The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPhilip Giraldi Archive
Making War on Everyone
Blame the media
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_123732133

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The New York Times is reporting that most Republican voters as well as quite a few Democrats are leaning in favor of American soldiers intervening directly in Syria and Iraq. Republican politicians are paying attention, sounding more bellicose than ever, demanding “boots on the ground” and even suggesting that a John Bolton presidential run is a real possibility.

Apparently the widely noted war fatigue resulting from all the unsuccessful military engagements after 9/11 has worn off. ISIS and Russia are, of course the enemies du jour, but there is also a frequently expressed hankering to go after the Mullahs in Iran if they don’t completely cede their sovereignty tout suite. And there is always the “Red Menace” from China if all else fails. So many enemies, so little time to defeat them all.

How did all this come about as the United States has almost no actual interests compelling getting involved in the Middle East or Eastern Europe yet again? It is not as if a new foray into realms that we Yanks know little or nothing about is likely to be any more successful than the last couple of misadventures. To be sure, a series of sickening atrocities by ISIS has gotten the juices flowing, but the White House’s desire to obtain blanket authority to initiate and deepen an open ended conflict that presumably will go on forever is just about as poorly defined and prone to failure as was the Bushite global war on terror that it replaces.

Part of the problem is undoubtedly an ignorant public. Foreign news coverage is superficial and tends to follow a preordained groupthink that is set by the engaged punditry in Washington and New York City. Putin is always evil and the Iranians are always perfidious. Americans remain ignorant because they are fed a steady diet of untruths and are rarely allowed to hear or read alternative viewpoints. The journalists who write the lies for the leading newspapers and who interview Senator John McCain repeatedly on Sunday mornings are far worse than Brian Williams, who only embellished his stories. The Judy Millers of this world go far beyond that in selling a complete set of bogus goods carefully packaged into prefabricated arguments, which, in the case of Iraq, led to an unnecessary and ultimately disastrous war.

The media has a responsibility to challenge such dishonesty but it rarely does so. A recent puff piece in the Washington Post on Republican President wannabe Mike Huckabee’s acting as a tour guide to Israel was astonishing in terms of what it forgot to mention. Huckabee clearly thumped his belief that God and Israel and the United States are all joined at the hip, but along the way he also revealed that he believes that the Palestinian people do not actually exist, denying them any kind of historical claim to their own land. The article also quoted Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, who was accompanying Huckabee, as saying “there’s really no such thing as the ‘Palestinians’.”

The author of the piece, the Post’s Israel correspondent William Booth, did not point out that the claim is ridiculous and un-historical, that Palestine has been settled for thousands of years with an indigenous population that was initially pagan and Jewish, then mostly Christian, and finally mostly Muslim. If roots define national legitimacy then the Palestinian Arabs have more claim to the land that now makes up Israel than do the recent Jewish settlers who came from Europe, America and elsewhere in the Middle East. But a casual reader knowing none of that would not be enlightened by Mr. Booth and might quite possibly leave the article with the impression that there are no Palestinians.

The Post’s editorial policy is relentlessly neocon under the tutelage of Fred Hiatt, whom, hopefully, Jeff Bezos will be firing when he finally gets around to shaking up the paper’s senior staff. There has been a steady drumbeat to take military action against Russia and Syria while sniping relentlessly against any possible agreement with Iran.

Gems that have appeared recently in connection with the upcoming visit by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu include Dennis Ross’s February 22nd op-ed on “How to ease Israel’s concerns.” Ross, once described as “Israel’s lawyer,” is inevitably most concerned with making Israel comfortable and proposes legislation mandating a military strike by the U.S. if Iran were perceived to be moving towards weapons grade production of uranium. Of course Ross ignores the evidence that such a perception can be engineered through fake intelligence or by political interests seeking to start a war. The IAEA recently determined that much of the case for Iran having an alleged weapons program in the first place was derived from intelligence fabricated by the United States and also Israel. Ross’s advice would create a trip wire and place the decision whether the U.S. should go to war with Iran in Israel’s hands.

A day later there was a triple whammy. The Post printed a letter from one Robert Tropp claiming that Iran is “developing a nuclear weapon” and “wants to destroy Israel.” Neither assertion is true but the editorial staff apparently felt the letter made a significant contribution to the discussion. On the facing page appeared two articles, one by Hiatt himself, entitled “A credibility gap: Obama’s challenge in selling and Iran deal” and the second by former Senator Joe Lieberman entitled “Hear out Israel’s leader.”

Hiatt argues that President Barack Obama should have sought to “eradicate[e] Iran’s nuclear weapons potential” and points out that the president has backed off from previous foreign policy commitments, including what to do about Iraq, Syria, and Russia. One might note that Hiatt’s desire to “eradicate” a “potential” could be interpreted to mean almost anything that Iran does that the Washington Post does not like.

Because Iran is a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty signatory whose facilities are open to inspection it has a perfect right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. All of which means that Hiatt is essentially saying that Iran’s rights under international law should be abrogated because they make Israel nervous, though he does not, of course, mention Israel. Nor for that matter does he bother to explain exactly how Iran threatens the United States.

Israel, of course, is central to Hiatt’s argument. It has an estimated secret arsenal that includes two hundred nuclear weapons and multiple delivery systems, which Hiatt does not find disturbing, presumably because Benjamin Netanyahu is such a solid individual. Hiatt concludes by expressing his desire to see Congress as a partner in any agreement with Iran. As the Republican majority in Congress is hostile to any deal he is basically calling for a solution that can only fail.

Lieberman on the other hand does not hide his deep regard for Israel and all its works. He encourages all Congressmen to attend the Netanyahu speech on March 3rd. For Joe, the former “conscience of the Senate,” it is all about hearing Bibi explain how “best to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons” and also because everyone should be a “strong supporter of America’s alliance with Israel.” In addition Congressmen have to be informed by experts like Netanyahu because some day down the road they might have to raise armies and declare war as Iran is not just threatening Israel. Those mad Mullahs are developing nukes and long range missiles that can strike America. And nuclear proliferation by Iran is particularly bad because it might encourage Arab neighbors to do the same.

Joe then returns to his oft repeated meme that “Israel is one of our closest and most steadfast allies” before concluding that Iran “remains the greatest threat to the security of America and the world.” The op-ed is so bad that one suspects Joe wrote it himself, though possibly with a little help from AIPAC. Every single point made is wrong or misleading, most particularly the double assertion that Israel is a wonderful ally. It is not an ally at all and never has been. And if there is an out of control secret nuclear proliferator in the Middle East whose paranoid behavior might well produce a nuclear World War 3 it is Israel, which ex-Senator Lieberman fails to grasp.

If I could I would like to send a message to the mainstream media. It might go something like this: “Please tell your readers the truth for a change. The only thing exceptional about America at the present time is our hubris. We helped create al-Qaeda by attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan. Iraq is a basket case because we invaded it without cause. Syria is in chaos because we have never seriously sought a peaceful solution with Bashar al-Assad. What we have done in Iraq and Syria taken together has produced ISIS. Libya is a toxic mess because we overthrew its government on phony humanitarian grounds. Afghanistan is about to copy Iraq because we have occupied it for thirteen years without a clue how to get out. We started the troubles in Ukraine and with Russia when we broke our promise by expanding NATO and then worked to overthrow an elected government. And finally there is Israel. Israel is not an ally and is the source of many of the problems in the Middle East. American and Israeli interests do not coincide, frequently quite the contrary.”

 
Hide 59 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. CIX says:

    All important information is classified and anything unimportant is unclassified. If it’s common knowledge because it’s important and it is shared, that’s a violation of the law.

    Radical Conservation
    John Wheeler fortified Occam’s razor by introducing
    radical conserva-
    tism.
    It is
    conservative
    in its reluctance to introduce new assumptions.
    Power is added by taking a
    radical
    approach to the few assumptions
    that are adopted. The assumptions must be formulated precisely and
    pushed hard and applied to as many situations as possible. If nature
    resists the pushing, a theory may self-destruct. One must know when
    to retreat. But the tendency is to add more assumptions, and parame-
    ters, to the existing theory. Occam’s razor can be used to improve, sim-
    plify, and discard theories, but is most useful when it is used to
    compare theories. http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/104.pdf

    “Good luck, Jim. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @John Jeremiah Smith
    Ordinarily, I just wouldn't bother, but, good lord, what utter drivel, Mr. CIX.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/making-war-on-everyone/#comment-887800
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. KA says:

    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

    Media has allowed this perpetual warmonger to get away with false claims over the years . He is the political equivalent of Madoff and Maxwell combined . War needs an excuse . Netanyahu has nev flinched from offering one ( Iraq. Syria,and for twenty some years on Iran)
    Media is part of this process,part of this discussion and it can’t be separated from the psychological matrix that is geared towards war as the and the only first response

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    The MainStreamMedia is owned by a handful of corporations that dictate what should be propagated by the MSM. When the unaccountability on the top ("Citizen United" legalized plutocracy) joins with the presstitute, the country enters a dangerous zone towards epic self-harm.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Iran certainly would like to eliminate Israel if that could be done safely, preferably through a ‘one state solution’/’right of return’ where Palestinian Arabs return and out-vote the Jewish minority., presumably with most Jews leaving in turn.
    However Iran has no desire to engage in nuclear war with Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eternal Vigilance
    OH! Seems, I remember, some small pip-squeak Iranian leader denying the Holocaust and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth! I believe that he believed that Iran would do it! That was certainly a friendly gesture that Israel should have welcomed as a peace offering. Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders. Most likely they are filled with harmless flowers. The average Israeli citizen has nothing to fear from the "peaceful" Iranians or the Hamas. Yeh! That's right!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. donut says:

    “Americans remain ignorant because they are fed a steady diet of untruths and are rarely allowed to hear or read alternative viewpoints.”

    They remain ignorant on this and so many other issues because they choose to . They’re not victims , they are lazy and incurious .

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Actually Americans are victims of very loud disinformation.
    Follow the money (mega-corporations and mega-banks) and follow the fate of whistleblowers (the honest investigative journalism). The MSM maintains an army of "persons of easy virtue" that deliver only such info that suites the "haves." A bravery of opposition and simple honest reporting have been punished with the imprisonment, slander, and financial ruin.
    , @Minnesota Mary
    donut, you are so right! I have friends who have asked me to not send them anything that goes against the mainstream media bilge that they have swallowed. It is just too painful for them to have to reassess their beliefs.

    This is a great column by Phil Giraldi. He tells the truth in a way that makes it hard to refute. If only more people would wake up and remove the scales from their eyes...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. CIX says:

    Pluto
    is the god of the underworld.
    Mars
    is the god of war.

    With all the racketeers around town, we should rename the town Pluto.

    The most efficient way to cover a sphere involves twelve
    plates. The most efficient way to cover a story involves twelve newspapers and we have one, which is like a one eyed man. He’s king in a town of the blind. More empty plates and empty hotels. More empty beds. I washed out of Easter Seals, there will be full baskets come hell or high water kids.

    Facebook doomed: “Snapchat represents the greatest existential threat yet to the Facebook juggernaut. Today’s teens have finally learned the lesson their older siblings failed to grasp: What you post on social media–the good, the bad, the inappropriate–stays there forever. And so they’ve been signing up for Snapchat, with its Mission: Impossible style detonation technology, in droves.”

    Now the new media that replaced the old media is blowing up. Kids are getting better at privacy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. KA says:

    War has always been the health of US . Last 30 yrs America has been fighting the wars conceived in Israel or actively promoted by Israel. Instead of having a pool of mercenary US has itself become a mercenary country . Media is the propaganda machine of this mercenary outfit.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. It was Hannah Arendt who pointed out that too often, Jewish peoples’ best interests have been betrayed by their political leaders. In this, all of humanity suffers a similar fate too often. The problem is that those attracted to political office are most concerned with enlarging their own estate, regardless of ethnic affinity.

    The wars are surely a disaster for the ordinary person, to greater or lesser degree. But powerful interests profit mightily from war in a financial sense, regardless of the human sacrifice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Blobby5 says:

    Hopefully a new video will emerge showing congress jumping to their feet during Nutenyahoo’s speech, looked like that Saddam speech before he started escorting out the ‘traitors’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dahoit
    Heil Yahoo!
    Never in human history have so few led so many towards a cliff of no return.
    Psychos.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. michael says:

    Missed the namebase.org connection between Anne Applebaum(WAPO) marriage to Polish Foreign Minister Radoslav Sikorsky, especially irritating with 10-12 yrs of Vlad bad trash. But perhaps a stray round , 02/02/15 read an article from The Intercept” The Final Days of A Chechen Commander Fighting in Ukraine”,only to see the successor to Munayev is a suspect in the Nemtsov murder?BACKSLIDE_______the head of this Chechen battalion HAPPENS TO RECEIVE ASYLUM FROM DENMARK most recent cartoon/Jewish HEBDO event?? The reporter from Intercept,Marcin Mamon has many Chechnya connections and operates out of Krakow, are we seeing Polish Fingerprints??? KOLOMOISKY – PINCHUK and why was Nemtsov given the shoe from members of the Ukie Parliment back during the Yushenko regime?? Just interesting with supposed Snowden wants to come home out there and Greenwald’s affiliation with The Intercept.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. @CIX
    All important information is classified and anything unimportant is unclassified. If it's common knowledge because it's important and it is shared, that's a violation of the law.

    Radical Conservation
    John Wheeler fortified Occam’s razor by introducing
    radical conserva-
    tism.
    It is
    conservative
    in its reluctance to introduce new assumptions.
    Power is added by taking a
    radical
    approach to the few assumptions
    that are adopted. The assumptions must be formulated precisely and
    pushed hard and applied to as many situations as possible. If nature
    resists the pushing, a theory may self-destruct. One must know when
    to retreat. But the tendency is to add more assumptions, and parame-
    ters, to the existing theory. Occam’s razor can be used to improve, sim-
    plify, and discard theories, but is most useful when it is used to
    compare theories. http://www.amphilsoc.org/sites/default/files/proceedings/104.pdf

    "Good luck, Jim. This tape will self-destruct in five seconds."

    Ordinarily, I just wouldn’t bother, but, good lord, what utter drivel, Mr. CIX.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. If I could I would like to send a message to the mainstream media. It might go something like this: “Please tell your readers the truth for a change… ”

    Mr. Giraldi, shall I assume that the USG does not have you assassinated because they know perfectly well that only a trivial segment of the US population would ever believe anything you write — also assuming they could or would read it in the first place?

    The mainstream media is the propaganda arm of the USG, and the primary means by which it controls the hearts and minds. The USG itself is an utterly corrupt organization, owned and operated by the wealthy elite — a significant portion of which dedicates full allegiance to Israel.

    I certainly admire your tenacity in coming out and writing truth. Nobody does it better. I suspect you are very much aware that the battles you fight are those of a war already lost? I love reading your articles, much as one hopes for even the smallest island of rationality as we swirl between Scylla and Charybdis.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    After the Vietnam War fatigue, Americans didn’t think to lift a finger to save Cambodians living under the Khmer Rouge.

    But maybe it’s different with the Middle East since Jews who control the media have a stake in the region.

    Btw, going after ISIS would just be pretext for taking out Assad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    The US subsidized Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for 10 years after the Vietnam War....Hyper-Ethnic Jew Congressman Steven Solarz...known as the Congressman who represented Israel....led the charge to support the Khmer Rouge in the US Congress...I have 0 doubt that Steven Solarz writes a check out every year to the SPLC......
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:

    Draft the NCAA Division 1 Football jocks to fight ISIS downtown Mosul!!!!! Draft Vietnam War Chickenhawk and War Enthusiast NY Giants Head Coach Tom Caughlin…Irish Catholic Pussy!!!!…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. annamaria says:
    @KA
    https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/03/02/brief-history-netanyahu-crying-wolf-iranian-nuclear-bomb/

    Media has allowed this perpetual warmonger to get away with false claims over the years . He is the political equivalent of Madoff and Maxwell combined . War needs an excuse . Netanyahu has nev flinched from offering one ( Iraq. Syria,and for twenty some years on Iran)
    Media is part of this process,part of this discussion and it can't be separated from the psychological matrix that is geared towards war as the and the only first response

    The MainStreamMedia is owned by a handful of corporations that dictate what should be propagated by the MSM. When the unaccountability on the top (“Citizen United” legalized plutocracy) joins with the presstitute, the country enters a dangerous zone towards epic self-harm.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. David says:

    Another observation on the information war being waged in the US. Israel has been called a US ally on NPR and the BBC World Service at least 20 times in the past 24 hours. Maybe 100 times in the last week. I don’t know how I could prove this but they fit it into the most surprising places. NPR always calls Israel the US’s most important ally, but usually just once or twice a day.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. annamaria says:
    @donut
    "Americans remain ignorant because they are fed a steady diet of untruths and are rarely allowed to hear or read alternative viewpoints."

    They remain ignorant on this and so many other issues because they choose to . They're not victims , they are lazy and incurious .

    Actually Americans are victims of very loud disinformation.
    Follow the money (mega-corporations and mega-banks) and follow the fate of whistleblowers (the honest investigative journalism). The MSM maintains an army of “persons of easy virtue” that deliver only such info that suites the “haves.” A bravery of opposition and simple honest reporting have been punished with the imprisonment, slander, and financial ruin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Bill Blizzard and his Men"] says:
    @Priss Factor
    After the Vietnam War fatigue, Americans didn't think to lift a finger to save Cambodians living under the Khmer Rouge.

    But maybe it's different with the Middle East since Jews who control the media have a stake in the region.

    Btw, going after ISIS would just be pretext for taking out Assad.

    The US subsidized Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge for 10 years after the Vietnam War….Hyper-Ethnic Jew Congressman Steven Solarz…known as the Congressman who represented Israel….led the charge to support the Khmer Rouge in the US Congress…I have 0 doubt that Steven Solarz writes a check out every year to the SPLC……

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website

    Why in the world is the moderator allowing hasbara trolls to post nonsensical, off topic garbage, and nonsense to this thread?

    Anyone minding the store here?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  19. unit472 says:

    While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits. That said, an Iranian nuclear bomb is not the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan isn’t exactly the most stable country in the world and we’ve accommodated ourselves to their having a substantial nuclear arsenal and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems that can already hit everything in South Korea and Japan how can an Iranian capability be more destabilizing than that? Not a month goes by without North Korea threatening to incinerate someone in an atomic fireball.

    The ISIS thing is even more baffling. Their main battlefield enemies are Iran’s Shia satrapies in the region and its proxy army in Lebanon. OK they are blood thirsty maniacs but if that is the reason we must fight then we have Los Zetas and other Mexican narco gangs just across our Southern border that are every bit as blood thirsty and brutal as ISIS to include decapitating and burning people alive. They just don’t post videos to YouTube of their victims who, international observers say number over 60,000!

    Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power it should be Russia helping Iran ( if Iran really needs any help) and the US more concerned about Mexican drug gangs bringing their war into the US rather than ISIS. In fact, ISIS is a perfect sump into which radical Muslims in the West can drain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits."

    Got proof or are you just making that up Netanyahu style?
    , @Priss Factor
    "Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power"

    Common sense suggests that Israel and Zio-Cons in the US are okay with ISIS for two reasons.

    ISIS undermines state power in the Middle East. Israel has more to fear from Arab state power than Arab/Muslim civil strife. True, ISIS is horrific in Iraq and Syria, but they also weaken state power in those places, and that is to the advantage of Israel. As ISIS has no way of entering Israel or the West(if anything, they are attracting Islamists in the West to go fight in the Middle East), it poses no threat to the Zionists.

    In the 1980s, US supported the ragtag rebels in Mozambique and Angola. To some extent, they were anti-communists, but they were also terrorists, thugs, and pillagers. As long as they were weakening communism/Soviet influence in Africa, they were seen as the 'good guys'.

    Though US and Israel don't officially support ISIS, they value its role in weakening Syria and Iraq, two Shia-dominated states. As Saudis fear Shia power too, they go along.

    ISIS is also useful to Israel and Zionist-Americans because its viciousness can be used to persuade Americans that "those Muslims are crazy", as if it's uniquely a Muslim thing to act crazy.

    But if civil order and political stability broke down in Israel and if far-right Zionists were allowed to do as they please, I would think the fate of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza would be downright gruesome. (Indeed, it hasn't been pretty in Gaza last year even though Israel is a functioning state.) ISIS horror distracts us from Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and it makes Americans support 'civilized' Israel against all those 'crazy muzzies'.

    In truth, whenever and wherever civil/social/political order breaks down, you'll see ISIS-like violence. We just need to consider Europe during WWI and WWII. French war in Algeria.
    The hellish violence that is engulfing parts of South Africa today. Wars in Congo. Korea during the Korean War. Southeast Asia during and after the Vietnam War. Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Russia vs Chechnya. Nothing particularly crazy about Muslims in acting nuts.

    When Japan killed 3,000 in Hawaii, US commenced on a war to kill millions of Japanese, even nuking two cities.
    War brings out the devil in us, and why should Muslims be any different?

    American moral logic is funny:
    America was totally justified in doing what it did to Japan over Pearl Harbor, but Palestinians should take their total humiliation and oppression by the Zionists with knees on the grounds and heads bowed.
    Japan didn't even try to conquer America but only tried to neutralize the US navy. In contrast, Palestinians totally lost their ancestral homeland. But Americans had the right to kill millions, but Palestinians are terrorists if they resist.

    , @Kiza
    "... and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems ..."

    Who are you to tolerate anything? Who gives you the right to decide on who has what? Who is the royal "we"?

    Your comments here have always been simple repeats of MSM propaganda, as if none of us have a TV or can buy newspapers, so you are making it up to us and bringing to us, the unwashed, the enlightening Western regime (Zionist) propaganda.

    , @pshr
    @unit472

    Just like people like you drain into that evil gutter called israel?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Renoman says:

    per·fid·i·ous
    pərˈfidēəs/Submit
    adjectiveliterary
    deceitful and untrustworthy.
    “a perfidious lover”
    synonyms: treacherous, duplicitous, deceitful, disloyal, faithless, unfaithful, traitorous, treasonous, false, false-hearted, double-dealing, two-faced, Janus-faced, untrustworthy
    “a perfidious lover”

    For all the illiterate Hillbillies such as myself. I learned something today!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. conatus says:

    This guy has some decent stats on the the US War Machine.

    http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/90-deaths-war-civilians.html

    He starts out saying we are 41% of the total world spending on war, i think it might be 36%.
    At least if you do the math on the Wikipedia page it comes out to 36%

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures

    At any rate it is surprising and rarely mentioned how much more we spend as a nation compared to the rest of the world.
    More than the next thirteen countries combined????
    And we do have an awful lot of debt?
    I realize that there are a lot of jobs dependent on this spending but come on, couldn’t we employ some of these people…perhaps building and guarding a border fence?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. @donut
    "Americans remain ignorant because they are fed a steady diet of untruths and are rarely allowed to hear or read alternative viewpoints."

    They remain ignorant on this and so many other issues because they choose to . They're not victims , they are lazy and incurious .

    donut, you are so right! I have friends who have asked me to not send them anything that goes against the mainstream media bilge that they have swallowed. It is just too painful for them to have to reassess their beliefs.

    This is a great column by Phil Giraldi. He tells the truth in a way that makes it hard to refute. If only more people would wake up and remove the scales from their eyes…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @unit472
    While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits. That said, an Iranian nuclear bomb is not the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan isn't exactly the most stable country in the world and we've accommodated ourselves to their having a substantial nuclear arsenal and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems that can already hit everything in South Korea and Japan how can an Iranian capability be more destabilizing than that? Not a month goes by without North Korea threatening to incinerate someone in an atomic fireball.

    The ISIS thing is even more baffling. Their main battlefield enemies are Iran's Shia satrapies in the region and its proxy army in Lebanon. OK they are blood thirsty maniacs but if that is the reason we must fight then we have Los Zetas and other Mexican narco gangs just across our Southern border that are every bit as blood thirsty and brutal as ISIS to include decapitating and burning people alive. They just don't post videos to YouTube of their victims who, international observers say number over 60,000!

    Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power it should be Russia helping Iran ( if Iran really needs any help) and the US more concerned about Mexican drug gangs bringing their war into the US rather than ISIS. In fact, ISIS is a perfect sump into which radical Muslims in the West can drain.

    “While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits.”

    Got proof or are you just making that up Netanyahu style?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    He's making it up. If he makes up a few other things, like, for example, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian he will likely be invited to speak before congress and cheered with 34 standing ovations. Seriously folks, if you thought that our Congress could not possibly go any lower today proved that there are still unexplored depths on Capitol Hill. Everyone who attended that speech should be impeached but, alas, they will more likely be reelected. They have sold out our sovereignty for a pocked full of mumbles from a war criminal.
    , @unit472
    Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a long range ballistic missile program? That it has been cooperative with the IAEA in allowing access to its atomic facilities?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. @Wally
    "While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits."

    Got proof or are you just making that up Netanyahu style?

    He’s making it up. If he makes up a few other things, like, for example, that there is no such thing as a Palestinian he will likely be invited to speak before congress and cheered with 34 standing ovations. Seriously folks, if you thought that our Congress could not possibly go any lower today proved that there are still unexplored depths on Capitol Hill. Everyone who attended that speech should be impeached but, alas, they will more likely be reelected. They have sold out our sovereignty for a pocked full of mumbles from a war criminal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    If Americans want more war, they should wage it on the elites of this country that messed up the world royally since the end of the Cold War.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  26. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @unit472
    While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits. That said, an Iranian nuclear bomb is not the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan isn't exactly the most stable country in the world and we've accommodated ourselves to their having a substantial nuclear arsenal and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems that can already hit everything in South Korea and Japan how can an Iranian capability be more destabilizing than that? Not a month goes by without North Korea threatening to incinerate someone in an atomic fireball.

    The ISIS thing is even more baffling. Their main battlefield enemies are Iran's Shia satrapies in the region and its proxy army in Lebanon. OK they are blood thirsty maniacs but if that is the reason we must fight then we have Los Zetas and other Mexican narco gangs just across our Southern border that are every bit as blood thirsty and brutal as ISIS to include decapitating and burning people alive. They just don't post videos to YouTube of their victims who, international observers say number over 60,000!

    Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power it should be Russia helping Iran ( if Iran really needs any help) and the US more concerned about Mexican drug gangs bringing their war into the US rather than ISIS. In fact, ISIS is a perfect sump into which radical Muslims in the West can drain.

    “Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power”

    Common sense suggests that Israel and Zio-Cons in the US are okay with ISIS for two reasons.

    ISIS undermines state power in the Middle East. Israel has more to fear from Arab state power than Arab/Muslim civil strife. True, ISIS is horrific in Iraq and Syria, but they also weaken state power in those places, and that is to the advantage of Israel. As ISIS has no way of entering Israel or the West(if anything, they are attracting Islamists in the West to go fight in the Middle East), it poses no threat to the Zionists.

    In the 1980s, US supported the ragtag rebels in Mozambique and Angola. To some extent, they were anti-communists, but they were also terrorists, thugs, and pillagers. As long as they were weakening communism/Soviet influence in Africa, they were seen as the ‘good guys’.

    Though US and Israel don’t officially support ISIS, they value its role in weakening Syria and Iraq, two Shia-dominated states. As Saudis fear Shia power too, they go along.

    ISIS is also useful to Israel and Zionist-Americans because its viciousness can be used to persuade Americans that “those Muslims are crazy”, as if it’s uniquely a Muslim thing to act crazy.

    But if civil order and political stability broke down in Israel and if far-right Zionists were allowed to do as they please, I would think the fate of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza would be downright gruesome. (Indeed, it hasn’t been pretty in Gaza last year even though Israel is a functioning state.) ISIS horror distracts us from Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and it makes Americans support ‘civilized’ Israel against all those ‘crazy muzzies’.

    In truth, whenever and wherever civil/social/political order breaks down, you’ll see ISIS-like violence. We just need to consider Europe during WWI and WWII. French war in Algeria.
    The hellish violence that is engulfing parts of South Africa today. Wars in Congo. Korea during the Korean War. Southeast Asia during and after the Vietnam War. Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Russia vs Chechnya. Nothing particularly crazy about Muslims in acting nuts.

    When Japan killed 3,000 in Hawaii, US commenced on a war to kill millions of Japanese, even nuking two cities.
    War brings out the devil in us, and why should Muslims be any different?

    American moral logic is funny:
    America was totally justified in doing what it did to Japan over Pearl Harbor, but Palestinians should take their total humiliation and oppression by the Zionists with knees on the grounds and heads bowed.
    Japan didn’t even try to conquer America but only tried to neutralize the US navy. In contrast, Palestinians totally lost their ancestral homeland. But Americans had the right to kill millions, but Palestinians are terrorists if they resist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unit472
    Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are.
    , @The Plutonium Kid
    And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don't speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Kiza says:
    @unit472
    While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits. That said, an Iranian nuclear bomb is not the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan isn't exactly the most stable country in the world and we've accommodated ourselves to their having a substantial nuclear arsenal and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems that can already hit everything in South Korea and Japan how can an Iranian capability be more destabilizing than that? Not a month goes by without North Korea threatening to incinerate someone in an atomic fireball.

    The ISIS thing is even more baffling. Their main battlefield enemies are Iran's Shia satrapies in the region and its proxy army in Lebanon. OK they are blood thirsty maniacs but if that is the reason we must fight then we have Los Zetas and other Mexican narco gangs just across our Southern border that are every bit as blood thirsty and brutal as ISIS to include decapitating and burning people alive. They just don't post videos to YouTube of their victims who, international observers say number over 60,000!

    Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power it should be Russia helping Iran ( if Iran really needs any help) and the US more concerned about Mexican drug gangs bringing their war into the US rather than ISIS. In fact, ISIS is a perfect sump into which radical Muslims in the West can drain.

    “… and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems …”

    Who are you to tolerate anything? Who gives you the right to decide on who has what? Who is the royal “we”?

    Your comments here have always been simple repeats of MSM propaganda, as if none of us have a TV or can buy newspapers, so you are making it up to us and bringing to us, the unwashed, the enlightening Western regime (Zionist) propaganda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. unit472 says:
    @Priss Factor
    "Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power"

    Common sense suggests that Israel and Zio-Cons in the US are okay with ISIS for two reasons.

    ISIS undermines state power in the Middle East. Israel has more to fear from Arab state power than Arab/Muslim civil strife. True, ISIS is horrific in Iraq and Syria, but they also weaken state power in those places, and that is to the advantage of Israel. As ISIS has no way of entering Israel or the West(if anything, they are attracting Islamists in the West to go fight in the Middle East), it poses no threat to the Zionists.

    In the 1980s, US supported the ragtag rebels in Mozambique and Angola. To some extent, they were anti-communists, but they were also terrorists, thugs, and pillagers. As long as they were weakening communism/Soviet influence in Africa, they were seen as the 'good guys'.

    Though US and Israel don't officially support ISIS, they value its role in weakening Syria and Iraq, two Shia-dominated states. As Saudis fear Shia power too, they go along.

    ISIS is also useful to Israel and Zionist-Americans because its viciousness can be used to persuade Americans that "those Muslims are crazy", as if it's uniquely a Muslim thing to act crazy.

    But if civil order and political stability broke down in Israel and if far-right Zionists were allowed to do as they please, I would think the fate of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza would be downright gruesome. (Indeed, it hasn't been pretty in Gaza last year even though Israel is a functioning state.) ISIS horror distracts us from Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and it makes Americans support 'civilized' Israel against all those 'crazy muzzies'.

    In truth, whenever and wherever civil/social/political order breaks down, you'll see ISIS-like violence. We just need to consider Europe during WWI and WWII. French war in Algeria.
    The hellish violence that is engulfing parts of South Africa today. Wars in Congo. Korea during the Korean War. Southeast Asia during and after the Vietnam War. Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Russia vs Chechnya. Nothing particularly crazy about Muslims in acting nuts.

    When Japan killed 3,000 in Hawaii, US commenced on a war to kill millions of Japanese, even nuking two cities.
    War brings out the devil in us, and why should Muslims be any different?

    American moral logic is funny:
    America was totally justified in doing what it did to Japan over Pearl Harbor, but Palestinians should take their total humiliation and oppression by the Zionists with knees on the grounds and heads bowed.
    Japan didn't even try to conquer America but only tried to neutralize the US navy. In contrast, Palestinians totally lost their ancestral homeland. But Americans had the right to kill millions, but Palestinians are terrorists if they resist.

    Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are."

    If truth is too boring for you, go and blow American Enterprise Institute. They welcome whores like you.
    , @annamaria
    Your posts, unit472, reflect on either
    1. your laziness, i.e., you do not make any efforts to read about facts on the ground as these facts are presented in alternative media or
    2. that you attempt, quite consciously, to spread disinformation

    Here is, for example, the fact-supported information on Israelis' support for ISIS.
    "A report submitted to the United Nations Security Council by UN observers in the Golan Heights over the past 18 months shows that Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State (ISIS) militants."
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-report-israel-supports-syrian-al-qaeda-rebels-including-the-islamic-state-isis/5429363

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. unit472 says:
    @Wally
    "While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits."

    Got proof or are you just making that up Netanyahu style?

    Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a long range ballistic missile program? That it has been cooperative with the IAEA in allowing access to its atomic facilities?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    hasbara unit472:

    Answering a question with a question = dodging my request for proof of your assertion that "Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal".

    A la Netanyahu, it's now clear you have no such proof or you would put it on the table for all to see.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. geokat62 says:

    We helped create al-Qaeda by attacking the Soviets in Afghanistan. Iraq is a basket case because we invaded it without cause. Syria is in chaos because we have never seriously sought a peaceful solution with Bashar al-Assad. What we have done in Iraq and Syria taken together has produced ISIS. Libya is a toxic mess because we overthrew its government on phony humanitarian grounds. Afghanistan is about to copy Iraq because we have occupied it for thirteen years without a clue how to get out. We started the troubles in Ukraine and with Russia when we broke our promise by expanding NATO and then worked to overthrow an elected government.

    The game plan for all of the above has been mapped out in PNAC’s Clean Break and Oded Yinon’s A Foreign Policy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties. These documents call for the remaking of the entire ME. You recall Condi Rice’s infamous statement after Israel attacked Lebanon in 2006: “these are the birth pangs of a new ME!”

    The neocons have duped the American people into thinking that these wars are necessary to make them safe. Little do they know that all the treasure and blood spent has been in an effort to make the jungle a little safer for the villa. As Edward Snowden revealed:

    “[T]he survival of the state of Israel is a paramount goal of US ME policy.”

    An excerpt from a classified report, History of US – Israel Sigint Relationship, post 1992.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @unit472
    Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are.

    “Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are.”

    If truth is too boring for you, go and blow American Enterprise Institute. They welcome whores like you.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. @Priss Factor
    "Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power"

    Common sense suggests that Israel and Zio-Cons in the US are okay with ISIS for two reasons.

    ISIS undermines state power in the Middle East. Israel has more to fear from Arab state power than Arab/Muslim civil strife. True, ISIS is horrific in Iraq and Syria, but they also weaken state power in those places, and that is to the advantage of Israel. As ISIS has no way of entering Israel or the West(if anything, they are attracting Islamists in the West to go fight in the Middle East), it poses no threat to the Zionists.

    In the 1980s, US supported the ragtag rebels in Mozambique and Angola. To some extent, they were anti-communists, but they were also terrorists, thugs, and pillagers. As long as they were weakening communism/Soviet influence in Africa, they were seen as the 'good guys'.

    Though US and Israel don't officially support ISIS, they value its role in weakening Syria and Iraq, two Shia-dominated states. As Saudis fear Shia power too, they go along.

    ISIS is also useful to Israel and Zionist-Americans because its viciousness can be used to persuade Americans that "those Muslims are crazy", as if it's uniquely a Muslim thing to act crazy.

    But if civil order and political stability broke down in Israel and if far-right Zionists were allowed to do as they please, I would think the fate of Palestinians in West Bank and Gaza would be downright gruesome. (Indeed, it hasn't been pretty in Gaza last year even though Israel is a functioning state.) ISIS horror distracts us from Israeli oppression of Palestinians, and it makes Americans support 'civilized' Israel against all those 'crazy muzzies'.

    In truth, whenever and wherever civil/social/political order breaks down, you'll see ISIS-like violence. We just need to consider Europe during WWI and WWII. French war in Algeria.
    The hellish violence that is engulfing parts of South Africa today. Wars in Congo. Korea during the Korean War. Southeast Asia during and after the Vietnam War. Yugoslavia in the 1990s. Russia vs Chechnya. Nothing particularly crazy about Muslims in acting nuts.

    When Japan killed 3,000 in Hawaii, US commenced on a war to kill millions of Japanese, even nuking two cities.
    War brings out the devil in us, and why should Muslims be any different?

    American moral logic is funny:
    America was totally justified in doing what it did to Japan over Pearl Harbor, but Palestinians should take their total humiliation and oppression by the Zionists with knees on the grounds and heads bowed.
    Japan didn't even try to conquer America but only tried to neutralize the US navy. In contrast, Palestinians totally lost their ancestral homeland. But Americans had the right to kill millions, but Palestinians are terrorists if they resist.

    And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don’t speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chris Mallory
    "They did it first" is not an excuse for committing evil acts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Wally [AKA "BobbyBeGood"] says: • Website
    @unit472
    Are you suggesting that Iran does not have a long range ballistic missile program? That it has been cooperative with the IAEA in allowing access to its atomic facilities?

    hasbara unit472:

    Answering a question with a question = dodging my request for proof of your assertion that “Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal”.

    A la Netanyahu, it’s now clear you have no such proof or you would put it on the table for all to see.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don’t speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities.”

    This is true. Japanese were nasty buggers in Asia.
    But most Americans didn’t want war with Japan over Japan’s actions in Asia. Most Americans didn’t care. They wanted to stay out of the war. Their attitude was it’s yellows killing yellows, so what’s it got to do with us.

    American rage with Japan was entirely over Pearl Harbor, not Nanking, which was mostly ignored in the US media. Likewise, American media looked the other way when Stalin was killing millions of Ukrainians and when Mao was killing millions of Chinese. And besides, Americans had done their share of killing in the Philippines. (Besides, it was US and UK that had forced Japan to open up and modernize. And when Japan defeated China and gained a foothold in Asia in 1895, US and UK cheered it on. And when Japan started a war with Russia in 1904, US and UK sided, more or less, with Japan. And US and UK sold Japan iron and oil as it was taking over Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. So, the idea that US was outraged by Japanese cruelty in Asia is rather bogus. And besides, hadn’t European imperialists conquered much of the world? Hadn’t Anglos created America by ‘genocide’ of Indians? Hadn’t Latin America been created by ‘genocide’ and slavery of native peoples? Hadn’t Australia been founded by massive ‘genocide’ of Aborigines?)

    American feelings of revenge toward the Japanese was over Pearl Harbor. That’s when Americans really wanted to smash Japan. And indeed, Japan had done something nasty and horrible.
    But then, suppose there had been no Rape of Nanking or other horrible stuff. Suppose Japan had never invaded any part of Asia but only attacked Pearl Harbor. I have no doubt in my mind that Americans would have felt justified in doing exactly what they did: killing millions and nuking entire cities. Japan’s bad behavior in Asia simply became a useful excuse for the US to destroy that country. If there had been no Pearl Harbor, most Americans would never have cared a damn about what Japan did in China.
    After all, the Indonesian generals killed up to 1 million ‘communist’ insurgents in Indonesia in 1965, but US said and did nothing as they valued the rightwing generals as anti-communist allies. Soviets committed horrible atrocities before and during WWII, but Americans overlooked all that as the common enemy was the Nazis.
    After WWII, US did much to pressure Japan to come clean about its horrible war record. But when China turned communist, US suddenly went easy on Japanese war criminals, released most of them, and recruited them as loyal anti-communist allies. So much for American conscience. So, the idea that American violence against Japan was morally justified by Japan’s behavior in Asia is so much BS. Look at US behavior today. It feigns moral outrage over Gaddafi’s ‘killing of his own people’ but totally ignores the Zionist terror against the people of Gaza. During the Iran-Iraq War, US looked the other way when Hussein was gassing 100,000s of people to death. But after Iraq won the war, Hussein was suddenly the ‘new Hitler’ who had to be destroyed. Politics of moral outrage isn’t real moral outrage. It’s all just a cynical game.

    But the bigger point I was making is this: If what US did to Japan following Pearl Harbor was justified–firebombing of Tokyo, nuking two cities, the killing of one million civilians, etc–, then why do Americans condemn Palestinians for their vengeful rage against Jews whose violence against Palestine was many times more grievous than Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor?

    After all, Japan didn’t try to conquer any part of US, indeed not even Hawaii. Japan’s message was ‘stay out of OUR Asian sphere of influence’.
    In contrast, Zionist aggression against Palestinians was to totally dispossess the Palestinians of their ancestral lands. Palestinians lost everything and still live under occupation and oppression. And yet, Americans sit judgment on Palestinians?

    American moral logic:

    If a nation attacks our periphery, we have the moral right to kill millions of them; even drop nukes.

    But if another people are totally conquered and dispossessed of their homeland by Zionists, they better just take it and sue for peace on their knees.

    Huh?

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan. This blow to the Japanese economy made it more or less impossible to keep the Japanese war machine goiing for more than six or seven months and created a sense of crisis in Japan. Neither the embargo nor the Pearl Harbor attack would have happened if the Japanese weren't engaged in unprovoked, brutal military attacks against its neighbors in the first place.

    And just in case you forgot, the United States focused on the European theater than the Pacific theater. Hitler was judged to be the greater threat. The idea that American barbarians stormed through the Pacific to Japan butchering everyone who stood in the way is the fantasy of a viciously bigoted mind.

    They had it coming. Your condescending sermonizing is ignorant.

    , @Carroll Price
    In his book "Imperial Cruise", James Bradley provides the reader with plenty of long-forgotten documentation on how the US, for entirely selfish purposes, encouraged and assisted an isolated, feudalistic Japanese nation into emerging into a major military threat to both China and Russia. As in virtually every other war in which the US has become involved, it had only itself to blame for Japan becoming an economic and military threat over which it had lost control.

    http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire/dp/B007MXCB6Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425490236&sr=1-1&keywords=the+imperial+cruise+by+james+bradley
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. @The Plutonium Kid
    And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don't speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities.

    “They did it first” is not an excuse for committing evil acts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    Ptooey. Spare us your simple-minded Sunday school moralizing. Ask a Korean what he thinks. He'll want to know why we didn't nuke 'em twenty times.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    {How did all this come about as the United States has almost no actual interests compelling getting involved in the Middle East or Eastern Europe yet again?}

    A big lie.

    Wake up and look at your Dark and bloody history. US was involved in neighboring countries in the continent of America, occupying and stealing half of Mexico through FALSE FALG OPERATION, killing people in Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua and many more countries. Remember? It is only after WWII, that America is exerting power in the M.E because Britain was the dominant imperial power at that time and US would not DARE to interfere, not because American terrorists did not want, and the first thing they did toppling the democratic government of Mosaddeq, killing many in the process, remember? Don’t you remember that America and Americans killed, at least, 4 millions innocent Vietnamese? Remember? millions were killed in Africa by US act of terrorism, remember? Millions in Korea, Somalia, Sudan,… I am sorry I have run out of INK……

    {a series of sickening atrocities by ISIS has gotten the juices flowing..}

    ISIS is US/Israel construct to be used in killing the population of Muslims and toppling the government. I don’t like people pretending that know nothing after all these years, or trying to hide the hands of the REAL terrorists and war criminals, US, Israel, Britain. Stop it

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    Whew. Switch to decaf, dude.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Chris Mallory
    "They did it first" is not an excuse for committing evil acts.

    Ptooey. Spare us your simple-minded Sunday school moralizing. Ask a Korean what he thinks. He’ll want to know why we didn’t nuke ‘em twenty times.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dahoit
    Ah,Jesus was a simple minded moralizer.sheesh indeed.
    And who the hell cares one iota what Koreans think about Japan,as GW was right on in saying beware of alliances with historical enemies whose hatred for each other belies reason and solution.
    And those crazy Israelis hate the world,as the world knows they are crazy,and a fount of lies,misinfo and disinfo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. @Anonymous
    {How did all this come about as the United States has almost no actual interests compelling getting involved in the Middle East or Eastern Europe yet again?}

    A big lie.

    Wake up and look at your Dark and bloody history. US was involved in neighboring countries in the continent of America, occupying and stealing half of Mexico through FALSE FALG OPERATION, killing people in Mexico, Cuba, Colombia, Brazil, Peru, El Salvador, Chile, Nicaragua and many more countries. Remember? It is only after WWII, that America is exerting power in the M.E because Britain was the dominant imperial power at that time and US would not DARE to interfere, not because American terrorists did not want, and the first thing they did toppling the democratic government of Mosaddeq, killing many in the process, remember? Don't you remember that America and Americans killed, at least, 4 millions innocent Vietnamese? Remember? millions were killed in Africa by US act of terrorism, remember? Millions in Korea, Somalia, Sudan,... I am sorry I have run out of INK......


    {a series of sickening atrocities by ISIS has gotten the juices flowing..}

    ISIS is US/Israel construct to be used in killing the population of Muslims and toppling the government. I don't like people pretending that know nothing after all these years, or trying to hide the hands of the REAL terrorists and war criminals, US, Israel, Britain. Stop it

    Whew. Switch to decaf, dude.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. @Priss Factor
    "And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don’t speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities."

    This is true. Japanese were nasty buggers in Asia.
    But most Americans didn't want war with Japan over Japan's actions in Asia. Most Americans didn't care. They wanted to stay out of the war. Their attitude was it's yellows killing yellows, so what's it got to do with us.

    American rage with Japan was entirely over Pearl Harbor, not Nanking, which was mostly ignored in the US media. Likewise, American media looked the other way when Stalin was killing millions of Ukrainians and when Mao was killing millions of Chinese. And besides, Americans had done their share of killing in the Philippines. (Besides, it was US and UK that had forced Japan to open up and modernize. And when Japan defeated China and gained a foothold in Asia in 1895, US and UK cheered it on. And when Japan started a war with Russia in 1904, US and UK sided, more or less, with Japan. And US and UK sold Japan iron and oil as it was taking over Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. So, the idea that US was outraged by Japanese cruelty in Asia is rather bogus. And besides, hadn't European imperialists conquered much of the world? Hadn't Anglos created America by 'genocide' of Indians? Hadn't Latin America been created by 'genocide' and slavery of native peoples? Hadn't Australia been founded by massive 'genocide' of Aborigines?)

    American feelings of revenge toward the Japanese was over Pearl Harbor. That's when Americans really wanted to smash Japan. And indeed, Japan had done something nasty and horrible.
    But then, suppose there had been no Rape of Nanking or other horrible stuff. Suppose Japan had never invaded any part of Asia but only attacked Pearl Harbor. I have no doubt in my mind that Americans would have felt justified in doing exactly what they did: killing millions and nuking entire cities. Japan's bad behavior in Asia simply became a useful excuse for the US to destroy that country. If there had been no Pearl Harbor, most Americans would never have cared a damn about what Japan did in China.
    After all, the Indonesian generals killed up to 1 million 'communist' insurgents in Indonesia in 1965, but US said and did nothing as they valued the rightwing generals as anti-communist allies. Soviets committed horrible atrocities before and during WWII, but Americans overlooked all that as the common enemy was the Nazis.
    After WWII, US did much to pressure Japan to come clean about its horrible war record. But when China turned communist, US suddenly went easy on Japanese war criminals, released most of them, and recruited them as loyal anti-communist allies. So much for American conscience. So, the idea that American violence against Japan was morally justified by Japan's behavior in Asia is so much BS. Look at US behavior today. It feigns moral outrage over Gaddafi's 'killing of his own people' but totally ignores the Zionist terror against the people of Gaza. During the Iran-Iraq War, US looked the other way when Hussein was gassing 100,000s of people to death. But after Iraq won the war, Hussein was suddenly the 'new Hitler' who had to be destroyed. Politics of moral outrage isn't real moral outrage. It's all just a cynical game.

    But the bigger point I was making is this: If what US did to Japan following Pearl Harbor was justified--firebombing of Tokyo, nuking two cities, the killing of one million civilians, etc--, then why do Americans condemn Palestinians for their vengeful rage against Jews whose violence against Palestine was many times more grievous than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

    After all, Japan didn't try to conquer any part of US, indeed not even Hawaii. Japan's message was 'stay out of OUR Asian sphere of influence'.
    In contrast, Zionist aggression against Palestinians was to totally dispossess the Palestinians of their ancestral lands. Palestinians lost everything and still live under occupation and oppression. And yet, Americans sit judgment on Palestinians?

    American moral logic:

    If a nation attacks our periphery, we have the moral right to kill millions of them; even drop nukes.

    But if another people are totally conquered and dispossessed of their homeland by Zionists, they better just take it and sue for peace on their knees.

    Huh?

    Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan. This blow to the Japanese economy made it more or less impossible to keep the Japanese war machine goiing for more than six or seven months and created a sense of crisis in Japan. Neither the embargo nor the Pearl Harbor attack would have happened if the Japanese weren’t engaged in unprovoked, brutal military attacks against its neighbors in the first place.

    And just in case you forgot, the United States focused on the European theater than the Pacific theater. Hitler was judged to be the greater threat. The idea that American barbarians stormed through the Pacific to Japan butchering everyone who stood in the way is the fantasy of a viciously bigoted mind.

    They had it coming. Your condescending sermonizing is ignorant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan."

    Most Americans didn't give a crap about China. If anything, Americans were greatly prejudiced against the Chinese. Anti-yellow sentiments were everywhere.
    It was NOT popular opinion that led to oil-and-iron embargo against Japan.
    Rather, American elites feared that Japan would become the great power in Asia and threaten European imperialists in the region.
    If Americans were so anti-imperialist, why were okay with French imperialism in Indochina, British imperialism in India, Malaysia, and Burma? With the Dutch in Indochina?

    The oil embargo was a geopolitical decision. Not a moral one.
    Most Americans weren't angry enough to pressure Washington to economically punish Japan.

    Besides, public opinion was always controlled by the elites. If the American public did grow more anti-Japanese, it was because US was secretly preparing for war as Roosevelt planned to provoke Japan into attacking the US so as to enter the war. The media elites and the government colluded in this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. And just in case you forgot, the United States focused on the European theater than the Pacific theater. Hitler was judged to be the greater threat.

    More to the point, Hitler offended the ‘right’ people hence got much more focus. And a lot of US servicemen were hung out to dry in the Pacific as a result.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @The Plutonium Kid
    Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan. This blow to the Japanese economy made it more or less impossible to keep the Japanese war machine goiing for more than six or seven months and created a sense of crisis in Japan. Neither the embargo nor the Pearl Harbor attack would have happened if the Japanese weren't engaged in unprovoked, brutal military attacks against its neighbors in the first place.

    And just in case you forgot, the United States focused on the European theater than the Pacific theater. Hitler was judged to be the greater threat. The idea that American barbarians stormed through the Pacific to Japan butchering everyone who stood in the way is the fantasy of a viciously bigoted mind.

    They had it coming. Your condescending sermonizing is ignorant.

    “Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan.”

    Most Americans didn’t give a crap about China. If anything, Americans were greatly prejudiced against the Chinese. Anti-yellow sentiments were everywhere.
    It was NOT popular opinion that led to oil-and-iron embargo against Japan.
    Rather, American elites feared that Japan would become the great power in Asia and threaten European imperialists in the region.
    If Americans were so anti-imperialist, why were okay with French imperialism in Indochina, British imperialism in India, Malaysia, and Burma? With the Dutch in Indochina?

    The oil embargo was a geopolitical decision. Not a moral one.
    Most Americans weren’t angry enough to pressure Washington to economically punish Japan.

    Besides, public opinion was always controlled by the elites. If the American public did grow more anti-Japanese, it was because US was secretly preparing for war as Roosevelt planned to provoke Japan into attacking the US so as to enter the war. The media elites and the government colluded in this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Plutonium Kid
    Say what you please, the Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities did much to turn American public opinion against the Japanese. The Pacific war was due entirely to the Japanese militarists, whom the United States most definitely did not place in power. French, Dutch and British imperialism in Indochina is an irrelevancy, and you are flailing about wildly trying to make a case that the United States was somehow morally in the wrong.

    You are a bigot, sir. It is pointless to discuss this, as you (and other posters here) have already decided that the United States is the source of all evil in the modern world, and you sound like a Nazi raving about Jews.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @Priss Factor
    "And Japan wanted to neutralize the American fleet because they wanted to conquer huge swathes of Asia and the Pacific. Don’t speak of Hiroshima unless you are prepared to discuss the Rape of Nanking, the Bataan death march, the chemical-biological warfare experiments conducted on Chinese civilians and Allied prisoners of war, and other associated Japanese atrocities."

    This is true. Japanese were nasty buggers in Asia.
    But most Americans didn't want war with Japan over Japan's actions in Asia. Most Americans didn't care. They wanted to stay out of the war. Their attitude was it's yellows killing yellows, so what's it got to do with us.

    American rage with Japan was entirely over Pearl Harbor, not Nanking, which was mostly ignored in the US media. Likewise, American media looked the other way when Stalin was killing millions of Ukrainians and when Mao was killing millions of Chinese. And besides, Americans had done their share of killing in the Philippines. (Besides, it was US and UK that had forced Japan to open up and modernize. And when Japan defeated China and gained a foothold in Asia in 1895, US and UK cheered it on. And when Japan started a war with Russia in 1904, US and UK sided, more or less, with Japan. And US and UK sold Japan iron and oil as it was taking over Korea, Manchuria, and Taiwan. So, the idea that US was outraged by Japanese cruelty in Asia is rather bogus. And besides, hadn't European imperialists conquered much of the world? Hadn't Anglos created America by 'genocide' of Indians? Hadn't Latin America been created by 'genocide' and slavery of native peoples? Hadn't Australia been founded by massive 'genocide' of Aborigines?)

    American feelings of revenge toward the Japanese was over Pearl Harbor. That's when Americans really wanted to smash Japan. And indeed, Japan had done something nasty and horrible.
    But then, suppose there had been no Rape of Nanking or other horrible stuff. Suppose Japan had never invaded any part of Asia but only attacked Pearl Harbor. I have no doubt in my mind that Americans would have felt justified in doing exactly what they did: killing millions and nuking entire cities. Japan's bad behavior in Asia simply became a useful excuse for the US to destroy that country. If there had been no Pearl Harbor, most Americans would never have cared a damn about what Japan did in China.
    After all, the Indonesian generals killed up to 1 million 'communist' insurgents in Indonesia in 1965, but US said and did nothing as they valued the rightwing generals as anti-communist allies. Soviets committed horrible atrocities before and during WWII, but Americans overlooked all that as the common enemy was the Nazis.
    After WWII, US did much to pressure Japan to come clean about its horrible war record. But when China turned communist, US suddenly went easy on Japanese war criminals, released most of them, and recruited them as loyal anti-communist allies. So much for American conscience. So, the idea that American violence against Japan was morally justified by Japan's behavior in Asia is so much BS. Look at US behavior today. It feigns moral outrage over Gaddafi's 'killing of his own people' but totally ignores the Zionist terror against the people of Gaza. During the Iran-Iraq War, US looked the other way when Hussein was gassing 100,000s of people to death. But after Iraq won the war, Hussein was suddenly the 'new Hitler' who had to be destroyed. Politics of moral outrage isn't real moral outrage. It's all just a cynical game.

    But the bigger point I was making is this: If what US did to Japan following Pearl Harbor was justified--firebombing of Tokyo, nuking two cities, the killing of one million civilians, etc--, then why do Americans condemn Palestinians for their vengeful rage against Jews whose violence against Palestine was many times more grievous than Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor?

    After all, Japan didn't try to conquer any part of US, indeed not even Hawaii. Japan's message was 'stay out of OUR Asian sphere of influence'.
    In contrast, Zionist aggression against Palestinians was to totally dispossess the Palestinians of their ancestral lands. Palestinians lost everything and still live under occupation and oppression. And yet, Americans sit judgment on Palestinians?

    American moral logic:

    If a nation attacks our periphery, we have the moral right to kill millions of them; even drop nukes.

    But if another people are totally conquered and dispossessed of their homeland by Zionists, they better just take it and sue for peace on their knees.

    Huh?

    In his book “Imperial Cruise”, James Bradley provides the reader with plenty of long-forgotten documentation on how the US, for entirely selfish purposes, encouraged and assisted an isolated, feudalistic Japanese nation into emerging into a major military threat to both China and Russia. As in virtually every other war in which the US has become involved, it had only itself to blame for Japan becoming an economic and military threat over which it had lost control.

    http://www.amazon.com/Imperial-Cruise-Secret-History-Empire/dp/B007MXCB6Y/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425490236&sr=1-1&keywords=the+imperial+cruise+by+james+bradley

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:

    “In his book “Imperial Cruise”, James Bradley provides the reader with plenty of long-forgotten documentation on how the US, for entirely selfish purposes, encouraged and assisted an isolated, feudalistic Japanese nation into emerging into a major military threat to both China and Russia. As in virtually every other war in which the US has become involved, it had only itself to blame for Japan becoming an economic and military threat over which it had lost control.”

    I haven’t read the book, but it sounds a bit too hyperbolic. All politicians are trapped in their time, and what seemed right at the moment may lead to problems down the line. (No way Reagan could have foreseen 9/11 when he aided the Mujahadeen in the 1980s. No way the Russian Tsar could have foreseen the Bolshevik Revolution on the eve of WWI. And no way the Allies could have foreseen that the Versailles Treaty would lead to the rise of Hitler. On the other hand, FDR could and should have foreseen the LOSS of China when he invited Stalin to enter the Asian sphere.) So, I wouldn’t be too harsh on Teddy Roosevelt who was a great president.

    But it is true enough that US and UK didn’t oppose but even encouraged Japanese imperialism at the outset.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. pshr says:
    @unit472
    While I think it reasonable to assume Iran is seeking to build a nuclear arsenal, whatever people may think they know of its atomic facilities, because they are also working on long range missile delivery systems and they are enduring heavy sanctions and political grief to avoid being completely open about what they are doing with those atomic facilities. In Johnny Cochran logic, the glove fits. That said, an Iranian nuclear bomb is not the ultimate nightmare. Pakistan isn't exactly the most stable country in the world and we've accommodated ourselves to their having a substantial nuclear arsenal and if we can tolerate North Korea being in possession of atomic bombs and missile delivery systems that can already hit everything in South Korea and Japan how can an Iranian capability be more destabilizing than that? Not a month goes by without North Korea threatening to incinerate someone in an atomic fireball.

    The ISIS thing is even more baffling. Their main battlefield enemies are Iran's Shia satrapies in the region and its proxy army in Lebanon. OK they are blood thirsty maniacs but if that is the reason we must fight then we have Los Zetas and other Mexican narco gangs just across our Southern border that are every bit as blood thirsty and brutal as ISIS to include decapitating and burning people alive. They just don't post videos to YouTube of their victims who, international observers say number over 60,000!

    Commonsense would suggest that if ISIS is a threat requiring outside intervention by a major power it should be Russia helping Iran ( if Iran really needs any help) and the US more concerned about Mexican drug gangs bringing their war into the US rather than ISIS. In fact, ISIS is a perfect sump into which radical Muslims in the West can drain.

    Just like people like you drain into that evil gutter called israel?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. AG says:

    History present to public is only for purpose of proganda. Common folk need not to know the truth.

    My families were personal friends of Chinese president Chiang Kai-shek and also had Japanese officers friends during ww 2. Here is my family version of sino-japan war story. Japan’s wars with China was very complicated history. I will leave out those before ww 2 to simplify comment here.

    Japanese military invasion of China was product of meddling chaotic relationship between Chinese warlords after fall of Qing dynasty. As dominant force, President Chiang tried to use warlords to fight Red Army as “one stone kills two birds’ strategy. He deliberately kept communist red army survived and forced them into long march into different provinces which were controled by different warlords. Use th process to weaken warlords and eventually most warlords became powerless with all troops consumed. President Chiang were very successful with this strategy all the way to end of ww2.

    When Japanese military relation with warlord in Manchuria deteriated, military action triggered wholesale retreat of this warlord from Manchuria without fight. The warlord did not think it was fair to have his local force against a whole nation of Japan. He felt whole China should back him up. Later this manchurian warlord was ordered by Chiang to fight Red army. The warlord was fully aware the intention of President Chiang to have Red Army to consume his troops. He knew this was bad deal with Chiang. So he created “Xi-An” incident in order to force Chiang to help him recover Manchuria. To save his life, Chiang was forced to agree to fight Japan without unification of China.

    This very loosely united Chinese warlords with Chiang started fighting Japan half-heartly. Chiang now tried to use Japanese military in stead of Red Army to consume these warlords. But warlords were aware of this. They did not fight hard. Some still ran away without fight. Meanhwile they all either exaggerated their own troop size and loss in order to get financial support from Chiang’s central govement.

    Meanwhile the Japanese officer friends also knew the easy victories due to such messy relationship among Chinese warlords. One Janese officer always wrote letter to my family on every city he entered until Nanking. When my family asked what happened to him, other officers confirmed his death at battle of Nanking against Chiang troops imposing heavy loss on Japanese army. When Japanese army entered Nanking, the surronded Chiang troops mysteriously disappeared in Nanking. Quickly they figured out what happened. Chinese soldiers throwed away their uniform and weapons. They were all put on civilian clothes. Japanese rounded up a lot of people in civilian clothes. Now Japanese really had hard time to differentiated who were the soldiers or civilians. Well, large scale of slaughter was the result. They considered soldiers in civilian cloth were not POWs. I would not passing judgment right or wrong here. Just as it is.

    During entire ww 2, Chiang successfully used Japanese force to consume all warlords forces except communist force at frontline. By the end of ww 2, all wardlords became powerless except communist. Only nationalist Chiang and Communist Mao to fight for the final power control after ww2.

    Afer USA entered the war, Chiang basically stoped fighting and let USA to do the job defeating Japan. Meanwhile Chiang knew he would get more aids from USA if he looked like in crisis and losing. There were more reported loss during this time. The irony is that both nationalist army and communist army actually increased in size despite their reported ‘heavy loss’ during the war. They all prepared to fight each other after Japanese gone. General Joseph Stilwell was very mad at Chiang due to this very reason.

    Even during Burma campaign, Chiang adviced his troops trying to preserve force. Unfortunately British collapsed too fast. General Stilwell was able to take true control of Chinese troops afterward. The same Chinese troops under Stilwell was able to defeat the same Japanese force in Burma in the later invasion. According to Stilwell, the death ratio 1:2 for Chinese:Japanese during the fight. Truth or Stilwell exageration? We dont know. But certainly Stilwell really had no nice words for British force in Burma campaign.

    At civilian level, Japanese troops actually have the best displine. Lots of people have Japanese friends. On the other hand, people under Chinese troops controled area never lost their faith in their victory over Japan. How? When you only told your people good stories, they would believe it. They never ran out of young men with confidence and joined the army.

    History for public is always propoganda. I am just politically incorrect here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    "At civilian level, Japanese troops actually have the best displine. Lots of people have Japanese friends. On the other hand, people under Chinese troops controled area never lost their faith in their victory over Japan. How? When you only told your people good stories, they would believe it. They never ran out of young men with confidence and joined the army."

    You right, you wrong, I not know, but that good story and fun read too. If more story to tell you got, tell more and give us long fun time reading.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Priss Factor [AKA "K. Arujo"] says:
    @AG
    History present to public is only for purpose of proganda. Common folk need not to know the truth.

    My families were personal friends of Chinese president Chiang Kai-shek and also had Japanese officers friends during ww 2. Here is my family version of sino-japan war story. Japan's wars with China was very complicated history. I will leave out those before ww 2 to simplify comment here.

    Japanese military invasion of China was product of meddling chaotic relationship between Chinese warlords after fall of Qing dynasty. As dominant force, President Chiang tried to use warlords to fight Red Army as "one stone kills two birds' strategy. He deliberately kept communist red army survived and forced them into long march into different provinces which were controled by different warlords. Use th process to weaken warlords and eventually most warlords became powerless with all troops consumed. President Chiang were very successful with this strategy all the way to end of ww2.

    When Japanese military relation with warlord in Manchuria deteriated, military action triggered wholesale retreat of this warlord from Manchuria without fight. The warlord did not think it was fair to have his local force against a whole nation of Japan. He felt whole China should back him up. Later this manchurian warlord was ordered by Chiang to fight Red army. The warlord was fully aware the intention of President Chiang to have Red Army to consume his troops. He knew this was bad deal with Chiang. So he created "Xi-An" incident in order to force Chiang to help him recover Manchuria. To save his life, Chiang was forced to agree to fight Japan without unification of China.

    This very loosely united Chinese warlords with Chiang started fighting Japan half-heartly. Chiang now tried to use Japanese military in stead of Red Army to consume these warlords. But warlords were aware of this. They did not fight hard. Some still ran away without fight. Meanhwile they all either exaggerated their own troop size and loss in order to get financial support from Chiang's central govement.

    Meanwhile the Japanese officer friends also knew the easy victories due to such messy relationship among Chinese warlords. One Janese officer always wrote letter to my family on every city he entered until Nanking. When my family asked what happened to him, other officers confirmed his death at battle of Nanking against Chiang troops imposing heavy loss on Japanese army. When Japanese army entered Nanking, the surronded Chiang troops mysteriously disappeared in Nanking. Quickly they figured out what happened. Chinese soldiers throwed away their uniform and weapons. They were all put on civilian clothes. Japanese rounded up a lot of people in civilian clothes. Now Japanese really had hard time to differentiated who were the soldiers or civilians. Well, large scale of slaughter was the result. They considered soldiers in civilian cloth were not POWs. I would not passing judgment right or wrong here. Just as it is.

    During entire ww 2, Chiang successfully used Japanese force to consume all warlords forces except communist force at frontline. By the end of ww 2, all wardlords became powerless except communist. Only nationalist Chiang and Communist Mao to fight for the final power control after ww2.

    Afer USA entered the war, Chiang basically stoped fighting and let USA to do the job defeating Japan. Meanwhile Chiang knew he would get more aids from USA if he looked like in crisis and losing. There were more reported loss during this time. The irony is that both nationalist army and communist army actually increased in size despite their reported 'heavy loss' during the war. They all prepared to fight each other after Japanese gone. General Joseph Stilwell was very mad at Chiang due to this very reason.

    Even during Burma campaign, Chiang adviced his troops trying to preserve force. Unfortunately British collapsed too fast. General Stilwell was able to take true control of Chinese troops afterward. The same Chinese troops under Stilwell was able to defeat the same Japanese force in Burma in the later invasion. According to Stilwell, the death ratio 1:2 for Chinese:Japanese during the fight. Truth or Stilwell exageration? We dont know. But certainly Stilwell really had no nice words for British force in Burma campaign.

    At civilian level, Japanese troops actually have the best displine. Lots of people have Japanese friends. On the other hand, people under Chinese troops controled area never lost their faith in their victory over Japan. How? When you only told your people good stories, they would believe it. They never ran out of young men with confidence and joined the army.

    History for public is always propoganda. I am just politically incorrect here.

    “At civilian level, Japanese troops actually have the best displine. Lots of people have Japanese friends. On the other hand, people under Chinese troops controled area never lost their faith in their victory over Japan. How? When you only told your people good stories, they would believe it. They never ran out of young men with confidence and joined the army.”

    You right, you wrong, I not know, but that good story and fun read too. If more story to tell you got, tell more and give us long fun time reading.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AG
    Thanks. This is my side of history. Every body spins their stories. Whether you choose to believe my version is your judgment.

    The reality was even more complicated than my presentation. All sides including warlords, communists, nationalists and Japanese militaries were constantly negotiating with each others during entire ww2. Chinese factors all accused of each other traitors or sellouts. Japanese even sometime provides weapons or food to its Chinese `enemy forces". Secret collaboration and betrayal were all fair games among forces involved. Most time Chinese forces actually busy fighting each others while Japanese looking on. There was never true unity in Chinese forces during ww2.

    Only modern equivalent situation is afghanistan situation there was no true lines between enemy or friends during soviet invasion time.

    Chineses forces never have problem negotiating with enemy during the fight. Fighting only happens when negotiations broke down.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. AG says:
    @Priss Factor
    "At civilian level, Japanese troops actually have the best displine. Lots of people have Japanese friends. On the other hand, people under Chinese troops controled area never lost their faith in their victory over Japan. How? When you only told your people good stories, they would believe it. They never ran out of young men with confidence and joined the army."

    You right, you wrong, I not know, but that good story and fun read too. If more story to tell you got, tell more and give us long fun time reading.

    Thanks. This is my side of history. Every body spins their stories. Whether you choose to believe my version is your judgment.

    The reality was even more complicated than my presentation. All sides including warlords, communists, nationalists and Japanese militaries were constantly negotiating with each others during entire ww2. Chinese factors all accused of each other traitors or sellouts. Japanese even sometime provides weapons or food to its Chinese `enemy forces”. Secret collaboration and betrayal were all fair games among forces involved. Most time Chinese forces actually busy fighting each others while Japanese looking on. There was never true unity in Chinese forces during ww2.

    Only modern equivalent situation is afghanistan situation there was no true lines between enemy or friends during soviet invasion time.

    Chineses forces never have problem negotiating with enemy during the fight. Fighting only happens when negotiations broke down.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Congratulation on unique no spin approach to troll ing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. @Priss Factor
    "Americans were very angry about Japanese atrocities in China well before Pearl Harbor. That anger was the main reason the United States cut off sales of scrap metal and oil to Japan."

    Most Americans didn't give a crap about China. If anything, Americans were greatly prejudiced against the Chinese. Anti-yellow sentiments were everywhere.
    It was NOT popular opinion that led to oil-and-iron embargo against Japan.
    Rather, American elites feared that Japan would become the great power in Asia and threaten European imperialists in the region.
    If Americans were so anti-imperialist, why were okay with French imperialism in Indochina, British imperialism in India, Malaysia, and Burma? With the Dutch in Indochina?

    The oil embargo was a geopolitical decision. Not a moral one.
    Most Americans weren't angry enough to pressure Washington to economically punish Japan.

    Besides, public opinion was always controlled by the elites. If the American public did grow more anti-Japanese, it was because US was secretly preparing for war as Roosevelt planned to provoke Japan into attacking the US so as to enter the war. The media elites and the government colluded in this.

    Say what you please, the Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities did much to turn American public opinion against the Japanese. The Pacific war was due entirely to the Japanese militarists, whom the United States most definitely did not place in power. French, Dutch and British imperialism in Indochina is an irrelevancy, and you are flailing about wildly trying to make a case that the United States was somehow morally in the wrong.

    You are a bigot, sir. It is pointless to discuss this, as you (and other posters here) have already decided that the United States is the source of all evil in the modern world, and you sound like a Nazi raving about Jews.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dahoit
    The Nazi Zionists do rave about peaceful people every day,and their actions make Adolf almost a choirboy,ha ha ha.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @AG
    Thanks. This is my side of history. Every body spins their stories. Whether you choose to believe my version is your judgment.

    The reality was even more complicated than my presentation. All sides including warlords, communists, nationalists and Japanese militaries were constantly negotiating with each others during entire ww2. Chinese factors all accused of each other traitors or sellouts. Japanese even sometime provides weapons or food to its Chinese `enemy forces". Secret collaboration and betrayal were all fair games among forces involved. Most time Chinese forces actually busy fighting each others while Japanese looking on. There was never true unity in Chinese forces during ww2.

    Only modern equivalent situation is afghanistan situation there was no true lines between enemy or friends during soviet invasion time.

    Chineses forces never have problem negotiating with enemy during the fight. Fighting only happens when negotiations broke down.

    Congratulation on unique no spin approach to troll ing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. annamaria says:
    @unit472
    Anyplace else you want to include in your world tour of American perfidy. Sheesh what a bloviating, tendentious bore you are.

    Your posts, unit472, reflect on either
    1. your laziness, i.e., you do not make any efforts to read about facts on the ground as these facts are presented in alternative media or
    2. that you attempt, quite consciously, to spread disinformation

    Here is, for example, the fact-supported information on Israelis’ support for ISIS.
    “A report submitted to the United Nations Security Council by UN observers in the Golan Heights over the past 18 months shows that Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) have been in regular contact with Syrian rebels, including Islamic State (ISIS) militants.”

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/un-report-israel-supports-syrian-al-qaeda-rebels-including-the-islamic-state-isis/5429363

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. USA intervention once again in the mid-east insanity will not end the violence. Muslims are having a very good time beheading fellow Muslims, kidnapping their kids and raping their women. Of course, most of it is tribal based, and who in their right mind could pick the eventual winner. Of course, with the spread of Islamic terrorism around the world and even In the USA, a better course of action might be to prepare for such terrorism in our own hemisphere. Apply that old Monroe Doctrine “America for the Americas” Europe, Russia, Africa, India and China are more likely to be confronted by the Islamic Jihad on their homefronts than the USA, so let them deal with it.

    When the USA stops being the “world’s policeman” these countries will rework their treaties and their militaries to deal with Islamic terrorism on their home soils. We would be happy to sell them the defensive weaponry.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. @Simon in London
    Iran certainly would like to eliminate Israel if that could be done safely, preferably through a 'one state solution'/'right of return' where Palestinian Arabs return and out-vote the Jewish minority., presumably with most Jews leaving in turn.
    However Iran has no desire to engage in nuclear war with Israel.

    OH! Seems, I remember, some small pip-squeak Iranian leader denying the Holocaust and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth! I believe that he believed that Iran would do it! That was certainly a friendly gesture that Israel should have welcomed as a peace offering. Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders. Most likely they are filled with harmless flowers. The average Israeli citizen has nothing to fear from the “peaceful” Iranians or the Hamas. Yeh! That’s right!

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous

    Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders.
     
    Dissecting IDF propaganda: The numbers behind the rocket attacks
    Israel/Palestine Phan Nguyen on November 17, 2012

    Executive summary:


    "Throughout the years of rocket attacks into Israel [2004 - 2012], a total of 26 people have been killed altogether. "
     
    commentary:

    "If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.

    If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.

    Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.

    As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.

    But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents."
     

    re the holocaust denial charge: So what? Most of the rational world knows that the dogmatized holocaust narrative is a lie.

    Incidentally, one does not "deny" a lie; one calls the liar to account, and requires that at very least he publicly allocute. Let's break out of the 'holocaust denial' frame, shall we?

    You do know you and other holocaust believers are being laughed at, don't you, Eterbak V? Doesn't that make you feel a bit foolish?

    , @Simon in London
    Iran has no desire to engage in nuclear war with Israel, even if Iran had any nukes, because Iran would be destroyed. Humanitarian reasons are not a major issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Eternal Vigilance
    OH! Seems, I remember, some small pip-squeak Iranian leader denying the Holocaust and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth! I believe that he believed that Iran would do it! That was certainly a friendly gesture that Israel should have welcomed as a peace offering. Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders. Most likely they are filled with harmless flowers. The average Israeli citizen has nothing to fear from the "peaceful" Iranians or the Hamas. Yeh! That's right!

    Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders.

    Dissecting IDF propaganda: The numbers behind the rocket attacks
    Israel/Palestine Phan Nguyen on November 17, 2012

    Executive summary:

    “Throughout the years of rocket attacks into Israel [2004 - 2012], a total of 26 people have been killed altogether. “

    commentary:

    “If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.

    If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.

    Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.

    As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.

    But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents.

    re the holocaust denial charge: So what? Most of the rational world knows that the dogmatized holocaust narrative is a lie.

    Incidentally, one does not “deny” a lie; one calls the liar to account, and requires that at very least he publicly allocute. Let’s break out of the ‘holocaust denial’ frame, shall we?

    You do know you and other holocaust believers are being laughed at, don’t you, Eterbak V? Doesn’t that make you feel a bit foolish?

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous
    correction: should read

    "“Throughout the years of rocket attacks into Israel [2000 - 2012], a total of 26 people have been killed altogether. “
     
    25% of those deaths took place during Israeli military assaults on Gaza -- Operation Cast Lead '08 - '09 and Operation Pillar of Cloud 2012.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @anonymous

    Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders.
     
    Dissecting IDF propaganda: The numbers behind the rocket attacks
    Israel/Palestine Phan Nguyen on November 17, 2012

    Executive summary:


    "Throughout the years of rocket attacks into Israel [2004 - 2012], a total of 26 people have been killed altogether. "
     
    commentary:

    "If we borrow the IDF’s claim that more than 12,000 rockets have been fired into Israel in the last twelve years (which I dispute later), we get a kill rate of less than 0.217%. Thus in order to secure a single kill, we should expect to fire about 500 rockets. However, if the goal is to specifically kill Jews rather than foreign workers and Palestinian laborers, then it gets harder. Only 21 Jews have been killed by this method, bringing the kill rate down to 0.175%.

    If this sounds disturbing or even anti-Semitic, note that I am just testing the argument of the current Israeli ambassador Michael Oren, who, during Operation Cast Lead, co-wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal claiming that the Gaza rockets and mortars were “more than a crude attempt to kill and terrorize civilians—they were expressions of a genocidal intent.

    Yet the statistics demonstrate that it is much less than a “crude attempt to kill.” One can imagine easier ways to kill a random person than to manufacture and fire 500+ homemade rockets.

    As for genocide, at the going kill rate, it would require 4,477,714,286 rockets and mortars, and 4,477,714 years to kill all the Jews in Israel. This is assuming that Israel’s Jewish population does not increase. And of course we would need to factor in the limited range of the projectiles, which would require Israel’s non-growing Jewish population to all congregate in the western Negev by the year 4479726 CE, give or take a few years.

    But by then, all of Israel’s Jewish population will have already been exterminated by the country’s other violent killer, automotive accidents."
     

    re the holocaust denial charge: So what? Most of the rational world knows that the dogmatized holocaust narrative is a lie.

    Incidentally, one does not "deny" a lie; one calls the liar to account, and requires that at very least he publicly allocute. Let's break out of the 'holocaust denial' frame, shall we?

    You do know you and other holocaust believers are being laughed at, don't you, Eterbak V? Doesn't that make you feel a bit foolish?

    correction: should read

    ““Throughout the years of rocket attacks into Israel [2000 - 2012], a total of 26 people have been killed altogether. “

    25% of those deaths took place during Israeli military assaults on Gaza — Operation Cast Lead ’08 – ’09 and Operation Pillar of Cloud 2012.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  55. @Eternal Vigilance
    OH! Seems, I remember, some small pip-squeak Iranian leader denying the Holocaust and threatening to wipe Israel off the face of the earth! I believe that he believed that Iran would do it! That was certainly a friendly gesture that Israel should have welcomed as a peace offering. Then there are the daily missiles flying across Israeli borders. Most likely they are filled with harmless flowers. The average Israeli citizen has nothing to fear from the "peaceful" Iranians or the Hamas. Yeh! That's right!

    Iran has no desire to engage in nuclear war with Israel, even if Iran had any nukes, because Iran would be destroyed. Humanitarian reasons are not a major issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. dahoit says:
    @The Plutonium Kid
    Ptooey. Spare us your simple-minded Sunday school moralizing. Ask a Korean what he thinks. He'll want to know why we didn't nuke 'em twenty times.

    Ah,Jesus was a simple minded moralizer.sheesh indeed.
    And who the hell cares one iota what Koreans think about Japan,as GW was right on in saying beware of alliances with historical enemies whose hatred for each other belies reason and solution.
    And those crazy Israelis hate the world,as the world knows they are crazy,and a fount of lies,misinfo and disinfo.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. dahoit says:
    @The Plutonium Kid
    Say what you please, the Rape of Nanking and other Japanese atrocities did much to turn American public opinion against the Japanese. The Pacific war was due entirely to the Japanese militarists, whom the United States most definitely did not place in power. French, Dutch and British imperialism in Indochina is an irrelevancy, and you are flailing about wildly trying to make a case that the United States was somehow morally in the wrong.

    You are a bigot, sir. It is pointless to discuss this, as you (and other posters here) have already decided that the United States is the source of all evil in the modern world, and you sound like a Nazi raving about Jews.

    The Nazi Zionists do rave about peaceful people every day,and their actions make Adolf almost a choirboy,ha ha ha.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. dahoit says:
    @Blobby5
    Hopefully a new video will emerge showing congress jumping to their feet during Nutenyahoo's speech, looked like that Saddam speech before he started escorting out the 'traitors'.

    Heil Yahoo!
    Never in human history have so few led so many towards a cliff of no return.
    Psychos.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.