy face for the West, trying to appeal to suckers;
There's a bunch of Western would be Jihadis... Osama Bin Bieber-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.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/osama-bin-...ml?.tsrc=yahoo
Uh, a FOX/MSMBC follower?-I saved myself a lot of time by moving on after reading "Al-Arabiya."
-
Yup. Foot in mouth disease....The new president told the world, in his Cairo speech in June 2009, that he had special expertise in understanding the entire world of Islamknowledge 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 wasnt 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...
It may be necessary. It got your attention, right?-That wasn't necessary. Not that I'm a fan or anything.
I don't think he saw that. You're on his ignore list.-Eric, Eric, Eric. Friends don't let friends make life & death decisions based on astrology...
Last edited by Ragnarök_62; 06-25-2014 at 06:09 PM.
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."
We're going back to a pre WW 1 world.
-I'll take it you didn't know about continued Iraqi GDP growth since 2003.
As for comparisons before 2003, the Ba'athists were in charge of Iraq before then, making it a little difficult for the US to do much until then. The Ba'athist had plenty of money form the Food-for-Oil program which could have been used for infrastructure. It was. The "infrastructure" the Ba'athist built and improved largely consisted of palaces and statues of Saddam.
-We moved in, we built and fixed plants and oil pipelines (very expensively, admittedly), and the terrorists blew up planst and oil pipelines up again. To illustrate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_of_Iraq
http://www.chron.com/news/nation-wor...ne-1945114.php
http://firedoglake.com/2006/12/19/got-electricity/
-Let's see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_activities_in_Iraq
An allegedly Central Intelligence Agency-supported coup in 1963 ousted the Qasim government, which was believed to be leaning toward communism. There are U.S. court records indicating the CIA militarily and monetarily assisted Iraq during the IranIraq War. The CIA was also involved in the failed 1996 coup against Saddam Hussein...
You claimed this:
-Ugh. Where to start?
1) Maybe you missed the part that the Ba'athists were a small part of the 1963 coup;
2) Your Wikisources Rositzke and Critchfield's show that the CIA was patting itself on the back because they were aware on the 1963 coup, not because they planned it. Although Wiki uses the word "complicit," the contemporary intell' quote actually states:
"We will make informal friendly noises as soon as we can find out whom to talk with, and ought to recognize as soon as were sure these guys are firmly in the saddle. CIA had excellent reports on the plotting, but I doubt either they or UK should claim much credit for it.
...i.e., the JFK administration was therefore poised to suck up to the plotters if they were successful. Critchfield explicitly states that the CIA "did not actively support the coup." The closest the CIA MIGHT have come to supporting the plotters is that the CIA "allegedly" provided the plotters with a list of Qassim's people to execute after the coup. So the closest that the CIA came to "installing" (YOUR words) Saddam was to ALLEDGEDLY provide the new government, which included the Ba'athists in a minority role, with a list after they had seized power. Wow. That would be partially interesting, if it actually happened, but does not constitute installing a Ba'athist regime in Iraq.
3) You missed the part about the Ba'athists overthrowing the other plotters later that year. That means that the Ba'athists installed THEMSELVES after the group they were a part of might have taken power with some help from the CIA.
4) You must not have been aware that the Ba'athists were in turn overthrown, and did not come back until the Revolution of July 1968 under Al-Bakr, i.e., when they installed themselves AGAIN.
5) You seem to have missed the part where the CIA under Nixon supported Kurdish rebels against the Ba'athists (before betraying the Kurds).
6) The US supported the Ba'athists, against the Iranians. You of all the posters should be aware that the Ba'athist got most of their support from the Soviets (and occasionally the French), and did so until 2003.
-For now. This is why all this talk of Plagiarizing Joe's separation plan is bunk. The Kurds as part of Iraq are one thing, but if they were independent, they'd be a Turkish target.
-Hmmm... I always say that anyone who makes predictions more than five years out on anything dealing with people is likely to end up eating crow, but, 5 years from now:
1) Bashir Al-Assad alive and in charge in Damascus;
2) Al-Maliki out of power, but still in politics.
Just my SWAG.
Rags52 ...Syria's bombing them for us. How's about we hand a few B1's and drones to him, eh. Plausible deniability... [/QUOTE]
-Syria's going to do that anyway. We don't need to help them. Besides, why upset Eric?
-That's an interesting tie-in to S&H's theory (and one that people here made soon after 9-11), but Saddam in 2003 was in a lot better shape security-wise than UBL in 2011. And as with UBL, the objective is not to remove just one replaceable man, but an organization. Much tougher. An X'er would know that.
...after 9 years of tracking and when he was largely irrelevant, except as a symbol.
-Enough to call you out on it.
1) If not, he read your quoting...
2) He's been replying to me on this thread;
3) I've already established that the people who scream the loudest about how they have me on ignore actually follow me pretty closely. So he would've seen it anyway.
-I'm not sure that we're going back to 1913 (where are the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian Empires going to come from?), but we are still resolving issues from the Treaty of Versailles not resolved by WWII or the Cold War.
All in all, I think if we give aid to Maliki's government, then we are on the wrong side. It seems like overall, to take sides with the Shia is the wrong course; unless they change course. I don't see that happening.Hey, let's save a step. Syria's bombing them for us. How's about we hand a few B1's and drones to him, eh. Plausible deniability and all of that.comes in handy you know. We say, "we'll ignore those chemical weapons for you. You bomb ISIS for us, deal?"
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/25/world/...html?hpt=hp_t2
Technicalities? Hell, this an insurgency. Who needs "technicalities"?
http://www.acdc.com/us/video/dirty-d...one-dirt-cheap <- CIA/NSA/FBI/Homeland Insecurity/etc. etc. theme song.
We have Syria now. Assad can do our dirty deeds done dirt cheap now.
The Sunnis are severely divided. We need to be engaged. We need to try (I'm not sure how; not with air strikes for goodness sakes) to get the Sunnis who opposed Al Qaeda in Iraq before, to oppose them again and kick them out again. We can't do that if we support Maliki. The Sunnis all want him gone, and are fighting against him. And in Syria, the moderates are well-known and well-defined; they are the people of Syria. They are the folks who rose up against Assad, and Assad proved to be among the worst monsters in history by attacking hundreds of thousands of them just for speaking out. We let down these people by not giving them money and weapons. For many of these people, the only answer for them is to leave, and we should help them survive and prosper in their new lands too, until such time as they can go back (which can only be when Assad and his regime is overthrown). The moderate Sunnis are the bulwark against ISIL/ISIS, not Assad.
So, support the Sunni moderates, and we have allies in that project too.
As for the Shias, we are negotiating with Iran over their nucs, and maybe they don't want a civil war on their borders in Iraq. They also support Assad big time; without Iran Assad would have already fallen. So, it is unclear what can be done with the Shia. But supporting Maliki is almost as bad as supporting Assad. We should support neither, and Iran is still not our ally; far from it.
The moderate Sunnis are our proxies, and not Assad. And yes we should make use of them, and not go to war ourselves.See above. What good are proxies if you don't make use of them?
Indeed. Shrub was a dolt; that's an easy one.Uh, lessee. The SEALS took out Bin Ladan. Now this is why Shrub was a dolt. If the aim was to dispose of Saddam, why didn't he know to do a hit job? Oh yeah, he's not an Xer like Obama. Xer's are pros at getting the most BANG for the buck, so to speak.
A possible theory. But speaking of theories, I guess you are still on board with Vandal. I don't know, but Vandal is a leech looking for people to suck on. Our spiritualist way is the better way.Judging by the number of spam calls I get, the US is chock full of suckers.
A cheap shot at the best pop music artist of our time, who is concerned about "soldiers dying"There's a bunch of Western would be Jihadis... Osama Bin Bieber
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/osama-bin-...ml?.tsrc=yahoo
Right, but even he was able to retrieve one of my correct predictions a while backI don't think he saw that. You're on his ignore list.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-26-2014 at 12:47 PM.
-Let's see...
Supporting a democratically elected government in Iraq would put us on "the wrong side."
Meanwhile, supporting Jihadis who literally eat people's hearts would put us on the right side?
What in the world happened here?
... There's a bunch of Western would be Jihadis... Osama Bin Bieber
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/osama-bin-...ml?.tsrc=yahoo
Uh, a FOX/MSMBC follower?
-
Yup. Foot in mouth disease.
It may be necessary. It got your attention, right?
I don't think he saw that. You're on his ignore list.
Maliki has not yet been able to form a new government. If he does, then yes, we are supporting the wrong side. That is even more true if the Shias in Iraq support a tyrant who is repressing a whole group in Iraq.
What happened is that YOU ignore the fact that the Sunnis mostly don't want and are against the Jihadis; certainly not in Syria, and probably not in Iraq-- once their oppressor Maliki is ousted.Meanwhile, supporting Jihadis who literally eat people's hearts would put us on the right side?
What in the world happened here?
The opposition to Assad are the moderate Sunnis fighting for freedom. The Jihadists are just opportunists looking for trouble. The USA gave them the opportunity by not supporting the Arab Spring in Syria.
-Well. That's certainly a reason to let people die.
-The only people being "oppressed" in Iraq are the former oppressors.
I thought you liked affirmative action?
-That argument would be a lot more convincing if they'd turn their weapons on ISIS.
-Ridiculous. It's SYRIA. There were always plenty of Jihadis in Syria. Not surprisingly, they beat the crap out of your so-called "moderates." Any theories as to why? Maybe, because they're a minority?
Yeah, by killing sunnis instead of shias. Good idea Glickee!
And yet they helped the USA and Maliki chase Al Qaeda out of their provinces. Potential allies and freedom fighters. Affirmative action.-The only people being "oppressed" in Iraq are the former oppressors.
I thought you liked affirmative action?
They are turned on Maliki because Maliki is oppressing them now. We need to support them when and if they turn on ISIS, as they DID before.-That argument would be a lot more convincing if they'd turn their weapons on ISIS.
No, they were about 80% of the people. They wanted freedom. Folks like you are opposed to their freedom. You support the worst monster in history since Hitler.-Ridiculous. It's SYRIA. There were always plenty of Jihadis in Syria. Not surprisingly, they beat the crap out of your so-called "moderates." Any theories as to why? Maybe, because they're a minority?
-They weren't killing Sunnis. They weren't letting them in politics. Just like we didn't let ex-rebels run for congress. Or let ex-Nazis run for political office.
-Some of them did the right thing, after a while.
-The Sunni Arabs got whiny because the Sunnis still think that 20% should be able to order the other 80% around, just like in the good old days. boo hoo.
They'll soon discover what oppression really looks like if ISIS gets to stick around.
-I must have missed that poll. People seem to be leaving the rebel areas to go to government areas a lot more than the reverse.
-Of course they do.
-Nonsense. If I could wave a magic wand, they'd be free. I'm just pointing out that replacing Druze/Shi'a Ba'athists with Sunni Sharia Jihadi types isn't really an improvement. The few moderates weren't going anywhere, as we've seen.
1) Nope. Just not interested in fighting him so we can replace him with a Caliphate.
2) The worst monster in history, before Hitler, during Hitler, and after Hitler was Stalin, and we did support him, DEC '41 - SEP '45.
3) Really? Until 2012, Bashir al-Assad was a sweetie pie compared to Saddam, Mao, Pol Pot, or any number of a$$holes.
Not yet, I suppose (although lots of people have still been killing lots of people). But that's what you want us to start supporting, I take it.
Very good! We might see that again.-Some of them did the right thing, after a while.
Not necessarily. But both groups have wanted to oppress the other. That needs to stop before we pour any more dollars and doughboys into this mess. (well, I don't think we should send any more doughboys no matter what)-The Sunni Arabs got whiny because the Sunnis still think that 20% should be able to order the other 80% around, just like in the good old days. boo hoo.
Yes indeed.They'll soon discover what oppression really looks like if ISIS gets to stick around.
You missed it all right. And most people leaving are leaving the country.-I must have missed that poll. People seem to be leaving the rebel areas to go to government areas a lot more than the reverse.
What we've seen, on the contrary, was the moderates advanced on the capital and were about to topple Assad, when Iran and Russia stepped in to Assad's rescue. Since we weren't supporting the genuine Arab Spring rebels, their strength declined, but they fight on. If they had been supported, then there would have been no jihadists there at all.-Nonsense. If I could wave a magic wand, they'd be free. I'm just pointing out that replacing Druze/Shi'a Ba'athists with Sunni Sharia Jihadi types isn't really an improvement. The few moderates weren't going anywhere, as we've seen.
Nobody is saying we should fight him, but genuine freedom fighters deserve our support. They did not ask us to send troops; they asked for aid.1) Nope. Just not interested in fighting him so we can replace him with a Caliphate.
I'll nominate Assad; not that these other guys were any fun either. But proportionately to the country's size, Assad is probably the worst. "Until 2012" doesn't count, silly glickie.2) The worst monster in history, before Hitler, during Hitler, and after Hitler was Stalin, and we did support him, DEC '41 - SEP '45.
3) Really? Until 2012, Bashir al-Assad was a sweetie pie compared to Saddam, Mao, Pol Pot, or any number of a$$holes.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-26-2014 at 04:32 PM.
-Syria's going to do that anyway. We don't need to help them. Besides, why upset Eric?Rags62 ...Syria's bombing them for us. How's about we hand a few B1's and drones to him, eh. Plausible deniability...
[/quote]
Well, that's one possibility. I guess Obama can phone up Putin on the red phone and say , "we'll just look the other way on the question of whatever y'all are doing with Assad". Yeah, Assad isn't the nicest guy, but I don't think his forces go and shoot random motorists like ISIS does. I think we're at the point of "beggers can't be choosers now."
Basically could be. However, it worked. In theory, if you chop enough at the head of a snake, the snake will die, that sort of thing.
Fucking aye. If you deign to call me out on the use of "fuck", you'll be a busy man.-Enough to call you out on it.
1. True. He seems to do that a lot. He announces that somebody's on ignore and he looks their posts anyway.1) If not, he read your quoting...
2) He's been replying to me on this thread;
Obviously.3) I've already established that the people who scream the loudest about how they have me on ignore actually follow me pretty closely. So he would've seen it anyway.
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."
Maliki's pretty much a dead end. Even Al-Sadr thinks he needs to go away. Al-Sadr is a Shia cleric who has basically done that job already on the Shia end. Not action on our part is needed.
1. Assad is the one who is bombing ISIS for us , like I explained to Glick. He relied that Assad is going to do that anyways. Now Putin is sending war materiel to Assad. So, here, again, the best answer is to stand pat. Let Assad and ISIS fight it out.The Sunnis are severely divided. We need to be engaged. We need to try (I'm not sure how; not with air strikes for goodness sakes) to get the Sunnis who opposed Al Qaeda in Iraq before, to oppose them again and kick them out again. We can't do that if we support Maliki. The Sunnis all want him gone, and are fighting against him. And in Syria, the moderates are well-known and well-defined; they are the people of Syria. They are the folks who rose up against Assad, and Assad proved to be among the worst monsters in history by attacking hundreds of thousands of them just for speaking out. We let down these people by not giving them money and weapons. For many of these people, the only answer for them is to leave, and we should help them survive and prosper in their new lands too, until such time as they can go back (which can only be when Assad and his regime is overthrown). The moderate Sunnis are the bulwark against ISIL/ISIS, not Assad.
2. The moderats if there are such a thing are no match when it comes to ISIS and Assad. Besides, how do you know where the weapons are going to end up? We tried that once with the Iraqi army and uh, that didn't work out so well, right?
#USWANTSISISTORETURNHUMVEES
Yeah, and ISIS will just go steal them.So, support the Sunni moderates, and we have allies in that project too.
Yes. So why is Mr. Heaircut without brains blathering about working with Iran then?As for the Shias, we are negotiating with Iran over their nucs, and maybe they don't want a civil war on their borders in Iraq. They also support Assad big time; without Iran Assad would have already fallen. So, it is unclear what can be done with the Shia. But supporting Maliki is almost as bad as supporting Assad. We should support neither, and Iran is still not our ally; far from it.
Assad is a defacto proxy because he's bombing ISIS. That fact may not be his intention, but it's real non the less.The moderate Sunnis are our proxies, and not Assad. And yes we should make use of them, and not go to war ourselves.
Yup.Indeed. Shrub was a dolt; that's an easy one.
I told Vandal that you made him a guest star here. You're stuck on him big time. Bad moon rising for Eric.A possible theory. But speaking of theories, I guess you are still on board with Vandal. I don't know, but Vandal is a leech looking for people to suck on. Our spiritualist way is the better way.
I can't help myself. I wallow in "cheap shots" wrt Biebs.A cheap shot at the best pop music artist of our time, who is concerned about "soldiers dying"
Which "he"? Vandal or JDG?Right, but even he was able to retrieve one of my correct predictions a while back
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."
We can do that, but it's in our interest to have a Syria that is moderate and relatively free, as opposed to Assad who supported terrorists and opposed US interest in the region, as well as held back democracy and prosperity in his country. And it's in our interest to have a country that is not in perpetual civil war which spreads all over the region and created the opportunity for ISIS to develop at all. Assad can never rule his country in peace again, ever.
I don't know for the life of me where you guys get this stuff. It's like you make things up as you go along. Like you do over on the spirituality etc. thread, sometimes.2. The moderates if there are such a thing are no match when it comes to ISIS and Assad. Besides, how do you know where the weapons are going to end up? We tried that once with the Iraqi army and uh, that didn't work out so well, right?
"if there are such a thing"??? what do you think has been going on there since the Spring of 2011?
You can't just reinvent history. Assad was on the verge of collapse. He is propped up solely by Iran and Russia. His people don't want him, except a small minority of Shia Alowites.
Ambassador Ford is just the latest to testify that we know full well where the weapons end up.
The Iraqi army has nothing to do with it. That was a US puppet army. The real Syrians asked us for help for the army they have created, and are fighting on despite not getting the support to counter Iran and Russia.
ISIS has to defeat the freedom fighters first. They can't do that.Yeah, and ISIS will just go steal them.
He has brains and I don't think he's doing that. But talking to unfriendly countries is always a good idea; I always thought it was, in contrast to that blathering dude without brains from Crawford, Texas.Yes. So why is Mr. Heaircut without brains blathering about working with Iran then?
No, he is not our proxy, because he's also bombing the democrats. He just bombs indiscriminately. That only accomplishes the destruction of his country. His approach is, if I can't rule it, blast it to smithereens. I don't see how that can handle ISIS. They are good at evading bombs, I think. Assad doesn't even have drones like we have. It's just, blast away. He is one guy I don't think the USA should talk to. Our word to him should only be: resign.Assad is a defacto proxy because he's bombing ISIS. That fact may not be his intention, but it's real non the less.
ISIS is as much a proxy for us in Syria, against Assad, as Assad is for us against ISIS. If they could just battle each other, that'd be fine; except that's at the cost of a whole people who are then left without a country.
I hope Obama can get support from Democrats and the McCain neo-cons in congress for weapons for the Free Syrians. One time I agree with McCain; that doesn't happen that often.
Oh, I see. Vandal's theories are an example of you supporting loco theories on occasion. But yeah, I'm mostly ignoring him now. I don't need to read him anymore to know anything more about what he says or thinks. He's on autopilot all the time.I told Vandal that you made him a guest star here. You're stuck on him big time. Bad moon rising for Eric.
"Bad Moon Rising" is alleged to be a typical boomer song. I guess so; it's on my Top 400 anyway.
You have a problem where music is concerned, I know. I mean, knowing what is good, and what is not; after 1984 anyway. That's your choice; but cheap shots don't seem fair (especially calling him an Al Qaeda jihadist), so I shoot back. Why pick on the best in such a callous way? Jealous, are ya?I can't help myself. I wallow in "cheap shots" wrt Biebs.
If you wanna pick on millie pop, why not Kesha or some rapper?
Mr. James D. Glick, of course. He's on my ignore list because he makes long posts in red ink. He still does, on occasion, but he's not on ignore because I disagree with him. Neither is Vandal, for that matter.Which "he"? Vandal or JDG?
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-26-2014 at 07:32 PM.
You're talking about a place that has been feuding [Sunni/Shia] since 632 AD. Democracy? Nope, ain't gonna happen. I'm not sure that's what Mideast folks even want. Just because the US thinks something is "nice" doesn't mean EVERYONE ELSE in the world thinks that. That's the same insane thinking Neocons have. This "The US is obligated to spread ITS OWN IDEAS as to what is "good" or "bad" for other folks is just idiotic. Just leave that hellhole alone and let the feuders settle their own age old resentments by themselves.
Xer pragmatism, Eric. You should try it sometime.I don't know for the life of me where you guys get this stuff. It's like you make things up as you go along. Like you do over on the spirituality etc. thread.
The place became an even bigger clusterfuck than before, that's what."if there are such a thing"??? what do you think has been going on there since the Spring of 2011?
"His people"? I don't even think "Syria" and "Iraq" are real countries. France and England just drew lines in the sand and didn't think about who lived in the polygons they made.You can't just reinvent history. Assad was on the verge of collapse. He is propped up solely by Iran and Russia. His people don't want him, except a small minority of Shia Alowites.
They may end up at the "right place". However ISIS proved in spades that they can just steal them.Ambassador Ford is just the latest to testify that we know full well where the weapons end up.
OK, then why was the US as a whole such a sucker? US <- run by suckers.The Iraqi army has nothing to do with it. That was a US puppet army. The real Syrians asked us for help for the army they have created, and are fighting on despite not getting the support to counter Iran and Russia.
I disagree.ISIS has to defeat the freedom fighters first. They can't do that.
No. He nags Iran about nukes and then prattles to them about cooperating in Iraq. Those are internal contradictions. He's an idiot.He has brains and I don't think he's doing that. But talking to unfriendly countries is always a good idea; I always thought it was, in contrast to that blathering dude without brains from Crawford, Texas.
ISIS may well be good at evading bombs. OK, then why are some of OUR politicians prattling about bombing ISIS ourselves? So either [Assad,US dolts] are achieving something wrt ISIS, or they ain't. Drones: If we think they wrok so well, then sneak 'em over to Assad.No, he is not our proxy, because he's also bombing the democrats. He just bombs indiscriminately. That only accomplishes the destruction of his country. His approach is, if I can rule it, blast it to smithereens. I don't see how that can handle ISIS. They are good at evading bombs, I think. Assad doesn't even have drones like we have. It's just, blast away.
ISIS is as much a proxy for us in Syria, against Assad, as Assad is against ISIS. If they could just battle each other, that'd be fine; except that's at the cost of a whole people who are then left without a country.
See why things are fucked up?
Syria: ISIS = good because they're trashing Assad.
Iraq: ISIS = bad because they do evil stuff.
Yeah. We'll fly in on magic unicorns and sprinkle pixie dust and democracy will flower all over the MidEast. Dream on.I hope Obama can get support from Democrats and the McCain neo-cons in congress for weapons for the Free Syrians. One time I agree with McCain; that doesn't happen that often.
Loco? Sheesh. People who think they can fix feuds and resentments over a 1000 years old are loco.Oh, I see. Vandal's theories are an example of you supporting loco theories on occasion. But yeah, I'm mostly ignoring him now. I don't need to read him anymore to know anything more about what he says or thinks. He's on autopilot all the time.
"Bad Moon Rising" is alleged to be a typical boomer song. I guess so; it's on my Top 400 anyway.
I know. I do like a lot of 2T music, remember?
You have a problem where music is concerned, I know. I mean, knowing what is good, and what is not; after 1984 anyway. That's your choice; but cheap shots don't seem fair, so I shoot back. Why pick on the best? Jealous, are ya?
Mr. James D. Glick, of course. He's on my ignore list because he makes long posts in red ink. He still does, on occasion, but he's not on ignore because I disagree with him. Neither is Vandal, for that matter.[/QUOTE]
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."
Actually, no one called Justin Bieber an Al Qaeda (or ISIS) jihadist. "Osama bin Bieber" was a nickname which a young British national who recently joined ISIS was given (per the article quoted), due to the guy "having youthful looks" (or maybe having his kind of youthful mannerisms, etc.). No real insult to Bieber (apparently he's the name thought of when describing "youthful looks and mannerisms"--that may actually be kind of flattering to him, depending on context), beyond that this moniker was given to a jihadist Bieber would probably not want to be associated with. With great fame, you takes the good and the bad, though. Part of the territory.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan
"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut
"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky
Yep--"we are at war with Eastasia. We have always been at war with Eastasia."
This is sure a big damn clue-by-four that we don't belong there--we don't even have a clear idea what we want, which players we want to support, because of these contradictions. Iran/Syria/ISIS are our enemy except when they are our friends against ISIS/Syria/Iran.
But you know, "we gotta do something" because as the neo-cons would say... my war, my war, my... endless war....
(Sorry for making your ears bleed with that link, Rags.)
Last edited by Alioth68; 06-27-2014 at 06:57 AM.
"Understanding is a three-edged sword." --Kosh Naranek
"...Your side, my side, and the truth." --John Sheridan
"No more half-measures." --Mike Ehrmantraut
"rationalizing...is never clear thinking." --SM Kovalinsky
You're right; although I don't see the resemblance myself.
There are things wrong with that statement, although it seems correct on the surface. Leaving the hellhole alone might be the best course. Except that, we haven't. We've been propping up oppressive states there for years, and doing the neo-con trip on top of that under Shrub. So we have a certain obligation. Not to keep doing the same crap though. And "everyone else" in the world is never going to think in the same way, but so what? Some people are more right than others.
And I think it's just as patronizing to think the Mid East folks prefer to wallow in oppression, as to think they want what we (supposedly) have. The mostly-young folk who rose up in the Arab Spring were just like young people in the rest of the world who are rising up in this Uranus-Pluto square Spring (and Uranus is in Aries too, the sign of "Spring." Is this really an accident?). We DO live in a global society, and besides that, people everywhere DO want the same basic things: a decent life, and a voice in their affairs (or like FDR said, freedom from want and freedom from fear). The people who rose up expressed their aims quite clearly. They just want access to a good life. They can't get that under these oppressive regimes. The democratic (and the socialist, and green) revolution cycles are worldwide, and they come to every place.
We are not obligated to spread our own ideas. The Syrian Free folks asked us for help, and we refused to give it until it was too late, and the non-Syrian jihadists moved in to take advantage of the chaos and "help" the uprising instead. We CAN be sure what the Syrian people want, because they said what they want. It is not just a Sunni-Shia feud.
But saying it's a Shia-Sunni feud makes things a lot simpler for those who say we have no business doing anything there. Again, maybe that's the better course. It would be a lot better than what we have been doing. And I must assume you include US support for Israel in that description of "leaving the hellhole alone." As you should. But the fact is, if we just let things fester there, they will bite us in the ass. It happens again and again, over the centuries. We just need to learn to be involved there in the right way; in the "pragmatic" and sensible way.
Making things up out of whole cloth, against the evidence, is pragmatism? I don't think I agree with your definition of that term.Xer pragmatism, Eric. You should try it sometime.
Maybe so, because of our mismanagement, in part; but that doesn't mean there was no Arab Spring uprising in Syria. They were on the streets by the millions, non-violently, for months. Almost a year. It's really stupid to just forget that this happened. The people of the Middle East wanted this cluster-fuck as the price of their freedom.The place became an even bigger clusterfuck than before, that's what.
That's irrelevant. "His people" refers to the people he now rules with an iron fist, and those people do not want him as their ruler."His people"? I don't even think "Syria" and "Iraq" are real countries. France and England just drew lines in the sand and didn't think about who lived in the polygons they made.
NO, they didn't. The Free Syrian army uses them to fight Assad and ISIS.They may end up at the "right place". However ISIS proved in spades that they can just steal them.
We were suckers to allow Bush to start a war in Iraq, and to re-elect him. Why? Because of (I think) the red-blue division of the country. We are now effectively two tribes, and the red tribe goes along with whoever their leader is, and whatever he does. I know, red-blue is over-simplifying things. But that's the only explanation I can fathom. People just went along because they hate those on the other side, and won't listen to them. Some people blame the media. That seems too easy an explanation to me, but it is true that they were suckers too.OK, then why was the US as a whole such a sucker? US <- run by suckers.
The Free Syrian Army cannot yet be defeated by ISIS/ISIL. The former represent the people; the latter do not. They also do not have enough allies.I disagree.
If they actually do become a state though, and they do get arms from the other Sunni states, I might change my mind on that. Right now though, in Syria the Free Syrian Army gets support from the Sunni moderate states. I doubt that these states would support a jihadist ISIL state.
But I'm not sure he IS prattling in that way. Don't just assume that everything the USA and its officials do is wrong. That's just as stupid as assuming that everything the USA does is right.
No. He nags Iran about nukes and then prattles to them about cooperating in Iraq. Those are internal contradictions. He's an idiot.
Who knows why some politicians prattle the way they do. Bombing ISIS is just a stupid idea. And Kerry said as much when he said that we have to make sure it's an effective strategy before we do it. I'm not sure Kerry always does or always will do the right thing. But calling him an idiot is rather careless on your part.ISIS may well be good at evading bombs. OK, then why are some of OUR politicians prattling about bombing ISIS ourselves? So either [Assad,US dolts] are achieving something wrt ISIS, or they ain't. Drones: If we think they wrok so well, then sneak 'em over to Assad.
Right, and in the same way:See why things are fucked up?
Syria: ISIS = good because they're trashing Assad.
Iraq: ISIS = bad because they do evil stuff.
Iraq: Iran = good because they are trashing ISIS
Syria: Iran = bad because they are propping up Assad.
I do buy into that dream. It won't come because we sprinkle pixie dust there, and helping the freedom fighters in Syria may not work. It may take decades or more. But at least they are folks who rose up, and they need and asked for our help against their oppressors. It is a proxy war (not a pixie war), and we need to participate by making the Free Syrian Army our proxy. Once we do, and once it starts to work against Assad, then we have a basis for negotiation with Assad's proxies (Iran and Russia). You have to be in the game in fights like this in order to talk to your opponents.Yeah. We'll fly in on magic unicorns and sprinkle pixie dust and democracy will flower all over the MidEast. Dream on.
Doing nothing can be just as dangerous as doing too much. Learning that lesson is the real pragmatism.
Last edited by Eric the Green; 06-27-2014 at 10:25 AM.
There is no single all-inclusive definition of "oppression," since the word refers to the collective experience of having emotional needs, ideals, and aspirations thwarted by an outside force (other people not part of the genos). So for some peoples, oppression might mean obstacles to wealth, "bling," prestige; for others, obstacles to fighting a just war for self defense; for others, repression of religious or cultural institutions; for others, limitations on scientific or social advancement and development.
So to understand oppression as such, it is first necessary to understand the needs of a particular genos at a particular phase of its history. For some times and peoples, oppression could mean forces attempting to thwart collective self-recognition as a genos. That would be a type of existential or Darwinian oppression. Striking at the foundations of the genos as a coherent cultural collective on its own terms.
So specifically in the question of oppression in the Middle East. Do Arabs want freedom in the a Western sense? Their religion is Islam: Submission to the will of the transcendent deity of Abraham. Of Ibrahim rather, who first built the Kaaba on the site of a pagan shrine, as the Arabs say. The god of law and justice, said to be a guardian for those who bind themselves together as an umma (community) in self restraint and mutual aid and protection.
What is thwarting those aspirations? Many hated the Arab nationalists like Saddam, because Saddam and Gaddafi and Al-Assad were/are too secular and tended to institutionally and thus socially westernize the Muslim world.
To say ISIS is bad news would be a historical understatement. At face value, it's the worst news in years. It is the beginnings of the unification of various sects into a competent anti-western coalition (in this case, secular-national and quasi modem Baathists with extremist Sunnis). This kind of union was inevitable given the hodgepodge and ad hoc military strategy of the west, which has idiotically created one stateless vacuum after another in the past few decades----the perfect breeding ground for anarchic non-state actors.
Last edited by Anc' Mariner; 06-27-2014 at 12:16 PM.
Nothing is entirely objective, ever. But from what I see there in the Mid-East, there are the jihadists or extremists who are fighting a battle from the 1970s-80s, and a new uprising led by youth in the 2010s, and the latter are liberals who want freedom, while the former are social reactionaries who want oppression and are trying to impose it.
I doubt "collective self-recognition as a genos" is "existential/foundations of being itself."So to understand oppression as such, it is first necessary to understand the needs of a particular genos at a particular phase of its history. For some times and peoples, oppression could mean forces attempting to thwart collective self-recognition as a genos. That would be a type of existential or Darwinian oppression. Striking at the foundations of being itself.
Contradiction? Maybe, and maybe not. Americans want "Western freedom," yet many of these same Americans bow down to a branch of the same religion. And Islam's transcendent deity is not Muhammed. If you claim to be able to define what a non-western people "want," at least be slightly accurate about these people.Do Arabs want freedom in the a Western sense? Their religion is Islam: Submission to the will of the transcendent deity of Muhammed.
An interesting theory, but the problem is that most of the people in the Middle East don't want it, and most state powers oppose it. So it will be hard to establish and maintain.To say ISIS would be a historical understatement. It is the beginnings of the unification of various sects (in this case, secular-national and quasi modem Baathists with extremist Sunnis). This kind of union was inevitable given the hodgepodge and ad hoc military strategy of the west, which has idiotically created one stateless vacuum after another in the past few decades----the perfect breeding ground for anarchic non-state actors.
I think this is accurate, but a bit simplistic. The outward face is much as you describe, but there is an inward face too. Secular and religious Sunnis don't trust each other, nor do the secular and religious Shiites. At some point, this will devolve into infighting on both sides. I seriously doubt that the number of radical Sunnis that form the core of ISIS number more than a few thousand at most. Right now, they're riding high on a shared hate of the Shiites ... especially Maliki. That simply can't last; they hate each other nearly as much as their apostate neighbors. If Moktada al-Sadr brings the Mahdi Army into the fight in earnest, then The Sunni-Shiia fight will parallel two internal power struggles, rather than one. I don't see anything but chaos and a lot of bloodshed ... and it won't stay in Iraq. The same problems exist in Syria, and the fractures are already evident there.
The Kurds may have a chance to break away, and I think they will. About the rest, I'm not willing to even speculate.
Last edited by Marx & Lennon; 07-02-2014 at 03:47 PM. Reason: spelling and grammer
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.
-That's a big caveat there, Eric. They hadn't. Your friends in Syria, on the other hand, starting killing people right off the bat. And occasionally, they ate them.
Here's the funny thing. When you were confronted with evidence of the FSA's atrocities, you still EXCUSED them, didn't you?
-Not really. The Ba'athists slaughtered innocent people by the tens of thousands. The raped them. They tortured them. Al-Maliki's "oppression" was to tell the ex-Ba'athists to take a hike, which as you yourself admitted, would be an understandable and intelligent reaction to butchers; Al-Maliki & Co. haven't come close to eating their former oppressors yet, and I doubt they ever will.
-Because that poll never existed.
...and occasionally eat people.
-Eric. It's Syria. The Jihadiyoon were already there. They've been there for, over 13 centuries. That's how Syria became Muslim.
-Oh, I bet you'll regret that statement.
-Stalin probably killed about 10% of his population. Mao, about the same. Pol Pot killed a much larger percentage than that. Saddam topped the 1% mark. Wake me up when Bashir Assad gets over 80,000. That doesn't count rebels killed in action, or people killed by the rebels.
-We should put the emphasis on "one." The others were either wrong (sometimes laughably) or so vague as to be useless.
Here. I'll make some predictions:
"I feel the body... it's somewhere near... water."
"There will be an earthquake somewhere in... California."
-The Kurds in Syria are the one group that might be worth supporting, a al Eric.
840. US keeps Iraq a battle field to adjust oilprice (6/25/2014)
Since the recentIraq crisis created by the US is to save dollar, US will maintain the currentsituation unchanged. A US craft carrier has been deployed in Mid-East, no airattack has done so far.
Analysis:Obama plan leaves Iraq mostly on its own
By LARA JAKES6/20/2014
http://news.yahoo.com/analysis-obama-plan-leaves-iraq-mostly-own-040646350.html
Three hundred USmilitary advisors were sent to Iraq. Their role likely is to instruct Iraqitroops to retreat from cities or oil fields when they want the oil price to goup. Or vice versa.
The US will turnIraq into another battle field. Let Arabs fight Arabs. Decades ago, it wasSaddam's Iraq vs. Iran. Now it will be Sunni's Iraq, Saudi, Qarda vs. ShiitiIraq, Iran.
That's a strategyit used to play, just like it manipulates Democrats and Republicans in domesticpolitics.
How theUS is Arming Both Sides of the Iraqi Conflict
By Tyler Durden
Global Research,June 13, 2014
http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-the-us-is-arming-both-sides-of-the-iraqi-conflict/5386926
Yes, we have an obligation to leave. For example we have "infidel" military bases strewn all over the place, especially in Saudi Arabia. Hint: Mecca and Medina are there. So, wouldn't it be cool if Saudi Arabia built a military base at the Vatican?
Oh geez, you're trotting out those magic unicorns that shit golden bricks again. The Arab World has a right to determine for themselves what they want. Every time we meddle over there, we screw stuff up. Let's face it, the US is a bull in a china shop. Btw, we did exactly the same nonsense in Latin America and screwed those folks over as well.And I think it's just as patronizing to think the Mid East folks prefer to wallow in oppression, as to think they want what we (supposedly) have. The mostly-young folk who rose up in the Arab Spring were just like young people in the rest of the world who are rising up in this Uranus-Pluto square Spring (and Uranus is in Aries too, the sign of "Spring." Is this really an accident?). We DO live in a global society, and besides that, people everywhere DO want the same basic things: a decent life, and a voice in their affairs (or like FDR said, freedom from want and freedom from fear). The people who rose up expressed their aims quite clearly. They just want access to a good life. They can't get that under these oppressive regimes. The democratic (and the socialist, and green) revolution cycles are worldwide, and they come to every place.
Well, we have no idea who the hell to ship stuff to even if there are "moderates". It is a Sunni/Shia feud because it ain't just Syria, it's all over just like a pox. If we don't want to catch the pox, then leave.We are not obligated to spread our own ideas. The Syrian Free folks asked us for help, and we refused to give it until it was too late, and the non-Syrian jihadists moved in to take advantage of the chaos and "help" the uprising instead. We CAN be sure what the Syrian people want, because they said what they want. It is not just a Sunni-Shia feud.
Funny how reality does that sometimes.But saying it's a Shia-Sunni feud makes things a lot simpler for those who say we have no business doing anything there.
Yes and yes. Israel can turn anyplace it wants into an ashtray if so desired.Again, maybe that's the better course. It would be a lot better than what we have been doing. And I must assume you include US support for Israel in that description of "leaving the hellhole alone."
Uh, word, "blowback". Meddling causes blowback.As you should. But the fact is, if we just let things fester there, they will bite us in the ass.
Nope. You help group A, you'll piss off groups [B-Z].It happens again and again, over the centuries. We just need to learn to be involved there in the right way; in the "pragmatic" and sensible way.
Well at least cloth is real. Pixie dust and magic unicorns are fictions.Making things up out of whole cloth, against the evidence, is pragmatism? I don't think I agree with your definition of that term.
Ask and ye shall receive.Maybe so, because of our mismanagement, in part; but that doesn't mean there was no Arab Spring uprising in Syria. They were on the streets by the millions, non-violently, for months. Almost a year. It's really stupid to just forget that this happened. The people of the Middle East wanted this cluster-fuck as the price of their freedom.
Which would they preferThat's irrelevant. "His people" refers to the people he now rules with an iron fist, and those people do not want him as their ruler.
a. IS (was ISIS), but they renamed themselves
b. Assad
Cute. Assad and ISIS can split the shit we ship over. Nice move.NO, they didn't. The Free Syrian army uses them to fight Assad and ISIS.
Nope, try GreenWe were suckers to allow Bush to start a war in Iraq, and to re-elect him. Why? Because of (I think) the red-blue division of the country. We are now effectively two tribes, and the red tribe goes along with whoever their leader is, and whatever he does. I know, red-blue is over-simplifying things. But that's the only explanation I can fathom. People just went along because they hate those on the other side, and won't listen to them. Some people blame the media. That seems too easy an explanation to me, but it is true that they were suckers too.
Which means ISIS wins whatever gets shipped, AGAIN.The Free Syrian Army cannot yet be defeated by ISIS/ISIL. The former represent the people; the latter do not. They also do not have enough allies.
Uh, they didn't make that annual report for nothing. Folks in Saudi Arabia seem to like them.If they actually do become a state though, and they do get arms from the other Sunni states, I might change my mind on that. Right now though, in Syria the Free Syrian Army gets support from the Sunni moderate states. I doubt that these states would support a jihadist ISIL state.
http://www.military.com/daily-news/2...over-iraq.htmlBut I'm not sure he IS prattling in that way. Don't just assume that everything the USA and its officials do is wrong. That's just as stupid as assuming that everything the USA does is right.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...ohn-Kerry.html
OK, what the hell is Iran supposed to think about that stuff?
He has a long history.Who knows why some politicians prattle the way they do. Bombing ISIS is just a stupid idea. And Kerry said as much when he said that we have to make sure it's an effective strategy before we do it. I'm not sure Kerry always does or always will do the right thing. But calling him an idiot is rather careless on your part.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/john-ker...tnam-to-syria/
LOSER. I'm old enough to remember that stuff. Sorry Eric. Fucking hypocrite he is.
Now you got that right. Kerry is a haircut looking for a brain, confirmed.Right, and in the same way:
Iraq: Iran = good because they are trashing ISIS
Syria: Iran = bad because they are propping up Assad.
Help places like Detroit first. We have enough problems right here to address. Time to shut the empire down.I do buy into that dream. It won't come because we sprinkle pixie dust there, and helping the freedom fighters in Syria may not work. It may take decades or more. But at least they are folks who rose up, and they need and asked for our help against their oppressors.
I like the idea of taking our marbles home before we lose them all.It is a proxy war (not a pixie war), and we need to participate by making the Free Syrian Army our proxy. Once we do, and once it starts to work against Assad, then we have a basis for negotiation with Assad's proxies (Iran and Russia). You have to be in the game in fights like this in order to talk to your opponents.
Not in this case.Doing nothing can be just as dangerous as doing too much. Learning that lesson is the real pragmatism.
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."
