The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Danny Sjursen Archive
Worth Dying for?
When It Comes to the War in the Greater Middle East, Maybe We’re the Bad Guys
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_711453589

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

I used to command soldiers. Over the years, lots of them actually. In Iraq, Colorado, Afghanistan, and Kansas. And I’m still fixated on a few of them like this one private first class (PFC) in Kandahar, Afghanistan, in 2011. All of 18, he was short, scrawny, and popular. Nine months after graduating from high school, he’d found himself chasing the Taliban with the rest of our gang. At five foot nothing, I once saw him step into an irrigation canal and disappear from sight — all but the two-foot antenna on his radio. In my daydreams, I always see the same scene, the moment his filthy, grizzled baby face reappeared above that ditch, a cigarette still dangling loosely from his lips. His name was Anderson and I can remember thinking at that moment: What will I tell his mother if he gets killed out here?

And then… poof… it’s 2017 again and I’m here in Kansas, pushing papers at Fort Leavenworth, those days in the field long gone. Anderson himself survived his tour of duty in Afghanistan, though I’ve no idea where he is today. A better commander might. Several of his buddies were less fortunate. They died, or found themselves short a limb or two, or emotionally and morally scarred for life.

From time to time I can’t help thinking of Anderson, and others like him, alive and dead. In fact, I wear two bracelets on my wrist engraved with the names of the young men who died under my command in Afghanistan and Iraq, six names in all. When I find a moment, I need to add another. It wasn’t too long ago that one of my soldiers took his own life. Sometimes the war doesn’t kill you until years later.

And of this much I’m certain: the moment our nation puts any PFC Anderson in harm’s way, thousands of miles and light years from Kansas, there had better be a damn good reason for it, a vital, tangible national interest at stake. At the very least, this country better be on the right side in the conflicts we’re fighting.

The Wrong Side

It’s long been an article of faith here: the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the planet’s “indispensable nation.” But what if we’re wrong? After all, as far as I can tell, the view from the Arab or African “street” tells a different story altogether. Americans tend to loathe the judgments of foreigners, but sober strategy demands that once in a while we walk the proverbial mile in the global shoes of others. After all, almost 16 years into the war on terror it should be apparent that something isn’t working. Perhaps it’s time to ask whether the United States is really playing the role of the positive protagonist in a great global drama.

I know what you’re thinking: ISIS, the Islamic State, is a truly awful outfit. And so it is and the U.S. is indeed combatting it, though various allies and even adversaries (think: Iran) are doing most of the fighting. Still, with the broader war for the Greater Middle East in mind, wouldn’t it be appropriate to stop for a moment and ask: Just whose side is America really on?

Certainly, it’s not the side of the average Arab. That should be apparent. Take a good, hard look at the region and it’s obvious that Washington mainly supports the interests of Israel, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Egypt’s military dictator, and various Gulf State autocracies. Or consider the actions and statements of the Trump administration and of the two administrations that preceded it and here’s what seems obvious: the United States is in many ways little more than an air force, military trainer, and weapons depot for assorted Sunni despots. Now, that’s not a point made too often — not in this context anyway — because it’s neither a comfortable thought for most Americans, nor a particularly convenient reality for establishment policymakers to broadcast, but it’s the truth.

Yes, we do fight ISIS, but it’s hardly that simple. Saudi Arabia, our main regional ally, may portray itself as the leader of a “moderate Sunni block” when it comes to both Iran and terrorism, but the reality is, at best, far grayer than that. The Saudis — with whom President Trump announced a $110 billion arms deal during the first stop on his inaugural foreign trip back in May — have spent the last few decades spreading their intolerant brand of Islam across the region. In the process, they’ve also supported al-Qaeda-linked groups in Syria.

Maybe you’re willing to argue that al-Qaeda spin-offs aren’t ISIS, but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York. While President Trump enjoyed a traditional sword dance with his Saudi hosts — no doubt gratifying his martial tastes — the air forces of the Saudis and their Gulf state allies were bombing and missiling Yemeni civilians into the grimmest of situations, including a massive famine and a spreading cholera epidemic amid the ruins of their impoverished country. So much for the disastrous two-year Saudi war there, which goes by the grimly ironic moniker of Operation Restoring Hope and for which the U.S. military provides midair refueling and advanced munitions, as well as intelligence.

If you’re a human rights enthusiast, it’s also worth asking just what kind of states we’re working with here. In Saudi Arabia, women can’t drive automobiles, “sorcery” is a capital offense, and people are beheaded in public. Hooray for American values! And newsflash: Iran’s leaders — whom the Trump administration and its generals are obsessed with demonizing — may be no angels, but the Islamic republic they preside over is a far more democratic country than Saudi Arabia’s absolute monarchy. Imagine Louis XIV in a kufiyah and you’ve just about nailed the nature of Saudi rule.

After Israel, Egypt is the number two recipient of direct U.S. military aid, to the tune of $1.3 billion annually. And that bedrock of liberal values is led by U.S.-trained General Abdul el-Sisi, a strongman who seized power in a coup and then, just for good measure, had his army gun down a crowd demonstrating in favor of the deposed democratically elected president. And how did the American beacon of hope respond? Well, Sisi’s still in power; the Egyptian military is once again receiving aid from the Pentagon; and, in April, President Trump paraded the general around the White House, assuring reporters, “in case there was any doubt, that we are very much behind President el-Sisi… he’s done a fantastic job!”

In Syria and Iraq, the U.S. military is fighting a loathsome adversary in ISIS, but even so, the situation is far more complicated than usually imagined here. As a start, the U.S. air offensive to support allied Syrian and Kurdish rebels fighting to take ISIS’s “capital,” Raqqa — grimly titled Operation Wrath of the Euphrates — killed more civilians this past May and June than the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad. In addition, America’s brutal air campaign appears unhinged from any coherent long-term strategy. No one in charge seems to have the faintest clue what exactly will follow ISIS’s rule in eastern Syria. A Kurdish mini-state? A three-way civil war between Kurds, Sunni tribes, and Assad’s forces (with Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s increasingly autocratic Turkey as the wild card in the situation)? Which begs the question: Are American bombs actually helping?

Similarly, in Iraq it’s not clear that the future rule of Shia-dominated militia groups and others in the rubble left by the last years of grim battle in areas ISIS previously controlled will actually prove measurably superior to the nightmare that preceded them. The present Shia-dominated government might even slip back into the sectarian chauvinism that helped empower ISIS in the first place. That way, the U.S. can fight its fourth war in Iraq since 1991!

And keep in mind that the war for the Greater Middle East — and I fought in it myself both in Iraq and Afghanistan — is just the latest venture in the depressing annals of Washington’s geo-strategic thinking since President Ronald Reagan’s administration, along with the Saudis and Pakistanis, armed, funded, and supported extreme fundamentalist Afghan mujahedeen rebels in a Cold War struggle with the Soviet Union that eventually led to the 9/11 attacks. His administration also threw money, guns, and training — sometimes illegally — at the brutal Nicaraguan Contras in another Cold War covert conflict in which about 100,000 civilians died.

In those years, the United States also stood by apartheid South Africa — long after the rest of the world shunned that racist state — not even removing Nelson Mandela’s name from its terrorist watch list until 2008! And don’t forget Washington’s support for Jonas Savimbi’s National Movement for the Total Independence of Angola that would contribute to the death of some 500,000 Angolans. And that’s just to begin a list that would roll on and on.

That, of course, is the relatively distant past, but the history of U.S. military action in the twenty-first century suggests that Washington seems destined to repeat the process of choosing the wrong, or one of the wrong, sides into the foreseeable future. Today’s Middle East is but a single exhibit in a prolonged tour of hypocrisy.

Boundless Hypocrisy

Maybe it’s because most Americans just aren’t paying attention or maybe we’re a nation of true believers, but it’s clear that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is a beacon of hope for the planet. Never known for our collective self-awareness, we’re eternally aghast to discover that so many elsewhere find little but insincerity in the promise of U.S. foreign policy. “Why do they hate us,” Americans have asked, with evident disbelief, for much of this century. Here are just a few hints related to the Greater Middle East:

*Post-9/11, the United States unleashed chaos in the region, destabilized it in stunning ways, and via an invasion launched on false premises created the conditions for ISIS’s rise. (That terror group quite literally formed in an American prison in post-invasion Iraq.) Later, with failing or failed states dotting the region, the U.S. response to the worst refugee crisis since World War II has been to admit — to choose but a single devastated country — a paltry 18,000 Syrians since 2011. Canada took in three times that number last year; Sweden more than 50,000 in 2015 alone; and Turkey hosts three million displaced Syrians.

*Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds? As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach.

*Guantánamo — perhaps the single best Islamist recruiting tool on Earth — is still open. And, says President Trump, we’re “keeping it open… and we’re gonna load it up with some bad dudes, believe me, we’re gonna load it up.” On this, he’s likely to be a man of his word. A new executive order is expected soon, preparing the way for an expansion of that prison’s population, while the Pentagon is already planning to put almost half a billion dollars into the construction of new facilities there in the coming years. No matter how upset the world gets at any of this, no matter how ISIS and other terror groups use it for their brand of advertising, no American officials will be held to account, because the United States is not a signatory to the International Criminal Court. Hypocritical? Nope, just utterly all-American.

*And speaking of prisons, thanks to nearly unqualified — sometimes almost irrational — U.S. support for Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank increasingly resemble walled off penal complexes. You almost have to admire President Trump for not even pretending to play the honest broker in the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He typically told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “One state, two state… I like whichever you like.” The safe money says Netanyahu will choose neither, opting instead to keep the Palestinians in political limbo without civil rights or a sovereign state, while Israel embarks on a settlement bonanza in the occupied territories. And speaking of American exceptionalism, we’re almost alone on the world stage when it comes to our support for the Israeli occupation.

The Cost

Given the nature of contemporary American war-fighting (far away and generally lightly covered by the media, which has an endless stream of Trump tweets to fawn over), it’s easy to forget that American troops are still dying in modest numbers in the Greater Middle East, in Syria, Iraq, Somalia, and — almost 16 years after the American invasion of that country — Afghanistan.

As for myself, from time to time (too often for comfort) I can’t help thinking of PFC Anderson and those I led who were so much less fortunate than him: Rios, Hensley, Clark, Hockenberry (a triple amputee), Fuller, Balsley, and Smith. Sometimes, when I can bear it, I even think about the war’s countless Afghan victims. And then I wish I could truly believe that we were indisputably the “good guys” in our unending wars across the Greater Middle East because that’s what we owed those soldiers.

And it pains me no less that Americans tend to blindly venerate the PFC Andersons of our world, to put them on such a pedestal (as the president did in his Afghan address to the nation recently), offering them eternal thanks, and so making them and their heroism the reason for fighting on, while most of the rest of us don’t waste a moment thinking about what (and whom) they’re truly fighting for.

If ever you have the urge to do just that, ask yourself the following question: Would I be able to confidently explain to someone’s mother what (besides his mates) her child actually died for?

What would you tell her? That he (or she) died to ensure Saudi hegemony in the Persian Gulf, or to facilitate the rise of ISIS, or an eternal Guantanamo, or the spread of terror groups, or the creation of yet more refugees for us to fear, or the further bombing of Yemen to ensure a famine of epic proportions?

Maybe you could do that, but I couldn’t and can’t. Not anymore, anyway. There have already been too many mothers, too many widows, for whom those explanations couldn’t be lamer. And so many dead — American, Afghan, Iraqi, and all the rest — that eventually I find myself sitting on a bar stool staring at the six names on those bracelets of mine, the wreckage of two wars reflecting back at me, knowing I’ll never be able to articulate a coherent explanation for their loved ones, should I ever have the courage to try.

Fear, guilt, embarrassment… my crosses to bear, as the war Anderson and I fought only expands further and undoubtedly more disastrously. My choices, my shame. No excuses.

Here’s the truth of it, if you just stop to think about America’s wars for a moment: it’s only going to get harder to look a widow or mother in the eye and justify them in the years to come. Maybe a good soldier doesn’t bother to worry about that… but I now know one thing at least: I’m not that.

Major Danny Sjursen, a TomDispatch regular, is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in Iraq and Afghanistan. He has written a memoir and critical analysis of the Iraq War, Ghost Riders of Baghdad: Soldiers, Civilians, and the Myth of the Surge. He lives with his wife and four sons in Lawrence, Kansas. Follow him on Twitter at @Skeptical_Vet.

[Note: The views expressed in this article are those of the author, expressed in an unofficial capacity, and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. government.]

(Republished from TomDispatch by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 222 CommentsLeave a Comment
222 Comments to "Worth Dying for?"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. “it’s clear that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is a beacon of hope for the planet” — Major Danny Sjursen

    This is the only statement in Sjursen’s article where I could possibly disagree. I suggest that it’s maybe more to the point that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is still our country.

    Or maybe not.

    And then what’s the point?

    I guess it’s what they say in French: Sauve-qui-peut! (“Escape if you can!”)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Joe Wong
    Most of Americans still believe that the American soldiers are indisputably the “good guys” who should be put on a pedestal for their heroism and unyielding patriotism; the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace the American soldiers have been committing is because they are misled by the unscrupulous politicians. The American soldiers are impeccable decent, they are not responsible for whatever they have been doing.

    This kind of red herring excuse for the war criminal American soldiers is exactly the root that allow the American politicians waging unending reckless and aimless wars across the Greater Middle East and elsewhere around the world on the boundless hypocrisy while the American soldiers carry out the crimes without moral burden.

    Unless the Americans make their soldiers understand that they are mercenary and the willing partners in the crimes the USA committed against rest of the world, and they need to responsible for their actions and their role as mercenaries, contemporary American war-fighting will continue unstopped.
    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
    /article/worth-dying-for/#comment-1997367
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. vx37 says:

    I don’t care a damn about what any Arab or Muslim thinks about the U.S. or its military efforts (if those efforts are in the national interest), just keep them out of my country. The real question is why any white man joins the army of an establishment that is not merely racist but is fundamentally genocidal toward whites. Is THAT worth being crippled or dying for? Hell, no. And whites boycotting the U.S. military would put an end to the empire’s excellent little overseas adventures, saving a lot of money. It’s win/win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @w
    Then stay the hell away from their countries. Some awesome "exceptionalist" delusion you've got going on there.
    , @Kingfelix
    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Should White Americans fight for a regime that is determined to replace them in their homeland with non-White foreigners? I think not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Totally agree.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Ivy Mike says:

    Some of my white brothers, and I hope their number is small compared to the stench they leave behind them, are so full of hate and hopelessness while they run around on all fours that they cannot comment about anything other than how happy they are to have rabies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. anon says: • Disclaimer

    The rich use the lower classes as expendable cannon fodder. The purpose is always to increase their power and wealth. The parades and banner waving are just for show and to entice the gullible. The draft was done away with because the American public had evolved beyond accepting the idea that one portion of the population could own and enslave another portion and force it to fight and die on their behalf. So they craftily shifted to a “volunteer” military to siphon off those with few other prospects as well as the deluded. Don’t join, that’s for suckers, you’d just be risking yourself to make the fat cats fatter even as they hold you in contempt. Don’t die for those evil vampires.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The rich use the lower classes as expendable cannon fodder."

    The Middle Eastern wars of aggression (led by the US) are also the wars for Israel.
    "The Race For Deir Ezzor: The US And Syrian Forces Are About To Collide:" http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-10/race-deir-ezzor-us-and-syrian-forces-are-about-collide
    Syria is a sovereign state, but such trifles are of no interest for the US "deciders." Here is the context of the US illegal presence in Syria: "US Continues to Evacuate ISIL Commanders from Deir Ezzur amid Syrian Army's Rapid Advances" - http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960605000928
    Yes, dear reader, trust your eyes: the US has been obediently following the orders from Israel and FedReserve and evacuating the "moderate" jihadis of ISIL. Before that, Israel used to provide free medical services to the ISIS "freedom fighters." Anything to see Syria destroyed and to have Syrian oil reserves available for the Israeli and American oilmen. The US troops are dying for Eretz Israel and for Murdoch &Cheney&Rothschild' fortunes: http://www.trueactivist.com/cheney-rothschild-and-fox-news-murdoch-violate-international-law-by-drilling-for-oil-in-syria/
    The US resources have been used skillfully by Israel-firsters to implement Oded Yinon plan/Clean Break project for Eretz Israel: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives=neoconinfluence_paul_wolfowitz
    Enjoy the results: $$$trillions of the US taxpayers money spent on the mass slaughter in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Very Christians. Actually, very Methodist Christian, since the satanic Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, proudly houses the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum: https://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/en/About-Us/About-the-Facility.aspx
    What could be a better way to allocate money and space than to build a shrine for celebrating a world-renown war criminal Bush the Lesser?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. peterAUS says:

    Well, Major Sjursen, I’d have a question for you.

    OK, maybe you can’t or even shouldn’t answer it, I’d understand, but here it is:

    What’s the percentage within your group (major, ltcol, col) in US Army that share your sentiments?

    Like:

    It’s long been an article of faith here: the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the planet’s “indispensable nation.” But what if we’re wrong?
    Maybe it’s because most Americans just aren’t paying attention or maybe we’re a nation of true believers, but it’s clear that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is a beacon of hope for the planet. Never known for our collective self-awareness, we’re eternally aghast to discover that so many elsewhere find little but insincerity in the promise of U.S. foreign policy.

    I wish I could truly believe that we were indisputably the “good guys” in our unending wars across the Greater Middle East because that’s what we owed those soldiers.

    And it pains me no less that Americans tend to blindly venerate the PFC Andersons of our world, to put them on such a pedestal (as the president did in his Afghan address to the nation recently), offering them eternal thanks, and so making them and their heroism the reason for fighting on, while most of the rest of us don’t waste a moment thinking about what (and whom) they’re truly fighting for.

    If you don’t want/can’t (which is more likely of course) just say: NO.

    My personal take is, not many.
    Not many at all.

    Now, though, if I were you, I’d be cautious about:

    Fear, guilt, embarrassment… my crosses to bear, as the war Anderson and I fought only expands further and undoubtedly more disastrously. My choices, my shame. No excuses.

    Just a friendly advice.
    Don’t overdo that introspection of yours.

    Again, just a bit of friendly advice.
    I could expand on that if you want.
    Even here in the open.
    Within reason and common sense of course.

    Here’s the truth of it, if you just stop to think about America’s wars for a moment: it’s only going to get harder to look a widow or mother in the eye and justify them in the years to come. Maybe a good soldier doesn’t bother to worry about that… but I now know one thing at least: I’m not that.

    Well……………….
    A very fine line there.
    Free will at the end.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. USAMNESIA says:

    Truman’s Secretary of State Dean Acheson narrowly observed:

    “In the State Department we used to discuss how much time that mythical average American citizen put in each day listening, reading, and arguing about the world outside his country. It seemed to us that ten minutes a day would be a high average.” So why bore the people? Secret bipartisan government is best for what, after all, is or should be a society of docile workers, enthusiastic consumers, obedient soldiers who will believe just about anything for at least ten minutes.

    The NATO alliance and forty years of the Cold War all began at this moment. Elections from this point forward were meaningless when it came to challenging the wartime state at home:

    Of course, there were elections during the crucial time, but Truman-Dewey, Eisenhower-Stevenson, Kennedy-Nixon were of a single mind as to the desirability of inventing first a many-tentacled enemy–communism, the star of the chamber of horrors–then, to combat so much evil, install a permanent wartime state at home, with loyalty oaths, the national peacetime draft, and secret police to keep watch over homegrown traitors, as the few enemies of the national security state were known.

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

    Interesting.

    Or, better…man….how FU&^ED UP all this Internet yammering is.

    Here we have, apparently:
    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And, in three days, only 6 (SIX) comments on thought provoking article.

    Civilians, amateurs, wannabees……. post ignorant bullshit and you have weeks of debate and discussions, ranging up to more then 200 comments, most of them rather exhaustive.

    And here…….nothing.

    FU&^ED UP!

    Major, my apologies for common stupidity around.

    Signed:
    Old, ex-military

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    you seem to be a good soldier from what you said.

    I didn't serve, and I am here to tell it.

    But I have knowledge of some who did serve, from my second cousin who was lost and missing for weeks in Gwualdal, and our old friend Frank, who was there too, and some other guys that went there, and man wow, but thanks to your service as they say!

    I will go next time, for real!
    , @Erebus

    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan... And here…….nothing.
     
    That, Pete, is because what the good Major wrote wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. What fuckin' "history" has he been "instructing"? Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    I'll grant him this, the Major lays out everything that's wrong with America's elites and its Military in 2800 words. The myopia, hubris, hypocrisy and plain dishonesty drip off my monitor and out of every unused data port. I finished reading wishing he were an imbecile who laid it out in 280 as I would have saved 9 towels. Would that he were marginally cleverer than an imbecile, and done it 4 decades ago, saving me the trouble altogether.

    I'll also grant that he gave me an "Aha!" moment, in the limited sense that I no longer wonder why his fellow officers were gob-smacked when the Russians snatched Crimea off their tongues just as they started to bite down, and then did the same 1.5 yrs later when the USM was sure they were gonna swallow Syria. They're picking the gristle of Western Ukraine from their teeth to this day, and now find themselves wandering around in the Syrian desert, looking for shepherds or heroic Syrian soldiers to blow up and "send a message" to, err, someone. At the end of 16yrs of non-stop war, and countless $Billion$, the USM is still unable to do much but blow up frogs in a pond and occasionally feel vaguely bad about it. Malicious juveniles, and nothing besides, but they've done so much damage to the world that when they finally try to blow up a frog that can bite back, they'll be out of lifespan before they have an inkling of what hit them. That gives one hope, for which I am also grateful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. joe webb says:

    just waking up and smelling the Jewish shit? It has been about 20 years now of War for Israel.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Hi Joe, you know what's what, you know what I know, but I don'tlike to say what I know too much,,, I could say a bunch when the day comes... fuck em'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. “not even removing Nelson Mandela’s name from its terrorist watch list until 2008!”
    Is orchestrating bombings of civilian such as the Church St. car bombing not terrorism now? What about the IEDs he ordered put on civilian back roads?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. Wally says:

    “Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds? As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach.”

    I don’t care how it plays elsewhere, nor do the vast majority of Americans

    Just keep the low IQ, unemployable, violent welfare seekers out.

    ‘Join the US army, Fight for Israel

    Read More
    • Replies: @Moi
    We do as Israel says.
    , @Alden
    What's the National Anthem of Israel?

    Onward Christian Soldiers.

    Personally, I want all immigrants whatever their education/financial level banned from America. We can produce our own engineers, medics and other tech people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. edNels says:

    OK… I didn’t read the article, but I promise to do so, I react to the title. No not worth to die for, that is my take, no way, and you should never give you all for no reason… don’t get so damned fooled that you would ever go to war… put your body on the line,

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. edNels says:
    @joe webb
    just waking up and smelling the Jewish shit? It has been about 20 years now of War for Israel.

    Joe Webb

    Hi Joe, you know what’s what, you know what I know, but I don’tlike to say what I know too much,,, I could say a bunch when the day comes… fuck em’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
    Western leaders dare not take the gamble.
    One may wonder if the climate change hypothesis was made in order to eliminate this dependency.
    I for one see it as a great blunder that the effort to develop nuclear fusion energy was in fact abandoned in the sixties.
    Fusion hardly results in the horrible radio active waste problems that fission causes, including the horrible mining of uranium.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Worth dying for, alas, yes.}

    You and those who think like are most welcome to go and die for whatever youse think is worth dying for.
    Why are you still posting @unz.com?
    Go and get killed for a worthy cause already.
    Like oil.
    , @Wally
    Oil producers need to sell their oil more then we need it.

    The world is awash in oil, it's literally everywhere.

    The idea that we need ME oil serves the interests of "that shitty little country", not ours.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories
    https://codoh.com/media/files/cartoon24s.png

    , @anon

    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
     
    Not for us anymore. North America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil. Or more accurately, we produce more oil and gas than we use. We burn a lot of gasoline but export massive amounts of liquids, refined products and now natural gas.

    As such, all doctrine based on US access to oil needs to be revised. Europe imports a lot but they can work it out with Russia, if they want access to a source other than the Middle East.

    China is a huge importer. But are we going to be their bitch forever?

    I tend to agree with the article, but there is no reason to get all moralistic bout it. We keep losing wars. Since it never seems to matter, then of course -- we need to ask why we are doing it. There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose -- it doesn't matter. Or rather -- no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. edNels says:

    Hell I don’t give a rat’s ass if they want to go that way… girls or boys.. fruits all, don’t give a damned shit about it because we know that hey, it’s really probably a good thing, ’cause the race, or WTF needs to winnow out the less desirable, and hey what’s not to like, the queers self administer,, not to be inthe future genome…

    But seriously… I mean, of course we have too many humans not that we need more, Not at All, We do not Need more gaddamned Humans… not now… the Earth is full up with the gaddamned humanoids!

    Read More
    • Replies: @truthtellerAryan
    Hi, I totally agree with your point on fags. Killing people who are already living, were born (no one's choice, yours included), and have never harmed anyone, as birth control, or populations check, must be a suggestion from a a sick and evil mind. Such ideas can only come from such minds as Kissinger , Chaney, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu and the whole cabal, you can name the rest.
    The best and most humane way is birth control without tears, castrate and put all peadophiles, rapists, pimps, pornographers, religious preachers making money for Israel and themselves, warmongers who have never seen war (on receiving end murder and destruction), include yourself in this list.
    Than spend the rest of your miserable lives building schools, hospitals, and all necessary infrastructure starting with those countries where refugees are being chased out of their countries and homes Or commit "hara-kiri " and be a model example of population control.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. I was agreeing until I got to the bits about the USA should be taking in more refugees from the wars the USA created. That’s just giving the warmongers exactly what they want – “invade the world, invite the world”. Unless carefully vetted, those refugees bring their home conflicts with them onto Western soil. They certainly bring their home attitudes, including Taharrush. We should of course be leaving these countries alone, not supporting evil (eg the Saudis) and not letting evil come here either.

    Edit: Mandela of course was a terrorist once, even if you think his terrorism justified. He very sensibly switched to a different strategy which proved very successful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Bibi’s son plays troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. edNels says:
    @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    Or, better...man....how FU&^ED UP all this Internet yammering is.

    Here we have, apparently:
    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And, in three days, only 6 (SIX) comments on thought provoking article.

    Civilians, amateurs, wannabees....... post ignorant bullshit and you have weeks of debate and discussions, ranging up to more then 200 comments, most of them rather exhaustive.

    And here.......nothing.

    FU&^ED UP!

    Major, my apologies for common stupidity around.

    Signed:
    Old, ex-military

    you seem to be a good soldier from what you said.

    I didn’t serve, and I am here to tell it.

    But I have knowledge of some who did serve, from my second cousin who was lost and missing for weeks in Gwualdal, and our old friend Frank, who was there too, and some other guys that went there, and man wow, but thanks to your service as they say!

    I will go next time, for real!

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

    here for some love:

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. “but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York.”

    Major, the one quibble I have with what you’ve written is a biggie. I’d sincerely suggest you look into the matter of who exactly did conspire and act to bring down those towers in far more detail because before you can forget something you have to learn it first and your article implies that you think 9/11 was carried out by some form of mujahedeen such as Al Qaeda and it’s just not true.

    It is likely going to make you very angry to learn that the recipient of the largest share of US foreign aid was the major culprit along with various American traitors and that the Afghans and mujahedeen had little to no involvement at all. Saudi Arabia very likely had a minor role as much to set them up as future patsies should the charade unravel at any time.

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.
     
    Even worse are those who've served in the Federal government and the Federal Reserve.

    Even the worst of 'em sometimes slip up and admit it.

    “The adversary is closer to home; it’s the Pentagon bureaucracy…”

    - Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU
     

    Same idea, different twist.:

    But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans…

    - Jim Lobe , How neo-cons influence the Pentagon ...

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH08Ak01.html

     

    , @henry_bowman
    Exactly correct! The US government planned and executed 9/11. For this military officer to think otherwise shows willful ignorance or extreme naivete perhaps to justify his murdering of foreigners without a congressional declaration of war.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Have you seen the History Channel doco "Road to 9/11" recently shown in Australia? I think it would cure you at least of your apparent belief thst ObL being holed up in Afghanistan and maybe with kidney disease made it any less likely that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. It is interesting that the FBI stuffed up bigtime in 1992 or 93 when they stopped supporting an outstanding informer, a former Egyptian army officer who had just been asked to build 12 pipe bombs. He was replaced in the Blind Sheik's circle by a bombmaker who successively stuffed up by failing to bring down the twin towers with his 1993 bomb and then alerting police to the plot to bŕing down 12 aircraft over the Pacific by staging a trial run that blew a hole in an aircraft and killed a couple of people! And the terrorists complained of being underfunded by ObL!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. A corrected by recent history holocaust perspective:

    The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of “exceptionalism” = “Nazi Übermensch”=”the chosen ones” over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi’s:

    The Syrian holocaust
    The Yemen holocaust
    The Libyan holocaust
    The Irak holocaust
    The Afghanistan holocaust

    The Belgrad holocaust

    The Indonesian holocaust
    The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust
    The Korean holocaust

    During WWII:
    The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi’s
    The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army

    Before WWII:
    The Ukranian holocaust (holodomor) by Stalin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    What about
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997 ?
    And is it Rheinwiesen, and France:
    James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)
    , @Wally
    There was no 'Holocau$t' by the Germans.

    As for the dumb 'Nazi' thing, there were the ‘Nazis’ with the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    tax exempt cash taken in by US 'holocau$t'Museum / Theme Park
    $151,826,695.00
    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf

    US Taxpayers money to to USHMM:
    56,999,500.00
    source: https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. While the article started out OK by questioning ‘Merka’s military BS do-goodism, I started getting a bit nauseous due to the overweening emotional tone of the thing. Many of us have grown more than weary of the drama queens, so kindly cut the crap.

    I slogged on, hoping to find some nugget of wisdom or a new view on things, but I had to stop reading at this, which mindlessly parrots the standing myths.:

    Maybe you’re willing to argue that al-Qaeda spin-offs aren’t ISIS, but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York.

    Someone so brainwashed as to make a comment like that has little or nothing to teach anyone.

    Read More
    • Agree: Beefcake the Mighty
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Randal says:

    Interesting mixture, coming from a US military man, of perceptive observation and analysis of the track record of US foreign and military policy with lots of boilerplate leftist political correctness.

    It’s long been an article of faith here: the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the planet’s “indispensable nation.” But what if we’re wrong? After all, as far as I can tell, the view from the Arab or African “street” tells a different story altogether.

    Not just the Arab and African street. The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats. The latest Pew poll last month confirmed this, with the proportions naming “US power and influence” as “the greatest threat to our country” at 35%, compared to 31% for Russia and the same for China. And those polls were only carried out in 38 countries, that did not include any of the main targets of recent US military aggression and threats of same – Serbia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

    Sometimes, when I can bear it, I even think about the war’s countless Afghan victims. And then I wish I could truly believe that we were indisputably the “good guys” in our unending wars across the Greater Middle East because that’s what we owed those soldiers.

    The irony here is, of course, that Sjursen embraces exactly the false idol that has done most to enable the easy manipulation of US opinion into supporting (or not opposing effectively enough) interventionist US wars for a century now – the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @David
    Agreed.

    I think what we're witnessing in this article is a man in the course of waking up. He's just begun to question things he's always believed. Things that seem obvious to us. But the process is far from complete. He's in the stage of rapid transition but thinks he's fully woke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. geokat62 says:

    When It Comes to the War in the Greater Middle East, Maybe We’re the Bad Guys

    Maybe?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. Avery says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
    Western leaders dare not take the gamble.
    One may wonder if the climate change hypothesis was made in order to eliminate this dependency.
    I for one see it as a great blunder that the effort to develop nuclear fusion energy was in fact abandoned in the sixties.
    Fusion hardly results in the horrible radio active waste problems that fission causes, including the horrible mining of uranium.

    {Worth dying for, alas, yes.}

    You and those who think like are most welcome to go and die for whatever youse think is worth dying for.
    Why are you still posting @unz.com?
    Go and get killed for a worthy cause already.
    Like oil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    It's not Big Oil, it's Big Government.

    facts:

    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon is around seventy-one cents for some states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 for CA.
    IOW, greedy governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. L Woods says:

    What otherwise might be a solid (if not terribly original) article is undermined by its threadbare leftist axioms. The very last thing the U.S. should do is to begin to live up to its sanctimonious propaganda. You really want to tell some grieving mother in Kansas that her son was killed so that some sleazy graft artist from the largest tribal bloc can be “voted” to power? If the reality of American power is self-interest, that is far to the better.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  27. Stealth says:

    *Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds?

    I stopped reading at this.

    Read More
    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @Alden
    I too stopped reading at author's claim we should let more Muslims immigrate to "win friends in the region"

    Ha ha
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. The only use for the military, aside from actually protecting this country (not that that it has been used for that since the South defended itself) is to provide training in strategy, tactics, discipline, weaponry, and killing for those that can help overthrow the parasitic government of this nation. I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity? The military and the police are the weapons the parasites will use to hold on to their illegitimate power. Otherwise, the posterity would have no problem rooting the scum out. If the American military is as patriotic to We the People as the Soviet military was to the Russian citizenry, they will stand down. We can only hope our soldiers are as honorable as the Soviets. Where do you stand on this, Major Sjursen?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig
    I hate to say it, but I think the Civil War already answered your question. Ours is a country without any strong, cohesive national identity.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    This is THE question and I commend you for positing it.

    Morgan's Law dictates that there are two reasons for everything - a good reason and the real reason. It is highly likely that this is the real reason for wanting foreigners to serve in the military as a means to obtaining US citizenship.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Max Havelaar
    A corrected by recent history holocaust perspective:

    The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:

    The Syrian holocaust
    The Yemen holocaust
    The Libyan holocaust
    The Irak holocaust
    The Afghanistan holocaust
    ...
    The Belgrad holocaust
    ...
    The Indonesian holocaust
    The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust
    The Korean holocaust

    During WWII:
    The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's
    The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army

    Before WWII:
    The Ukranian holocaust (holodomor) by Stalin.

    What about
    Ward Churchill, ‘A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present’, San Francisco 1997 ?
    And is it Rheinwiesen, and France:
    James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Max Havelaar
    Indeed, good pick. The Jewish holocaust is depicted in the West or Hollywood mostly, as the singular defining massmurder in human history.

    The mere thought alone is ultimate racism.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Doesn’t anyone grasp the irony of former intelligence and military personnel writing so-called peace op-eds and spreading them all over the internet? Reading analysis from careerists who have spent most of their lives training both how to kill people from the air and work them over via propaganda.

    Peace to people like Bacevich means killing your own son with violent narcissism. A sociopathy that allows the so-called patriot to talk about peace while murdering 1/5 of the population of another country. Can’t have an empire without empire creating it’s own insidious resistance.

    Read More
    • Agree: The Scalpel
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. My first day in Riyadh in 1981, I was taken to a “triple header,” and aside from that, KSA has been nothing but a big disappointment … three Saudis down is a good start. Whether or not the 15 Saudis actually were responsible for 11 September 2001, there is no question that the KSA has been waging a low-intensity war to subvert Western values and culture, and we are helping them do it

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    It’s a tragedy for those youths to have been killed like that, lives snuffed out even before they had a chance to lead a full life. And for what?

    the United States unleashed chaos in the region, destabilized it in stunning ways, and via an invasion launched on false premise

    s
    So why participate in a fraud? Looking for excitement?

    Sometimes, when I can bear it, I even think about the war’s countless Afghan victims.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough. The US launched criminal wars of terror, shock-and-awe against the people of Afghanistan and Iraq, killing, crippling, orphaning and bringing about the immiseration of millions of people. The true butcher’s bill for all this evil has yet to be truly tabulated. The moral blind spot of most Americans is that they really don’t care about others and these exotic foreigners are mere subhuman roaches to them, of no concern to anyone even as they spend their time taking selfies. How about some bracelets with the names of all the Afghan, Iraqi and other victims of American aggression? Of course, all that couldn’t be fitted on just some small bracelets. If Americans could only stop looking in the mirror all the time admiring themselves some progress towards having a sense of reality could be made but that’s probably not in the cards.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  33. Too many words. Worth dying for? Nope. It’s complete horse sh!t that we have to “fight ‘em over there, so they don’t come here!”, especially since we voluntarily invite them into our country against the people’s will. Then the same politicians who allow this take away our freedoms in order to “protect” us (patriot act…).
    This guy thinks apartheid was bad? Really? Seen what the noble savages have done to South Africa, general? Thought not. We need to worry about the worlds feelings regarding modifying our horrific immigration policy?? Taking in fewer, and demanding they have something to offer, and that they speak English (shudder!), is bad??
    The New York Times may have an opening. In the meantime, thank you for your service, blah, blah, blah…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Since this issue now affects me personally:

    Native Born White Christian American Teenage Males are being used as CANON FODER for The Military Industrial Complex and Greater Israel.

    They have died a pointless and meangless death in the Middle East since 1991….and October 1982…

    And they will continue to die pointless and meaningless deaths in the Middle East….

    Several trillion $$$$ have been spent have been exterminating and delimbing these Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males….This is WAR CRIMINAL Donald Trump’s MAGA!!! jobs program…

    I am Alt Right to wick of my being….Pull the US MILITARY out of the Middle East…out of South Korea….out of Germany…..off of Christian Russia’s borders….

    What did US Army General William Casey say after the Fort Hood Massacre?…

    Two time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Smedley Butler:”WAR IS A RACKET”…..

    You can google images of WW1 basket cases….

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    You can google images of WW1 basket cases….
     
    One could also Google, and read, some excellent WW1 antiwar poetry.


    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12)
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13)
    To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.(15)


    Wilfred Owen, WW1 combat vet
    8 October 1917 - March, 1918

    http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html
     

    'They"
    by Siegfried Sassoon

    The Bishop tells us: 'When the boys come back
    'They will not be the same; for they'll have fought
    'In a just cause: they lead the last attack
    'On Anti-Christ; their comrades' blood has bought
    'New right to breed an honourable race,
    'They have challenged Death and dared him face to face.'

    'We're none of us the same!' the boys reply.
    'For George lost both his legs; and Bill's stone blind;
    'Poor Jim's shot through the lungs and like to die;
    'And Bert's gone syphilitic: you'll not find
    'A chap who's served that hasn't found some change.
    ' And the Bishop said: 'The ways of God are strange!'

    http://home.wlu.edu/~keens/warpoets2.htm
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. “… the U.S. response to the worst refugee crisis since World War II has been to admit — to choose but a single devastated country — a paltry 18,000 Syrians since 2011.”

    Dude, if we caused this problem, these are the last people we would want to take in.

    “As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach.”

    First of all, it’s the Stutue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration, but it’s not the first time we’ve taken something from the French and then totally f¥@ked it up. Second, this is pretty much how most of the world’s immigration systems (at least for the poor and middle classes) works. Why should the US have the least demanding, nay crappiest immigration systems in the Western World?

    “And speaking of American exceptionalism, we’re almost alone on the world stage when it comes to our support for the Israeli occupation.”

    Good point. The whole strategy used to be to moderately disdain the Israelis but give them aid and weapons, so that the fighting stayed over there and largely at their cost in terms of lives. I tend to pooh-pooh the conspiracy theorists who blame Israel for 9-11, but I’m starting to warm to the idea given how wide-spread terror has become in the western world, leaving us no choice but to join in and bringing the carnage over here.

    “Would I be able to confidently explain to someone’s mother what (besides his mates) her child actually died for?”

    If you are a US politician, you have an army of paid communication consultants and media trainers who will cement the appropriate message and delivery into your sparse brain matter. The little people will tend to believe what their “wise” leaders are telling them as long as not too many of their children are being shipped home in flag-draped caskets. We did learn one important thing in Vietnam.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Eagle Eye
    Quite true.

    NYT and WaPo readers have been conditioned for decades to think that if only Leftist prescriptions are adopted and the country is flooded with millions of Third Worlders, socialist nirvana will be at hand.

    NOBODY outside the U.S. believes that masochistic immigration policies will EVER satisfy lying Leftists. More broadly, and it is quite impossible for the U.S. to become popular at this stage. The U.S. must aim to be respected and feared through strength with restraint. Trying to be loved is the road to disaster.


    the president’s ... proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives ... [won't win this country any friends in the region]
     
    Has Sjursen ever talked to actual upper-middle class people in Europe or the Middle East after 2 - 3 drinks?

    NOTHING can overcome the sour-grapes hate among upper-crust Europeans and Middle Easterners of the U.S. which became the world's leading nation post WW II, thus depriving the elites in satellite countries of what they fondly imagine would have been their rightful place at the head of proud, independent countries. These feelings and the Leftist religion are mutually reinforcing and make the cultist's religious and political "convictions" impenetrable.

    , @Hu Mi Yu
    It is bad PR to bring our young men home in trash... er I mean body bags instead of caskets. I think that is all we learned there.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. David says:
    @Randal
    Interesting mixture, coming from a US military man, of perceptive observation and analysis of the track record of US foreign and military policy with lots of boilerplate leftist political correctness.

    It’s long been an article of faith here: the United States is the greatest force for good in the world, the planet’s “indispensable nation.” But what if we’re wrong? After all, as far as I can tell, the view from the Arab or African “street” tells a different story altogether.
     
    Not just the Arab and African street. The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats. The latest Pew poll last month confirmed this, with the proportions naming “US power and influence” as “the greatest threat to our country” at 35%, compared to 31% for Russia and the same for China. And those polls were only carried out in 38 countries, that did not include any of the main targets of recent US military aggression and threats of same – Serbia, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Syria.

    Sometimes, when I can bear it, I even think about the war’s countless Afghan victims. And then I wish I could truly believe that we were indisputably the “good guys” in our unending wars across the Greater Middle East because that’s what we owed those soldiers.
     
    The irony here is, of course, that Sjursen embraces exactly the false idol that has done most to enable the easy manipulation of US opinion into supporting (or not opposing effectively enough) interventionist US wars for a century now - the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.

    Agreed.

    I think what we’re witnessing in this article is a man in the course of waking up. He’s just begun to question things he’s always believed. Things that seem obvious to us. But the process is far from complete. He’s in the stage of rapid transition but thinks he’s fully woke.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    I think you are probably correct.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. @Anonymous White Male
    The only use for the military, aside from actually protecting this country (not that that it has been used for that since the South defended itself) is to provide training in strategy, tactics, discipline, weaponry, and killing for those that can help overthrow the parasitic government of this nation. I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity? The military and the police are the weapons the parasites will use to hold on to their illegitimate power. Otherwise, the posterity would have no problem rooting the scum out. If the American military is as patriotic to We the People as the Soviet military was to the Russian citizenry, they will stand down. We can only hope our soldiers are as honorable as the Soviets. Where do you stand on this, Major Sjursen?

    I hate to say it, but I think the Civil War already answered your question. Ours is a country without any strong, cohesive national identity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. The U.S. is controlled by Zionists and has been for over 100 years ever since the Federal Reserve Act and the IRS was passed in 1913. America has been forced into every war since that time by the Zionist bankers who are in control of this country.

    Congress may as well be called the lower house of the Knesset for that is what it is and the actual capital of the U.S. is TEL AVIV.

    As Orwell said WAR IS PEACE and the Zionists have given us perpetual war.

    Read More
    • Agree: Moi
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. Randal says:
    @David
    Agreed.

    I think what we're witnessing in this article is a man in the course of waking up. He's just begun to question things he's always believed. Things that seem obvious to us. But the process is far from complete. He's in the stage of rapid transition but thinks he's fully woke.

    I think you are probably correct.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. Moi says:
    @Wally
    "Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds? As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach."

    I don't care how it plays elsewhere, nor do the vast majority of Americans

    Just keep the low IQ, unemployable, violent welfare seekers out.


    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel

    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg

    We do as Israel says.

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

    My own country is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world (MLK).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  42. Stealth says:

    I wonder why the writer considers the United States to be obligated to have wide-open immigration.

    This would have been spot-on in its entirety had he not poisoned it with open borders talk.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. Typo there in the headline. Here I fixed it for you.

    When It Comes to the War in the Greater Middle East, We’re the Bad Guys

    Alternative headline should read: Senior US Army Officer FINALLY gets red-pilled. Whilst I have immense respect for the military that fought in the two world wars, this respect does not extend to the modern military of corporate America. People don’t look up to the American establishment for their international role, they despise them for it. Stay the fuck out of the Middle East would you?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. WJ says:

    Not to be too critical but it’s unfortunate that the Major didn’t see the light before he went and fought in these insane wars. Iraq, in particular, was quite obviously a con job from the start. The propaganda campaign ramped up in 2002 and by the time they had the fig leaf congressional vote half the country or more thought that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Some of us knew better and had quite a few arguments with former allies over that stupid war. If enough people like the Major had said no more then it would have been tough to fight the war. Naive, I know, but you have to start somewhere.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. annamaria says:
    @anon
    The rich use the lower classes as expendable cannon fodder. The purpose is always to increase their power and wealth. The parades and banner waving are just for show and to entice the gullible. The draft was done away with because the American public had evolved beyond accepting the idea that one portion of the population could own and enslave another portion and force it to fight and die on their behalf. So they craftily shifted to a "volunteer" military to siphon off those with few other prospects as well as the deluded. Don't join, that's for suckers, you'd just be risking yourself to make the fat cats fatter even as they hold you in contempt. Don't die for those evil vampires.

    “The rich use the lower classes as expendable cannon fodder.”

    The Middle Eastern wars of aggression (led by the US) are also the wars for Israel.
    “The Race For Deir Ezzor: The US And Syrian Forces Are About To Collide:” http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-10/race-deir-ezzor-us-and-syrian-forces-are-about-collide
    Syria is a sovereign state, but such trifles are of no interest for the US “deciders.” Here is the context of the US illegal presence in Syria: “US Continues to Evacuate ISIL Commanders from Deir Ezzur amid Syrian Army’s Rapid Advances” – http://en.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13960605000928
    Yes, dear reader, trust your eyes: the US has been obediently following the orders from Israel and FedReserve and evacuating the “moderate” jihadis of ISIL. Before that, Israel used to provide free medical services to the ISIS “freedom fighters.” Anything to see Syria destroyed and to have Syrian oil reserves available for the Israeli and American oilmen. The US troops are dying for Eretz Israel and for Murdoch &Cheney&Rothschild’ fortunes: http://www.trueactivist.com/cheney-rothschild-and-fox-news-murdoch-violate-international-law-by-drilling-for-oil-in-syria/
    The US resources have been used skillfully by Israel-firsters to implement Oded Yinon plan/Clean Break project for Eretz Israel: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&neoconinfluence_prominent_neoconservatives=neoconinfluence_paul_wolfowitz
    Enjoy the results: $$$trillions of the US taxpayers money spent on the mass slaughter in Iraq, Libya, and Syria. Very Christians. Actually, very Methodist Christian, since the satanic Southern Methodist University (SMU) in Dallas, Texas, proudly houses the George W. Bush Presidential Library and Museum: https://www.georgewbushlibrary.smu.edu/en/About-Us/About-the-Facility.aspx
    What could be a better way to allocate money and space than to build a shrine for celebrating a world-renown war criminal Bush the Lesser?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. When It Comes to the War in the Greater Middle East, Maybe We’re the Bad Guys

    there is no maybe. it is 1000% certain.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  47. Wally says:
    @Avery
    {Worth dying for, alas, yes.}

    You and those who think like are most welcome to go and die for whatever youse think is worth dying for.
    Why are you still posting @unz.com?
    Go and get killed for a worthy cause already.
    Like oil.

    It’s not Big Oil, it’s Big Government.

    facts:

    US oil companies make about five cents off a single gallon of gasoline, on the other hand US Big Government taxes on a single gallon is around seventy-one cents for some states & rising, the tax is now $1.00 for CA.
    IOW, greedy governments make fourteen to twenty times what oil companies make and it is the oil companies who make & deliver the vital product to the marketplace.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    Interesting.

    Or, better...man....how FU&^ED UP all this Internet yammering is.

    Here we have, apparently:
    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan.

    And, in three days, only 6 (SIX) comments on thought provoking article.

    Civilians, amateurs, wannabees....... post ignorant bullshit and you have weeks of debate and discussions, ranging up to more then 200 comments, most of them rather exhaustive.

    And here.......nothing.

    FU&^ED UP!

    Major, my apologies for common stupidity around.

    Signed:
    Old, ex-military

    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan… And here…….nothing.

    That, Pete, is because what the good Major wrote wasn’t worth a bucket of warm spit. What fuckin’ “history” has he been “instructing”? Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    I’ll grant him this, the Major lays out everything that’s wrong with America’s elites and its Military in 2800 words. The myopia, hubris, hypocrisy and plain dishonesty drip off my monitor and out of every unused data port. I finished reading wishing he were an imbecile who laid it out in 280 as I would have saved 9 towels. Would that he were marginally cleverer than an imbecile, and done it 4 decades ago, saving me the trouble altogether.

    I’ll also grant that he gave me an “Aha!” moment, in the limited sense that I no longer wonder why his fellow officers were gob-smacked when the Russians snatched Crimea off their tongues just as they started to bite down, and then did the same 1.5 yrs later when the USM was sure they were gonna swallow Syria. They’re picking the gristle of Western Ukraine from their teeth to this day, and now find themselves wandering around in the Syrian desert, looking for shepherds or heroic Syrian soldiers to blow up and “send a message” to, err, someone. At the end of 16yrs of non-stop war, and countless $Billion$, the USM is still unable to do much but blow up frogs in a pond and occasionally feel vaguely bad about it. Malicious juveniles, and nothing besides, but they’ve done so much damage to the world that when they finally try to blow up a frog that can bite back, they’ll be out of lifespan before they have an inkling of what hit them. That gives one hope, for which I am also grateful.

    Read More
    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @utu
    Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    My exact sentiments.

    Nothing will change until they get their asses whooped.
    , @jacques sheete

    What fuckin’ “history” has he been “instructing”?
     
    Exactly.

    There can be no doubt that what he's teaching is Bullshitus Maximus, aka Propaganda of the Empire.

    And they call it "education."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Wally says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
    Western leaders dare not take the gamble.
    One may wonder if the climate change hypothesis was made in order to eliminate this dependency.
    I for one see it as a great blunder that the effort to develop nuclear fusion energy was in fact abandoned in the sixties.
    Fusion hardly results in the horrible radio active waste problems that fission causes, including the horrible mining of uranium.

    Oil producers need to sell their oil more then we need it.

    The world is awash in oil, it’s literally everywhere.

    The idea that we need ME oil serves the interests of “that shitty little country”, not ours.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel’s Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room

    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    " Oil producers need to sell their oil more then we need it. "

    I wonder.
    I still remember the panic when Nasser closed the Suez Canal.
    France was in panic a year or so ago when strikers blocked the exits of refineries.
    Western societies cannot function without oil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Wally says: • Website
    @Max Havelaar
    A corrected by recent history holocaust perspective:

    The holocausts keep coming from US foreign policy of "exceptionalism" = "Nazi Übermensch"="the chosen ones" over this planet, many executed by the CIA-Nazi's:

    The Syrian holocaust
    The Yemen holocaust
    The Libyan holocaust
    The Irak holocaust
    The Afghanistan holocaust
    ...
    The Belgrad holocaust
    ...
    The Indonesian holocaust
    The Vietnam/Laos/Cambodia/Thailand holocaust
    The Korean holocaust

    During WWII:
    The Jewish/Polish/Russian holocaust by Nazi's
    The German holocaust (Die Rheinweisen lager) by US army

    Before WWII:
    The Ukranian holocaust (holodomor) by Stalin.

    There was no ‘Holocau$t’ by the Germans.

    [MORE]

    As for the dumb ‘Nazi’ thing, there were the ‘Nazis’ with the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    tax exempt cash taken in by US ‘holocau$t’Museum / Theme Park
    $151,826,695.00

    https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/042717-IRS-Form-990-FY16.pdf

    US Taxpayers money to to USHMM:
    56,999,500.00
    source: https://www.ushmm.org/m/pdfs/20160209-fy17-pres-budget-request.pdf

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. This article’s OK for TomDispatch, I suppose, but here’s a much better treatment of the same theme:

    http://upriser.com/posts/you-grow-up-wanting-to-be-luke-skywalker-then-realize-you-ve-become-a-stormtrooper-for-the-empire

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. utu says:
    @Erebus

    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan... And here…….nothing.
     
    That, Pete, is because what the good Major wrote wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. What fuckin' "history" has he been "instructing"? Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    I'll grant him this, the Major lays out everything that's wrong with America's elites and its Military in 2800 words. The myopia, hubris, hypocrisy and plain dishonesty drip off my monitor and out of every unused data port. I finished reading wishing he were an imbecile who laid it out in 280 as I would have saved 9 towels. Would that he were marginally cleverer than an imbecile, and done it 4 decades ago, saving me the trouble altogether.

    I'll also grant that he gave me an "Aha!" moment, in the limited sense that I no longer wonder why his fellow officers were gob-smacked when the Russians snatched Crimea off their tongues just as they started to bite down, and then did the same 1.5 yrs later when the USM was sure they were gonna swallow Syria. They're picking the gristle of Western Ukraine from their teeth to this day, and now find themselves wandering around in the Syrian desert, looking for shepherds or heroic Syrian soldiers to blow up and "send a message" to, err, someone. At the end of 16yrs of non-stop war, and countless $Billion$, the USM is still unable to do much but blow up frogs in a pond and occasionally feel vaguely bad about it. Malicious juveniles, and nothing besides, but they've done so much damage to the world that when they finally try to blow up a frog that can bite back, they'll be out of lifespan before they have an inkling of what hit them. That gives one hope, for which I am also grateful.

    Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    My exact sentiments.

    Nothing will change until they get their asses whooped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. w says:
    @vx37
    I don't care a damn about what any Arab or Muslim thinks about the U.S. or its military efforts (if those efforts are in the national interest), just keep them out of my country. The real question is why any white man joins the army of an establishment that is not merely racist but is fundamentally genocidal toward whites. Is THAT worth being crippled or dying for? Hell, no. And whites boycotting the U.S. military would put an end to the empire's excellent little overseas adventures, saving a lot of money. It's win/win.

    Then stay the hell away from their countries. Some awesome “exceptionalist” delusion you’ve got going on there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. I signed up for a three year hitch in the Army in 1965. Turned 21 in basic training. It was still a citizen army back then. Now it’s strictly mercenary. Soldiering for the Empire is a profession. What I learned and what hasn’t changed is war is about making rich men richer. If you understand that and still want to be a soldier – go for it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. annamaria says:

    “American boys” Poroshenko and Saakashvili are trying to do gesheft on Ukraine.

    “Mikheil Saakashvili breaks through into Ukraine:”

    http://theduran.com/breaking-war-criminal-mikhail-saakashvili-officially-back-ukraine/

    “In May of 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed disgraced former Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili Governor of Odessa Obslat. The appointment was immediately viewed as an insult to the people of the multi-cultural though overall historically and spiritually Russian city and region of Odessa… It was doubly an insult because Saakashvili was a foreigner with no connection to the region. Finally, the fact that Saakashvili is wanted in Georgia on charges of high corruption including embezzlement, actions he was alleged to have committed after he started a war of aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, ought to make Saakashvili disqualified for any political position, anywhere …. ” http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/stateless-leader-saakashvili-enter-ukraine-49737333
    “The border breakthrough at the Medyka-Shehyni crossing point on the Polish-Ukrainian border came after a day of drama and repeatedly changing plans. Supporters who accompanied Saakashvili included former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Mustafa Nayyem, a lawmaker who was a key figure in the 2013-14 protests that drove Russia-friendly Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of the country.”
    What a company! For only $5billion the US State Dep. could create this kind a circus in any country of interest.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia-friendly Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
     
    He wasn't Russia "friendly", he was more like... you know--who(re) pays more. Russia paid more but the guy is still a despicable human. You, however, might be interested to know that today former head of Ukraine's internal troops admitted that there were (mostly foreign) snipers in Kiev who...well, you know the rest.

    https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html

    Google Translate should do the job. But we knew it from the get go, didn't we? I am sure US mass-media are about (just any moment now) break those news to American public.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. annamaria says:

    “The Muslim terrorist apparatus was created by US intelligence as a political weapon” — National security adviser to the Carter administration Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    “Terror Incognita: ‘Demistifying’ the Fog of War:” https://off-guardian.org/2017/09/01/terror-incognita-demistifying-the-fog-of-war/
    “Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Larry Summers, Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey are just a few of the familiar names who sit on the board of Genie Energy, a company intent on drilling for oil and gas in the Golan Heights, internationally recognised as Syrian territory under the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of December 1920, and illegally occupied by Israel since the Six Day War of 1967. Let’s look at that list again. A former US vice president, the chairman and CEO of the world’s second-largest media conglomerate, a former head of US treasury, a former energy secretary, a former CIA director and one of the world’s richest and most powerful investment bankers all decide they want a slice of Syria’s energy reserves, and the next thing you know we are fighting a humanitarian war against an army of darkness led by Skelator, who mercilessly slaughters millions of his own faithful followers by bombing them with depleted uranium missiles dipped in pigs blood. Oh wait…
    Syria is just the latest manoeuvre in a long game which began with the Dulles brothers’ ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Annexing the Middle East’s energy reserves has been the number one priority of the national security state since it came to power under the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower. While the Golan may be something of a soft target, the ongoing siege of Deir ez-Zor and nearby Raqqa supported by Kurdish SDF forces clearly indicates Washington’s desire to occupy and control Syria’s oil-rich north eastern provinces. To this end we are assured to hear further reports of attacks on civilians by government forces.
    Of course these false claims are nothing new.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Thank you for your excellent posts. Good info in all of 'em.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. The people running the country are evil, so it’s no surprise that they are the bad guys in the wars they wage. The people who wish to flood the nation with immigrants and refugees are mostly evil, also. I despise both groups, and oppose their actions and goals, as far as I can tell what their actions and goals are.

    All I want to do is to live peacefully in my own country, with fellow Americans. I’d gladly turn over my rulers to their victims for the punishment that they deserve, but I can’t do that. One day Americans will wake up and realize that they are also victims of these psychopaths in suits and uniforms. Will they then attack us also?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Lengthy prose meaning little in the end, because there is hardly anyone willing to listen and take heart. The evil empire and its minions will continue their satanic ways for decades to come.

    The basic idea is clear; the Christian Polytheist west, well on a path to godlessness, is deathly afraid that their peoples, as impossible as it may seem, will one day wake up, reject the spiritual bankruptcy of their paganism, and smell the freshness of true monotheism.

    One way to ensure that never happens is to portray the barbarity of them “moslems,” and how best but to keep the cradle of Islam in constant conflict, by implanting a cancer amidst, and subservience of “royal” scum, those cursed connivers with the avowed enemies of Islam.

    Any blowback by true monotheists only aids in the narrative. Win/win for the pale skinned black-hearted… or so they delude themselves.

    The operation was coming along just fine, except in the process, the Christian Polytheist west, is becoming the Godless west. :D

    The “glorious” west will never have spiritual peace… God willing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  59. @War for Blair Mountain
    Since this issue now affects me personally:

    Native Born White Christian American Teenage Males are being used as CANON FODER for The Military Industrial Complex and Greater Israel.

    They have died a pointless and meangless death in the Middle East since 1991....and October 1982...

    And they will continue to die pointless and meaningless deaths in the Middle East....

    Several trillion $$$$ have been spent have been exterminating and delimbing these Working Class Native Born White American Teenage Males....This is WAR CRIMINAL Donald Trump's MAGA!!! jobs program...

    I am Alt Right to wick of my being....Pull the US MILITARY out of the Middle East...out of South Korea....out of Germany.....off of Christian Russia's borders....

    What did US Army General William Casey say after the Fort Hood Massacre?...

    Two time Congressional Medal of Honor Winner Smedley Butler:"WAR IS A RACKET".....


    You can google images of WW1 basket cases....

    You can google images of WW1 basket cases….

    One could also Google, and read, some excellent WW1 antiwar poetry.

    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12)
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13)
    To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.(15)

    Wilfred Owen, WW1 combat vet
    8 October 1917 – March, 1918

    http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html

    ‘They”
    by Siegfried Sassoon

    The Bishop tells us: ‘When the boys come back
    ‘They will not be the same; for they’ll have fought
    ‘In a just cause: they lead the last attack
    ‘On Anti-Christ; their comrades’ blood has bought
    ‘New right to breed an honourable race,
    ‘They have challenged Death and dared him face to face.’

    ‘We’re none of us the same!’ the boys reply.
    ‘For George lost both his legs; and Bill’s stone blind;
    ‘Poor Jim’s shot through the lungs and like to die;
    ‘And Bert’s gone syphilitic: you’ll not find
    ‘A chap who’s served that hasn’t found some change.
    ‘ And the Bishop said: ‘The ways of God are strange!’

    http://home.wlu.edu/~keens/warpoets2.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    I like Louis Simpson's poem 'Oh Carateen'......


    Louis Simpson was down in Tacoa at the same time....different Company....as Major Dick Winters and the men from Easy Company. He spent a year in a psych hospital after the War being treated with PTS.

    Louis Simpson lived in the Wading River Area....Wild Wood State Park has an open field area between the forest and the Wading River Road. He wrote once how every time he walked in this field it reminded him of Carateen, and how automatically he was thrown back to Carateen and his 101 Airborne Tacoa training would kick in...looking for good cover from the Whermact firing from the woods...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Erebus

    Major Danny Sjursen is a U.S. Army strategist and former history instructor at West Point. He served tours with reconnaissance units in both Iraq and Afghanistan... And here…….nothing.
     
    That, Pete, is because what the good Major wrote wasn't worth a bucket of warm spit. What fuckin' "history" has he been "instructing"? Like some 12 yr old who feel tinges of remorse after blowing up frogs in the local pond, after a career of murder he comes, albeit sideways and dishonestly, to Jesus? Gimme a break.

    I'll grant him this, the Major lays out everything that's wrong with America's elites and its Military in 2800 words. The myopia, hubris, hypocrisy and plain dishonesty drip off my monitor and out of every unused data port. I finished reading wishing he were an imbecile who laid it out in 280 as I would have saved 9 towels. Would that he were marginally cleverer than an imbecile, and done it 4 decades ago, saving me the trouble altogether.

    I'll also grant that he gave me an "Aha!" moment, in the limited sense that I no longer wonder why his fellow officers were gob-smacked when the Russians snatched Crimea off their tongues just as they started to bite down, and then did the same 1.5 yrs later when the USM was sure they were gonna swallow Syria. They're picking the gristle of Western Ukraine from their teeth to this day, and now find themselves wandering around in the Syrian desert, looking for shepherds or heroic Syrian soldiers to blow up and "send a message" to, err, someone. At the end of 16yrs of non-stop war, and countless $Billion$, the USM is still unable to do much but blow up frogs in a pond and occasionally feel vaguely bad about it. Malicious juveniles, and nothing besides, but they've done so much damage to the world that when they finally try to blow up a frog that can bite back, they'll be out of lifespan before they have an inkling of what hit them. That gives one hope, for which I am also grateful.

    What fuckin’ “history” has he been “instructing”?

    Exactly.

    There can be no doubt that what he’s teaching is Bullshitus Maximus, aka Propaganda of the Empire.

    And they call it “education.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. @annamaria
    "American boys" Poroshenko and Saakashvili are trying to do gesheft on Ukraine.

    "Mikheil Saakashvili breaks through into Ukraine:"
    http://theduran.com/breaking-war-criminal-mikhail-saakashvili-officially-back-ukraine/
    "In May of 2015, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko appointed disgraced former Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili Governor of Odessa Obslat. The appointment was immediately viewed as an insult to the people of the multi-cultural though overall historically and spiritually Russian city and region of Odessa... It was doubly an insult because Saakashvili was a foreigner with no connection to the region. Finally, the fact that Saakashvili is wanted in Georgia on charges of high corruption including embezzlement, actions he was alleged to have committed after he started a war of aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, ought to make Saakashvili disqualified for any political position, anywhere .... " http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/stateless-leader-saakashvili-enter-ukraine-49737333
    "The border breakthrough at the Medyka-Shehyni crossing point on the Polish-Ukrainian border came after a day of drama and repeatedly changing plans. Supporters who accompanied Saakashvili included former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko and Mustafa Nayyem, a lawmaker who was a key figure in the 2013-14 protests that drove Russia-friendly Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych out of the country."
    What a company! For only $5billion the US State Dep. could create this kind a circus in any country of interest.

    Russia-friendly Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych

    He wasn’t Russia “friendly”, he was more like… you know–who(re) pays more. Russia paid more but the guy is still a despicable human. You, however, might be interested to know that today former head of Ukraine’s internal troops admitted that there were (mostly foreign) snipers in Kiev who…well, you know the rest.

    https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html

    Google Translate should do the job. But we knew it from the get go, didn’t we? I am sure US mass-media are about (just any moment now) break those news to American public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Regime change in Ukraine ("Kagans' revolution" of 2014): https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html
    Google Translate: the local organizers of "this heinous crime were Parubiy (now the Speaker of the Parliament of Ukraine - Ed.), Pashinsky (now chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Commission on Defense and Security .-- Ed.) and others. The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.
    This is a crime that led to the civil war in Ukraine and the split of our state. And the organizers of the Maidan, the organizers of the coup d'etat, are guilty of this, and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all. This tragedy became the largest in the history of Ukraine after the Second World War. Unfortunately, this tragedy is not yet complete. It continues, there is a civil war in the East of Ukraine. And when it will be put an end - it is not known."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. @NoseytheDuke
    "but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York."

    Major, the one quibble I have with what you've written is a biggie. I'd sincerely suggest you look into the matter of who exactly did conspire and act to bring down those towers in far more detail because before you can forget something you have to learn it first and your article implies that you think 9/11 was carried out by some form of mujahedeen such as Al Qaeda and it's just not true.

    It is likely going to make you very angry to learn that the recipient of the largest share of US foreign aid was the major culprit along with various American traitors and that the Afghans and mujahedeen had little to no involvement at all. Saudi Arabia very likely had a minor role as much to set them up as future patsies should the charade unravel at any time.

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.

    Even worse are those who’ve served in the Federal government and the Federal Reserve.

    Even the worst of ‘em sometimes slip up and admit it.

    “The adversary is closer to home; it’s the Pentagon bureaucracy…”

    - Donald Rumsfeld on Sept. 10, 2001

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xU4GdHLUHwU

    Same idea, different twist.:

    But there were other enemies within, anyone who dared voice any skepticism about their grand plans…

    - Jim Lobe , How neo-cons influence the Pentagon …

    http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EH08Ak01.html

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

    Well….because Major’s ….introspection…..felt a bit familiar…….a bit only, mind you….I’ll try to post by replying to some other posters (they’ll recognize their paragraphs) and then, I guess, a little musing in general.

    Primary reason that Major and similar……people………could find it…interesting.

    The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats.

    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
    That comes with the position, perhaps. Maybe those TWO primary contenders for the position are just envious.

    the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.

    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity?

    He’ll never tell you that on open Internet.
    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them. The idea that citizens could rebel, that is. Going against those citizens, simply doesn’t even register in their conscious minds.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough.

    Ah…….this.
    This is what I, personally, see as important.
    There is a fine line here and I posted about it on some other, heated, threads here.
    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
    Put it this way: the way to weaken a society is to have its elites lose confidence in themselves.
    Military elite as part of that.
    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
    True, “Yanks” are full of shit.
    The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse. In my book of course. But I am sure in a lot of books around this world too. We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
    Ask them what do they prefer: former Soviet/Russian masters or “Yanks”?

    So, for Major and similar types, before continuing to fall deeper in your self-doubt, think a bit about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
     
    Then you've read it incorrectly. The finding is from polling, asking people in 38 countries what they as individuals see as the greatest threat to their own country.

    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
     
    How is Rwanda a relevant example to my assertion about the writer's evident "embrac[ing of] exactly the false idol that has done most to enable the easy manipulation of US opinion into supporting (or not opposing effectively enough) interventionist US wars for a century now – the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners"?

    Rwanda is a case that exposes the way "humanitarian" interventionism is cynically exploited by the powerful in the US sphere as a pretext and justification for interventions they want, but not acted upon in cases where the powerful see no great benefit for themselves and their particular causes in doing so. That's the nature of US government action, especially in foreign policy - it responds to the interests of the powerful lobbies that are able to influence it and manipulate popular opinion appropriately. All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.

    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.
     
    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.


    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
     
    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as "the greatest threat to their country" than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.

    Considering that the record shows that "policing" by America and its authorised deputies, in the past three decades since its Soviet rival disappeared, has as often as not resulted in mass murderous catastrophe created at vast expense, and greatly increased disorder in the regions affected, I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world's policeman. Nor do I see any great need for such, since it amounts to waging war to protect peace (or, as has been suggested before: "committing suicide for fear of death").

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation's internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US's interventions in the past three decades - certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.

    [The reference to Rwanda above does not mean that I necessarily think there should have been an intervention there, in practice. The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better. In the case 0f Cambodia, the Vietnamese intervened unilaterally for their own reasons.]
    , @Erebus

    We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
     
    In a recent poll, ~40% (iirc) of Germans in former E. Germany, probably the most repressive of the Soviet states, said they preferred the Soviet system. That is stunning, no? The Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs are on a trajectory that takes them away from a West they are belatedly realizing they didn't sign up for.

    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them.
     
    And not only that one.

    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question... The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse.
     
    Simple because it's a false framing of the real issue. The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law. Not by a bunch of drunken thugs who show nothing but contempt for it. Holding power by ignoring the law in their own country, they seek to do the same around the globe.
    That they are in a position to do as they will is an accident of history that is well on its way to being corrected. It is being corrected by precisely those "TWO contenders" whose fundamental platform is built on respect for international law, and whose collective power is currently more more than enough to bring the thugs low. They're waiting for the thug to take another drunken swing.

    The problem with you Pete, is that you see about as far, and as dishonestly, as your "self-doubting" Major. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, and all your puzzling "........s" scattered all over the place do nothing to correct that. Step outside your 1m world, and I'm sure you'll take a pause from your pontificating about matters far beyond your cognition, much less understanding.

    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
     
    Unfortunately, it'll be a long time before America has time to reflect after losing that "POWER" it failed to reflect on while it had it. The attempt to hold on to it guarantees a very rough landing, and will guarantee a catastrophic crash if it continues to try to hold on beyond the end of the decade. Hopefully, the TWO contenders will take it away before the attempt destroys America completely.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    Assuming from your handle that you are Australian, do you realise that it was US meddling that toppled Gough Whitlam's government? (flawed though it was). And had Whitlam implemented his plans Australia would now have a massive sovereign wealth fund belonging to the people of Australia, much like Norway has for its people, only much bigger, instead of being indebted to the extent that we are.

    Should the US ever step in to defend Australia you can bet the farm that it would then use that to increase its ownership, loot the place and establish even more bases with which to threaten SE Asia even more.
    , @Anonymous
    I wrote a comprehensive reply to the Nosey man's total Pilgerising BS about Whitlam (who knew it wasn't the US which brought him down) and debt which was eliminated after many years of Labor government by the very non-Labor Treasurer who gave Oz its sovereign wealth fund. Of course the Rudd Labor government's over reaction to the Global Financial Crisis aftet an initial justified stimulus package has left Oz with public debt again (as well as that incurred by state, mostly Labor, governments).

    Somehow that reply went missing. But I trust you know all I have written anyway.

    Oops! Now I see my reply has appeared after all.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @jacques sheete

    You can google images of WW1 basket cases….
     
    One could also Google, and read, some excellent WW1 antiwar poetry.


    If you could hear, at every jolt, the blood
    Come gargling from the froth-corrupted lungs,
    Obscene as cancer, bitter as the cud(12)
    Of vile, incurable sores on innocent tongues,
    My friend, you would not tell with such high zest(13)
    To children ardent(14) for some desperate glory,
    The old Lie; Dulce et Decorum est
    Pro patria mori.(15)


    Wilfred Owen, WW1 combat vet
    8 October 1917 - March, 1918

    http://www.warpoetry.co.uk/owen1.html
     

    'They"
    by Siegfried Sassoon

    The Bishop tells us: 'When the boys come back
    'They will not be the same; for they'll have fought
    'In a just cause: they lead the last attack
    'On Anti-Christ; their comrades' blood has bought
    'New right to breed an honourable race,
    'They have challenged Death and dared him face to face.'

    'We're none of us the same!' the boys reply.
    'For George lost both his legs; and Bill's stone blind;
    'Poor Jim's shot through the lungs and like to die;
    'And Bert's gone syphilitic: you'll not find
    'A chap who's served that hasn't found some change.
    ' And the Bishop said: 'The ways of God are strange!'

    http://home.wlu.edu/~keens/warpoets2.htm
     

    I like Louis Simpson’s poem ‘Oh Carateen’……

    Louis Simpson was down in Tacoa at the same time….different Company….as Major Dick Winters and the men from Easy Company. He spent a year in a psych hospital after the War being treated with PTS.

    Louis Simpson lived in the Wading River Area….Wild Wood State Park has an open field area between the forest and the Wading River Road. He wrote once how every time he walked in this field it reminded him of Carateen, and how automatically he was thrown back to Carateen and his 101 Airborne Tacoa training would kick in…looking for good cover from the Whermact firing from the woods…

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    thanks for that!

    Is this it?
    https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42813/carentan-o-carentan
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Russia-friendly Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych
     
    He wasn't Russia "friendly", he was more like... you know--who(re) pays more. Russia paid more but the guy is still a despicable human. You, however, might be interested to know that today former head of Ukraine's internal troops admitted that there were (mostly foreign) snipers in Kiev who...well, you know the rest.

    https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html

    Google Translate should do the job. But we knew it from the get go, didn't we? I am sure US mass-media are about (just any moment now) break those news to American public.

    Regime change in Ukraine (“Kagans’ revolution” of 2014): https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html
    Google Translate: the local organizers of “this heinous crime were Parubiy (now the Speaker of the Parliament of Ukraine – Ed.), Pashinsky (now chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Commission on Defense and Security .– Ed.) and others. The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.
    This is a crime that led to the civil war in Ukraine and the split of our state. And the organizers of the Maidan, the organizers of the coup d’etat, are guilty of this, and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all. This tragedy became the largest in the history of Ukraine after the Second World War. Unfortunately, this tragedy is not yet complete. It continues, there is a civil war in the East of Ukraine. And when it will be put an end – it is not known.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well.....O.K.

    The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.
     
    Good to at last know all that.
    So, could anyone provide, here, say....:
    Nationalities?
    Names?
    Backgrounds?
    Weapons used?

    Anyone.......?

    and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all.
     
    Very nice.
    I assume somebody in Donbass/Russia desired it.
    So ....can we have those names here?

    Or this is just Politburo...oh...sorry...I mean.....you know..."perception management"?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Major Surjsen

    Go and listen to the Dropkick Murphy’s version of “The Green Fields of France”…a ballad about the pointless meaningless death of 17 year private Willie McGhee in WW1…..

    And watch the last episode of “Black Adder goes forth!!”…it’s a classic….and terribly terribly sad….

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    Here's another...

    https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/grave_of_the_fireflies/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. Shook West Point Grad Chris Christopherson’s hand outside of Steven’s Talkhouse the night after he denounced Gulf War 1 as a War Crime from the Stage at the Farm in Montauk…Affirmative Action benneficiare…race-replacement enthusiast…and all around toady who was part of the Mai Lai Massacre cover-up….General Colin Powell….was in the audience that night…General Powell…who will be campaigning with Hindu-Jamaican Kamala Harris during 2020 POTUS election time…was not amused..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  68. @War for Blair Mountain
    I like Louis Simpson's poem 'Oh Carateen'......


    Louis Simpson was down in Tacoa at the same time....different Company....as Major Dick Winters and the men from Easy Company. He spent a year in a psych hospital after the War being treated with PTS.

    Louis Simpson lived in the Wading River Area....Wild Wood State Park has an open field area between the forest and the Wading River Road. He wrote once how every time he walked in this field it reminded him of Carateen, and how automatically he was thrown back to Carateen and his 101 Airborne Tacoa training would kick in...looking for good cover from the Whermact firing from the woods...

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Well….because Major’s ….introspection…..felt a bit familiar…….a bit only, mind you….I’ll try to post by replying to some other posters (they’ll recognize their paragraphs) and then, I guess, a little musing in general.

    Primary reason that Major and similar……people………could find it…interesting.

    The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats.
     
    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
    That comes with the position, perhaps. Maybe those TWO primary contenders for the position are just envious.

    the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.
     
    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity?
     
    He’ll never tell you that on open Internet.
    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them. The idea that citizens could rebel, that is. Going against those citizens, simply doesn’t even register in their conscious minds.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough.
     
    Ah…….this.
    This is what I, personally, see as important.
    There is a fine line here and I posted about it on some other, heated, threads here.
    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
    Put it this way: the way to weaken a society is to have its elites lose confidence in themselves.
    Military elite as part of that.
    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
    True, “Yanks” are full of shit.
    The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse. In my book of course. But I am sure in a lot of books around this world too. We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
    Ask them what do they prefer: former Soviet/Russian masters or “Yanks”?

    So, for Major and similar types, before continuing to fall deeper in your self-doubt, think a bit about that.

    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.

    Then you’ve read it incorrectly. The finding is from polling, asking people in 38 countries what they as individuals see as the greatest threat to their own country.

    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?

    How is Rwanda a relevant example to my assertion about the writer’s evident “embrac[ing of] exactly the false idol that has done most to enable the easy manipulation of US opinion into supporting (or not opposing effectively enough) interventionist US wars for a century now – the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners“?

    Rwanda is a case that exposes the way “humanitarian” interventionism is cynically exploited by the powerful in the US sphere as a pretext and justification for interventions they want, but not acted upon in cases where the powerful see no great benefit for themselves and their particular causes in doing so. That’s the nature of US government action, especially in foreign policy – it responds to the interests of the powerful lobbies that are able to influence it and manipulate popular opinion appropriately. All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.

    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.

    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.

    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as “the greatest threat to their country” than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.

    Considering that the record shows that “policing” by America and its authorised deputies, in the past three decades since its Soviet rival disappeared, has as often as not resulted in mass murderous catastrophe created at vast expense, and greatly increased disorder in the regions affected, I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world’s policeman. Nor do I see any great need for such, since it amounts to waging war to protect peace (or, as has been suggested before: “committing suicide for fear of death”).

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US’s interventions in the past three decades – certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.

    [The reference to Rwanda above does not mean that I necessarily think there should have been an intervention there, in practice. The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better. In the case 0f Cambodia, the Vietnamese intervened unilaterally for their own reasons.]

    Read More
    • Agree: German_reader
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.
     
    Well…agree.
    So?
    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage. Well, probably race realists don’t mind that particular case, but….anyway…..
    At the moment I do not see a better cop than USA.
    If/when we get a better cop, perfect.

    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.
     
    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.

    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as “the greatest threat to their country” than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.
     
    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
    Would you wish that US get less power, China and Russia more power, so now we can be afraid of each of those equally?
    You know…multipolar thing.
    Each of big players having its own slice of the world. So, polls would then show that little nations ON BORDERS equally fear both of those two (God help those with all three big guys on borders).

    I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world’s policeman.
     
    Fine.
    I am sure some people do want to see the US as the world's policeman. Or, probably more accurate, they do not want to see Russia and/or China (or their coalition) as world policeman.
    And, in this particular thread, sort of communicating with US Army Major and his types, I’d just like him/his types to know that.
    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US’s interventions in the past three decades – certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.
     
    Disagree, of course. Somebody should've stepped there and preventrd that horror. And possible future horrors of similar type.
    And, apparently you have your doubts too:

    The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better.
     
    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.

    My point is: this world needs something/somebody to police it. Until something better is found, by some miracle, I am sure that lots of people prefer Yankees to do that.
    Now, there is plenty of room for improvement there of course.
    Policing I mean.
    But, still, better than alternatives.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @War for Blair Mountain
    Major Surjsen

    Go and listen to the Dropkick Murphy's version of "The Green Fields of France"...a ballad about the pointless meaningless death of 17 year private Willie McGhee in WW1.....

    And watch the last episode of "Black Adder goes forth!!"...it's a classic....and terribly terribly sad....
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @annamaria
    “The Muslim terrorist apparatus was created by US intelligence as a political weapon” -- National security adviser to the Carter administration Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    "Terror Incognita: ‘Demistifying’ the Fog of War:" https://off-guardian.org/2017/09/01/terror-incognita-demistifying-the-fog-of-war/
    "Dick Cheney, Rupert Murdoch, Larry Summers, Jacob Rothschild and James Woolsey are just a few of the familiar names who sit on the board of Genie Energy, a company intent on drilling for oil and gas in the Golan Heights, internationally recognised as Syrian territory under the Franco-British Boundary Agreement of December 1920, and illegally occupied by Israel since the Six Day War of 1967. Let’s look at that list again. A former US vice president, the chairman and CEO of the world’s second-largest media conglomerate, a former head of US treasury, a former energy secretary, a former CIA director and one of the world’s richest and most powerful investment bankers all decide they want a slice of Syria’s energy reserves, and the next thing you know we are fighting a humanitarian war against an army of darkness led by Skelator, who mercilessly slaughters millions of his own faithful followers by bombing them with depleted uranium missiles dipped in pigs blood. Oh wait…
    Syria is just the latest manoeuvre in a long game which began with the Dulles brothers’ ouster of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953. Annexing the Middle East’s energy reserves has been the number one priority of the national security state since it came to power under the presidency of Dwight D Eisenhower. While the Golan may be something of a soft target, the ongoing siege of Deir ez-Zor and nearby Raqqa supported by Kurdish SDF forces clearly indicates Washington’s desire to occupy and control Syria’s oil-rich north eastern provinces. To this end we are assured to hear further reports of attacks on civilians by government forces.
    Of course these false claims are nothing new."

    Thank you for your excellent posts. Good info in all of ‘em.

    Read More
    • Replies: @edNels
    Hi Jacques Sheete

    I don't even have to read your posts, I am confident that I could write them myself, if I was smarter.. I agree always with what you say.

    I would have you as my press secretary!! if I was the Press!

    No jive pardner.

    I am a surviver, I went to NY when I was 18 years old, and I could buy alchahol legally... which I did!

    I walked all over NY over the Brooklyn Bridge daily... Well any way, coming from San Francisco, and Berserkely, comm on, I know what's up... all them Rock and Rollers were livin in my backyard there in Larkspur... and Mill Valley!

    I just don't think that I am any little bit Naive about anything.. no not at all...
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. peterAUS says:
    @annamaria
    Regime change in Ukraine ("Kagans' revolution" of 2014): https://ria.ru/interview/20170910/1502080089.html
    Google Translate: the local organizers of "this heinous crime were Parubiy (now the Speaker of the Parliament of Ukraine - Ed.), Pashinsky (now chairman of the Verkhovna Rada Commission on Defense and Security .-- Ed.) and others. The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.
    This is a crime that led to the civil war in Ukraine and the split of our state. And the organizers of the Maidan, the organizers of the coup d'etat, are guilty of this, and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all. This tragedy became the largest in the history of Ukraine after the Second World War. Unfortunately, this tragedy is not yet complete. It continues, there is a civil war in the East of Ukraine. And when it will be put an end - it is not known."

    Well…..O.K.

    The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.

    Good to at last know all that.
    So, could anyone provide, here, say….:
    Nationalities?
    Names?
    Backgrounds?
    Weapons used?

    Anyone…….?

    and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all.

    Very nice.
    I assume somebody in Donbass/Russia desired it.
    So ….can we have those names here?

    Or this is just Politburo…oh…sorry…I mean…..you know…”perception management”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?"

    "If you don’t see that Washington is driving to war with Russia you are a dumbshit American," by Stephen Lendman: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/10/dont-see-washington-driving-war-russia-dumbshit-american/
    Keep asking.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @jilles dykstra
    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
    Western leaders dare not take the gamble.
    One may wonder if the climate change hypothesis was made in order to eliminate this dependency.
    I for one see it as a great blunder that the effort to develop nuclear fusion energy was in fact abandoned in the sixties.
    Fusion hardly results in the horrible radio active waste problems that fission causes, including the horrible mining of uranium.

    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.

    Not for us anymore. North America doesn’t need Middle Eastern oil. Or more accurately, we produce more oil and gas than we use. We burn a lot of gasoline but export massive amounts of liquids, refined products and now natural gas.

    As such, all doctrine based on US access to oil needs to be revised. Europe imports a lot but they can work it out with Russia, if they want access to a source other than the Middle East.

    China is a huge importer. But are we going to be their bitch forever?

    I tend to agree with the article, but there is no reason to get all moralistic bout it. We keep losing wars. Since it never seems to matter, then of course — we need to ask why we are doing it. There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose — it doesn’t matter. Or rather — no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose — it doesn’t matter. Or rather — no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.
     
    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman
    Especially these:
    The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the Twenty-First Century,
    The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
    A couple of chapters in each, you could find interesting.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. Biff says:

    The sorrows of Empire.

    Everything goes in, and nothing comes out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
     
    Then you've read it incorrectly. The finding is from polling, asking people in 38 countries what they as individuals see as the greatest threat to their own country.

    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
     
    How is Rwanda a relevant example to my assertion about the writer's evident "embrac[ing of] exactly the false idol that has done most to enable the easy manipulation of US opinion into supporting (or not opposing effectively enough) interventionist US wars for a century now – the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners"?

    Rwanda is a case that exposes the way "humanitarian" interventionism is cynically exploited by the powerful in the US sphere as a pretext and justification for interventions they want, but not acted upon in cases where the powerful see no great benefit for themselves and their particular causes in doing so. That's the nature of US government action, especially in foreign policy - it responds to the interests of the powerful lobbies that are able to influence it and manipulate popular opinion appropriately. All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.

    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.
     
    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.


    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
     
    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as "the greatest threat to their country" than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.

    Considering that the record shows that "policing" by America and its authorised deputies, in the past three decades since its Soviet rival disappeared, has as often as not resulted in mass murderous catastrophe created at vast expense, and greatly increased disorder in the regions affected, I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world's policeman. Nor do I see any great need for such, since it amounts to waging war to protect peace (or, as has been suggested before: "committing suicide for fear of death").

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation's internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US's interventions in the past three decades - certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.

    [The reference to Rwanda above does not mean that I necessarily think there should have been an intervention there, in practice. The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better. In the case 0f Cambodia, the Vietnamese intervened unilaterally for their own reasons.]

    All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.

    Well…agree.
    So?
    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage. Well, probably race realists don’t mind that particular case, but….anyway…..
    At the moment I do not see a better cop than USA.
    If/when we get a better cop, perfect.

    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.

    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.

    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as “the greatest threat to their country” than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.

    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
    Would you wish that US get less power, China and Russia more power, so now we can be afraid of each of those equally?
    You know…multipolar thing.
    Each of big players having its own slice of the world. So, polls would then show that little nations ON BORDERS equally fear both of those two (God help those with all three big guys on borders).

    I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world’s policeman.

    Fine.
    I am sure some people do want to see the US as the world’s policeman. Or, probably more accurate, they do not want to see Russia and/or China (or their coalition) as world policeman.
    And, in this particular thread, sort of communicating with US Army Major and his types, I’d just like him/his types to know that.
    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US’s interventions in the past three decades – certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.

    Disagree, of course. Somebody should’ve stepped there and preventrd that horror. And possible future horrors of similar type.
    And, apparently you have your doubts too:

    The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better.

    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.

    My point is: this world needs something/somebody to police it. Until something better is found, by some miracle, I am sure that lots of people prefer Yankees to do that.
    Now, there is plenty of room for improvement there of course.
    Policing I mean.
    But, still, better than alternatives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage.
     
    That might be your opinion, it's not mine. First, we have a world policeman, as you've implicitly conceded repeatedly, and it chose not to act in Rwanda because it wasn't convenient for its power elites for it to act there. That in itself brings into question the utility of having a world policeman at all.

    Second, I don't believe any actually plausible intervention in Rwanda would necessarily have had any good overall effect there. Most of the mass killings (though not the war deaths) occurred very quickly within a few days or weeks of its initiation, and it degenerated into a civil war which the targeted minority won using methods no global police force would have used. As likely as not, any plausible intervention force would have simply found itself in the middle of a civil war and unable to achieve much. It's possible of course to generate rosy scenarios of a beefed up UN force promptly targeting just the right pressure points and everything ending up perfect, just as such scenarios were widely fantasised about in Iraq and in Libya, but in reality unintended consequences would have abounded, and it's quite possible the outcome could have been worse, with most of the genocide deaths occurring much the same before the intervention could prevent them, and the civil war morphing into something much worse and more intractable.

    Foreign interventionists are neither disinterested nor (according to the track record) particularly competent. Talk is cheap when it comes to fantasising about such interventions.

    And of course the other reason to question the utility of a global policeman is that so many of the actions that the one we already have has undertaken have been so disastrous.

    Finally, the Cambodia example illustrates why we don't need a world policeman even if we do want interventionist wars to "solve" genocidal crises. No world policeman was available and willing to stop the Khmer Rouge, but neighbouring Vietnam went ahead and did so, for its own self-interested reasons just the same as with US "global policeman" interventions.

    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.
     
    No relevance, because insofar as it was supposedly a refutation of my argument against the US as world policeman, it is ad hominem. When you can't beat the argument, attack the supposed motives of those putting it forward. That's effective politically, but it's a logical fallacy.

    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
     
    It's not particularly about being a bigger power, the point is that if people thought like you that the US is a viable candidate for the job of world policeman (because it's so much nicer than the other candidates as you assert) they would not in general regard the US as the greatest threat to their country, no matter how much more powerful it is than those others.

    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.
     
    Actually, it's exactly how the world works and a "world policeman" is just the most powerful thug on the planet. The track record of the US makes that clear. A world without a world policeman is not a hippy paradise, but nor is one with a global policeman. There's no reason to think there will be more wars as the US's power to act unilaterally declines, there will just probably be different ones.

    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.
     
    There was no genocide in Kosovo, which was what I was referring to, just a brutal police action against ethnic supremacist, secessionist terrorists (to put the KLA in terms that they would honestly be described as if they weren't on "our side", as far as the US sphere elites are concerned).

    Bosnia was rather different, but I prefer to view it as a brutal inter-ethnic war with massacres and ethnic cleansing rather than a mass genocide in the Rwanda sense. I'm using genocide here in a much more literal sense than the legalistic one generally used, that includes things like moving populations around and suppressing their cultural expression in a particular location, and as requiring much more substantial numbers of deliberate killings.
    , @Alden
    An entire United Nations army headed by a Canadien general was in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. It happened anyway.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. peterAUS says:
    @anon

    Worth dying for, alas, yes.
    Oil still is the lifeblood of western prosperous society.
    Among geopoliticians the debate still rages about the hypothetical situation when the west peacefully buys oil, there are those who thing we can buy the oil we need without military coercion, and there are those who think we cannot.
     
    Not for us anymore. North America doesn't need Middle Eastern oil. Or more accurately, we produce more oil and gas than we use. We burn a lot of gasoline but export massive amounts of liquids, refined products and now natural gas.

    As such, all doctrine based on US access to oil needs to be revised. Europe imports a lot but they can work it out with Russia, if they want access to a source other than the Middle East.

    China is a huge importer. But are we going to be their bitch forever?

    I tend to agree with the article, but there is no reason to get all moralistic bout it. We keep losing wars. Since it never seems to matter, then of course -- we need to ask why we are doing it. There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose -- it doesn't matter. Or rather -- no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.

    There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose — it doesn’t matter. Or rather — no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.

    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman

    Especially these:
    The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the Twenty-First Century,
    The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
    A couple of chapters in each, you could find interesting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:
     
    Using Mr. Friedman and his fraudulent organization STRATFOR, good only for BSing impressionable "business" people (a euphemism for good for nothing financiers), is rather in a bad taste, when referencing anything (Russian) military related. STRATFOR "forecasts" are aligned very well with the most of contemporary US "analytical" effort which, speaking broadly, doesn't provide anyone with even finding their own ass with their both hands in a brightly lit room.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS
    Well.....O.K.

    The vast majority of snipers were foreign mercenaries.
     
    Good to at last know all that.
    So, could anyone provide, here, say....:
    Nationalities?
    Names?
    Backgrounds?
    Weapons used?

    Anyone.......?

    and it is not difficult to establish them if desired. The Ukrainian people know them all.
     
    Very nice.
    I assume somebody in Donbass/Russia desired it.
    So ....can we have those names here?

    Or this is just Politburo...oh...sorry...I mean.....you know..."perception management"?

    “Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?”

    “If you don’t see that Washington is driving to war with Russia you are a dumbshit American,” by Stephen Lendman: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/10/dont-see-washington-driving-war-russia-dumbshit-american/
    Keep asking.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    “Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?”
     
    Yes, please.

    Just a couple will suffice.

    Say, Dragunov SVD, perhaps?
    How many?
    With suppressors or not?
    What were the sights? Standard issue or something else?
    Ammo? FMJs, hollow points or something else? How many spent casings were found? Factory or hand loads, what was the estimate?

    Stuff like that.
    Simple.

    I mean, even with JFK we have all that. Doesn't matter true of not.

    So, your employers.....what's their "management perception" product?

    No rush. If you have to consult supervisor first no problem.

    But, it would be good to have some hard info among all this yammering around.

    Any "leaked" FSB/SVR document?

    C'mon, give us something. Maintain credibility. Didn't you go through the course?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Eagle Eye says:
    @The Alarmist

    "... the U.S. response to the worst refugee crisis since World War II has been to admit — to choose but a single devastated country — a paltry 18,000 Syrians since 2011."
     
    Dude, if we caused this problem, these are the last people we would want to take in.

    "As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach."
     
    First of all, it's the Stutue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration, but it's not the first time we've taken something from the French and then totally f¥@ked it up. Second, this is pretty much how most of the world's immigration systems (at least for the poor and middle classes) works. Why should the US have the least demanding, nay crappiest immigration systems in the Western World?

    "And speaking of American exceptionalism, we’re almost alone on the world stage when it comes to our support for the Israeli occupation."
     
    Good point. The whole strategy used to be to moderately disdain the Israelis but give them aid and weapons, so that the fighting stayed over there and largely at their cost in terms of lives. I tend to pooh-pooh the conspiracy theorists who blame Israel for 9-11, but I'm starting to warm to the idea given how wide-spread terror has become in the western world, leaving us no choice but to join in and bringing the carnage over here.

    "Would I be able to confidently explain to someone’s mother what (besides his mates) her child actually died for?"
     
    If you are a US politician, you have an army of paid communication consultants and media trainers who will cement the appropriate message and delivery into your sparse brain matter. The little people will tend to believe what their "wise" leaders are telling them as long as not too many of their children are being shipped home in flag-draped caskets. We did learn one important thing in Vietnam.

    Quite true.

    NYT and WaPo readers have been conditioned for decades to think that if only Leftist prescriptions are adopted and the country is flooded with millions of Third Worlders, socialist nirvana will be at hand.

    NOBODY outside the U.S. believes that masochistic immigration policies will EVER satisfy lying Leftists. More broadly, and it is quite impossible for the U.S. to become popular at this stage. The U.S. must aim to be respected and feared through strength with restraint. Trying to be loved is the road to disaster.

    the president’s … proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives … [won't win this country any friends in the region]

    Has Sjursen ever talked to actual upper-middle class people in Europe or the Middle East after 2 – 3 drinks?

    NOTHING can overcome the sour-grapes hate among upper-crust Europeans and Middle Easterners of the U.S. which became the world’s leading nation post WW II, thus depriving the elites in satellite countries of what they fondly imagine would have been their rightful place at the head of proud, independent countries. These feelings and the Leftist religion are mutually reinforcing and make the cultist’s religious and political “convictions” impenetrable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Nothing can overcome the hatred upper crust Americans feel for America and White Americans.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    I'll assume you have associated with European (sic) upper middle class people before and after they have had a few drinks. But when? Your impression of their views strikes me as one that is very (like many decades) out of date at least amongst those who have ever done something serious in life. I suspect that you have listened to (semi)-retired people from the Shires that you have met on cruises .
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Alden says:
    @Wally
    "Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds? As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach."

    I don't care how it plays elsewhere, nor do the vast majority of Americans

    Just keep the low IQ, unemployable, violent welfare seekers out.


    'Join the US army, Fight for Israel

    http://68.media.tumblr.com/639563970a638b606f4adb0ef05c778b/tumblr_inline_o7t4eewwJn1r75mb5_500.jpg

    What’s the National Anthem of Israel?

    Onward Christian Soldiers.

    Personally, I want all immigrants whatever their education/financial level banned from America. We can produce our own engineers, medics and other tech people.

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

    Louis 14th was not a dictator . He and his father and their prime ministers made France a great country. The nobility didn’t like his cracking down on their endless internal wars and revolutions, but the middle and working classes, merchants, bankers, the church and farmers sure appreciated what he did Louis 14 set up a national department of engineering, the first one in Europe since Rome fell. Instead of relying on the local gentry and coerced workers, the engineering department built highways, canals and bridges and river ports to a professional level. It was possible to travel from Mediterranean ports to the Atlantic and channel ports and to the northern borders with Burgundy, Germany using the canal & river system.

    He also set up a traveling midwife school complete with mechanical model of mother and fetus. It was a traveling school so the women could stay home when learning.

    People who make historical references should do a bit of research before they make their ignorant references.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Alden says:
    @Eagle Eye
    Quite true.

    NYT and WaPo readers have been conditioned for decades to think that if only Leftist prescriptions are adopted and the country is flooded with millions of Third Worlders, socialist nirvana will be at hand.

    NOBODY outside the U.S. believes that masochistic immigration policies will EVER satisfy lying Leftists. More broadly, and it is quite impossible for the U.S. to become popular at this stage. The U.S. must aim to be respected and feared through strength with restraint. Trying to be loved is the road to disaster.


    the president’s ... proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives ... [won't win this country any friends in the region]
     
    Has Sjursen ever talked to actual upper-middle class people in Europe or the Middle East after 2 - 3 drinks?

    NOTHING can overcome the sour-grapes hate among upper-crust Europeans and Middle Easterners of the U.S. which became the world's leading nation post WW II, thus depriving the elites in satellite countries of what they fondly imagine would have been their rightful place at the head of proud, independent countries. These feelings and the Leftist religion are mutually reinforcing and make the cultist's religious and political "convictions" impenetrable.

    Nothing can overcome the hatred upper crust Americans feel for America and White Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    There you go again. Now "upper crust American" are not white Americans. (It was liberals).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. peterAUS says:
    @annamaria
    "Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?"

    "If you don’t see that Washington is driving to war with Russia you are a dumbshit American," by Stephen Lendman: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/09/10/dont-see-washington-driving-war-russia-dumbshit-american/
    Keep asking.

    “Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?”

    Yes, please.

    Just a couple will suffice.

    Say, Dragunov SVD, perhaps?
    How many?
    With suppressors or not?
    What were the sights? Standard issue or something else?
    Ammo? FMJs, hollow points or something else? How many spent casings were found? Factory or hand loads, what was the estimate?

    Stuff like that.
    Simple.

    I mean, even with JFK we have all that. Doesn’t matter true of not.

    So, your employers…..what’s their “management perception” product?

    No rush. If you have to consult supervisor first no problem.

    But, it would be good to have some hard info among all this yammering around.

    Any “leaked” FSB/SVR document?

    C’mon, give us something. Maintain credibility. Didn’t you go through the course?

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the "training" -- how come? Mind that this is an alternative media forum, whereas you are firmly with the establishment, the ZUSA line, including the predilection for slandering. Don't even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    Well….because Major’s ….introspection…..felt a bit familiar…….a bit only, mind you….I’ll try to post by replying to some other posters (they’ll recognize their paragraphs) and then, I guess, a little musing in general.

    Primary reason that Major and similar……people………could find it…interesting.

    The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats.
     
    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
    That comes with the position, perhaps. Maybe those TWO primary contenders for the position are just envious.

    the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.
     
    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity?
     
    He’ll never tell you that on open Internet.
    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them. The idea that citizens could rebel, that is. Going against those citizens, simply doesn’t even register in their conscious minds.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough.
     
    Ah…….this.
    This is what I, personally, see as important.
    There is a fine line here and I posted about it on some other, heated, threads here.
    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
    Put it this way: the way to weaken a society is to have its elites lose confidence in themselves.
    Military elite as part of that.
    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
    True, “Yanks” are full of shit.
    The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse. In my book of course. But I am sure in a lot of books around this world too. We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
    Ask them what do they prefer: former Soviet/Russian masters or “Yanks”?

    So, for Major and similar types, before continuing to fall deeper in your self-doubt, think a bit about that.

    We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.

    In a recent poll, ~40% (iirc) of Germans in former E. Germany, probably the most repressive of the Soviet states, said they preferred the Soviet system. That is stunning, no? The Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs are on a trajectory that takes them away from a West they are belatedly realizing they didn’t sign up for.

    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them.

    And not only that one.

    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question… The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse.

    Simple because it’s a false framing of the real issue. The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law. Not by a bunch of drunken thugs who show nothing but contempt for it. Holding power by ignoring the law in their own country, they seek to do the same around the globe.
    That they are in a position to do as they will is an accident of history that is well on its way to being corrected. It is being corrected by precisely those “TWO contenders” whose fundamental platform is built on respect for international law, and whose collective power is currently more more than enough to bring the thugs low. They’re waiting for the thug to take another drunken swing.

    The problem with you Pete, is that you see about as far, and as dishonestly, as your “self-doubting” Major. You simply have no idea what you’re talking about, and all your puzzling “……..s” scattered all over the place do nothing to correct that. Step outside your 1m world, and I’m sure you’ll take a pause from your pontificating about matters far beyond your cognition, much less understanding.

    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.

    Unfortunately, it’ll be a long time before America has time to reflect after losing that “POWER” it failed to reflect on while it had it. The attempt to hold on to it guarantees a very rough landing, and will guarantee a catastrophic crash if it continues to try to hold on beyond the end of the decade. Hopefully, the TWO contenders will take it away before the attempt destroys America completely.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I am aware of E.Germans feeling that way.
    I am not quite sure it’s about this particular topic (“world policeman”), though.
    I feel it’s more about socio-economic system before the fall of the Wall (employment and the rest).
    The same for the rest.
    We could argue that “make America great” people are in the same boat.
    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
    Anyway…..

    The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law.
     
    Should.
    It isn’t.
    When it was the last time, BTW?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.
     
    Well…agree.
    So?
    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage. Well, probably race realists don’t mind that particular case, but….anyway…..
    At the moment I do not see a better cop than USA.
    If/when we get a better cop, perfect.

    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.
     
    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.

    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as “the greatest threat to their country” than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.
     
    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
    Would you wish that US get less power, China and Russia more power, so now we can be afraid of each of those equally?
    You know…multipolar thing.
    Each of big players having its own slice of the world. So, polls would then show that little nations ON BORDERS equally fear both of those two (God help those with all three big guys on borders).

    I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world’s policeman.
     
    Fine.
    I am sure some people do want to see the US as the world's policeman. Or, probably more accurate, they do not want to see Russia and/or China (or their coalition) as world policeman.
    And, in this particular thread, sort of communicating with US Army Major and his types, I’d just like him/his types to know that.
    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US’s interventions in the past three decades – certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.
     
    Disagree, of course. Somebody should've stepped there and preventrd that horror. And possible future horrors of similar type.
    And, apparently you have your doubts too:

    The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better.
     
    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.

    My point is: this world needs something/somebody to police it. Until something better is found, by some miracle, I am sure that lots of people prefer Yankees to do that.
    Now, there is plenty of room for improvement there of course.
    Policing I mean.
    But, still, better than alternatives.

    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage.

    That might be your opinion, it’s not mine. First, we have a world policeman, as you’ve implicitly conceded repeatedly, and it chose not to act in Rwanda because it wasn’t convenient for its power elites for it to act there. That in itself brings into question the utility of having a world policeman at all.

    Second, I don’t believe any actually plausible intervention in Rwanda would necessarily have had any good overall effect there. Most of the mass killings (though not the war deaths) occurred very quickly within a few days or weeks of its initiation, and it degenerated into a civil war which the targeted minority won using methods no global police force would have used. As likely as not, any plausible intervention force would have simply found itself in the middle of a civil war and unable to achieve much. It’s possible of course to generate rosy scenarios of a beefed up UN force promptly targeting just the right pressure points and everything ending up perfect, just as such scenarios were widely fantasised about in Iraq and in Libya, but in reality unintended consequences would have abounded, and it’s quite possible the outcome could have been worse, with most of the genocide deaths occurring much the same before the intervention could prevent them, and the civil war morphing into something much worse and more intractable.

    Foreign interventionists are neither disinterested nor (according to the track record) particularly competent. Talk is cheap when it comes to fantasising about such interventions.

    And of course the other reason to question the utility of a global policeman is that so many of the actions that the one we already have has undertaken have been so disastrous.

    Finally, the Cambodia example illustrates why we don’t need a world policeman even if we do want interventionist wars to “solve” genocidal crises. No world policeman was available and willing to stop the Khmer Rouge, but neighbouring Vietnam went ahead and did so, for its own self-interested reasons just the same as with US “global policeman” interventions.

    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.

    No relevance, because insofar as it was supposedly a refutation of my argument against the US as world policeman, it is ad hominem. When you can’t beat the argument, attack the supposed motives of those putting it forward. That’s effective politically, but it’s a logical fallacy.

    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?

    It’s not particularly about being a bigger power, the point is that if people thought like you that the US is a viable candidate for the job of world policeman (because it’s so much nicer than the other candidates as you assert) they would not in general regard the US as the greatest threat to their country, no matter how much more powerful it is than those others.

    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.

    Actually, it’s exactly how the world works and a “world policeman” is just the most powerful thug on the planet. The track record of the US makes that clear. A world without a world policeman is not a hippy paradise, but nor is one with a global policeman. There’s no reason to think there will be more wars as the US’s power to act unilaterally declines, there will just probably be different ones.

    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.

    There was no genocide in Kosovo, which was what I was referring to, just a brutal police action against ethnic supremacist, secessionist terrorists (to put the KLA in terms that they would honestly be described as if they weren’t on “our side”, as far as the US sphere elites are concerned).

    Bosnia was rather different, but I prefer to view it as a brutal inter-ethnic war with massacres and ethnic cleansing rather than a mass genocide in the Rwanda sense. I’m using genocide here in a much more literal sense than the legalistic one generally used, that includes things like moving populations around and suppressing their cultural expression in a particular location, and as requiring much more substantial numbers of deliberate killings.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well....I get your points.

    We simply, fundamentally, disagree there.

    So, while most of posters here wish Major and his types to keep going down that slope of self-doubt and self-loathing, well, I am here to advise against it.

    Or....Major, true, you are often full of shit, but, it's better with you then without you. Especially that without you we are likely to get Russian or Chinese Majors around.

    Analogy:
    Game of Thrones.
    Major works for Tywin Lannister.
    The neighboring powers are "Slaver's Bay" and "Rose Bolton".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Alfred says:

    Whenever I see an article where the writer claims that the USA is fighting ISIS, I understand that either the writer is a total idiot, or that he is just another propagandist.

    1- The USAF has repeatedly supported attacks by ISIS against the Syrian army.
    2- American helicopters evacuate the leadership of ISIS when their situation appears hopeless.
    3- Mosul was invaded by hundreds of Toyotas coming across the desert – and the Americans did not warn the Iraqis about their approach.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  86. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
     
    In a recent poll, ~40% (iirc) of Germans in former E. Germany, probably the most repressive of the Soviet states, said they preferred the Soviet system. That is stunning, no? The Poles, Hungarians, and Czechs are on a trajectory that takes them away from a West they are belatedly realizing they didn't sign up for.

    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them.
     
    And not only that one.

    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question... The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse.
     
    Simple because it's a false framing of the real issue. The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law. Not by a bunch of drunken thugs who show nothing but contempt for it. Holding power by ignoring the law in their own country, they seek to do the same around the globe.
    That they are in a position to do as they will is an accident of history that is well on its way to being corrected. It is being corrected by precisely those "TWO contenders" whose fundamental platform is built on respect for international law, and whose collective power is currently more more than enough to bring the thugs low. They're waiting for the thug to take another drunken swing.

    The problem with you Pete, is that you see about as far, and as dishonestly, as your "self-doubting" Major. You simply have no idea what you're talking about, and all your puzzling "........s" scattered all over the place do nothing to correct that. Step outside your 1m world, and I'm sure you'll take a pause from your pontificating about matters far beyond your cognition, much less understanding.

    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
     
    Unfortunately, it'll be a long time before America has time to reflect after losing that "POWER" it failed to reflect on while it had it. The attempt to hold on to it guarantees a very rough landing, and will guarantee a catastrophic crash if it continues to try to hold on beyond the end of the decade. Hopefully, the TWO contenders will take it away before the attempt destroys America completely.

    I am aware of E.Germans feeling that way.
    I am not quite sure it’s about this particular topic (“world policeman”), though.
    I feel it’s more about socio-economic system before the fall of the Wall (employment and the rest).
    The same for the rest.
    We could argue that “make America great” people are in the same boat.
    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
    Anyway…..

    The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law.

    Should.
    It isn’t.
    When it was the last time, BTW?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
     
    For many of the 60%, the Soviet system predates their memory. Anybody younger than say 35, would have no meaningful memory of it.

    When it was the last time, BTW?
     
    So far as I know, the only thing that comes close was the Mongol Empire, but Ghengis Khan had far more respect for decency and international custom (if not law) than the carpetbaggers that run America. Aside from that, it has never been globally "policed" before the fall of the Soviet Empire, the latter having served as a check on American hubris. Since then, the world has become thoroughly disgusted with America's Globo Cop experiment. Clearly, it was a bad idea that an accident of history allowed to happen. The argument that the multi-polar world is making is that it shouldn't/won't be policed by any single nation in the future.

    That so many the "MAGA people" voted against it indicates that "the world" includes much of America itself, and should indicate to you why the multi-polar world is slowly but surely winning that argument. Just look at the 90 or so comments above this one for a first hand look at what many Americans think of the "policemen" they sent out into the world and who now see what their mission turned out to be. I cannot believe either the Chinese, or the Russians, or a combination of the two have it in them to do worse.
    , @Anonymous
    I don't know about you, but at least those "two others" powers won't snap and go into a homicidal rage everytime the "rights" of anal sex and homomania are violated. I mean, its a terrible world where people can't snip off their penises and be celebrated as true women, but maybe it'll all work out for the rest of us.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage.
     
    That might be your opinion, it's not mine. First, we have a world policeman, as you've implicitly conceded repeatedly, and it chose not to act in Rwanda because it wasn't convenient for its power elites for it to act there. That in itself brings into question the utility of having a world policeman at all.

    Second, I don't believe any actually plausible intervention in Rwanda would necessarily have had any good overall effect there. Most of the mass killings (though not the war deaths) occurred very quickly within a few days or weeks of its initiation, and it degenerated into a civil war which the targeted minority won using methods no global police force would have used. As likely as not, any plausible intervention force would have simply found itself in the middle of a civil war and unable to achieve much. It's possible of course to generate rosy scenarios of a beefed up UN force promptly targeting just the right pressure points and everything ending up perfect, just as such scenarios were widely fantasised about in Iraq and in Libya, but in reality unintended consequences would have abounded, and it's quite possible the outcome could have been worse, with most of the genocide deaths occurring much the same before the intervention could prevent them, and the civil war morphing into something much worse and more intractable.

    Foreign interventionists are neither disinterested nor (according to the track record) particularly competent. Talk is cheap when it comes to fantasising about such interventions.

    And of course the other reason to question the utility of a global policeman is that so many of the actions that the one we already have has undertaken have been so disastrous.

    Finally, the Cambodia example illustrates why we don't need a world policeman even if we do want interventionist wars to "solve" genocidal crises. No world policeman was available and willing to stop the Khmer Rouge, but neighbouring Vietnam went ahead and did so, for its own self-interested reasons just the same as with US "global policeman" interventions.

    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.
     
    No relevance, because insofar as it was supposedly a refutation of my argument against the US as world policeman, it is ad hominem. When you can't beat the argument, attack the supposed motives of those putting it forward. That's effective politically, but it's a logical fallacy.

    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
     
    It's not particularly about being a bigger power, the point is that if people thought like you that the US is a viable candidate for the job of world policeman (because it's so much nicer than the other candidates as you assert) they would not in general regard the US as the greatest threat to their country, no matter how much more powerful it is than those others.

    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.
     
    Actually, it's exactly how the world works and a "world policeman" is just the most powerful thug on the planet. The track record of the US makes that clear. A world without a world policeman is not a hippy paradise, but nor is one with a global policeman. There's no reason to think there will be more wars as the US's power to act unilaterally declines, there will just probably be different ones.

    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.
     
    There was no genocide in Kosovo, which was what I was referring to, just a brutal police action against ethnic supremacist, secessionist terrorists (to put the KLA in terms that they would honestly be described as if they weren't on "our side", as far as the US sphere elites are concerned).

    Bosnia was rather different, but I prefer to view it as a brutal inter-ethnic war with massacres and ethnic cleansing rather than a mass genocide in the Rwanda sense. I'm using genocide here in a much more literal sense than the legalistic one generally used, that includes things like moving populations around and suppressing their cultural expression in a particular location, and as requiring much more substantial numbers of deliberate killings.

    Well….I get your points.

    We simply, fundamentally, disagree there.

    So, while most of posters here wish Major and his types to keep going down that slope of self-doubt and self-loathing, well, I am here to advise against it.

    Or….Major, true, you are often full of shit, but, it’s better with you then without you. Especially that without you we are likely to get Russian or Chinese Majors around.

    Analogy:
    Game of Thrones.
    Major works for Tywin Lannister.
    The neighboring powers are “Slaver’s Bay” and “Rose Bolton”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from in that even if I don't agree. Thirty years ago I might well have agreed with you, but military interventionism has long since removed any inclination I had for supporting the military as a national defence force. My country faces no real military threats today (terrorism is properly a security/policing issue, not military), and the last straightforwardly legitimate war we fought was the Falklands (I'd accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).

    I'm still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I'm damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  88. @Anonymous White Male
    The only use for the military, aside from actually protecting this country (not that that it has been used for that since the South defended itself) is to provide training in strategy, tactics, discipline, weaponry, and killing for those that can help overthrow the parasitic government of this nation. I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity? The military and the police are the weapons the parasites will use to hold on to their illegitimate power. Otherwise, the posterity would have no problem rooting the scum out. If the American military is as patriotic to We the People as the Soviet military was to the Russian citizenry, they will stand down. We can only hope our soldiers are as honorable as the Soviets. Where do you stand on this, Major Sjursen?

    This is THE question and I commend you for positing it.

    Morgan’s Law dictates that there are two reasons for everything – a good reason and the real reason. It is highly likely that this is the real reason for wanting foreigners to serve in the military as a means to obtaining US citizenship.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    It is highly likely that this is the real reason for wanting foreigners to serve in the military as a means to obtaining US citizenship.
     
    Direct Hit! The corollary to that is the type of foreigner, and the provocation of racial/ethnic strife to make sure the foreigners know they're killing an "enemy" when the order comes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @peterAUS
    Well….because Major’s ….introspection…..felt a bit familiar…….a bit only, mind you….I’ll try to post by replying to some other posters (they’ll recognize their paragraphs) and then, I guess, a little musing in general.

    Primary reason that Major and similar……people………could find it…interesting.

    The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats.
     
    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
    That comes with the position, perhaps. Maybe those TWO primary contenders for the position are just envious.

    the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.
     
    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity?
     
    He’ll never tell you that on open Internet.
    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them. The idea that citizens could rebel, that is. Going against those citizens, simply doesn’t even register in their conscious minds.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough.
     
    Ah…….this.
    This is what I, personally, see as important.
    There is a fine line here and I posted about it on some other, heated, threads here.
    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
    Put it this way: the way to weaken a society is to have its elites lose confidence in themselves.
    Military elite as part of that.
    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
    True, “Yanks” are full of shit.
    The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse. In my book of course. But I am sure in a lot of books around this world too. We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
    Ask them what do they prefer: former Soviet/Russian masters or “Yanks”?

    So, for Major and similar types, before continuing to fall deeper in your self-doubt, think a bit about that.

    Assuming from your handle that you are Australian, do you realise that it was US meddling that toppled Gough Whitlam’s government? (flawed though it was). And had Whitlam implemented his plans Australia would now have a massive sovereign wealth fund belonging to the people of Australia, much like Norway has for its people, only much bigger, instead of being indebted to the extent that we are.

    Should the US ever step in to defend Australia you can bet the farm that it would then use that to increase its ownership, loot the place and establish even more bases with which to threaten SE Asia even more.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Only an ageing lefty fantasist could believe that BS. Of course the US had (various) views about a government which was probably the most spectacularly incompetent and erratic in Australia's history and barely explicable for one led by an intelligent man despite his being lumbered with the hopeless residues of Labor being out of power for 23 years like Jim Cairns and Rex Connor (the latter's old socialist fantasy possibly being your basis for believing in the Whitlam plan for a sovereign wealth fund).

    You are clearly saying that the Whitlam government would not have ended in late 1975 but for "US meddling". Pure Pilgerising! Gough Whitlam himself didn't believe it and he had nearly 40 years in which to change his mind on that and say so. No senior person in the Labor Party believed it because they all knew that Malcolm Fraser and his closest hardhead colleagues were determined to take the earliest possibility of forcing the Whitlam government to an election which it would surely lose. The Libs and Nats had shown themselves willing to try blocking supply in the Senate (as Labor previously had too) in 1974 but they lost the election Whitlam then called. After that economic disasters meant Whitlam knew he would lose in 1976 so had to be dismissed for an election to take place. Kerr's action was actually supported by advice given by Tony Mason whom a Labor government later appointed Chief Justice! The advice was based on the need for a government to be able to obtain supply to pay its bills, including salaries.

    Your references to sovereign wealth funds and debt are equally a product of smoking the wrong stuff with old lefties relying on faulty memories.

    It was a (more or less) conservative Liberal Treasurer who gave Australia its sovereign wealth fund - the Future Fund - after Whitlam government minister and later (1983 -1996) Labor Treasurer and PM Keating had chosen not to do so. As for debt!!! The Howard-Costello Liberal-National Coalition government inherited a large deficit and debt from Labor, ran surpluses and abolished government debt so that, when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007 it had no debt and a budget surplus. Panic response to the Global Financial Crisis way beyond an initial justified $8 billion stimulus package (following Treasury advice to "go hard, go households, go early") meant that a whole lot of wasteful lefty fantasy projects (typically overpriced school halls) went on and on leaving a debt which a dysfunctional Senate and unscrupulous Opposition
    won't allow fixed.

    It is true that John Howard as PM did to his Treasurer, Costello, in the lead up to the 2007 election what Fraser did to Treasurer Howard in 1982-83 when they also lost office viz. try to buy an election. Unfortunately Rudd didn't reverse the overgenerosity to the middle classes so Labor can't blame Howard and Costello for today's debt (which, to Europeans and Americans, would seem modest).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    I am aware of E.Germans feeling that way.
    I am not quite sure it’s about this particular topic (“world policeman”), though.
    I feel it’s more about socio-economic system before the fall of the Wall (employment and the rest).
    The same for the rest.
    We could argue that “make America great” people are in the same boat.
    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
    Anyway…..

    The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law.
     
    Should.
    It isn’t.
    When it was the last time, BTW?

    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?

    For many of the 60%, the Soviet system predates their memory. Anybody younger than say 35, would have no meaningful memory of it.

    When it was the last time, BTW?

    So far as I know, the only thing that comes close was the Mongol Empire, but Ghengis Khan had far more respect for decency and international custom (if not law) than the carpetbaggers that run America. Aside from that, it has never been globally “policed” before the fall of the Soviet Empire, the latter having served as a check on American hubris. Since then, the world has become thoroughly disgusted with America’s Globo Cop experiment. Clearly, it was a bad idea that an accident of history allowed to happen. The argument that the multi-polar world is making is that it shouldn’t/won’t be policed by any single nation in the future.

    That so many the “MAGA people” voted against it indicates that “the world” includes much of America itself, and should indicate to you why the multi-polar world is slowly but surely winning that argument. Just look at the 90 or so comments above this one for a first hand look at what many Americans think of the “policemen” they sent out into the world and who now see what their mission turned out to be. I cannot believe either the Chinese, or the Russians, or a combination of the two have it in them to do worse.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I cannot believe either the Chinese, or the Russians, or a combination of the two have it in them to do worse.
     
    There is where we differ.
    I can believe that both Russians and Chinese, especially the former, have in them to do worse. Much worse in fact.

    Both of those..."alternatives".......were, in past, quite capable of mass murder and incarceration of their own citizens, on political grounds
    Yanks weren't.

    True, we can blame excesses of Communist rule.
    I don't think it's that simple.

    There is certain....elites brutality....and disdain for a little man....in both Russian and Chinese society.
    Not so much in USA.

    Anyway, we are going in circles here.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Alden says:
    @peterAUS

    All governments do this, of course, by definition, but the US is particularly vulnerable to it and is particularly problematic because of its greater power.
     
    Well…agree.
    So?
    My point is that the world needs a world policeman. Rwanda is a very good example. Somebody should’ve jumped there and done something. Prevented all that carnage. Well, probably race realists don’t mind that particular case, but….anyway…..
    At the moment I do not see a better cop than USA.
    If/when we get a better cop, perfect.

    An easy ad hominem cop-out on your part, with some undoubted truth in many cases but of no relevance.
     
    Some truths, but no relevance?
    I thought that having some truths makes all the relevance it needs.

    No doubt you do, as a citizen of a country that is part of the US sphere and who therefore expects US intervention not to be directed against your own country in any foreseeable circumstance. As the aforementioned poll makes clear, though, more people see US power as “the greatest threat to their country” than see either Russian or Chinese power as such, which casts doubt over how many would agree with you in the world as a whole.
     
    Don’t get the point really.
    Of course more people see US as bigger threat because it’s a bigger power?!?
    Would you wish that US get less power, China and Russia more power, so now we can be afraid of each of those equally?
    You know…multipolar thing.
    Each of big players having its own slice of the world. So, polls would then show that little nations ON BORDERS equally fear both of those two (God help those with all three big guys on borders).

    I have no problem saying that I do not want to see the US as the world’s policeman.
     
    Fine.
    I am sure some people do want to see the US as the world's policeman. Or, probably more accurate, they do not want to see Russia and/or China (or their coalition) as world policeman.
    And, in this particular thread, sort of communicating with US Army Major and his types, I’d just like him/his types to know that.
    Of course, it would be great if we don’t have to have any of them, but, unfortunately, that’s not how the world works. You know, swords into plowshares.

    On the very rare occasions where external intervention in a nation’s internal affairs is needed and justified (which I would argue would require a genuinely genocidal crisis of the kind in Rwanda or perhaps Cambodia, which has certainly not existed in a single one of the US’s interventions in the past three decades – certainly not in Yugoslavia despite vigorous efforts to make one up), then emergency action should be taken by whoever is in a position to do so, hopefully with the agreement of all the major powers. And if that cannot be done, then so be it. The world is not perfect, and the attempt to create heaven on earth is as likely to raise hell as to do any good.
     
    Disagree, of course. Somebody should've stepped there and preventrd that horror. And possible future horrors of similar type.
    And, apparently you have your doubts too:

    The existence of a genuine genocidal catastrophe merely sets the base requirement to justify intervention. After that, there needs to be a realistic prospect of an intervention actually making things better.
     
    Glad you mentioned Yugoslavia. Are you saying there was no genocide there?
    Just curious.

    My point is: this world needs something/somebody to police it. Until something better is found, by some miracle, I am sure that lots of people prefer Yankees to do that.
    Now, there is plenty of room for improvement there of course.
    Policing I mean.
    But, still, better than alternatives.

    An entire United Nations army headed by a Canadien general was in Rwanda at the time of the genocide. It happened anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. Alden says:
    @Stealth

    *Meanwhile, Donald Trump’s attempts to put in place a Muslim travel ban haven’t won this country any friends in the region either; nor will the president’s — or White House aide Stephen Miller’s — proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives. How do you think that’s going to play in the global war for hearts and minds?
     
    I stopped reading at this.

    I too stopped reading at author’s claim we should let more Muslims immigrate to “win friends in the region”

    Ha ha

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Alden says:
    @kerdasi amaq
    Should White Americans fight for a regime that is determined to replace them in their homeland with non-White foreigners? I think not.

    Totally agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. Erebus says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    This is THE question and I commend you for positing it.

    Morgan's Law dictates that there are two reasons for everything - a good reason and the real reason. It is highly likely that this is the real reason for wanting foreigners to serve in the military as a means to obtaining US citizenship.

    It is highly likely that this is the real reason for wanting foreigners to serve in the military as a means to obtaining US citizenship.

    Direct Hit! The corollary to that is the type of foreigner, and the provocation of racial/ethnic strife to make sure the foreigners know they’re killing an “enemy” when the order comes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
     
    For many of the 60%, the Soviet system predates their memory. Anybody younger than say 35, would have no meaningful memory of it.

    When it was the last time, BTW?
     
    So far as I know, the only thing that comes close was the Mongol Empire, but Ghengis Khan had far more respect for decency and international custom (if not law) than the carpetbaggers that run America. Aside from that, it has never been globally "policed" before the fall of the Soviet Empire, the latter having served as a check on American hubris. Since then, the world has become thoroughly disgusted with America's Globo Cop experiment. Clearly, it was a bad idea that an accident of history allowed to happen. The argument that the multi-polar world is making is that it shouldn't/won't be policed by any single nation in the future.

    That so many the "MAGA people" voted against it indicates that "the world" includes much of America itself, and should indicate to you why the multi-polar world is slowly but surely winning that argument. Just look at the 90 or so comments above this one for a first hand look at what many Americans think of the "policemen" they sent out into the world and who now see what their mission turned out to be. I cannot believe either the Chinese, or the Russians, or a combination of the two have it in them to do worse.

    I cannot believe either the Chinese, or the Russians, or a combination of the two have it in them to do worse.

    There is where we differ.
    I can believe that both Russians and Chinese, especially the former, have in them to do worse. Much worse in fact.

    Both of those…”alternatives”…….were, in past, quite capable of mass murder and incarceration of their own citizens, on political grounds
    Yanks weren’t.

    True, we can blame excesses of Communist rule.
    I don’t think it’s that simple.

    There is certain….elites brutality….and disdain for a little man….in both Russian and Chinese society.
    Not so much in USA.

    Anyway, we are going in circles here.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. edNels says:
    @jacques sheete
    Thank you for your excellent posts. Good info in all of 'em.

    Hi Jacques Sheete

    I don’t even have to read your posts, I am confident that I could write them myself, if I was smarter.. I agree always with what you say.

    I would have you as my press secretary!! if I was the Press!

    No jive pardner.

    I am a surviver, I went to NY when I was 18 years old, and I could buy alchahol legally… which I did!

    I walked all over NY over the Brooklyn Bridge daily… Well any way, coming from San Francisco, and Berserkely, comm on, I know what’s up… all them Rock and Rollers were livin in my backyard there in Larkspur… and Mill Valley!

    I just don’t think that I am any little bit Naive about anything.. no not at all…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Assuming from your handle that you are Australian, do you realise that it was US meddling that toppled Gough Whitlam's government? (flawed though it was). And had Whitlam implemented his plans Australia would now have a massive sovereign wealth fund belonging to the people of Australia, much like Norway has for its people, only much bigger, instead of being indebted to the extent that we are.

    Should the US ever step in to defend Australia you can bet the farm that it would then use that to increase its ownership, loot the place and establish even more bases with which to threaten SE Asia even more.

    Only an ageing lefty fantasist could believe that BS. Of course the US had (various) views about a government which was probably the most spectacularly incompetent and erratic in Australia’s history and barely explicable for one led by an intelligent man despite his being lumbered with the hopeless residues of Labor being out of power for 23 years like Jim Cairns and Rex Connor (the latter’s old socialist fantasy possibly being your basis for believing in the Whitlam plan for a sovereign wealth fund).

    You are clearly saying that the Whitlam government would not have ended in late 1975 but for “US meddling”. Pure Pilgerising! Gough Whitlam himself didn’t believe it and he had nearly 40 years in which to change his mind on that and say so. No senior person in the Labor Party believed it because they all knew that Malcolm Fraser and his closest hardhead colleagues were determined to take the earliest possibility of forcing the Whitlam government to an election which it would surely lose. The Libs and Nats had shown themselves willing to try blocking supply in the Senate (as Labor previously had too) in 1974 but they lost the election Whitlam then called. After that economic disasters meant Whitlam knew he would lose in 1976 so had to be dismissed for an election to take place. Kerr’s action was actually supported by advice given by Tony Mason whom a Labor government later appointed Chief Justice! The advice was based on the need for a government to be able to obtain supply to pay its bills, including salaries.

    Your references to sovereign wealth funds and debt are equally a product of smoking the wrong stuff with old lefties relying on faulty memories.

    It was a (more or less) conservative Liberal Treasurer who gave Australia its sovereign wealth fund – the Future Fund – after Whitlam government minister and later (1983 -1996) Labor Treasurer and PM Keating had chosen not to do so. As for debt!!! The Howard-Costello Liberal-National Coalition government inherited a large deficit and debt from Labor, ran surpluses and abolished government debt so that, when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007 it had no debt and a budget surplus. Panic response to the Global Financial Crisis way beyond an initial justified $8 billion stimulus package (following Treasury advice to “go hard, go households, go early”) meant that a whole lot of wasteful lefty fantasy projects (typically overpriced school halls) went on and on leaving a debt which a dysfunctional Senate and unscrupulous Opposition
    won’t allow fixed.

    It is true that John Howard as PM did to his Treasurer, Costello, in the lead up to the 2007 election what Fraser did to Treasurer Howard in 1982-83 when they also lost office viz. try to buy an election. Unfortunately Rudd didn’t reverse the overgenerosity to the middle classes so Labor can’t blame Howard and Costello for today’s debt (which, to Europeans and Americans, would seem modest).

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for your input but did you forget to include the fact that Howard's government sold off 160+ tonnes of gold at record low prices, around $325 oz and sold off the telecommunications infrastructure at the dawn of the digital era, an act much like selling off the roads just as the automobile was invented. Oh and he sold off the world's safest blood supply too. Come to think of it what else didn't he sell off? I think he would have sold his grandmother had she not resisted.

    Rudd did make some rash choices but then Australians kept their homes while a great number of Americans lost theirs, a reality that for many will never be reversed. It is true that many homebuyers made foolish investments here and there but for peoples whose governments go needlessly to war that is what happens so things will likely only worsen in both places.

    As for being a lefty, on some things I am and others not at all. As Gore Vidal said, there's only one political party, it's The Money Party with two branches. I think that's true for both the US and Australia.
    , @NoseytheDuke
    It was Christopher Boyce who said that the CIA was behind Whitlam's dismissal, he had direct access to CIA communication feeds from Australia in real time and can I assume that you did not and rather got your version from a much later source assisted by Mason, Kerr, Fraser?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. @Alden
    Nothing can overcome the hatred upper crust Americans feel for America and White Americans.

    There you go again. Now “upper crust American” are not white Americans. (It was liberals).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Eagle Eye
    Quite true.

    NYT and WaPo readers have been conditioned for decades to think that if only Leftist prescriptions are adopted and the country is flooded with millions of Third Worlders, socialist nirvana will be at hand.

    NOBODY outside the U.S. believes that masochistic immigration policies will EVER satisfy lying Leftists. More broadly, and it is quite impossible for the U.S. to become popular at this stage. The U.S. must aim to be respected and feared through strength with restraint. Trying to be loved is the road to disaster.


    the president’s ... proposed “reform” of U.S. immigration policy, which would prioritize English-speakers, cut in half legal migration within a decade, and limit the ability of citizens and legal residents to sponsor relatives ... [won't win this country any friends in the region]
     
    Has Sjursen ever talked to actual upper-middle class people in Europe or the Middle East after 2 - 3 drinks?

    NOTHING can overcome the sour-grapes hate among upper-crust Europeans and Middle Easterners of the U.S. which became the world's leading nation post WW II, thus depriving the elites in satellite countries of what they fondly imagine would have been their rightful place at the head of proud, independent countries. These feelings and the Leftist religion are mutually reinforcing and make the cultist's religious and political "convictions" impenetrable.

    I’ll assume you have associated with European (sic) upper middle class people before and after they have had a few drinks. But when? Your impression of their views strikes me as one that is very (like many decades) out of date at least amongst those who have ever done something serious in life. I suspect that you have listened to (semi)-retired people from the Shires that you have met on cruises .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  100. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    Well….because Major’s ….introspection…..felt a bit familiar…….a bit only, mind you….I’ll try to post by replying to some other posters (they’ll recognize their paragraphs) and then, I guess, a little musing in general.

    Primary reason that Major and similar……people………could find it…interesting.

    The US has long been recognised as the greater threat to world peace amongst the powerful states by more than see the others as threats.
     
    Well…..I’ve read this as “powerful states see USA as threat”.
    That comes with the position, perhaps. Maybe those TWO primary contenders for the position are just envious.

    the idea that the US ought to be interfering and fighting wars in foreign countries not out of defensive necessity but rather as moral crusades to improve the lives of foreigners.
     
    Well…..yes and no, actually.
    Rwanda example?
    One could even get an….impression….that bitching and moaning about USA policing the world has more with “we’d like to have that kind of power” then “wrong to do that”. Kids bitching about schoolmaster.

    I would like to ask the author of this piece what I consider a pertinent question: When the demons that control this country decide to use the military to kill White citizens, how many of your brothers-in-arms will stand with the government and how many will stand with the posterity?
     
    He’ll never tell you that on open Internet.
    More likely, though, the very idea is still alien to him/them. The idea that citizens could rebel, that is. Going against those citizens, simply doesn’t even register in their conscious minds.

    Author shows some capability for reflection but not quite enough.
     
    Ah…….this.
    This is what I, personally, see as important.
    There is a fine line here and I posted about it on some other, heated, threads here.
    Reflecting on bad things to make things better….definitely.
    Reflecting to, ultimately, lose confidence in your ability….and, consequently, lose POWER……..f*&k no.
    Put it this way: the way to weaken a society is to have its elites lose confidence in themselves.
    Military elite as part of that.
    The QUESTION: if somebody has to police this world, who should do it?
    Simple question.
    I vote for Americans.
    True, “Yanks” are full of shit.
    The PROBLEM is, other TWO contenders for the place are much worse. In my book of course. But I am sure in a lot of books around this world too. We just need to see people in countries who were under Soviets.
    Ask them what do they prefer: former Soviet/Russian masters or “Yanks”?

    So, for Major and similar types, before continuing to fall deeper in your self-doubt, think a bit about that.

    I wrote a comprehensive reply to the Nosey man’s total Pilgerising BS about Whitlam (who knew it wasn’t the US which brought him down) and debt which was eliminated after many years of Labor government by the very non-Labor Treasurer who gave Oz its sovereign wealth fund. Of course the Rudd Labor government’s over reaction to the Global Financial Crisis aftet an initial justified stimulus package has left Oz with public debt again (as well as that incurred by state, mostly Labor, governments).

    Somehow that reply went missing. But I trust you know all I have written anyway.

    Oops! Now I see my reply has appeared after all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Yes, I've seen it.
    Nice to see the real people in the know posting here.
    Much appreciated.
    The only thing is, one has to skim through all the kooks, plants, fanboys and trolls to, every so now and then, get that type of info.

    To keep on the topic, it's all good as long as it's done under USA "umbrella".

    Doing all that under Russian or Chinese umbrella, well, I am sure it would be quite different.
    Uncomfortably different.
    Especially for losers.
    And, of course, for a "little man".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  101. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Well done for calling out the cheap propagandist who seems to think a link to something said by the egregious Paul Craig Roberts is a worthwhile reply.

    My understanding is that most of the Maidan crowd were genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors who were recruited by a Faceebook posting by a well known dissident journalist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Paul Craig Roberts is cheap for you but the Atlantic Council and the Heritage Foundation and other ziocons sources of "information" are perfect. You need first to learn the history of "independent" Ukraine, beginning with Yuschenko, the US puppet No 1.
    Yanukovich was a scum, but don't you like Yatz, Poroschenko (both have been the long-term CIA assets, google yourself) and Volodimir Groysman? The "genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors" have been sold and betrayed by Kiev junta supported and guided by the Kagans' clan and the CIA; the CIA Director Brennan showed up in person in Kiev on the eve of the militry actions by Kiev against the pro-federalists in East Ukraine (again, google yourself). And if Roberts is not good for you, please tell us more about Nuland-Kagan, Kolomojsky and his beloved retinue of neo-Nazi Azov battalion... There was nothing unusual about the "most blatant" coup d'etat in Ukraine in 2014; that was a regular regime change that was played over in many other countries before (google "regime change", USA)
    Up to date, 2.000.000 Ukrainians have relocated to Russia. Another million has left for Poland (the same Poland that is busy destroying the WWII memorials; next should be the Jewish cemeteries, one would guess).
    Ukraine is raped and stripped of her wealth. The scoundrels, Timoshenko and Michel Saakishvilli, are ready to fight with another scoundrel, Poroshenko, for money and power, the ordinary Ukrainians, pensioners in particular, be damned.
    There were no Nazi parades under puppet-Yanukovich, but there are neo-Nazi parades in Kiev and Lvov under the puppets Groysman and Poroshenko. Congratulations to junta. Complete circle. The ziocons and neo-Nazi finally found each other.
    , @peterAUS

    My understanding is that most of the Maidan crowd were genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors
     
    One element which caught my eye at the time.
    Courage of those people.

    They were advancing, unarmed, under fire...taking casualties and, slowly, advancing.
    Not running for cover.

    Take a look at any real life footage of non-combat shooting.
    Usually people running for cover or people cowering in cover.

    Not in this case.
    That IS courage.

    Now, motives behind that courage is another thing.

    Similar, BTW, to Erdogan people on that bridge.
    Google it if you wish.
    Courage.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. @Wally
    Oil producers need to sell their oil more then we need it.

    The world is awash in oil, it's literally everywhere.

    The idea that we need ME oil serves the interests of "that shitty little country", not ours.

    The True Cost of Parasite Israel
    Forced US taxpayers money to Israel goes far beyond the official numbers.
    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-true-cost-of-israel/

    Israel's Dirty Little Secret
    How it drives US policies exploiting a spineless Congress and White House
    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/israels-dirty-little-secret/

    How to Bring Down the Elephant in the Room
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/how-to-bring-down-the-elephant-in-the-room/

    Israeli occupied territories
    https://codoh.com/media/files/cartoon24s.png

    ” Oil producers need to sell their oil more then we need it. ”

    I wonder.
    I still remember the panic when Nasser closed the Suez Canal.
    France was in panic a year or so ago when strikers blocked the exits of refineries.
    Western societies cannot function without oil.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS

    “Nationalities? Names? Backgrounds? Weapons used?”
     
    Yes, please.

    Just a couple will suffice.

    Say, Dragunov SVD, perhaps?
    How many?
    With suppressors or not?
    What were the sights? Standard issue or something else?
    Ammo? FMJs, hollow points or something else? How many spent casings were found? Factory or hand loads, what was the estimate?

    Stuff like that.
    Simple.

    I mean, even with JFK we have all that. Doesn't matter true of not.

    So, your employers.....what's their "management perception" product?

    No rush. If you have to consult supervisor first no problem.

    But, it would be good to have some hard info among all this yammering around.

    Any "leaked" FSB/SVR document?

    C'mon, give us something. Maintain credibility. Didn't you go through the course?

    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the “training” — how come? Mind that this is an alternative media forum, whereas you are firmly with the establishment, the ZUSA line, including the predilection for slandering. Don’t even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Coherent reply; no Politburo copy/paste and links.
    Improvement.

    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the “training” — how come?
     
    A good question.
    Hard to say, really.
    Maybe..... long military experience, some of it in related and similar matters?

    BTW, you wondering that is precisely why I decided to post here.
    Ignoramuses about military in general and combat in particular lecturing an US Major.

    Don’t even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.
     
    Why?
    Jew obviously.
    Simple a?

    So, still waiting for the supervisor to advise as to how to proceed to that "everybody is known but we can't post it on Internet"?
    No rush. Take your time.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  104. Hu Mi Yu says:
    @The Alarmist

    "... the U.S. response to the worst refugee crisis since World War II has been to admit — to choose but a single devastated country — a paltry 18,000 Syrians since 2011."
     
    Dude, if we caused this problem, these are the last people we would want to take in.

    "As much as Miller would love to change Emma Lazarus’s inscription on the Statue of Liberty to “give me your well educated, your highly skilled, your English-speaking masses yearning to be free,” count on one thing: world opinion won’t miss the duplicity and hypocrisy of such an approach."
     
    First of all, it's the Stutue of Liberty, not the Statue of Immigration, but it's not the first time we've taken something from the French and then totally f¥@ked it up. Second, this is pretty much how most of the world's immigration systems (at least for the poor and middle classes) works. Why should the US have the least demanding, nay crappiest immigration systems in the Western World?

    "And speaking of American exceptionalism, we’re almost alone on the world stage when it comes to our support for the Israeli occupation."
     
    Good point. The whole strategy used to be to moderately disdain the Israelis but give them aid and weapons, so that the fighting stayed over there and largely at their cost in terms of lives. I tend to pooh-pooh the conspiracy theorists who blame Israel for 9-11, but I'm starting to warm to the idea given how wide-spread terror has become in the western world, leaving us no choice but to join in and bringing the carnage over here.

    "Would I be able to confidently explain to someone’s mother what (besides his mates) her child actually died for?"
     
    If you are a US politician, you have an army of paid communication consultants and media trainers who will cement the appropriate message and delivery into your sparse brain matter. The little people will tend to believe what their "wise" leaders are telling them as long as not too many of their children are being shipped home in flag-draped caskets. We did learn one important thing in Vietnam.

    It is bad PR to bring our young men home in trash… er I mean body bags instead of caskets. I think that is all we learned there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Body bags were only used to get them from the front to processing.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. @peterAUS

    There is no possible narrative that can explain why these adventures are essential to the US and yet when we lose — it doesn’t matter. Or rather — no narrative that is both plausible and also not repulsive.
     
    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Friedman
    Especially these:
    The Future of War: Power, Technology and American World Dominance in the Twenty-First Century,
    The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century
    A couple of chapters in each, you could find interesting.

    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:

    Using Mr. Friedman and his fraudulent organization STRATFOR, good only for BSing impressionable “business” people (a euphemism for good for nothing financiers), is rather in a bad taste, when referencing anything (Russian) military related. STRATFOR “forecasts” are aligned very well with the most of contemporary US “analytical” effort which, speaking broadly, doesn’t provide anyone with even finding their own ass with their both hands in a brightly lit room.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I'll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can't get in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. @Hu Mi Yu
    It is bad PR to bring our young men home in trash... er I mean body bags instead of caskets. I think that is all we learned there.

    Body bags were only used to get them from the front to processing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. annamaria says:
    @Anonymous
    Well done for calling out the cheap propagandist who seems to think a link to something said by the egregious Paul Craig Roberts is a worthwhile reply.

    My understanding is that most of the Maidan crowd were genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors who were recruited by a Faceebook posting by a well known dissident journalist.

    Paul Craig Roberts is cheap for you but the Atlantic Council and the Heritage Foundation and other ziocons sources of “information” are perfect. You need first to learn the history of “independent” Ukraine, beginning with Yuschenko, the US puppet No 1.
    Yanukovich was a scum, but don’t you like Yatz, Poroschenko (both have been the long-term CIA assets, google yourself) and Volodimir Groysman? The “genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors” have been sold and betrayed by Kiev junta supported and guided by the Kagans’ clan and the CIA; the CIA Director Brennan showed up in person in Kiev on the eve of the militry actions by Kiev against the pro-federalists in East Ukraine (again, google yourself). And if Roberts is not good for you, please tell us more about Nuland-Kagan, Kolomojsky and his beloved retinue of neo-Nazi Azov battalion… There was nothing unusual about the “most blatant” coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014; that was a regular regime change that was played over in many other countries before (google “regime change”, USA)
    Up to date, 2.000.000 Ukrainians have relocated to Russia. Another million has left for Poland (the same Poland that is busy destroying the WWII memorials; next should be the Jewish cemeteries, one would guess).
    Ukraine is raped and stripped of her wealth. The scoundrels, Timoshenko and Michel Saakishvilli, are ready to fight with another scoundrel, Poroshenko, for money and power, the ordinary Ukrainians, pensioners in particular, be damned.
    There were no Nazi parades under puppet-Yanukovich, but there are neo-Nazi parades in Kiev and Lvov under the puppets Groysman and Poroshenko. Congratulations to junta. Complete circle. The ziocons and neo-Nazi finally found each other.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. The Scalpel says: • Website

    Mr Sjursen: Simple question. Why have you not resigned from the Army? My take is that you are a self-righteous phoney, and you are consumed with guilt at your own cowardice and unwillingness to sacrifice your privileged position as a syncophant of the state to do what you know to be the right thing.

    Either that, or you are NSA, CIA or some other “intelligence” lackey trying to show skeptics that Army officers can be thoughtful and humane when, in fact, they would kill their own son (like Bacevich) before giving up their perks and grandiose misconception of their, in realty, rotten morals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Why have you not resigned from the Army? My take is that you are a self-righteous phoney, and you are consumed with guilt at your own cowardice and unwillingness to sacrifice your privileged position as a syncophant of the state to do what you know to be the right thing.

    Either that, or you are NSA, CIA or some other “intelligence” lackey trying to show skeptics that Army officers can be thoughtful and humane when, in fact, they would kill their own son (like Bacevich) before giving up their perks and grandiose misconception of their, in realty, rotten morals.
     
    Nice example.

    So, the flip side of that coin..
    I mean, somebody should, shouldn't he?
    Just to keep a balance.

    So, here it is:
    Don't resign, of course. Keep introspection on, always, but, don't let that blunt your blade.
    Temper the blade with it, but.............NO blunting.
    A fine line between Walter E. Kurtz and Charles Alvin Beckwith.
    That is what the game is all about, isn't it?
    Whenever you have those doubts, think would your MAJOR potential opponents have them if they were in your place. How would THEY behave?
    Ah, yes, another thing.
    When you have to talk about those things, find somebody with similar background/experience.
    Like...a pregnant woman.
    If she wants to share her the most personal fears, doubts and anxieties who would she pick? A woman with similar experience, or, a well read, educated, mature man?
    Treat "outsider" opinion and advice about military in general and your issues in particular as how would you treat a "subject matter expert" civilian in your staff during a combat mission. You know how it works....
    And keep better in what you do.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. annamaria says:

    Meet the ziocon mind behind Nikki Haley: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-11/haley-s-un-brinkmanship-comes-with-advice-by-long-time-pollster.

    “Jon Lerner, a political strategist who helped get Haley elected twice as the Palmetto State’s governor, is the ambassador’s Washington-based deputy. … Haley’s public persona, whether at the UN, in Washington or back in the South Carolina capital, has long been guided by Lerner, who started working with her in 2009. Like Haley, Lerner has a thin foreign policy resume, but that may be less important to the UN envoy than having someone she can trust implicitly in Washington. (Let’s retype: “Like Haley, Lerner has a thin foreign policy resume, but that may be less important to the UN envoy than having someone she can trust implicitly in Washington”).
    In a rare public comment, Lerner described himself in an email as inspired by anti-Communist movements. “My hostility to anti-American authoritarian governments that began with anti-Communism remains my primary motivation,” Lerner wrote. “That manifests itself today in places that include North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Venezuela, and Russia.”

    Well, let’s see what exactly made Jon Lerner so indispensable for the Deep State:
    1. Lerner does not have any training in diplomacy
    2. Lerner has “a thin foreign policy resume” which means that he is incompetent in foreign policy.
    3. Lerner believes that Russia is a communist state. Someone needs to explain the ignoramus that Russian Federation is basically a capitalist country that is trying to shed the Bolshevik heritage.

    If Jon Lerner wants to meet communists, he should go to Kagans, Kristols, Perles, and other influential former Trotskyists. The Bolshevik communist government was at least 80% Jewish. But to learn about the history of Bolshevism in Russia, Jon Lerner needs to read a documentary by Alexander Solzhenitsyn, “Two Hundred Years Together:” http://12160.info/profiles/blogs/banned-aleksandr-solzhenitsyn-two-hundred-years-together-almost-f
    The documentary has been sequestered by all publishing houses in the US and UK. So much for freedom of speech when the facts are related to the comprehensive history of Jews in Eastern Europe.
    Currently, the US politics is a toy in the hands of the incompetent and the ignoramuses like Jon Lerner and Nikki Haley. But when incompetence and ignorance are combined with vicious opportunism, they become the greatest assets for the Deep State “deciders.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  110. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    I am aware of E.Germans feeling that way.
    I am not quite sure it’s about this particular topic (“world policeman”), though.
    I feel it’s more about socio-economic system before the fall of the Wall (employment and the rest).
    The same for the rest.
    We could argue that “make America great” people are in the same boat.
    Besides, if we want to be pedantic, how about those 60 %?
    Anyway…..

    The world should be ruled by international law, and policed by a body that respects and acts according to that law.
     
    Should.
    It isn’t.
    When it was the last time, BTW?

    I don’t know about you, but at least those “two others” powers won’t snap and go into a homicidal rage everytime the “rights” of anal sex and homomania are violated. I mean, its a terrible world where people can’t snip off their penises and be celebrated as true women, but maybe it’ll all work out for the rest of us.

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

    US-sponsored “Democracy on the march” in Ukraine: https://www.rt.com/op-edge/402929-georgia-ukraine-saakashvili-illegal/ “The former Georgian President and Governor of Odessa Mikhail Saakashvili has illegally crossed the Ukrainian border with the help of supporters.”

    “The fact Mikhail Saakashvili played a prominent role in Ukrainian politics shows the disarray in Ukraine… The economy is in free fall, and the potential of joining NATO might spark further war in the country…
    Q. How did it happen that both Poroshenko and Saakashvili, being two US darlings, are now at loggerheads? In 2014 Saakashvili supported the Maidan revolution that brought Poroshenko to power.
    A: US darlings can fall out with each other. It is may be that the US has decided that Poroshenko is going to be thrown under the bus and Saakashvili is being used as a pawn to try and bring that about. Saakashvili has got a track record for being a loose cannon in his own right anyway. People may remember him eating his tie on television in Georgia when he started the war in Ossetia. He is a bit of a dangerous clown.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  112. @jilles dykstra
    What about
    Ward Churchill, 'A Little Matter of Genocide, Holocaust and Denial in the Americas, 1492 to the Present', San Francisco 1997 ?
    And is it Rheinwiesen, and France:
    James Bacque, ´Der geplante Tod, Deutsche Kriegsgefangene in amerikanischen und französischen Lagern 1945 – 1946, Frankfurt/M, 1989, 1994 (Other losses, Toronto, 1989)

    Indeed, good pick. The Jewish holocaust is depicted in the West or Hollywood mostly, as the singular defining massmurder in human history.

    The mere thought alone is ultimate racism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. peterAUS says:
    @annamaria
    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the "training" -- how come? Mind that this is an alternative media forum, whereas you are firmly with the establishment, the ZUSA line, including the predilection for slandering. Don't even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.

    Coherent reply; no Politburo copy/paste and links.
    Improvement.

    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the “training” — how come?

    A good question.
    Hard to say, really.
    Maybe….. long military experience, some of it in related and similar matters?

    BTW, you wondering that is precisely why I decided to post here.
    Ignoramuses about military in general and combat in particular lecturing an US Major.

    Don’t even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.

    Why?
    Jew obviously.
    Simple a?

    So, still waiting for the supervisor to advise as to how to proceed to that “everybody is known but we can’t post it on Internet”?
    No rush. Take your time.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    1. Not agreeing with your opinions does not mean doing a "supervised work"
    2. For a military man, you are surprisingly uncourteous
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. peterAUS says:
    @Anonymous
    Well done for calling out the cheap propagandist who seems to think a link to something said by the egregious Paul Craig Roberts is a worthwhile reply.

    My understanding is that most of the Maidan crowd were genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors who were recruited by a Faceebook posting by a well known dissident journalist.

    My understanding is that most of the Maidan crowd were genuine disgusted-with-disgusting-Russian-puppet-President protestors

    One element which caught my eye at the time.
    Courage of those people.

    They were advancing, unarmed, under fire…taking casualties and, slowly, advancing.
    Not running for cover.

    Take a look at any real life footage of non-combat shooting.
    Usually people running for cover or people cowering in cover.

    Not in this case.
    That IS courage.

    Now, motives behind that courage is another thing.

    Similar, BTW, to Erdogan people on that bridge.
    Google it if you wish.
    Courage.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. peterAUS says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Maybe this guy can offer some explanation:
     
    Using Mr. Friedman and his fraudulent organization STRATFOR, good only for BSing impressionable "business" people (a euphemism for good for nothing financiers), is rather in a bad taste, when referencing anything (Russian) military related. STRATFOR "forecasts" are aligned very well with the most of contemporary US "analytical" effort which, speaking broadly, doesn't provide anyone with even finding their own ass with their both hands in a brightly lit room.

    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.
     
    That is precisely my point too:

    1. Theory of "Organized Chaos" is a chimera invented in minds of military and geopolitical "experts" precisely of Friedman (or Kagan, or whoever is today main neocon doctrine-monger) caliber They came up with this imbecile idea precisely for the reasons of:
    a) not understanding the nature of military force;
    b) not understanding the whole host of issues associated with this force's application.

    2. In general, this is a delirious idea and if Friedman (I long ago gave up reading STRATFOR's fairy tales) tries to explain the whole situation from this vantage point, well, there you go, see above.

    , @Randal

    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.
     
    As Martyanov highlighted, Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.

    But if the goal was indeed as you put it, then it has certainly (and unsurprisingly) backfired spectacularly.

    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia's ally and China's friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria's indispensable ally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. peterAUS says:
    @The Scalpel
    Mr Sjursen: Simple question. Why have you not resigned from the Army? My take is that you are a self-righteous phoney, and you are consumed with guilt at your own cowardice and unwillingness to sacrifice your privileged position as a syncophant of the state to do what you know to be the right thing.

    Either that, or you are NSA, CIA or some other "intelligence" lackey trying to show skeptics that Army officers can be thoughtful and humane when, in fact, they would kill their own son (like Bacevich) before giving up their perks and grandiose misconception of their, in realty, rotten morals.

    Why have you not resigned from the Army? My take is that you are a self-righteous phoney, and you are consumed with guilt at your own cowardice and unwillingness to sacrifice your privileged position as a syncophant of the state to do what you know to be the right thing.

    Either that, or you are NSA, CIA or some other “intelligence” lackey trying to show skeptics that Army officers can be thoughtful and humane when, in fact, they would kill their own son (like Bacevich) before giving up their perks and grandiose misconception of their, in realty, rotten morals.

    Nice example.

    So, the flip side of that coin..
    I mean, somebody should, shouldn’t he?
    Just to keep a balance.

    So, here it is:
    Don’t resign, of course. Keep introspection on, always, but, don’t let that blunt your blade.
    Temper the blade with it, but………….NO blunting.
    A fine line between Walter E. Kurtz and Charles Alvin Beckwith.
    That is what the game is all about, isn’t it?
    Whenever you have those doubts, think would your MAJOR potential opponents have them if they were in your place. How would THEY behave?
    Ah, yes, another thing.
    When you have to talk about those things, find somebody with similar background/experience.
    Like…a pregnant woman.
    If she wants to share her the most personal fears, doubts and anxieties who would she pick? A woman with similar experience, or, a well read, educated, mature man?
    Treat “outsider” opinion and advice about military in general and your issues in particular as how would you treat a “subject matter expert” civilian in your staff during a combat mission. You know how it works….
    And keep better in what you do.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. @peterAUS
    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I'll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can't get in.

    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.

    That is precisely my point too:

    1. Theory of “Organized Chaos” is a chimera invented in minds of military and geopolitical “experts” precisely of Friedman (or Kagan, or whoever is today main neocon doctrine-monger) caliber They came up with this imbecile idea precisely for the reasons of:
    a) not understanding the nature of military force;
    b) not understanding the whole host of issues associated with this force’s application.

    2. In general, this is a delirious idea and if Friedman (I long ago gave up reading STRATFOR’s fairy tales) tries to explain the whole situation from this vantage point, well, there you go, see above.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  118. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Well....I get your points.

    We simply, fundamentally, disagree there.

    So, while most of posters here wish Major and his types to keep going down that slope of self-doubt and self-loathing, well, I am here to advise against it.

    Or....Major, true, you are often full of shit, but, it's better with you then without you. Especially that without you we are likely to get Russian or Chinese Majors around.

    Analogy:
    Game of Thrones.
    Major works for Tywin Lannister.
    The neighboring powers are "Slaver's Bay" and "Rose Bolton".

    Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from in that even if I don’t agree. Thirty years ago I might well have agreed with you, but military interventionism has long since removed any inclination I had for supporting the military as a national defence force. My country faces no real military threats today (terrorism is properly a security/policing issue, not military), and the last straightforwardly legitimate war we fought was the Falklands (I’d accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    (I’d accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).
     
    If it is of any interest to you--Argentina was called aggressor on the lectures of the History Of Naval Art, Naval Geography and Tactics in my naval academy. Yes, UK and Royal Navy's actions were viewed as legitimate.
    , @peterAUS
    Well....it's getting "personal" here and that's ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it's a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not "person"..........."issue".

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
     
    Aren't we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics...) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato...Machiavelli.....Lord Acton....blah...blah.....

    "I am all for gun bans; YOU first."
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy...."rule Britannia"......
    Racists, imperialists....blah...blah.....
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now......no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn't working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it's all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces..........

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, "the right of the first night.").Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    "They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all"

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it's been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha....want more?
    Can't make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So...the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can't be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won't abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they've been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now......what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry.....
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I'll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can't get in.

    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.

    As Martyanov highlighted, Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.

    But if the goal was indeed as you put it, then it has certainly (and unsurprisingly) backfired spectacularly.

    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia’s ally and China’s friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria’s indispensable ally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well, I'll reply here to both Andrei and you. Same thing I guess.

    You both could be right.
    So what?

    You two guys are actually making MY point (it's Friedman's , actually, of course).
    Now, let's first be frank here: Mr. Friedman, regardless how much I agree/disagree with his core values is much smarter man that I am. Not sure about you two but it's your thing.

    I'll use analogy (actually, Friedman used the same): The BULLY in a schoolyard.
    You know the type, most muscle and aggression, tons of insecurity...blah...blah...
    Doesn't matter.
    Future Tesla there, half of his size and 100 times his intellect, will have his arse kicked in. For a fun of it. For a lots of, actually, stupid reasons.
    Doesn't matter..............

    Think POWER, not core values, philosophy, being overall smart, right, whatever.
    Just pure POWER.


    Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.
     
    So what?
    The guys who have POWER do not care and it is all that matters. Neocons and MIC.

    Are you guys trying to impress the audience how smart you are with virtue signalling here?
    That's all good. Go for it.
    Or are you dealing with real life?


    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia’s ally and China’s friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria’s indispensable ally.
     
    Yes it is.
    Great.

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current.........ongoing...........MESS.
    Exactly what "neocon and US sphere militarist circles" want, as Friedman said.

    Looks as everybody wins a?

    You guys want the same victory in, say, Donbass.....Iran.....North Korea....?

    Great.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. peterAUS says:
    @Anonymous
    I wrote a comprehensive reply to the Nosey man's total Pilgerising BS about Whitlam (who knew it wasn't the US which brought him down) and debt which was eliminated after many years of Labor government by the very non-Labor Treasurer who gave Oz its sovereign wealth fund. Of course the Rudd Labor government's over reaction to the Global Financial Crisis aftet an initial justified stimulus package has left Oz with public debt again (as well as that incurred by state, mostly Labor, governments).

    Somehow that reply went missing. But I trust you know all I have written anyway.

    Oops! Now I see my reply has appeared after all.

    Yes, I’ve seen it.
    Nice to see the real people in the know posting here.
    Much appreciated.
    The only thing is, one has to skim through all the kooks, plants, fanboys and trolls to, every so now and then, get that type of info.

    To keep on the topic, it’s all good as long as it’s done under USA “umbrella”.

    Doing all that under Russian or Chinese umbrella, well, I am sure it would be quite different.
    Uncomfortably different.
    Especially for losers.
    And, of course, for a “little man”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. @Randal
    Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from in that even if I don't agree. Thirty years ago I might well have agreed with you, but military interventionism has long since removed any inclination I had for supporting the military as a national defence force. My country faces no real military threats today (terrorism is properly a security/policing issue, not military), and the last straightforwardly legitimate war we fought was the Falklands (I'd accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).

    I'm still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I'm damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

    (I’d accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).

    If it is of any interest to you–Argentina was called aggressor on the lectures of the History Of Naval Art, Naval Geography and Tactics in my naval academy. Yes, UK and Royal Navy’s actions were viewed as legitimate.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    It is interesting, thanks.

    I think the Argentine aggression was obvious to anyone honest. It takes some intellectual and moral gymnastics to believe that a surprise military occupation in peacetime of an island populated by people who are 100% opposed to said invasion and any change of government is anything other than an illegitimate act of aggression. Remarkably, though, quite a few people have proved capable of that intellectual agility and moral flexibility over the years.

    Opposition to the recovery of the islands by force by anyone other than a principled pacifist (and there are surprisingly few of those, though plenty of dishonest hypocrites pretending to be such when it suits their argument) was always pretty contemptible, imo.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    My point was/IS, that Mr. Friedman explained quite well the reason behind US interventions in Middle East.
    I’ll try to summarize: Create and maintain a CHAOS in that region so TWO other contenders can’t get in.
     
    As Martyanov highlighted, Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.

    But if the goal was indeed as you put it, then it has certainly (and unsurprisingly) backfired spectacularly.

    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia's ally and China's friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria's indispensable ally.

    Well, I’ll reply here to both Andrei and you. Same thing I guess.

    You both could be right.
    So what?

    You two guys are actually making MY point (it’s Friedman’s , actually, of course).
    Now, let’s first be frank here: Mr. Friedman, regardless how much I agree/disagree with his core values is much smarter man that I am. Not sure about you two but it’s your thing.

    I’ll use analogy (actually, Friedman used the same): The BULLY in a schoolyard.
    You know the type, most muscle and aggression, tons of insecurity…blah…blah…
    Doesn’t matter.
    Future Tesla there, half of his size and 100 times his intellect, will have his arse kicked in. For a fun of it. For a lots of, actually, stupid reasons.
    Doesn’t matter…………..

    Think POWER, not core values, philosophy, being overall smart, right, whatever.
    Just pure POWER.

    Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.

    So what?
    The guys who have POWER do not care and it is all that matters. Neocons and MIC.

    Are you guys trying to impress the audience how smart you are with virtue signalling here?
    That’s all good. Go for it.
    Or are you dealing with real life?

    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia’s ally and China’s friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria’s indispensable ally.

    Yes it is.
    Great.

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current………ongoing………..MESS.
    Exactly what “neocon and US sphere militarist circles” want, as Friedman said.

    Looks as everybody wins a?

    You guys want the same victory in, say, Donbass…..Iran…..North Korea….?

    Great.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current………ongoing………..MESS.
    Exactly what “neocon and US sphere militarist circles” want,
     
    If that's what Friedman advised them to do, Friedman should rename his consultancy Tactfor.
    If the chaos was intended to keep RU & CN out, it effected the exact opposite. They are in deep, and deepening.
    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts. When the Chinese build, they build at a rate that makes one's head spin so that by 2025, Syria, and Iraq if Iran can pull the politics together, will quite likely be model countries, crucial nodes in the New Silk Roads, and quite outside the US' sphere of influence. Iran as well, of course. In fact, with all the monetary and financial revolutions about to surface, I doubt the US will even have a presence there by then.

    Good tactics (I suppose), but a gross strategic blunder.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    Fair enough, and I understand where you are coming from in that even if I don't agree. Thirty years ago I might well have agreed with you, but military interventionism has long since removed any inclination I had for supporting the military as a national defence force. My country faces no real military threats today (terrorism is properly a security/policing issue, not military), and the last straightforwardly legitimate war we fought was the Falklands (I'd accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).

    I'm still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I'm damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

    Well….it’s getting “personal” here and that’s ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it’s a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not “person”………..”issue”.

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

    Aren’t we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics…) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato…Machiavelli…..Lord Acton….blah…blah…..

    “I am all for gun bans; YOU first.”
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy….”rule Britannia”……
    Racists, imperialists….blah…blah…..
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now……no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn’t working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it’s all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces……….

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, “the right of the first night.”).Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    “They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all”

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it’s been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha….want more?
    Can’t make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So…the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can’t be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won’t abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they’ve been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now……what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    I gather that you buy your booze in bulk online and today was delivery day.
    , @Anonymous
    The effort to build a world so as to appeal to the dregs of society is exactly the result of the original sin of democracy. Is it any surprise that the dregs continue to try to desperately buttress it?

    Let it fall.

    Swiftly.
    , @The Scalpel
    You have complete freedom to live your life as you see fit, come what may . Yes, there are consequences of course. It is the law of nature. But unless you are physically restrained you can live in the world of your choosing. Maybe you will have to get a shack in the woods by a pond. Maybe you can do it some other way.

    This is your answer to the question of abuse of power. Short of killing you or tying you down, does anybody really have power over you? Don't give them an excuse to kill you or tie you down. Avoid them. You are a wild animal. The forest is full of predators. Don't go looking for a fight. Perhaps you will have to give up some perks. That is the price of freedom.

    , @Randal

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it’s been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha….want more?
    Can’t make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So…the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
     

    The closest thing I've achieved to an answer is that one's attitudes to the military must be situational. There are times when your country faces a plausible external military threat and times when it does not. In both times the military will be abused by the powers that be if they can get away with it, and that abuse should be opposed because it is abuse.

    However, in times of the latter kind it is reasonable to be less indulgent of militarism than in times of the former kind.

    For Britain, and for the US, allowing for the existence of nuclear weapons, these are unquestionably times of the latter kind - neither country faces any plausible military threat, except of the MAD kind. In those times there is no need to coddle volunteer military men and creep up to them in the nauseating way so many Americans do ("thank you for your service"). They are professionals doing a job for money like any other (albeit having its own particular characteristics, as does each job), and not in practice one that serves the general good of the nation. Though I would not necessarily condemn them either - that should mostly be reserved for the politicians and media and other elites who enable their abuse as aforementioned.

    The only time military men deserve real gratitude is when they actually defend the nation against a real threat. Just being willing to do so if called on is not enough - that applies to us all, in principle (and probably the vast majority, in practice, as WW1 and WW2 showed).

    And in these times, calls for increased military budgets ought to be opposed, in general, because such increases will not notably increase the security of the nation, but rather go to increase the ease with which the elites can abuse the military murderously, for their own purposes. When the level of interventionist abuse reduces, then the general principle of supporting a strong defence can come to the fore again.

    In other words, I suppose, increasing military strength is not a pure benefit. Rather, increasing military power carries increasing costs after a certain point has been passed. That point can never be identified precisely, but for sure we are well past it in the societies of the US sphere at the moment.

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they’ve been doing?
     

    No particular reason to do so, since what he is doing does not serve any particular general good for his nation, at this particular moment (and indeed is arguably both doing his nation harm and engaging in morally depraved practices).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS
    Coherent reply; no Politburo copy/paste and links.
    Improvement.

    You seem to be quite knowledgeable about the “training” — how come?
     
    A good question.
    Hard to say, really.
    Maybe..... long military experience, some of it in related and similar matters?

    BTW, you wondering that is precisely why I decided to post here.
    Ignoramuses about military in general and combat in particular lecturing an US Major.

    Don’t even want to speculate to what ethnic group you belong.
     
    Why?
    Jew obviously.
    Simple a?

    So, still waiting for the supervisor to advise as to how to proceed to that "everybody is known but we can't post it on Internet"?
    No rush. Take your time.

    1. Not agreeing with your opinions does not mean doing a “supervised work”
    2. For a military man, you are surprisingly uncourteous

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. @Anonymous
    Only an ageing lefty fantasist could believe that BS. Of course the US had (various) views about a government which was probably the most spectacularly incompetent and erratic in Australia's history and barely explicable for one led by an intelligent man despite his being lumbered with the hopeless residues of Labor being out of power for 23 years like Jim Cairns and Rex Connor (the latter's old socialist fantasy possibly being your basis for believing in the Whitlam plan for a sovereign wealth fund).

    You are clearly saying that the Whitlam government would not have ended in late 1975 but for "US meddling". Pure Pilgerising! Gough Whitlam himself didn't believe it and he had nearly 40 years in which to change his mind on that and say so. No senior person in the Labor Party believed it because they all knew that Malcolm Fraser and his closest hardhead colleagues were determined to take the earliest possibility of forcing the Whitlam government to an election which it would surely lose. The Libs and Nats had shown themselves willing to try blocking supply in the Senate (as Labor previously had too) in 1974 but they lost the election Whitlam then called. After that economic disasters meant Whitlam knew he would lose in 1976 so had to be dismissed for an election to take place. Kerr's action was actually supported by advice given by Tony Mason whom a Labor government later appointed Chief Justice! The advice was based on the need for a government to be able to obtain supply to pay its bills, including salaries.

    Your references to sovereign wealth funds and debt are equally a product of smoking the wrong stuff with old lefties relying on faulty memories.

    It was a (more or less) conservative Liberal Treasurer who gave Australia its sovereign wealth fund - the Future Fund - after Whitlam government minister and later (1983 -1996) Labor Treasurer and PM Keating had chosen not to do so. As for debt!!! The Howard-Costello Liberal-National Coalition government inherited a large deficit and debt from Labor, ran surpluses and abolished government debt so that, when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007 it had no debt and a budget surplus. Panic response to the Global Financial Crisis way beyond an initial justified $8 billion stimulus package (following Treasury advice to "go hard, go households, go early") meant that a whole lot of wasteful lefty fantasy projects (typically overpriced school halls) went on and on leaving a debt which a dysfunctional Senate and unscrupulous Opposition
    won't allow fixed.

    It is true that John Howard as PM did to his Treasurer, Costello, in the lead up to the 2007 election what Fraser did to Treasurer Howard in 1982-83 when they also lost office viz. try to buy an election. Unfortunately Rudd didn't reverse the overgenerosity to the middle classes so Labor can't blame Howard and Costello for today's debt (which, to Europeans and Americans, would seem modest).

    Thanks for your input but did you forget to include the fact that Howard’s government sold off 160+ tonnes of gold at record low prices, around $325 oz and sold off the telecommunications infrastructure at the dawn of the digital era, an act much like selling off the roads just as the automobile was invented. Oh and he sold off the world’s safest blood supply too. Come to think of it what else didn’t he sell off? I think he would have sold his grandmother had she not resisted.

    Rudd did make some rash choices but then Australians kept their homes while a great number of Americans lost theirs, a reality that for many will never be reversed. It is true that many homebuyers made foolish investments here and there but for peoples whose governments go needlessly to war that is what happens so things will likely only worsen in both places.

    As for being a lefty, on some things I am and others not at all. As Gore Vidal said, there’s only one political party, it’s The Money Party with two branches. I think that’s true for both the US and Australia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You can be sure that Treasury was the origin of the treatment of gold as a "barbarous relic" as Keynes put it juat as the UK Treasury under Blair and Brown urged the same sell off. Given that speculating in gold is not something that one should expect politicians or bureaucrats to be good at I would rathet they got and kept out of the business. After all gold as an investment has a negstive rate of return in the absence of price rises or active management to provide short cover. If you expect them to get the timing of their gold sales right why not expect them to have taken stakes in Amazon, Apple and Google at the right time?

    As for selling Telstra as it now is you seem to have missed what had happened to its share price. Like BT in the UK its sale had been good for government finances and not so gòod for private investors. Meantime most Australians benefit from the competition which has been squeezing it. (And please don't carry on like those self interested bloggers who bloviate as though Australian costs could be the same ss Singapore's or South Korea's).

    CSL? It's certainly done very much more for the retirement welfare of Australians ad a successful international company than as a government department.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Randal says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    (I’d accept some debatability for the first Iraq war on a collective defence basis).
     
    If it is of any interest to you--Argentina was called aggressor on the lectures of the History Of Naval Art, Naval Geography and Tactics in my naval academy. Yes, UK and Royal Navy's actions were viewed as legitimate.

    It is interesting, thanks.

    I think the Argentine aggression was obvious to anyone honest. It takes some intellectual and moral gymnastics to believe that a surprise military occupation in peacetime of an island populated by people who are 100% opposed to said invasion and any change of government is anything other than an illegitimate act of aggression. Remarkably, though, quite a few people have proved capable of that intellectual agility and moral flexibility over the years.

    Opposition to the recovery of the islands by force by anyone other than a principled pacifist (and there are surprisingly few of those, though plenty of dishonest hypocrites pretending to be such when it suits their argument) was always pretty contemptible, imo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @unseated
    While I tend to agree with those sentiments, things are never quite black and white.
    This paper describes many of the complexities around the Falklands War.

    https://historymatters.appstate.edu/sites/historymatters.appstate.edu/files/falklandislandswar_000.pdf

    Negotiations could have lead to a peaceful resolution but the leadership of both countries chose war for the sake of political survival. Business as usual.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. @peterAUS
    Well....it's getting "personal" here and that's ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it's a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not "person"..........."issue".

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
     
    Aren't we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics...) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato...Machiavelli.....Lord Acton....blah...blah.....

    "I am all for gun bans; YOU first."
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy...."rule Britannia"......
    Racists, imperialists....blah...blah.....
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now......no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn't working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it's all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces..........

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, "the right of the first night.").Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    "They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all"

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it's been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha....want more?
    Can't make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So...the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can't be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won't abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they've been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now......what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry.....

    I gather that you buy your booze in bulk online and today was delivery day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    A good point actually.

    Does sound incoherent, doesn't it?

    The questions, uncertain answers, hints going nowhere....yeah, now when you mention it.

    So, now when we are talking, would you be so kind as to suggest the answer to:

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

     

    Please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Anonymous
    Only an ageing lefty fantasist could believe that BS. Of course the US had (various) views about a government which was probably the most spectacularly incompetent and erratic in Australia's history and barely explicable for one led by an intelligent man despite his being lumbered with the hopeless residues of Labor being out of power for 23 years like Jim Cairns and Rex Connor (the latter's old socialist fantasy possibly being your basis for believing in the Whitlam plan for a sovereign wealth fund).

    You are clearly saying that the Whitlam government would not have ended in late 1975 but for "US meddling". Pure Pilgerising! Gough Whitlam himself didn't believe it and he had nearly 40 years in which to change his mind on that and say so. No senior person in the Labor Party believed it because they all knew that Malcolm Fraser and his closest hardhead colleagues were determined to take the earliest possibility of forcing the Whitlam government to an election which it would surely lose. The Libs and Nats had shown themselves willing to try blocking supply in the Senate (as Labor previously had too) in 1974 but they lost the election Whitlam then called. After that economic disasters meant Whitlam knew he would lose in 1976 so had to be dismissed for an election to take place. Kerr's action was actually supported by advice given by Tony Mason whom a Labor government later appointed Chief Justice! The advice was based on the need for a government to be able to obtain supply to pay its bills, including salaries.

    Your references to sovereign wealth funds and debt are equally a product of smoking the wrong stuff with old lefties relying on faulty memories.

    It was a (more or less) conservative Liberal Treasurer who gave Australia its sovereign wealth fund - the Future Fund - after Whitlam government minister and later (1983 -1996) Labor Treasurer and PM Keating had chosen not to do so. As for debt!!! The Howard-Costello Liberal-National Coalition government inherited a large deficit and debt from Labor, ran surpluses and abolished government debt so that, when the Rudd Labor government was elected in 2007 it had no debt and a budget surplus. Panic response to the Global Financial Crisis way beyond an initial justified $8 billion stimulus package (following Treasury advice to "go hard, go households, go early") meant that a whole lot of wasteful lefty fantasy projects (typically overpriced school halls) went on and on leaving a debt which a dysfunctional Senate and unscrupulous Opposition
    won't allow fixed.

    It is true that John Howard as PM did to his Treasurer, Costello, in the lead up to the 2007 election what Fraser did to Treasurer Howard in 1982-83 when they also lost office viz. try to buy an election. Unfortunately Rudd didn't reverse the overgenerosity to the middle classes so Labor can't blame Howard and Costello for today's debt (which, to Europeans and Americans, would seem modest).

    It was Christopher Boyce who said that the CIA was behind Whitlam’s dismissal, he had direct access to CIA communication feeds from Australia in real time and can I assume that you did not and rather got your version from a much later source assisted by Mason, Kerr, Fraser?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The name Christopher Boyce rang a bell. Yes convicted of selling US government secret material to the Soviet Union through a drugdealing friend. Then convicted of many counts of armed robbery. So he had plenty of incentive to sex up his book that needed to make money after his crimimal convictions limited his employability. Even so the not unsympathetic Wikipedia entry doesn't suggest he was able to do more than say he had seen CIA communications which suggested some CIA people would like to gef rid of the Whitlam government. I have long known well a man who became a confidant of Kerr in the late 70s and, only seeking to get to the truth (albeit sympathetically to Kerr) would regard the idea that the US had any part in the critical steps to the dismissal of Whitlam as ludicrous given the active part Kerr played and how he played it. Likewise it is clear that the Queen was happy to be sdvised, as she was, that she needn't and shouldn't have anything to do with it. Obviously, despite some PR failures, as on Diana's death, the Queen and her advisers would know very well that Australians would not applaud her intetvention. Of course it would have been tricky if Whitlam had managed to get in first and advise the Queen to withdraw the GG's Letters Patent. Maybe it would have depended on someone being willing to wake the Queen up, and maybe, despite the CJ's confidence that it was not the whole issue might have become embarrassingly justiciable!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. @NoseytheDuke
    "but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York."

    Major, the one quibble I have with what you've written is a biggie. I'd sincerely suggest you look into the matter of who exactly did conspire and act to bring down those towers in far more detail because before you can forget something you have to learn it first and your article implies that you think 9/11 was carried out by some form of mujahedeen such as Al Qaeda and it's just not true.

    It is likely going to make you very angry to learn that the recipient of the largest share of US foreign aid was the major culprit along with various American traitors and that the Afghans and mujahedeen had little to no involvement at all. Saudi Arabia very likely had a minor role as much to set them up as future patsies should the charade unravel at any time.

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.

    Exactly correct! The US government planned and executed 9/11. For this military officer to think otherwise shows willful ignorance or extreme naivete perhaps to justify his murdering of foreigners without a congressional declaration of war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    I gather that you buy your booze in bulk online and today was delivery day.

    A good point actually.

    Does sound incoherent, doesn’t it?

    The questions, uncertain answers, hints going nowhere….yeah, now when you mention it.

    So, now when we are talking, would you be so kind as to suggest the answer to:

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

    Please.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    This is, I agree, an enormously important question and one that was addressed in the US since the Revolutionary War in America, obviously to no avail. Even to a person with military experience, which I lack, it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose. Our defensive needs are vastly different. I have to add that the Israel Lobby is too powerful in Australia, as in the US, and this leads to conflicts, or rather wars in that we have much to lose and nothing to gain except perhaps some up to date combat experience, at a very high cost.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality. I really cannot give you a solution other than to say that the current policy isn't serving the nation and, as in the US, is resulting in immigration from the third world of people who are unlikely to assimilate well.

    I recently read Vietnam: The Australian War by Paul Ham and found it so sad that I was moved to tears in parts. Unbelievable too that parents had to pay for the return of their son's body until it happened to a VC recipient and the public outcry led to an end to the policy. I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.

    Another thing, John Howard took the nation to war based on lies, against nations that were no threat to us, war crimes by any measure. We're better than that, or should be. Cheers.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.

    Look at how well NK is playing the world. Annoying as it is, its a heck of a lot better than just having the US impose its increasingly repugnant values on everywhere in the world.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Here is a new blog post on this subject from Information Clearing House entitled “Israeli Media Begs US to Prepare For War With Syria, Russia, Iran”

    http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47781.htm

    I’m sure Shuckin’ Chuck Schumer is trying to comply with Israel’s “request” while maintaining the illusion of having a spine. “I support Medicare for All (and 3-4 new wars)”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  132. Joe Wong says:
    @Grandpa Charlie

    "it’s clear that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is a beacon of hope for the planet" -- Major Danny Sjursen
     
    This is the only statement in Sjursen's article where I could possibly disagree. I suggest that it's maybe more to the point that most of us still cling to the idea that our country is still our country.

    Or maybe not.

    And then what's the point?

    I guess it's what they say in French: Sauve-qui-peut! ("Escape if you can!")

    Most of Americans still believe that the American soldiers are indisputably the “good guys” who should be put on a pedestal for their heroism and unyielding patriotism; the war crimes, crimes against humanity and crimes against peace the American soldiers have been committing is because they are misled by the unscrupulous politicians. The American soldiers are impeccable decent, they are not responsible for whatever they have been doing.

    This kind of red herring excuse for the war criminal American soldiers is exactly the root that allow the American politicians waging unending reckless and aimless wars across the Greater Middle East and elsewhere around the world on the boundless hypocrisy while the American soldiers carry out the crimes without moral burden.

    Unless the Americans make their soldiers understand that they are mercenary and the willing partners in the crimes the USA committed against rest of the world, and they need to responsible for their actions and their role as mercenaries, contemporary American war-fighting will continue unstopped.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. @peterAUS
    A good point actually.

    Does sound incoherent, doesn't it?

    The questions, uncertain answers, hints going nowhere....yeah, now when you mention it.

    So, now when we are talking, would you be so kind as to suggest the answer to:

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

     

    Please.

    This is, I agree, an enormously important question and one that was addressed in the US since the Revolutionary War in America, obviously to no avail. Even to a person with military experience, which I lack, it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose. Our defensive needs are vastly different. I have to add that the Israel Lobby is too powerful in Australia, as in the US, and this leads to conflicts, or rather wars in that we have much to lose and nothing to gain except perhaps some up to date combat experience, at a very high cost.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality. I really cannot give you a solution other than to say that the current policy isn’t serving the nation and, as in the US, is resulting in immigration from the third world of people who are unlikely to assimilate well.

    I recently read Vietnam: The Australian War by Paul Ham and found it so sad that I was moved to tears in parts. Unbelievable too that parents had to pay for the return of their son’s body until it happened to a VC recipient and the public outcry led to an end to the policy. I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.

    Another thing, John Howard took the nation to war based on lies, against nations that were no threat to us, war crimes by any measure. We’re better than that, or should be. Cheers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    …it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose.
     
    Well, the history of Australian military, since the very beginnings, has always been working with the “big brother”.
    With United Kingdom before, with US now.
    Always as a part of “big brother” effort, always attached to it.
    Those tanks and planes, as all serious hardware, is how Australia has been maintaining that partnership, as junior member of the partnership, of course.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality.
     
    Nope.
    If you want to be a part of The Team, that’s the price.

    I really cannot give you a solution..
     
    Of course you can’t. Nobody can.

    I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.
     
    In the current socio-economic climate that’s often the best opportunity a young man (or, increasingly a woman) has. That’s for enlisted. For commissioned, well…..probably the same.
    Besides, if one is lucky enough, that’s the best adventure a young man can have in his life.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Of course there is an Israel Lobby in Australia but its wealth and clout is surely infinitesimal compared with the North American Israel lobbies. Or can you dispute that?

    I am aware of a well known UK author and authority on the Middle East, known to be sympathetic to Israel, whose Australian visa was held up because of Lebanese Muslims in the Immigration Minister's electorate objecting to his coming to a conference in Australia. Significantly it wasn't Jews who got on to the Minister's office and sorted it out. There are far more Muslims in Australia than Jews and votes count in a country with compulsory voting and, until recently, very short qualification periods for citizenship. Money counts but nothing like as much as in the US. Perhaps you would agree.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    Well, I'll reply here to both Andrei and you. Same thing I guess.

    You both could be right.
    So what?

    You two guys are actually making MY point (it's Friedman's , actually, of course).
    Now, let's first be frank here: Mr. Friedman, regardless how much I agree/disagree with his core values is much smarter man that I am. Not sure about you two but it's your thing.

    I'll use analogy (actually, Friedman used the same): The BULLY in a schoolyard.
    You know the type, most muscle and aggression, tons of insecurity...blah...blah...
    Doesn't matter.
    Future Tesla there, half of his size and 100 times his intellect, will have his arse kicked in. For a fun of it. For a lots of, actually, stupid reasons.
    Doesn't matter..............

    Think POWER, not core values, philosophy, being overall smart, right, whatever.
    Just pure POWER.


    Stratfor is generally regarded as a discredited outfit outside neocon and US sphere militarist circles.
     
    So what?
    The guys who have POWER do not care and it is all that matters. Neocons and MIC.

    Are you guys trying to impress the audience how smart you are with virtue signalling here?
    That's all good. Go for it.
    Or are you dealing with real life?


    The invasion of Iraq resulted (inevitably) in a huge increase in influence in that country for Russia’s ally and China’s friend Iran, and the attempt to overthrow the Assad government in Syria has resulted directly in the return of Russia to a central role in the region and as Syria’s indispensable ally.
     
    Yes it is.
    Great.

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current.........ongoing...........MESS.
    Exactly what "neocon and US sphere militarist circles" want, as Friedman said.

    Looks as everybody wins a?

    You guys want the same victory in, say, Donbass.....Iran.....North Korea....?

    Great.

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current………ongoing………..MESS.
    Exactly what “neocon and US sphere militarist circles” want,

    If that’s what Friedman advised them to do, Friedman should rename his consultancy Tactfor.
    If the chaos was intended to keep RU & CN out, it effected the exact opposite. They are in deep, and deepening.
    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts. When the Chinese build, they build at a rate that makes one’s head spin so that by 2025, Syria, and Iraq if Iran can pull the politics together, will quite likely be model countries, crucial nodes in the New Silk Roads, and quite outside the US’ sphere of influence. Iran as well, of course. In fact, with all the monetary and financial revolutions about to surface, I doubt the US will even have a presence there by then.

    Good tactics (I suppose), but a gross strategic blunder.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well....

    Sounds as optimist vs pessimist: glass is half full/glass is half empty.

    I guess you are an optimist.
    So, let's play a pessimist then. Fair and balanced etc.

    They are in deep, and deepening.
     
    Yes they are. Good on them.
    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.

    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts.
     
    Agree.
    WHEN the rebuilding starts.

    In meantime........still a bit of chaos, wouldn't you agree?

    Will that prove to be a blunder or something smarter, well, time will tell.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    At the same time it made a MESS of those countries.
    Current………ongoing………..MESS.
    Exactly what “neocon and US sphere militarist circles” want,
     
    If that's what Friedman advised them to do, Friedman should rename his consultancy Tactfor.
    If the chaos was intended to keep RU & CN out, it effected the exact opposite. They are in deep, and deepening.
    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts. When the Chinese build, they build at a rate that makes one's head spin so that by 2025, Syria, and Iraq if Iran can pull the politics together, will quite likely be model countries, crucial nodes in the New Silk Roads, and quite outside the US' sphere of influence. Iran as well, of course. In fact, with all the monetary and financial revolutions about to surface, I doubt the US will even have a presence there by then.

    Good tactics (I suppose), but a gross strategic blunder.

    Well….

    Sounds as optimist vs pessimist: glass is half full/glass is half empty.

    I guess you are an optimist.
    So, let’s play a pessimist then. Fair and balanced etc.

    They are in deep, and deepening.

    Yes they are. Good on them.
    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.

    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts.

    Agree.
    WHEN the rebuilding starts.

    In meantime……..still a bit of chaos, wouldn’t you agree?

    Will that prove to be a blunder or something smarter, well, time will tell.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.
     
    And the other side would say "Yes, but that's because the Empire doesn't (yet) know why it doesn't want it there".

    WHEN the rebuilding starts.
     
    Indeed, but the Chinese are already in Syria, and have recently hosted delegations from Syria and Iraq (and I believe others) at mini trade shows organized specifically for them to pick 'n choose the architects/engineering firms/constructors/planners/material suppliers that will pour in there as soon as the situation's stable enough to do so. The US may be able to delay that a year or two, but both China (and Russia, to a somewhat lesser extent) have trump cards in the financial plane that can shut the US down if they insist on throwing their toys out of the pram much longer than that.

    time will tell.
     
    That is the one thing that's inevitable.
    , @Daniel Chieh
    The Empire couldn't even keep its CIA-funding elements from killing its Pentagon-funded elements. There's no 8D chess going on here, just a cacophony of clownish confusion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @edNels
    Hell I don't give a rat's ass if they want to go that way... girls or boys.. fruits all, don't give a damned shit about it because we know that hey, it's really probably a good thing, 'cause the race, or WTF needs to winnow out the less desirable, and hey what's not to like, the queers self administer,, not to be inthe future genome...

    But seriously... I mean, of course we have too many humans not that we need more, Not at All, We do not Need more gaddamned Humans... not now... the Earth is full up with the gaddamned humanoids!

    Hi, I totally agree with your point on fags. Killing people who are already living, were born (no one’s choice, yours included), and have never harmed anyone, as birth control, or populations check, must be a suggestion from a a sick and evil mind. Such ideas can only come from such minds as Kissinger , Chaney, Rumsfeld, Netanyahu and the whole cabal, you can name the rest.
    The best and most humane way is birth control without tears, castrate and put all peadophiles, rapists, pimps, pornographers, religious preachers making money for Israel and themselves, warmongers who have never seen war (on receiving end murder and destruction), include yourself in this list.
    Than spend the rest of your miserable lives building schools, hospitals, and all necessary infrastructure starting with those countries where refugees are being chased out of their countries and homes Or commit “hara-kiri ” and be a model example of population control.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    This is, I agree, an enormously important question and one that was addressed in the US since the Revolutionary War in America, obviously to no avail. Even to a person with military experience, which I lack, it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose. Our defensive needs are vastly different. I have to add that the Israel Lobby is too powerful in Australia, as in the US, and this leads to conflicts, or rather wars in that we have much to lose and nothing to gain except perhaps some up to date combat experience, at a very high cost.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality. I really cannot give you a solution other than to say that the current policy isn't serving the nation and, as in the US, is resulting in immigration from the third world of people who are unlikely to assimilate well.

    I recently read Vietnam: The Australian War by Paul Ham and found it so sad that I was moved to tears in parts. Unbelievable too that parents had to pay for the return of their son's body until it happened to a VC recipient and the public outcry led to an end to the policy. I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.

    Another thing, John Howard took the nation to war based on lies, against nations that were no threat to us, war crimes by any measure. We're better than that, or should be. Cheers.

    …it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose.

    Well, the history of Australian military, since the very beginnings, has always been working with the “big brother”.
    With United Kingdom before, with US now.
    Always as a part of “big brother” effort, always attached to it.
    Those tanks and planes, as all serious hardware, is how Australia has been maintaining that partnership, as junior member of the partnership, of course.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality.

    Nope.
    If you want to be a part of The Team, that’s the price.

    I really cannot give you a solution..

    Of course you can’t. Nobody can.

    I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.

    In the current socio-economic climate that’s often the best opportunity a young man (or, increasingly a woman) has. That’s for enlisted. For commissioned, well…..probably the same.
    Besides, if one is lucky enough, that’s the best adventure a young man can have in his life.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Ah, what you refer to as opportunity I would call misfortune. I'm so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. grune says:

    You must be a good soldier, for you swallow hook and sinker all you are fed. “something” surely is wrong. What’s wrong is Americans have succumbed to the powers who very intentionally create the threat-war cycle. The US created ISIS, this is a fact, and others before it, and surely others to come after it. The US creates ISIS to create failed states, states that can be easily dominated by the US. The US “fights” ISIS just enough to create the image of fighting it, so to increase the terror further, so to perpetuate the threat-war cycle: yet, ISIS never seems to die, does it? The Taliban is still with us, why? The opium harvests and trade are now at the highest levels in world history, in lands controlled by the USA, why? Before we had North and South Korea, we had one Korea, occupied by Japan. Korea had nothing to do with the war in the Pacific (no planes, no navy, no weapons, nothing), yet the US dropped 50% more bombs on Korea than it did for the entire Pacific theatre, and then occupied the southern area exactly as did Japan prior, why? THIS is the “something”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  139. Kingfelix says:
    @vx37
    I don't care a damn about what any Arab or Muslim thinks about the U.S. or its military efforts (if those efforts are in the national interest), just keep them out of my country. The real question is why any white man joins the army of an establishment that is not merely racist but is fundamentally genocidal toward whites. Is THAT worth being crippled or dying for? Hell, no. And whites boycotting the U.S. military would put an end to the empire's excellent little overseas adventures, saving a lot of money. It's win/win.

    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?
     
    If this refers to Caucasians murdered by the USM after the German surrender, the US killed ~1M German POWs (by intentional starvation (15-20%) & denial of medical care (80-85%)).
    Half a century later, NATO's bombing killed ~2000 civilians in Yugoslavia. Admittedly, that wasn't 100% USM's doing, though as SACEUR, Wesley Clark could order any participating NATO member to do whatever bombing runs they'd signed up for.

    I am unaware of anything between those two that didn't involve nuclear and chemical weapons tests on their own troops, but even these are an eye opener.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?
     
    Start by counting the several million Germans who were killed post-surrender.


    Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II by James Bacque
    https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652

    Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War by R M Douglas
    https://www.amazon.com/Orderly-Humane-Expulsion-Germans-Second/dp/0300198205/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505321875&sr=1-1&keywords=orderly+and+humane

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. unseated says:
    @Randal
    It is interesting, thanks.

    I think the Argentine aggression was obvious to anyone honest. It takes some intellectual and moral gymnastics to believe that a surprise military occupation in peacetime of an island populated by people who are 100% opposed to said invasion and any change of government is anything other than an illegitimate act of aggression. Remarkably, though, quite a few people have proved capable of that intellectual agility and moral flexibility over the years.

    Opposition to the recovery of the islands by force by anyone other than a principled pacifist (and there are surprisingly few of those, though plenty of dishonest hypocrites pretending to be such when it suits their argument) was always pretty contemptible, imo.

    While I tend to agree with those sentiments, things are never quite black and white.
    This paper describes many of the complexities around the Falklands War.

    https://historymatters.appstate.edu/sites/historymatters.appstate.edu/files/falklandislandswar_000.pdf

    Negotiations could have lead to a peaceful resolution but the leadership of both countries chose war for the sake of political survival. Business as usual.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Negotiations could have lead to a peaceful resolution
     
    No, I don't believe that any peaceful resolution could ever have been available that did not reward the Argentine aggression. Imo it's rather silly to suppose that there would be any possibility of such a settlement and most of those claiming to believe in such were and are disingenuous.

    You are quite correct of course that things are rarely, if ever, absolutely black and white, but none of Argentina's arguments amount to more than legalist technicalities (more than overmatched by the legalist technicalities on the British side, what's more), next to the clearly expressed wishes of the people living on the Falklands, imo.

    The greatest irony, of course, was always that the chances are the British government would by now have sold the Falkland Islanders down the river in some deal that handed them over to Argentina, dressed up in some "leaseback" or other mumbo jumbo, long ago, if it had not been for the invasion and subsequent war.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks for your input but did you forget to include the fact that Howard's government sold off 160+ tonnes of gold at record low prices, around $325 oz and sold off the telecommunications infrastructure at the dawn of the digital era, an act much like selling off the roads just as the automobile was invented. Oh and he sold off the world's safest blood supply too. Come to think of it what else didn't he sell off? I think he would have sold his grandmother had she not resisted.

    Rudd did make some rash choices but then Australians kept their homes while a great number of Americans lost theirs, a reality that for many will never be reversed. It is true that many homebuyers made foolish investments here and there but for peoples whose governments go needlessly to war that is what happens so things will likely only worsen in both places.

    As for being a lefty, on some things I am and others not at all. As Gore Vidal said, there's only one political party, it's The Money Party with two branches. I think that's true for both the US and Australia.

    You can be sure that Treasury was the origin of the treatment of gold as a “barbarous relic” as Keynes put it juat as the UK Treasury under Blair and Brown urged the same sell off. Given that speculating in gold is not something that one should expect politicians or bureaucrats to be good at I would rathet they got and kept out of the business. After all gold as an investment has a negstive rate of return in the absence of price rises or active management to provide short cover. If you expect them to get the timing of their gold sales right why not expect them to have taken stakes in Amazon, Apple and Google at the right time?

    As for selling Telstra as it now is you seem to have missed what had happened to its share price. Like BT in the UK its sale had been good for government finances and not so gòod for private investors. Meantime most Australians benefit from the competition which has been squeezing it. (And please don’t carry on like those self interested bloggers who bloviate as though Australian costs could be the same ss Singapore’s or South Korea’s).

    CSL? It’s certainly done very much more for the retirement welfare of Australians ad a successful international company than as a government department.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. @NoseytheDuke
    "but don’t forget who brought down those towers in New York."

    Major, the one quibble I have with what you've written is a biggie. I'd sincerely suggest you look into the matter of who exactly did conspire and act to bring down those towers in far more detail because before you can forget something you have to learn it first and your article implies that you think 9/11 was carried out by some form of mujahedeen such as Al Qaeda and it's just not true.

    It is likely going to make you very angry to learn that the recipient of the largest share of US foreign aid was the major culprit along with various American traitors and that the Afghans and mujahedeen had little to no involvement at all. Saudi Arabia very likely had a minor role as much to set them up as future patsies should the charade unravel at any time.

    Those who have served in the US military in the last few years, however well intended, have done as much to destroy American society as any enemy has.

    Have you seen the History Channel doco “Road to 9/11″ recently shown in Australia? I think it would cure you at least of your apparent belief thst ObL being holed up in Afghanistan and maybe with kidney disease made it any less likely that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. It is interesting that the FBI stuffed up bigtime in 1992 or 93 when they stopped supporting an outstanding informer, a former Egyptian army officer who had just been asked to build 12 pipe bombs. He was replaced in the Blind Sheik’s circle by a bombmaker who successively stuffed up by failing to bring down the twin towers with his 1993 bomb and then alerting police to the plot to bŕing down 12 aircraft over the Pacific by staging a trial run that blew a hole in an aircraft and killed a couple of people! And the terrorists complained of being underfunded by ObL!

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    The History Channel? LOL! The source of your great Wizdom is revealed at last.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. @NoseytheDuke
    This is, I agree, an enormously important question and one that was addressed in the US since the Revolutionary War in America, obviously to no avail. Even to a person with military experience, which I lack, it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose. Our defensive needs are vastly different. I have to add that the Israel Lobby is too powerful in Australia, as in the US, and this leads to conflicts, or rather wars in that we have much to lose and nothing to gain except perhaps some up to date combat experience, at a very high cost.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality. I really cannot give you a solution other than to say that the current policy isn't serving the nation and, as in the US, is resulting in immigration from the third world of people who are unlikely to assimilate well.

    I recently read Vietnam: The Australian War by Paul Ham and found it so sad that I was moved to tears in parts. Unbelievable too that parents had to pay for the return of their son's body until it happened to a VC recipient and the public outcry led to an end to the policy. I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.

    Another thing, John Howard took the nation to war based on lies, against nations that were no threat to us, war crimes by any measure. We're better than that, or should be. Cheers.

    Of course there is an Israel Lobby in Australia but its wealth and clout is surely infinitesimal compared with the North American Israel lobbies. Or can you dispute that?

    I am aware of a well known UK author and authority on the Middle East, known to be sympathetic to Israel, whose Australian visa was held up because of Lebanese Muslims in the Immigration Minister’s electorate objecting to his coming to a conference in Australia. Significantly it wasn’t Jews who got on to the Minister’s office and sorted it out. There are far more Muslims in Australia than Jews and votes count in a country with compulsory voting and, until recently, very short qualification periods for citizenship. Money counts but nothing like as much as in the US. Perhaps you would agree.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    It was Christopher Boyce who said that the CIA was behind Whitlam's dismissal, he had direct access to CIA communication feeds from Australia in real time and can I assume that you did not and rather got your version from a much later source assisted by Mason, Kerr, Fraser?

    The name Christopher Boyce rang a bell. Yes convicted of selling US government secret material to the Soviet Union through a drugdealing friend. Then convicted of many counts of armed robbery. So he had plenty of incentive to sex up his book that needed to make money after his crimimal convictions limited his employability. Even so the not unsympathetic Wikipedia entry doesn’t suggest he was able to do more than say he had seen CIA communications which suggested some CIA people would like to gef rid of the Whitlam government. I have long known well a man who became a confidant of Kerr in the late 70s and, only seeking to get to the truth (albeit sympathetically to Kerr) would regard the idea that the US had any part in the critical steps to the dismissal of Whitlam as ludicrous given the active part Kerr played and how he played it. Likewise it is clear that the Queen was happy to be sdvised, as she was, that she needn’t and shouldn’t have anything to do with it. Obviously, despite some PR failures, as on Diana’s death, the Queen and her advisers would know very well that Australians would not applaud her intetvention. Of course it would have been tricky if Whitlam had managed to get in first and advise the Queen to withdraw the GG’s Letters Patent. Maybe it would have depended on someone being willing to wake the Queen up, and maybe, despite the CJ’s confidence that it was not the whole issue might have become embarrassingly justiciable!

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Dalton was the drug dealer and the one convicted of armed robbery, not Boyce. Boyce did use drugs but he did live in Orange County where social drug use is mandatory.

    Whitlam had discovered that the intelligence gathered via Pine Gap was not being shared as per the agreement. He was threatening to shut it down, that is why he was toppled. Boyce lost faith in his government and sought to punish it, foolish and wrong and he paid a high price but by all means go with Wikipedia, everyone knows of its total accuracy and infallibility. Do you guys still read comic books too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Randal says:
    @unseated
    While I tend to agree with those sentiments, things are never quite black and white.
    This paper describes many of the complexities around the Falklands War.

    https://historymatters.appstate.edu/sites/historymatters.appstate.edu/files/falklandislandswar_000.pdf

    Negotiations could have lead to a peaceful resolution but the leadership of both countries chose war for the sake of political survival. Business as usual.

    Negotiations could have lead to a peaceful resolution

    No, I don’t believe that any peaceful resolution could ever have been available that did not reward the Argentine aggression. Imo it’s rather silly to suppose that there would be any possibility of such a settlement and most of those claiming to believe in such were and are disingenuous.

    You are quite correct of course that things are rarely, if ever, absolutely black and white, but none of Argentina’s arguments amount to more than legalist technicalities (more than overmatched by the legalist technicalities on the British side, what’s more), next to the clearly expressed wishes of the people living on the Falklands, imo.

    The greatest irony, of course, was always that the chances are the British government would by now have sold the Falkland Islanders down the river in some deal that handed them over to Argentina, dressed up in some “leaseback” or other mumbo jumbo, long ago, if it had not been for the invasion and subsequent war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @peterAUS

    …it has to be crazy that Australia buys battle tanks designed to fight great European tank battles which are unlikely to be of much use defending Australia, as would be many of the aircraft that are purchased as much to appease American manufacturers that to fulfil a purpose.
     
    Well, the history of Australian military, since the very beginnings, has always been working with the “big brother”.
    With United Kingdom before, with US now.
    Always as a part of “big brother” effort, always attached to it.
    Those tanks and planes, as all serious hardware, is how Australia has been maintaining that partnership, as junior member of the partnership, of course.

    Perhaps those who enlist should refuse to sign up except under condition that they would defend Australia only, not join in wars of dubious value and morality.
     
    Nope.
    If you want to be a part of The Team, that’s the price.

    I really cannot give you a solution..
     
    Of course you can’t. Nobody can.

    I cannot understand why people enlist given the lies and lack of care previously demonstrated.
     
    In the current socio-economic climate that’s often the best opportunity a young man (or, increasingly a woman) has. That’s for enlisted. For commissioned, well…..probably the same.
    Besides, if one is lucky enough, that’s the best adventure a young man can have in his life.

    Ah, what you refer to as opportunity I would call misfortune. I’m so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I’m so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.
     
    Good comment.
    As an example, mind you.
    That "morally".

    Implies that members of Australian military, let alone US military are morally poor.
    Or, even better, that the author of the statement is morally superior.
    That......attitude.
    Holier than thou.
    That's the thing, really, isn't it?
    Feels so good.

    Well, how about something else which also feels good?
    In the current paradigm a young, healthy, male is constantly being emasculated. From a kindergarten to a marriage/partnership/whatever.
    Now....imagine....if you can.....that.......freedom.....when he lies behind a machine-gun and tries to get that spec at, say, 800 metres away? Short bursts, recoil, smell....focus.....
    When a spotter and the number two are of the same material as he is. True friends.
    No nagging, smug comments, PC brainwashing, sensitivity, diversity...feminine side...blah...blah...
    A caveman team with modern toys.
    Nothing compares to that.

    And the bosses. Not some smug arsehole, but a man who leads by example, truly cares for you. As the Major, apparently, cared for his men.
    How many managers lose sleep, no, think even, about people they "let go"?
    No such thing in an infantry platoon.

    And the sleep is true sleep. Food tastes so good. The very air is different, sharp and scented.
    Colors, sounds, everything is sharper, more intense.

    The life itself is so intense.

    Compare it to a life in a corporate cubicle...........

    Poor soldiers.
    Yeah.....

    Now, of course, there is a price for all that, as with everything in life.
    Highs----lows.
    Keeps a balance.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Wizard of Oz
    Have you seen the History Channel doco "Road to 9/11" recently shown in Australia? I think it would cure you at least of your apparent belief thst ObL being holed up in Afghanistan and maybe with kidney disease made it any less likely that Al Qaeda was behind 9/11. It is interesting that the FBI stuffed up bigtime in 1992 or 93 when they stopped supporting an outstanding informer, a former Egyptian army officer who had just been asked to build 12 pipe bombs. He was replaced in the Blind Sheik's circle by a bombmaker who successively stuffed up by failing to bring down the twin towers with his 1993 bomb and then alerting police to the plot to bŕing down 12 aircraft over the Pacific by staging a trial run that blew a hole in an aircraft and killed a couple of people! And the terrorists complained of being underfunded by ObL!

    The History Channel? LOL! The source of your great Wizdom is revealed at last.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    It is not for the lazy minded, but active intelligence can use many sources of information and apply tests for internal consistency, precision, honesty, consistency with reliable sources and. reliably authenticated fact together with lawyers' tests and rules of thumb as in declarations against interest, the equivalent of deathbed statements and absence of motive to liè.

    So I ask again whether you have seen and considered what is in that doco, Road to 9/11. You will note that I respected your limited capacity for admitting error and confined my suggestion of what it might contribute to your thinking to the possibility of it correcting one of your sillirmer cheap jibes.

    What BTW do you think a rich Saudi enemy of the US, with low living expenses, time on his hands and no local security problems was doing with his time in Afghanistan? And, not for the first time, I ask whether you concede that he would have regarded getting America to invade Afghanistan as a great win for his cause?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. @Anonymous
    The name Christopher Boyce rang a bell. Yes convicted of selling US government secret material to the Soviet Union through a drugdealing friend. Then convicted of many counts of armed robbery. So he had plenty of incentive to sex up his book that needed to make money after his crimimal convictions limited his employability. Even so the not unsympathetic Wikipedia entry doesn't suggest he was able to do more than say he had seen CIA communications which suggested some CIA people would like to gef rid of the Whitlam government. I have long known well a man who became a confidant of Kerr in the late 70s and, only seeking to get to the truth (albeit sympathetically to Kerr) would regard the idea that the US had any part in the critical steps to the dismissal of Whitlam as ludicrous given the active part Kerr played and how he played it. Likewise it is clear that the Queen was happy to be sdvised, as she was, that she needn't and shouldn't have anything to do with it. Obviously, despite some PR failures, as on Diana's death, the Queen and her advisers would know very well that Australians would not applaud her intetvention. Of course it would have been tricky if Whitlam had managed to get in first and advise the Queen to withdraw the GG's Letters Patent. Maybe it would have depended on someone being willing to wake the Queen up, and maybe, despite the CJ's confidence that it was not the whole issue might have become embarrassingly justiciable!

    Dalton was the drug dealer and the one convicted of armed robbery, not Boyce. Boyce did use drugs but he did live in Orange County where social drug use is mandatory.

    Whitlam had discovered that the intelligence gathered via Pine Gap was not being shared as per the agreement. He was threatening to shut it down, that is why he was toppled. Boyce lost faith in his government and sought to punish it, foolish and wrong and he paid a high price but by all means go with Wikipedia, everyone knows of its total accuracy and infallibility. Do you guys still read comic books too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I wondered whether it was only to me that you displayed your mental shortwindedness but I see that #148 you are still at it again displaying perhaps an alcohol impaired memory or just arrogant indifference. It's one thing to scorn Wikipedia and fallaciously draw an unsustainable inference from the fact that it is not always right and on some subjects - though hardly Christopher Boyce except by himself - maybe invigilated. It is another thing completely to rely only on your tendentious memory when you could find any number of links to verify that it was Boyce who committed the armed robberies; e.g.
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20131122/the-ex-spy-among-us-christopher-boyce-carves-out-new-life-in-oregon

    In the course of discovering one error you would have found that his drug running and spying mate was Andrew Daulton Lee, not a guy called Dalton.

    I can add something about Whitlam and intelligence matters. He hadn't a clue. I knew Bill Robertson the head of ASIS that he sacked in 1975 for not telling Whitlam (who had shown no relevant interest) that Australia had an agent in Dili. Whitlam, without asking ASIS, had declared that Australia had no one there. It is entirely credible that the CIA would have discussed this erratic behaviour as Robertson was a valued colleague. (He was plugged in to the international intelligence network closely enough to be able to tell me, presumably from the CIA, that the KGB had been operating out of Buenos Aires next door in Allende's Chile). There wad nevér, however, the slightest suggestion of anything like "but we gave him his comeuppance in thd end". My own scepticism would be a bit like my scepticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories: Ockham's Razor, plus lack of plausibly described causal connections and mechanism, and insufficient motive compared with well known real motives (ObL's provocation of a war in Afghanistan and Fraser's and Kerr's well attested motives - and means).

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    Well....it's getting "personal" here and that's ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it's a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not "person"..........."issue".

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
     
    Aren't we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics...) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato...Machiavelli.....Lord Acton....blah...blah.....

    "I am all for gun bans; YOU first."
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy...."rule Britannia"......
    Racists, imperialists....blah...blah.....
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now......no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn't working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it's all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces..........

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, "the right of the first night.").Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    "They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all"

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it's been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha....want more?
    Can't make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So...the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can't be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won't abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they've been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now......what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry.....

    The effort to build a world so as to appeal to the dregs of society is exactly the result of the original sin of democracy. Is it any surprise that the dregs continue to try to desperately buttress it?

    Let it fall.

    Swiftly.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. @peterAUS
    A good point actually.

    Does sound incoherent, doesn't it?

    The questions, uncertain answers, hints going nowhere....yeah, now when you mention it.

    So, now when we are talking, would you be so kind as to suggest the answer to:

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.

     

    Please.

    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.

    Look at how well NK is playing the world. Annoying as it is, its a heck of a lot better than just having the US impose its increasingly repugnant values on everywhere in the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    "increasingly repugnant values"? Please elaborate. I presume that you would make a distinction between public profession of - and much private belief in - values, and actual practice, with some reference both to hypocrisy and to lack of self knowledge.
    , @peterAUS

    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.
     
    Sounds wonderful. For some.

    For some else sounds as a nightmare.

    Like, small countries projected to be within Russian or, to a less extent, Chinese sphere.
    Let alone those on borders on those THREE areas.

    Anyway.
    Some of us just like US to be a world policeman.
    Or, at least, we much less despise that policeman than those two others.

    So, some of us want the Major to be O.K. and keep being good at what he does.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. @NoseytheDuke
    The History Channel? LOL! The source of your great Wizdom is revealed at last.

    It is not for the lazy minded, but active intelligence can use many sources of information and apply tests for internal consistency, precision, honesty, consistency with reliable sources and. reliably authenticated fact together with lawyers’ tests and rules of thumb as in declarations against interest, the equivalent of deathbed statements and absence of motive to liè.

    So I ask again whether you have seen and considered what is in that doco, Road to 9/11. You will note that I respected your limited capacity for admitting error and confined my suggestion of what it might contribute to your thinking to the possibility of it correcting one of your sillirmer cheap jibes.

    What BTW do you think a rich Saudi enemy of the US, with low living expenses, time on his hands and no local security problems was doing with his time in Afghanistan? And, not for the first time, I ask whether you concede that he would have regarded getting America to invade Afghanistan as a great win for his cause?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry Wiz, been busy. I did Road to 9/11, classic disinformation. It avoided how OBL could arrange drills (Vigilant Warrior for just one) to coincide with his attack, how he could arrange for Norad audio records to be burned, how he could suspend Newton's Laws, how he could live in primitive places for a decade with renal failure and on and on. It didn't explain how the videos of him confessing showed an individual claiming to be OBL that clearly was not him etc. Believe what you like, if you are sincere you will weep at your own gullibility when truth strikes and the payout comes. Saudis were involved in very minor ways to set them up as patsies should the need arise.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    Well....

    Sounds as optimist vs pessimist: glass is half full/glass is half empty.

    I guess you are an optimist.
    So, let's play a pessimist then. Fair and balanced etc.

    They are in deep, and deepening.
     
    Yes they are. Good on them.
    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.

    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts.
     
    Agree.
    WHEN the rebuilding starts.

    In meantime........still a bit of chaos, wouldn't you agree?

    Will that prove to be a blunder or something smarter, well, time will tell.

    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.

    And the other side would say “Yes, but that’s because the Empire doesn’t (yet) know why it doesn’t want it there”.

    WHEN the rebuilding starts.

    Indeed, but the Chinese are already in Syria, and have recently hosted delegations from Syria and Iraq (and I believe others) at mini trade shows organized specifically for them to pick ‘n choose the architects/engineering firms/constructors/planners/material suppliers that will pour in there as soon as the situation’s stable enough to do so. The US may be able to delay that a year or two, but both China (and Russia, to a somewhat lesser extent) have trump cards in the financial plane that can shut the US down if they insist on throwing their toys out of the pram much longer than that.

    time will tell.

    That is the one thing that’s inevitable.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @NoseytheDuke
    Dalton was the drug dealer and the one convicted of armed robbery, not Boyce. Boyce did use drugs but he did live in Orange County where social drug use is mandatory.

    Whitlam had discovered that the intelligence gathered via Pine Gap was not being shared as per the agreement. He was threatening to shut it down, that is why he was toppled. Boyce lost faith in his government and sought to punish it, foolish and wrong and he paid a high price but by all means go with Wikipedia, everyone knows of its total accuracy and infallibility. Do you guys still read comic books too?

    I wondered whether it was only to me that you displayed your mental shortwindedness but I see that #148 you are still at it again displaying perhaps an alcohol impaired memory or just arrogant indifference. It’s one thing to scorn Wikipedia and fallaciously draw an unsustainable inference from the fact that it is not always right and on some subjects – though hardly Christopher Boyce except by himself – maybe invigilated. It is another thing completely to rely only on your tendentious memory when you could find any number of links to verify that it was Boyce who committed the armed robberies; e.g.

    http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20131122/the-ex-spy-among-us-christopher-boyce-carves-out-new-life-in-oregon

    In the course of discovering one error you would have found that his drug running and spying mate was Andrew Daulton Lee, not a guy called Dalton.

    I can add something about Whitlam and intelligence matters. He hadn’t a clue. I knew Bill Robertson the head of ASIS that he sacked in 1975 for not telling Whitlam (who had shown no relevant interest) that Australia had an agent in Dili. Whitlam, without asking ASIS, had declared that Australia had no one there. It is entirely credible that the CIA would have discussed this erratic behaviour as Robertson was a valued colleague. (He was plugged in to the international intelligence network closely enough to be able to tell me, presumably from the CIA, that the KGB had been operating out of Buenos Aires next door in Allende’s Chile). There wad nevér, however, the slightest suggestion of anything like “but we gave him his comeuppance in thd end”. My own scepticism would be a bit like my scepticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories: Ockham’s Razor, plus lack of plausibly described causal connections and mechanism, and insufficient motive compared with well known real motives (ObL’s provocation of a war in Afghanistan and Fraser’s and Kerr’s well attested motives – and means).

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks Wiz, If I did misspell Daulton, only parents (he was adopted) and teachers called him Andrew. I did not know that Boyce committed armed robbery subsequent to his release but I was referring to the original events that saw him convicted initially. As for later, it is well known that prisons are universities for crime. Too bad for him, he came from a good family, had a nice girlfriend and had a good life ahead except that, as he claims, his disillusionment over the US treatment of its ally, Australia, caused him to rebel with disastrous consequences for him. I don't doubt that Whitlam's intent to close Pine Gap was the clincher in his overthrow, think about it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Daniel Chieh
    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.

    Look at how well NK is playing the world. Annoying as it is, its a heck of a lot better than just having the US impose its increasingly repugnant values on everywhere in the world.

    “increasingly repugnant values”? Please elaborate. I presume that you would make a distinction between public profession of – and much private belief in – values, and actual practice, with some reference both to hypocrisy and to lack of self knowledge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    http://i.imgur.com/LitEDtf.png


    A world worth dying for.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @peterAUS
    Well....

    Sounds as optimist vs pessimist: glass is half full/glass is half empty.

    I guess you are an optimist.
    So, let's play a pessimist then. Fair and balanced etc.

    They are in deep, and deepening.
     
    Yes they are. Good on them.
    Some would say they, especially Russia, are exactly where The Empire wants it.

    In the near and longer term, it means Russia and China are in when the rebuilding starts.
     
    Agree.
    WHEN the rebuilding starts.

    In meantime........still a bit of chaos, wouldn't you agree?

    Will that prove to be a blunder or something smarter, well, time will tell.

    The Empire couldn’t even keep its CIA-funding elements from killing its Pentagon-funded elements. There’s no 8D chess going on here, just a cacophony of clownish confusion.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. Erebus says:
    @Kingfelix
    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?

    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?

    If this refers to Caucasians murdered by the USM after the German surrender, the US killed ~1M German POWs (by intentional starvation (15-20%) & denial of medical care (80-85%)).
    Half a century later, NATO’s bombing killed ~2000 civilians in Yugoslavia. Admittedly, that wasn’t 100% USM’s doing, though as SACEUR, Wesley Clark could order any participating NATO member to do whatever bombing runs they’d signed up for.

    I am unaware of anything between those two that didn’t involve nuclear and chemical weapons tests on their own troops, but even these are an eye opener.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Ah, what you refer to as opportunity I would call misfortune. I'm so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.

    I’m so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.

    Good comment.
    As an example, mind you.
    That “morally”.

    Implies that members of Australian military, let alone US military are morally poor.
    Or, even better, that the author of the statement is morally superior.
    That……attitude.
    Holier than thou.
    That’s the thing, really, isn’t it?
    Feels so good.

    Well, how about something else which also feels good?
    In the current paradigm a young, healthy, male is constantly being emasculated. From a kindergarten to a marriage/partnership/whatever.
    Now….imagine….if you can…..that…….freedom…..when he lies behind a machine-gun and tries to get that spec at, say, 800 metres away? Short bursts, recoil, smell….focus…..
    When a spotter and the number two are of the same material as he is. True friends.
    No nagging, smug comments, PC brainwashing, sensitivity, diversity…feminine side…blah…blah…
    A caveman team with modern toys.
    Nothing compares to that.

    And the bosses. Not some smug arsehole, but a man who leads by example, truly cares for you. As the Major, apparently, cared for his men.
    How many managers lose sleep, no, think even, about people they “let go”?
    No such thing in an infantry platoon.

    And the sleep is true sleep. Food tastes so good. The very air is different, sharp and scented.
    Colors, sounds, everything is sharper, more intense.

    The life itself is so intense.

    Compare it to a life in a corporate cubicle………..

    Poor soldiers.
    Yeah…..

    Now, of course, there is a price for all that, as with everything in life.
    Highs—-lows.
    Keeps a balance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Amigo, if you need to shoot and kill something or some body to feel alive then you are surely lacking in many ways, especially morally and are probably hung like a hamster too. If you want thrills try BASE jumping or some other exploit where you take the risk without harming others. Your comment reminds me of an arsonist fire-fighter who lights fires in order to feel heroic putting them out.

    As long as there are sad, pathetic hero-wannabes there will always be wars and our species will destroy itself, for the betterment of the planet. I might be honoured to stand and fight next to you were we defending our loved ones and our lands but I have nothing but scorn for those who travel far and wide to kill others because liars tell them it is necessary to and dummies believe them. Sad and pathetic. My sympathies to you.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. peterAUS says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.

    Look at how well NK is playing the world. Annoying as it is, its a heck of a lot better than just having the US impose its increasingly repugnant values on everywhere in the world.

    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.

    Sounds wonderful. For some.

    For some else sounds as a nightmare.

    Like, small countries projected to be within Russian or, to a less extent, Chinese sphere.
    Let alone those on borders on those THREE areas.

    Anyway.
    Some of us just like US to be a world policeman.
    Or, at least, we much less despise that policeman than those two others.

    So, some of us want the Major to be O.K. and keep being good at what he does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    Certainly, if you truly think that the way the world going is ideal, then by all means, proceed happily to promote the path that leads us down to soylent virtual realities under Emperor Zuckenberg, of thousand of genders, and everything is right except that which is decent and traditional. And the dear Mayor can go forth, knowing that he shall be giving his life to protect the same people who will be forcing him to wear bras as part of sensitivity training, and who cares for his opinion and his welfare as much as a farmer cares for his pig. Perhaps less.

    For my part, I rather like sane things. And with a world policeman that seeks to preach and require insanity, that removes any and all desire to promote it. Especially when it seek to become a hegemony where you cannot escape from it.

    It obviously makes me wish for an alternative, if only so I can exit from this hell, if needed. And as you said, in the end, the world only understands power.

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @peterAUS

    Equal power in a multipolar world. Opposed interests.
     
    Sounds wonderful. For some.

    For some else sounds as a nightmare.

    Like, small countries projected to be within Russian or, to a less extent, Chinese sphere.
    Let alone those on borders on those THREE areas.

    Anyway.
    Some of us just like US to be a world policeman.
    Or, at least, we much less despise that policeman than those two others.

    So, some of us want the Major to be O.K. and keep being good at what he does.

    Certainly, if you truly think that the way the world going is ideal, then by all means, proceed happily to promote the path that leads us down to soylent virtual realities under Emperor Zuckenberg, of thousand of genders, and everything is right except that which is decent and traditional. And the dear Mayor can go forth, knowing that he shall be giving his life to protect the same people who will be forcing him to wear bras as part of sensitivity training, and who cares for his opinion and his welfare as much as a farmer cares for his pig. Perhaps less.

    For my part, I rather like sane things. And with a world policeman that seeks to preach and require insanity, that removes any and all desire to promote it. Especially when it seek to become a hegemony where you cannot escape from it.

    It obviously makes me wish for an alternative, if only so I can exit from this hell, if needed. And as you said, in the end, the world only understands power.

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.
     
    Fair point.

    Coming from two teams, most of the time:
    1. Naive idealistic Westerners
    Because there is no real difference in what bothers you. And, there is a difference in how a basic life works under US sphere compared to Russian or Chinese spheres.
    If you belong to this group, probably the best is to speak with plenty of Chinese and Russians living around you.
    See how it goes.
    I, personally, have noticed for the last couple of years steady increase of Russian language along the path I often walk. Couples in their best years, mostly with kids. Look as middle/upper middle class people.
    Recently had a group of engineers at my home. Two lead ones young Russians. Spoke with them a bit.

    And, in the real world, those three entities will struggle for supremacy in adjacent areas, countries/peoples there will have hell.
    Again, Game of Thrones analogy.
    Three entities: "Tywin Lannister", "Roose Bolton", "Slaver's Bay"
    I live under "Tywin Lannister".
    I do not want to live in border with "Roose Bolton" and "Slaver's Bay". Let alone living within their borders.

    2. People with agenda
    No talk.

    That possibility for real freedom, as we, within "Tywin Lannister" world are concerned lies in trying to make that world better.

    Now...if by any miracle "Roose Bolton" and "Slaver's Bay" become something worth going for, even better.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. peterAUS says:

    Now, a bit of thinking about the topic.
    Like, we are sitting in a quiet pub, sipping our drinks and having a quite conversation.

    Troopers do not, most of the time, perceive the world as officers, let alone senior officers.
    They are young and uneducated males (we’ll leave women out of this). That uneducated is a compliment here actually.
    Some, true, do have that intellectual curiosity, but, most do not.
    Working class and lower middle class young males.
    Now, we are talking about modern, Western, professional army.
    Of course there are National Guard types, reserves and militias, but we are NOT talking about them.
    Most of these..kids…….aren’t married, have no kids of their own.
    Job and adventure is what motivates them most of the time.
    Issues as state policies, geopolitics, strategies, war objectives….that doesn’t interest them much.

    The job of the officer commanding (say, up to a Captain) is to create a working framework for them. With help from NCOs.

    Commanding officer (say, Major to Colonel) is there to help (with senior NCOs, of course).

    If a framework is shit in general, well, as an officer, it’s his job to make it meaningful.

    Iraq for example.
    There are publicly stated mission and objectives.
    Shit and delusional shit, of course.

    The officer’s job is to make that work for his platoon.
    Translate “shit” into “framework”.

    TRANSLATE.

    Now….the CHOICE.

    Where the core loyalties lie: with the UP or with the DOWN?
    The most fundamental decision a commanding officer has to make in his life.

    True, it is a fine line. One has to play the game. One does not want to antagonize a Col and has all battalion night patrols for yourself. Ultimately, not good for his men.
    At the other side, of course, if/WHEN shit order comes, he must object in the strongest terms. I’ll leave details here. Works different in real combat than in movies.

    All that is not easy.
    That’s why one is an officer.

    Practical.
    Book example: a standing order was NOT to keep a round in the chamber. Only upon a CONTACT one is to chamber a round.
    Fine.
    From Commanding Officer to team leader everyone knew: as soon as you depart, CHAMBER the round and put on safe.

    More bullshit comes from above, more creative the officer has to be.
    That’s why he is an officer………….

    For this, COIN thing.
    Look at how it is done when policing in tough neighborhoods.
    One thing comes from above. Another thing is done on the street.

    And, in military it works much better.
    Plenty of….tricks….to make it much better. I can’t, of course, talk about those here.

    So, if the Major did his best to create that framework, based on TRUTH, no reason for self-doubt and self-loathing.
    If he didn’t (too…brainwashed), well, that’s what introspection is all about.
    And making conclusions.
    If he was just lazy……or, much worse, more concerned about his rank than his men………..well…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  161. peterAUS says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    Certainly, if you truly think that the way the world going is ideal, then by all means, proceed happily to promote the path that leads us down to soylent virtual realities under Emperor Zuckenberg, of thousand of genders, and everything is right except that which is decent and traditional. And the dear Mayor can go forth, knowing that he shall be giving his life to protect the same people who will be forcing him to wear bras as part of sensitivity training, and who cares for his opinion and his welfare as much as a farmer cares for his pig. Perhaps less.

    For my part, I rather like sane things. And with a world policeman that seeks to preach and require insanity, that removes any and all desire to promote it. Especially when it seek to become a hegemony where you cannot escape from it.

    It obviously makes me wish for an alternative, if only so I can exit from this hell, if needed. And as you said, in the end, the world only understands power.

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.

    Fair point.

    Coming from two teams, most of the time:
    1. Naive idealistic Westerners
    Because there is no real difference in what bothers you. And, there is a difference in how a basic life works under US sphere compared to Russian or Chinese spheres.
    If you belong to this group, probably the best is to speak with plenty of Chinese and Russians living around you.
    See how it goes.
    I, personally, have noticed for the last couple of years steady increase of Russian language along the path I often walk. Couples in their best years, mostly with kids. Look as middle/upper middle class people.
    Recently had a group of engineers at my home. Two lead ones young Russians. Spoke with them a bit.

    And, in the real world, those three entities will struggle for supremacy in adjacent areas, countries/peoples there will have hell.
    Again, Game of Thrones analogy.
    Three entities: “Tywin Lannister”, “Roose Bolton”, “Slaver’s Bay”
    I live under “Tywin Lannister”.
    I do not want to live in border with “Roose Bolton” and “Slaver’s Bay”. Let alone living within their borders.

    2. People with agenda
    No talk.

    That possibility for real freedom, as we, within “Tywin Lannister” world are concerned lies in trying to make that world better.

    Now…if by any miracle “Roose Bolton” and “Slaver’s Bay” become something worth going for, even better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    That's because you haven't yet had the joy of being nearly unpersoned for having a politically incorrect opinion. Your opinion of "real freedom" and the world of "Tywin Lannister" will change significantly if you have been, as I suspect, many of us have been.

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this "world policeman" and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us. Does keeping Australia "safe" benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?

    Sacrifice for what? Nation? King and country? The Empire? The very Empire that calls us deplorable and is destroying the very relics of our souls - behold, the Confederate Statues?

    And to what reward? Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it'll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.

    As I've said before, when our "friends" do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind "friends" who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?

    You'd have to be suicidal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @peterAUS

    Therefore, divided power is far better. At least in increased chaos, there lies the possibility of real freedom.
     
    Fair point.

    Coming from two teams, most of the time:
    1. Naive idealistic Westerners
    Because there is no real difference in what bothers you. And, there is a difference in how a basic life works under US sphere compared to Russian or Chinese spheres.
    If you belong to this group, probably the best is to speak with plenty of Chinese and Russians living around you.
    See how it goes.
    I, personally, have noticed for the last couple of years steady increase of Russian language along the path I often walk. Couples in their best years, mostly with kids. Look as middle/upper middle class people.
    Recently had a group of engineers at my home. Two lead ones young Russians. Spoke with them a bit.

    And, in the real world, those three entities will struggle for supremacy in adjacent areas, countries/peoples there will have hell.
    Again, Game of Thrones analogy.
    Three entities: "Tywin Lannister", "Roose Bolton", "Slaver's Bay"
    I live under "Tywin Lannister".
    I do not want to live in border with "Roose Bolton" and "Slaver's Bay". Let alone living within their borders.

    2. People with agenda
    No talk.

    That possibility for real freedom, as we, within "Tywin Lannister" world are concerned lies in trying to make that world better.

    Now...if by any miracle "Roose Bolton" and "Slaver's Bay" become something worth going for, even better.

    That’s because you haven’t yet had the joy of being nearly unpersoned for having a politically incorrect opinion. Your opinion of “real freedom” and the world of “Tywin Lannister” will change significantly if you have been, as I suspect, many of us have been.

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us. Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?

    Sacrifice for what? Nation? King and country? The Empire? The very Empire that calls us deplorable and is destroying the very relics of our souls – behold, the Confederate Statues?

    And to what reward? Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?

    You’d have to be suicidal.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. The Scalpel says: • Website
    @peterAUS
    Well....it's getting "personal" here and that's ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it's a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not "person"..........."issue".

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
     
    Aren't we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics...) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato...Machiavelli.....Lord Acton....blah...blah.....

    "I am all for gun bans; YOU first."
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy...."rule Britannia"......
    Racists, imperialists....blah...blah.....
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now......no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn't working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it's all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces..........

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, "the right of the first night.").Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    "They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all"

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it's been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha....want more?
    Can't make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So...the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can't be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won't abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they've been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now......what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry.....

    You have complete freedom to live your life as you see fit, come what may . Yes, there are consequences of course. It is the law of nature. But unless you are physically restrained you can live in the world of your choosing. Maybe you will have to get a shack in the woods by a pond. Maybe you can do it some other way.

    This is your answer to the question of abuse of power. Short of killing you or tying you down, does anybody really have power over you? Don’t give them an excuse to kill you or tie you down. Avoid them. You are a wild animal. The forest is full of predators. Don’t go looking for a fight. Perhaps you will have to give up some perks. That is the price of freedom.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. peterAUS says:
    @Daniel Chieh
    That's because you haven't yet had the joy of being nearly unpersoned for having a politically incorrect opinion. Your opinion of "real freedom" and the world of "Tywin Lannister" will change significantly if you have been, as I suspect, many of us have been.

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this "world policeman" and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us. Does keeping Australia "safe" benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?

    Sacrifice for what? Nation? King and country? The Empire? The very Empire that calls us deplorable and is destroying the very relics of our souls - behold, the Confederate Statues?

    And to what reward? Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it'll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.

    As I've said before, when our "friends" do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind "friends" who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?

    You'd have to be suicidal.

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.

    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?

    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I’d presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn’t exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?

    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that’s my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.

    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for “China matter”. That’s at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?

    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don’t you get that simple point here?

    I…….see……..current…regimes……..in…both…Russia….and….China….as worse...than…the …regime …in…USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh

    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn’t exist in Russia and China?O.K.
     
    I can't speak for Russia but I am familiar with China. And its definitely true that in many ways, the "liberal West" exercises even more censorship than China. There's something to be said about being unpersoned by angry mobs which would have even less reason than a coherent government; at any rate, its not a marked improvement.

    Or, Taiwanese for “China matter”. That’s at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?
     

    As someone who would know? Yes. Perhaps unfortunately so, but yes. Taiwan has self-destructed some time ago and just completing its motions of death.

    But that neither here nor there.

    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.
     

    Because the Russians or the Chinese will reach out with their almighty ideological arm and tear down the history of people in the American South. Really? Sure, you might say, they might bully Taiwan or Poland.

    Cool, whatever.

    It still doesn't affect us directly.

    I…….see……..current…regimes……..in…both…Russia….and….China….as worse...than…the …regime …in…USA.
     

    For you, perhaps.

    Not for the Americans effectively paying and bleeding for you.

    And nothing will improve the situation until the current regime is challenged, no more than any other monopoly. Only in a situation of divided power can there be a chance of actual improvement.

    , @Andrei Martyanov

    So? You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
     
    Pete, can you please point out any evidence that Russia (China is another matter--it is in the region) that Russia somehow wants to "police" Australia. I don't know when and if you were the last time to Russia (it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here) but I can tell you this:

    1. There are NO contingency planning in Russia for "policing" (I assume we can call it operations) Australia. Zilch, nada.

    2. Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don't see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.

    3. Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy's submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from "policing" Russia than they really care about Australia.

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you "freedoms" in Australia.
    , @annamaria
    "Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in the Middle East? Syria, you know."

    So touching. Messieurs Cheney, Summers, Murdoch, and Bibi are wholeheartedly agree with you. Why wouldn't these stubborn Syrians simply relinquish the Golan Heights to the war profiteers? And these Russians -- what a nerve, to come on the legal invitation from the legitimate President of the sovereign Syria to fight radical jihadis. Scandal, total scandal in the eyes of the ziocons.
    The Russians think that because the radical jihadis are on the southern borders of Russian Federation, it is vital for Russia to stop the (CIA-hatched) ISIS. This is not a valid explanation for the Atlantic Council and Heritage Foundation. Never mind that Mr. President Bush the Lesser told the world that "we must fight them there so that they would not fight us here." (This is classic, btw)
    The military brass in the US seems to become subdivided into two groups: The first group is headed by the Tokyo-Rose McCain and includes the business-minded (meaning money-minded) Petreaus, the"perfumed" prince Morell and such. This group is adored by the authors of Clean Break: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&startpos=0#amid1982perlefeith
    The second group includes Veterans for Sanity, the honorable Colonel Patrick Lang, Giraldi, Parry, and similar highly competent and dignified people; none of them is an opportunist.

    , @annamaria
    http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2
    "Israel has granted a U.S. company the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports.
    A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.
    That geographic location will likely prove controversial. Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Its administration of the area — which is not recognized by international law — has been mostly peaceful until the Syrian civil war broke out 23 months ago.
    "This action is mostly political – it’s an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights," Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. "The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem.”
    , @annamaria
    Actually, it is not just the CIA that cares deeply about ISIS:
    "Pentagon suppliers have links with known criminal networks:
    The amount of material necessary for the Pentagon program — one ammunition factory announced it planned to hire 1,000 new employees in 2016 to help cope with the demand — has reportedly stretched suppliers to the limit, forcing the Defense Department to relax standards on the materials it’s willing to accept.
    ... the sheer volume of weaponry continuing to ship to the Syrian battlefield and other parts of the Middle East means inevitable proliferation among unsavory terror groups - a phenomenon which has already been exhaustively documented in connection with the now reportedly closed CIA program to topple the Syrian government. ... the US-supplied weapons will continue to pass among groups with no accountability for where they end up."
    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/bombshell-report-catches-pentagon-falsifying-paperwork-weapons-transfers-linked-orga
    We could conclude that Messieurs Cheney, Summers, Murdoch, and Bibi feel really good on learning the blissful news that the "huge volume of weaponry continues to ship to the Syrian battlefield" and that there will be the "inevitable proliferation among unsavory terror groups." The Clean Break in action!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. @Wizard of Oz
    "increasingly repugnant values"? Please elaborate. I presume that you would make a distinction between public profession of - and much private belief in - values, and actual practice, with some reference both to hypocrisy and to lack of self knowledge.

    A world worth dying for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    After getting past the confusion caused by apparent reference to a girl as "he" I get to the point of not being sure which aspect of what is dealt with you find supporting your "increasingly repugnant" description. My own perspective has long been that people's sex lives is their business "as long as they don't do it in the street and frighten the horses". I'm not sure where you are coming from.
    , @lavoisier
    Sad that this person despised himself or herself so much that they felt the need to commit suicide.

    I see this as a tragedy, regardless of sexual persuasion.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn’t exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    I can’t speak for Russia but I am familiar with China. And its definitely true that in many ways, the “liberal West” exercises even more censorship than China. There’s something to be said about being unpersoned by angry mobs which would have even less reason than a coherent government; at any rate, its not a marked improvement.

    Or, Taiwanese for “China matter”. That’s at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As someone who would know? Yes. Perhaps unfortunately so, but yes. Taiwan has self-destructed some time ago and just completing its motions of death.

    But that neither here nor there.

    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Because the Russians or the Chinese will reach out with their almighty ideological arm and tear down the history of people in the American South. Really? Sure, you might say, they might bully Taiwan or Poland.

    Cool, whatever.

    It still doesn’t affect us directly.

    I…….see……..current…regimes……..in…both…Russia….and….China….as worse…than…the …regime …in…USA.

    For you, perhaps.

    Not for the Americans effectively paying and bleeding for you.

    And nothing will improve the situation until the current regime is challenged, no more than any other monopoly. Only in a situation of divided power can there be a chance of actual improvement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    I picked up your "divided power" and my mind turned not to Montesquieu or any 18th century efforts to produce a balance but to the question of whether there is in any real sense undivided power in the US today. I recall à wise old lawyèr saying many years ago, when I was waxing indignant at people's indiffetence to the way some mining company directors were behaving, "no one minds people stealing a bit when everyine is making money". Now I think there may be a lot of groups with a little power fighting over the ßick bed if a no longer so rich tycoon. There are, for example, at least six seriously important lobbies to which Congress folk are beholden. I doubt if you would disagree with any of that. If so, can you please elaborate your thoughts wrt division of power. I trust you see that I am not trying to cutely put you on a spot but merely tossing something into a conversation I hope may prove enlightening in some degree.5
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Daniel Chieh

    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn’t exist in Russia and China?O.K.
     
    I can't speak for Russia but I am familiar with China. And its definitely true that in many ways, the "liberal West" exercises even more censorship than China. There's something to be said about being unpersoned by angry mobs which would have even less reason than a coherent government; at any rate, its not a marked improvement.

    Or, Taiwanese for “China matter”. That’s at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?
     

    As someone who would know? Yes. Perhaps unfortunately so, but yes. Taiwan has self-destructed some time ago and just completing its motions of death.

    But that neither here nor there.

    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.
     

    Because the Russians or the Chinese will reach out with their almighty ideological arm and tear down the history of people in the American South. Really? Sure, you might say, they might bully Taiwan or Poland.

    Cool, whatever.

    It still doesn't affect us directly.

    I…….see……..current…regimes……..in…both…Russia….and….China….as worse...than…the …regime …in…USA.
     

    For you, perhaps.

    Not for the Americans effectively paying and bleeding for you.

    And nothing will improve the situation until the current regime is challenged, no more than any other monopoly. Only in a situation of divided power can there be a chance of actual improvement.

    I picked up your “divided power” and my mind turned not to Montesquieu or any 18th century efforts to produce a balance but to the question of whether there is in any real sense undivided power in the US today. I recall à wise old lawyèr saying many years ago, when I was waxing indignant at people’s indiffetence to the way some mining company directors were behaving, “no one minds people stealing a bit when everyine is making money”. Now I think there may be a lot of groups with a little power fighting over the ßick bed if a no longer so rich tycoon. There are, for example, at least six seriously important lobbies to which Congress folk are beholden. I doubt if you would disagree with any of that. If so, can you please elaborate your thoughts wrt division of power. I trust you see that I am not trying to cutely put you on a spot but merely tossing something into a conversation I hope may prove enlightening in some degree.5

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    I don't actually disagree that there are multiple power groups, but I think its safe to say that culture has been shifting leftward at an accelerating rate and the Deep State as an entrenched entity is more or less a real thing.

    For all practical purposes, there's a convergence toward ideas, language and even words that pretty much lightning speed - and the ideas that such a convergence leads toward has harmed me and continues harms me, and further annoys me because as a writer, I've been fond of certain themes that now actually lead me to be condemned as evil to present them.

    I actually do think that power is actually quite consolidated and stagnant, more or less as a result of time; the way that cancer gradually spreads through a body and becomes connected and inextinguishable, so it can be that individuals and groups end up spreading in the body politic and connect to become strange bedfellows. The unelected officials in the end, hold more power than the elected, and the elected are dependent on donations and funding from outside individuals and agencies who are again, not elected.

    It all essentially leads toward a world which has little place for someone like me, or as I see it, beauty and order in general. Unsurprisingly, anything that will genuinely disrupt the ossification might is welcome.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Daniel Chieh
    http://i.imgur.com/LitEDtf.png


    A world worth dying for.

    After getting past the confusion caused by apparent reference to a girl as “he” I get to the point of not being sure which aspect of what is dealt with you find supporting your “increasingly repugnant” description. My own perspective has long been that people’s sex lives is their business “as long as they don’t do it in the street and frighten the horses”. I’m not sure where you are coming from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. @Wizard of Oz
    I picked up your "divided power" and my mind turned not to Montesquieu or any 18th century efforts to produce a balance but to the question of whether there is in any real sense undivided power in the US today. I recall à wise old lawyèr saying many years ago, when I was waxing indignant at people's indiffetence to the way some mining company directors were behaving, "no one minds people stealing a bit when everyine is making money". Now I think there may be a lot of groups with a little power fighting over the ßick bed if a no longer so rich tycoon. There are, for example, at least six seriously important lobbies to which Congress folk are beholden. I doubt if you would disagree with any of that. If so, can you please elaborate your thoughts wrt division of power. I trust you see that I am not trying to cutely put you on a spot but merely tossing something into a conversation I hope may prove enlightening in some degree.5

    I don’t actually disagree that there are multiple power groups, but I think its safe to say that culture has been shifting leftward at an accelerating rate and the Deep State as an entrenched entity is more or less a real thing.

    For all practical purposes, there’s a convergence toward ideas, language and even words that pretty much lightning speed – and the ideas that such a convergence leads toward has harmed me and continues harms me, and further annoys me because as a writer, I’ve been fond of certain themes that now actually lead me to be condemned as evil to present them.

    I actually do think that power is actually quite consolidated and stagnant, more or less as a result of time; the way that cancer gradually spreads through a body and becomes connected and inextinguishable, so it can be that individuals and groups end up spreading in the body politic and connect to become strange bedfellows. The unelected officials in the end, hold more power than the elected, and the elected are dependent on donations and funding from outside individuals and agencies who are again, not elected.

    It all essentially leads toward a world which has little place for someone like me, or as I see it, beauty and order in general. Unsurprisingly, anything that will genuinely disrupt the ossification might is welcome.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. @Wizard of Oz
    It is not for the lazy minded, but active intelligence can use many sources of information and apply tests for internal consistency, precision, honesty, consistency with reliable sources and. reliably authenticated fact together with lawyers' tests and rules of thumb as in declarations against interest, the equivalent of deathbed statements and absence of motive to liè.

    So I ask again whether you have seen and considered what is in that doco, Road to 9/11. You will note that I respected your limited capacity for admitting error and confined my suggestion of what it might contribute to your thinking to the possibility of it correcting one of your sillirmer cheap jibes.

    What BTW do you think a rich Saudi enemy of the US, with low living expenses, time on his hands and no local security problems was doing with his time in Afghanistan? And, not for the first time, I ask whether you concede that he would have regarded getting America to invade Afghanistan as a great win for his cause?

    Sorry Wiz, been busy. I did Road to 9/11, classic disinformation. It avoided how OBL could arrange drills (Vigilant Warrior for just one) to coincide with his attack, how he could arrange for Norad audio records to be burned, how he could suspend Newton’s Laws, how he could live in primitive places for a decade with renal failure and on and on. It didn’t explain how the videos of him confessing showed an individual claiming to be OBL that clearly was not him etc. Believe what you like, if you are sincere you will weep at your own gullibility when truth strikes and the payout comes. Saudis were involved in very minor ways to set them up as patsies should the need arise.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    Well I'll grant you that, if there was the kind of conspiracy you believe in the Road to 9/11 doco would have been disinformation worth investing a few million in but still vulnerable to investigative journalists who wanted to make a name for themselves and who could, in the end, get RT or Al Jazeira to give them the audience.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @peterAUS

    I’m so glad never to have been that poor, both financially and morally.
     
    Good comment.
    As an example, mind you.
    That "morally".

    Implies that members of Australian military, let alone US military are morally poor.
    Or, even better, that the author of the statement is morally superior.
    That......attitude.
    Holier than thou.
    That's the thing, really, isn't it?
    Feels so good.

    Well, how about something else which also feels good?
    In the current paradigm a young, healthy, male is constantly being emasculated. From a kindergarten to a marriage/partnership/whatever.
    Now....imagine....if you can.....that.......freedom.....when he lies behind a machine-gun and tries to get that spec at, say, 800 metres away? Short bursts, recoil, smell....focus.....
    When a spotter and the number two are of the same material as he is. True friends.
    No nagging, smug comments, PC brainwashing, sensitivity, diversity...feminine side...blah...blah...
    A caveman team with modern toys.
    Nothing compares to that.

    And the bosses. Not some smug arsehole, but a man who leads by example, truly cares for you. As the Major, apparently, cared for his men.
    How many managers lose sleep, no, think even, about people they "let go"?
    No such thing in an infantry platoon.

    And the sleep is true sleep. Food tastes so good. The very air is different, sharp and scented.
    Colors, sounds, everything is sharper, more intense.

    The life itself is so intense.

    Compare it to a life in a corporate cubicle...........

    Poor soldiers.
    Yeah.....

    Now, of course, there is a price for all that, as with everything in life.
    Highs----lows.
    Keeps a balance.

    Amigo, if you need to shoot and kill something or some body to feel alive then you are surely lacking in many ways, especially morally and are probably hung like a hamster too. If you want thrills try BASE jumping or some other exploit where you take the risk without harming others. Your comment reminds me of an arsonist fire-fighter who lights fires in order to feel heroic putting them out.

    As long as there are sad, pathetic hero-wannabes there will always be wars and our species will destroy itself, for the betterment of the planet. I might be honoured to stand and fight next to you were we defending our loved ones and our lands but I have nothing but scorn for those who travel far and wide to kill others because liars tell them it is necessary to and dummies believe them. Sad and pathetic. My sympathies to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I might be honoured to stand and fight next to you were we defending our loved ones
     
    Doubt it.
    Maybe if conscripted.
    In that case, say in infantry company, just minor logistical duties (helping with vehicle maintenance, food/water delivery...stuff like that). Unarmed and always under supervision.
    First bad error.....well, bad thing happen in combat. Accidental discharge for example.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Wizard of Oz
    I wondered whether it was only to me that you displayed your mental shortwindedness but I see that #148 you are still at it again displaying perhaps an alcohol impaired memory or just arrogant indifference. It's one thing to scorn Wikipedia and fallaciously draw an unsustainable inference from the fact that it is not always right and on some subjects - though hardly Christopher Boyce except by himself - maybe invigilated. It is another thing completely to rely only on your tendentious memory when you could find any number of links to verify that it was Boyce who committed the armed robberies; e.g.
    http://www.dailybreeze.com/general-news/20131122/the-ex-spy-among-us-christopher-boyce-carves-out-new-life-in-oregon

    In the course of discovering one error you would have found that his drug running and spying mate was Andrew Daulton Lee, not a guy called Dalton.

    I can add something about Whitlam and intelligence matters. He hadn't a clue. I knew Bill Robertson the head of ASIS that he sacked in 1975 for not telling Whitlam (who had shown no relevant interest) that Australia had an agent in Dili. Whitlam, without asking ASIS, had declared that Australia had no one there. It is entirely credible that the CIA would have discussed this erratic behaviour as Robertson was a valued colleague. (He was plugged in to the international intelligence network closely enough to be able to tell me, presumably from the CIA, that the KGB had been operating out of Buenos Aires next door in Allende's Chile). There wad nevér, however, the slightest suggestion of anything like "but we gave him his comeuppance in thd end". My own scepticism would be a bit like my scepticism of 9/11 conspiracy theories: Ockham's Razor, plus lack of plausibly described causal connections and mechanism, and insufficient motive compared with well known real motives (ObL's provocation of a war in Afghanistan and Fraser's and Kerr's well attested motives - and means).

    Thanks Wiz, If I did misspell Daulton, only parents (he was adopted) and teachers called him Andrew. I did not know that Boyce committed armed robbery subsequent to his release but I was referring to the original events that saw him convicted initially. As for later, it is well known that prisons are universities for crime. Too bad for him, he came from a good family, had a nice girlfriend and had a good life ahead except that, as he claims, his disillusionment over the US treatment of its ally, Australia, caused him to rebel with disastrous consequences for him. I don’t doubt that Whitlam’s intent to close Pine Gap was the clincher in his overthrow, think about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    You seem to accept Christopher Boyce's honourable motive at face vslue. I wouldn't. Criminals make excuses aimed at the gullible.

    As for Whitlam wanting to close Pine Gap and that being a reason for getting rid of him why did Fraser, Kerr, Whitlam, Lionel Bowen, Jim Cairns, Barry Jones, Gareth Evans, Bill Hayden to name only a few who weren't given to reticence give it às a reason, at least a claimed reason, for Fraser and Kerr acting in the interest of national security? Why don't Barwick's or Mason's advices to Kerr refer to it even between the lines? What's your scenario? Marshall Green, the US Ambassador, finds Whitlam unresponsive to arguments that Pine Gap is a vital element in the resistance to communist expansion and tells Fraser and Kerr that ouster from Pine Gap means the eñd of the Anzus Treaty? And that does the trick? Any memoirs or ŕelease of docs?

    Checking on Marshall Green and then links to the Dismissal I came across a quote from Whitlam to the effect that "Kerr didn't need any encouragement from the CIA".
    , @Wizard of Oz
    Here's a bit of fun you may have seen but I haven't had time to read

    http://click.e.theaustralian.com.au/?qs=c88281be63d2928fd29b8005fe689ae23c7d1c8f8008106a7d69ae0076a18b5fda7943c7c023a745a7f05bf6b6ffe2bc540cf40801884957

    I may not have got the link copied correctly but it is in the Oz today and about Murphy whom I never met and of whom the only good I ever hear was that be could be entertaining. I am reminded of a lunch with former presidents of our two major parties where one,arriving late, said "I've just been trying to get off the phone with Gough. He was discussing which of the comrades as well as Murphy and Cairns were screwing Juni Morosi". Fun times when government had become impossible for those who thought great positive changes were needed and would be easy. CIA would have been baffled to brain explosion point by Whitlam's crew.

    , @Wizard of Oz
    Further to my last link to the Oz

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/lionel-murphy-files-swiss-bank-account-secret-keys-and-an-east-german-operative/news-story/0d3b816756665fb824ad5af664670529


    There are a few more links in a sidebar that I shall now have a look at. The obviois inference about the Whitlam government from this piece is that his hopeless shower of a government (think Khemlani affair; think Rex Connor's grand pipeline plan: think Lionel Murphy's raid on the ASIO offices etc. etc.) was a naturall prey for shysters and blackmailers. As indicated in the report Zunderman was probably a con man hoping to set up a blackmail payoff. Why do I feel confident about that,as I am? Because the idea of Whitlam being involved in secret payments to a Swiss bank account is incredible. Murphy maybe but not any of our PMs (at least while PM or Leader of the Opposition). And yet.... Whitlam was implicated in some absurd effort to raise money gor the ALP from Iraq while he was Leader of the Opposition after his dizmissal and election loss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @NoseytheDuke
    Sorry Wiz, been busy. I did Road to 9/11, classic disinformation. It avoided how OBL could arrange drills (Vigilant Warrior for just one) to coincide with his attack, how he could arrange for Norad audio records to be burned, how he could suspend Newton's Laws, how he could live in primitive places for a decade with renal failure and on and on. It didn't explain how the videos of him confessing showed an individual claiming to be OBL that clearly was not him etc. Believe what you like, if you are sincere you will weep at your own gullibility when truth strikes and the payout comes. Saudis were involved in very minor ways to set them up as patsies should the need arise.

    Well I’ll grant you that, if there was the kind of conspiracy you believe in the Road to 9/11 doco would have been disinformation worth investing a few million in but still vulnerable to investigative journalists who wanted to make a name for themselves and who could, in the end, get RT or Al Jazeira to give them the audience.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks Wiz, If I did misspell Daulton, only parents (he was adopted) and teachers called him Andrew. I did not know that Boyce committed armed robbery subsequent to his release but I was referring to the original events that saw him convicted initially. As for later, it is well known that prisons are universities for crime. Too bad for him, he came from a good family, had a nice girlfriend and had a good life ahead except that, as he claims, his disillusionment over the US treatment of its ally, Australia, caused him to rebel with disastrous consequences for him. I don't doubt that Whitlam's intent to close Pine Gap was the clincher in his overthrow, think about it.

    You seem to accept Christopher Boyce’s honourable motive at face vslue. I wouldn’t. Criminals make excuses aimed at the gullible.

    As for Whitlam wanting to close Pine Gap and that being a reason for getting rid of him why did Fraser, Kerr, Whitlam, Lionel Bowen, Jim Cairns, Barry Jones, Gareth Evans, Bill Hayden to name only a few who weren’t given to reticence give it às a reason, at least a claimed reason, for Fraser and Kerr acting in the interest of national security? Why don’t Barwick’s or Mason’s advices to Kerr refer to it even between the lines? What’s your scenario? Marshall Green, the US Ambassador, finds Whitlam unresponsive to arguments that Pine Gap is a vital element in the resistance to communist expansion and tells Fraser and Kerr that ouster from Pine Gap means the eñd of the Anzus Treaty? And that does the trick? Any memoirs or ŕelease of docs?

    Checking on Marshall Green and then links to the Dismissal I came across a quote from Whitlam to the effect that “Kerr didn’t need any encouragement from the CIA”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    So? You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?

    Pete, can you please point out any evidence that Russia (China is another matter–it is in the region) that Russia somehow wants to “police” Australia. I don’t know when and if you were the last time to Russia (it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here) but I can tell you this:

    1. There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Australia. Zilch, nada.

    2. Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don’t see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.

    3. Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy’s submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from “policing” Russia than they really care about Australia.

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you “freedoms” in Australia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    I think there is some misunderstanding here.
    How about this:

    it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here
     
    Actually, I am running 1887 routine here, but mostly 1945-1989 routine.

    There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Eastern Europe. Zilch, nada.
     
    Doubt it. A lot.

    Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don’t see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.
     
    Agree.
    Now, should the opportunity present itself, I am sure we’ll see, again, a lot of hand twisting in Eastern Europe.

    Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy’s submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from “policing” Russia than they really care about Australia.
     
    Agree.
    Two big boys jockeying who is bigger. Little boys have no say. Especially those in Eastern Europe

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you “freedoms” in Australia.
     
    Agree.
    Not so sure about those from Finland to Turkey.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. @Kingfelix
    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?

    How many whites has the US military killed since 1945?

    Start by counting the several million Germans who were killed post-surrender.

    Other Losses: An Investigation into the Mass Deaths of German Prisoners at the Hands of the French and Americans after World War II by James Bacque

    https://www.amazon.com/Other-Losses-Investigation-Prisoners-Americans/dp/0889226652

    Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War by R M Douglas

    https://www.amazon.com/Orderly-Humane-Expulsion-Germans-Second/dp/0300198205/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1505321875&sr=1-1&keywords=orderly+and+humane

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    “Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in the Middle East? Syria, you know.”

    So touching. Messieurs Cheney, Summers, Murdoch, and Bibi are wholeheartedly agree with you. Why wouldn’t these stubborn Syrians simply relinquish the Golan Heights to the war profiteers? And these Russians — what a nerve, to come on the legal invitation from the legitimate President of the sovereign Syria to fight radical jihadis. Scandal, total scandal in the eyes of the ziocons.
    The Russians think that because the radical jihadis are on the southern borders of Russian Federation, it is vital for Russia to stop the (CIA-hatched) ISIS. This is not a valid explanation for the Atlantic Council and Heritage Foundation. Never mind that Mr. President Bush the Lesser told the world that “we must fight them there so that they would not fight us here.” (This is classic, btw)
    The military brass in the US seems to become subdivided into two groups: The first group is headed by the Tokyo-Rose McCain and includes the business-minded (meaning money-minded) Petreaus, the”perfumed” prince Morell and such. This group is adored by the authors of Clean Break: http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=neoconinfluence&startpos=0#amid1982perlefeith
    The second group includes Veterans for Sanity, the honorable Colonel Patrick Lang, Giraldi, Parry, and similar highly competent and dignified people; none of them is an opportunist.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/israel-grants-golan-heights-oil-license-2013-2

    “Israel has granted a U.S. company the first license to explore for oil and gas in the occupied Golan Heights, John Reed of the Financial Times reports.
    A local subsidiary of the New York-listed company Genie Energy — which is advised by former vice president Dick Cheney and whose shareholders include Jacob Rothschild and Rupert Murdoch — will now have exclusive rights to a 153-square mile radius in the southern part of the Golan Heights.
    That geographic location will likely prove controversial. Israel seized the Golan Heights in the Six-Day War in 1967 and annexed the territory in 1981. Its administration of the area — which is not recognized by international law — has been mostly peaceful until the Syrian civil war broke out 23 months ago.
    “This action is mostly political – it’s an attempt to deepen Israeli commitment to the occupied Golan Heights,” Israeli political analyst Yaron Ezrahi told FT. “The timing is directly related to the fact that the Syrian government is dealing with violence and chaos and is not free to deal with this problem.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. annamaria says:
    @peterAUS

    The difference is that a lot of us have taken real, substantial losses from this “world policeman” and its attendant results that might benefit you in Australia, but certainly not us.
     
    So?
    You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
    No, thanks.

    Does keeping Australia “safe” benefit the poor rural whites who numb their pain on drugs unto death? Does bombing more camels in the Middle East serve help with our declining infrastructure? Can we here even expect to have children without being brainwashed into the global poz and propaganda 24/7?
     
    More than it benefits poor rural whites in Russia I'd presume.
    Remind me again, when did Russians stop their bombing there in Middle East? Syria, you know.
    Brainwashing, you mean that doesn't exist in Russia and China?O.K.

    And to what reward?
     
    Living better than an average Russian I guess.
    Or Chinese.
    Or at least that's my impression from speaking with those people.

    Do you think that in a world where Russia has local dominance, that they will somehow worsen the life of the American worker being outsourced to India? Or perhaps it’ll be better, because without the ability to commit to campaigns of dominance, the US will be force to reinvest its earnings.
     
    Thank you for bringing at least something meaningful up.
    Yes, I do I think that an average, say, East European, from Polland down to Romania (with exception of Serbs, of course) lives better now than he/she would under Russian sphere.
    Or, Taiwanese for "China matter". That's at least I get from some Taiwanese friends here. They wrong?

    As I’ve said before, when our “friends” do us so much harm, what need do we have for enemies? And you would have to sacrifice ourselves to support these kind “friends” who seek to further nettle us for blood and treasure? Indeed, what point is there to support an entity that for all practical purposes, wants to destroy us from existing, if not literally, then at least spiritually?
     
    Glad to bring that too.
    Other entities would, IMHO, destroy us even worse.

    Don't you get that simple point here?

    I.......see........current...regimes........in...both...Russia....and....China....as worse...than...the ...regime ...in...USA.

    Actually, it is not just the CIA that cares deeply about ISIS:
    “Pentagon suppliers have links with known criminal networks:
    The amount of material necessary for the Pentagon program — one ammunition factory announced it planned to hire 1,000 new employees in 2016 to help cope with the demand — has reportedly stretched suppliers to the limit, forcing the Defense Department to relax standards on the materials it’s willing to accept.
    … the sheer volume of weaponry continuing to ship to the Syrian battlefield and other parts of the Middle East means inevitable proliferation among unsavory terror groups – a phenomenon which has already been exhaustively documented in connection with the now reportedly closed CIA program to topple the Syrian government. … the US-supplied weapons will continue to pass among groups with no accountability for where they end up.”

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-13/bombshell-report-catches-pentagon-falsifying-paperwork-weapons-transfers-linked-orga

    We could conclude that Messieurs Cheney, Summers, Murdoch, and Bibi feel really good on learning the blissful news that the “huge volume of weaponry continues to ship to the Syrian battlefield” and that there will be the “inevitable proliferation among unsavory terror groups.” The Clean Break in action!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. Antiwar7 says:

    Get this straight:

    Funding/arming/training the mujahideen started with the Carter administration, before Reagan:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  181. annamaria says:

    Cheney’s dead hand in Syria: https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebels
    “SOCOM [Special Operations Command] is not the only Pentagon unit which has been procuring arms and ammunition for the Syria Train and Equip program. The rest of the procurement is being handled by the Picatinny Arsenal, a US Army facility in New Jersey. Picatinny already has experience buying large quantities of Soviet-style arms (referred to in procurement documents as “non-standard weapons and ammunition”) for partner forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. These purchases are always clearly labelled with the end destination. But one mysterious set of purchases – totaling $479.6 million – contains no end destination at all. An analysis of these procurement documents by BIRN and OCCRP reveals it is likely that much, if not all, of the arms in question are headed for Syria.
    An important clue lay in seven of the contracts, signed in September 2016 and worth $71.6 million, which did initially cite Syria either by name or by the Pentagon’s internal code – V7 – for the Syria Train and Equip program. These references were deleted from the public record after BIRN and OCCRP asked the Pentagon about these deliveries this March. Before and after images from a Pentagon procurement database show how the end destinations, “Syria and Iraq,” were removed from the procurement records. Reporters made copies of the documents before they were deleted. The Pentagon has declined to explain the alterations. …
    Scarce supplies have also forced the Pentagon to lower its standards for weapons and ammunition. Munitions stored in poor conditions degrade, sometimes becoming unusable or even dangerous. A Pentagon contractor due to train Syrian rebels died in June 2015 when the decades-old RPG he was handling exploded at a firing range in Bulgaria. Nevertheless, the Pentagon has continued to use the contractor that supplied the faulty weapons. There are other problems, too. Reporters have found that directors of three contractors it uses, and the president of a critical sub-contractor, have faced serious questions about their integrity, including one who bragged about paying “commissions” to foreign agents to secure deals. Another subcontractor employed a firm with links to organized crime.”
    Interesting, what kind of “commissions” the US brass in Pentagon receives from the oilmen, Israel-firsters, and weapon-manufacturers.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  182. peterAUS says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    So? You want me to place myself under Russians and/or Chinese so I have that experience?
     
    Pete, can you please point out any evidence that Russia (China is another matter--it is in the region) that Russia somehow wants to "police" Australia. I don't know when and if you were the last time to Russia (it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here) but I can tell you this:

    1. There are NO contingency planning in Russia for "policing" (I assume we can call it operations) Australia. Zilch, nada.

    2. Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don't see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.

    3. Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy's submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from "policing" Russia than they really care about Australia.

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you "freedoms" in Australia.

    I think there is some misunderstanding here.
    How about this:

    it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here

    Actually, I am running 1887 routine here, but mostly 1945-1989 routine.

    There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Eastern Europe. Zilch, nada.

    Doubt it. A lot.

    Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don’t see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.

    Agree.
    Now, should the opportunity present itself, I am sure we’ll see, again, a lot of hand twisting in Eastern Europe.

    Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy’s submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from “policing” Russia than they really care about Australia.

    Agree.
    Two big boys jockeying who is bigger. Little boys have no say. Especially those in Eastern Europe

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you “freedoms” in Australia.

    Agree.
    Not so sure about those from Finland to Turkey.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    but mostly 1945-1989 routine.
     
    Well, I have a very, how to put it, facts' supported opinion on that issue maybe because I knew Cold War in a very different light than, say, even GSVG. This is not to mention that Soviet Union and contemporary Russia are two very different entities. I cannot see what can possibly Russia can gain from Poland or Romania? But you see, the string of "brilliant" failures of the West (most of it US) in the last 25 years is largely due to them thinking (it cannot be changed--ignorance is a hard obstacle to mount) precisely in the routine you pointed out. Could it be, and I am just thinking aloud, that "advisers" on Russia are not that great? How else can one explain one strategic screw up after another.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. peterAUS says:
    @NoseytheDuke
    Amigo, if you need to shoot and kill something or some body to feel alive then you are surely lacking in many ways, especially morally and are probably hung like a hamster too. If you want thrills try BASE jumping or some other exploit where you take the risk without harming others. Your comment reminds me of an arsonist fire-fighter who lights fires in order to feel heroic putting them out.

    As long as there are sad, pathetic hero-wannabes there will always be wars and our species will destroy itself, for the betterment of the planet. I might be honoured to stand and fight next to you were we defending our loved ones and our lands but I have nothing but scorn for those who travel far and wide to kill others because liars tell them it is necessary to and dummies believe them. Sad and pathetic. My sympathies to you.

    I might be honoured to stand and fight next to you were we defending our loved ones

    Doubt it.
    Maybe if conscripted.
    In that case, say in infantry company, just minor logistical duties (helping with vehicle maintenance, food/water delivery…stuff like that). Unarmed and always under supervision.
    First bad error…..well, bad thing happen in combat. Accidental discharge for example.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @peterAUS
    I think there is some misunderstanding here.
    How about this:

    it seems you are running mostly 1990s routine here
     
    Actually, I am running 1887 routine here, but mostly 1945-1989 routine.

    There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Eastern Europe. Zilch, nada.
     
    Doubt it. A lot.

    Russia can easily today, if God forbids it comes to that, obliterate Australia if she needs to and by about 2020 will have full conventional capability (she already has it today to a degree) to rearrange the stones in Melbourne or Sydney. Yet, somehow I don’t see Russia twisting Aussies hands and I can not foresee it in either near or distant future.
     
    Agree.
    Now, should the opportunity present itself, I am sure we’ll see, again, a lot of hand twisting in Eastern Europe.

    Call it a hunch, but somehow I think that Russian Navy’s submarine forces are more concerned with deterring the US from “policing” Russia than they really care about Australia.
     
    Agree.
    Two big boys jockeying who is bigger. Little boys have no say. Especially those in Eastern Europe

    So, rest assured, there will be no Russian attempts on so treasured by you “freedoms” in Australia.
     
    Agree.
    Not so sure about those from Finland to Turkey.

    but mostly 1945-1989 routine.

    Well, I have a very, how to put it, facts’ supported opinion on that issue maybe because I knew Cold War in a very different light than, say, even GSVG. This is not to mention that Soviet Union and contemporary Russia are two very different entities. I cannot see what can possibly Russia can gain from Poland or Romania? But you see, the string of “brilliant” failures of the West (most of it US) in the last 25 years is largely due to them thinking (it cannot be changed–ignorance is a hard obstacle to mount) precisely in the routine you pointed out. Could it be, and I am just thinking aloud, that “advisers” on Russia are not that great? How else can one explain one strategic screw up after another.

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

    Well, this is a thread where the author of article is “one of us”.
    You are “one of us”, so, at least, we can communicate with some modicum of mutual understanding.

    I mean….we know that we can understand other’s viewpoint, deeply respect the man….and do our best to kill him.
    Knowing he is the same.

    Explaining that to civilians is waste of time, we also know that.

    Actually, I come to this site because of a couple of guys. You included. That we mightily disagree is given.
    Enemies. Joking….a little…..

    So, to your reply.

    I cannot see what can possibly Russia can gain from Poland or Romania?

    The same all empires gain from their vassals.
    At the moment The Empire is US (yes, yes, it’s actually Israel, Jews, Anglo-Saxons, Illuminati, lizards etc. but let’s keep it simple here).
    Should that empire weaken it will create a power vacuum. The strongest opponent in Europe will step in. It’s Russia at the moment.
    Simple.
    Isn’t that how it has been working since Romans?

    the string of “brilliant” failures of the West (most of it US) in the last 25 years is largely due to them thinking (it cannot be changed–ignorance is a hard obstacle to mount) precisely in the routine you pointed out.

    Depends what you see as a failure.
    I just see Western fat cats getting fatter and little people getting fu*&ed more and more. Looks to me as fat cats are not failing at all.
    Including oligarchs in Russia for that matter.

    Could it be, and I am just thinking aloud, that “advisers” on Russia are not that great?

    Advisers are there, most of the time, to produce an analysis that keeps their pay checks and perks. If true powers like it, they are good regardless how, logically, rationally, morally…blah…blah their work is shit.
    Mr Straw, for example: “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy”.

    How else can one explain one strategic screw up after another.

    Easy.
    Not screw ups at all.
    Fat cats getting fatter………
    And, I do think you could try to read Friedman.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  186. Depends what you see as a failure.

    Ni it doesn’t, it has very strict criteria which no obfuscation can hide anymore.

    The same all empires gain from their vassals.

    You again, didn’t answer the question and it becomes systemic. I surrender, I am not taught to speak in platitudes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Depends what you see as a failure.

    Ni it doesn’t, it has very strict criteria which no obfuscation can hide anymore.
     

    I think I got, probably, what you are trying to say.

    Now it’s getting serious and, well, complicated. Not sure I’ll be able to convey, here, what I mean.

    I am getting an impression that you use “military measures” to measure defeat, victory, success, failure. And, yes, you are correct there.
    And it doesn’t matter.

    It isn’t military that matters and/or measures, but the political will which rules over military.
    And political will is, itself, ruled by power groups struggling for primacy, or, one group which already won that struggle and rules the paradigm.

    I’ll use an example.
    The Rulers of the Country1 want to get resources of a Country2 (pure greed; critically needed for own economy; promised to the big brother).
    They pass the order to the Politicians. They create a case, say, there is own minority in that Country2 that needs protection from tyranny of the regime in that Country2. The most of resources (say, mines/oil/pick something) are, incidentally, in the area with own minority in some numbers.
    The Politicians, with the Media, create “we need to help our brethren” perception in own populace. Result, say, “we are going to get rid of that genocidal regime there”.
    The Politicians pass the order to the Military. The objective given to the military is to destroy armed forces of the Country2 and occupy the capital.
    BANG. War: after initial success the armed forces of the Country1 got defeated by the stiff resistance of the Country2. Stalemate ensues. International community steps in. Ceasefire.

    End result:
    The armed forces of the Country1 got beaten in the final battle and didn’t reach the objective. Casualty ratio 3 to one to Country2.
    The separation line, now managed by International Community, keeps the Country2 with 3rd of land occupied by the Country1.
    The mines are in the area controlled by the Country1.

    Who won?

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. peterAUS says:

    O.K.

    I’ll try to explain “The Empire and vassal” element using, probably, rather extreme case.

    Let’s imagine that I am an ex-Kosovo Liberation Army officer.
    We got our state based on US military might. “Operation Noble Anvil” etc. And Russians being weak (Yeltsin etc).
    Life is good for me and my mates, as long as we obey our masters, Americans.
    We’ll keep our independence and, who knows, maybe even manage to get all Serbs out of that pocket in the north. Hell, we could even start chipping some parts of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. Anyway……
    But, what happens if Americans leave (Bondsteel) ?
    Or, at least, get weak enough not to care of supporting us anymore?
    Some say nothing. Could be.
    But, judging from our long history, the most likely scenario is….Serbs will want Kosovo back. If not all of it at least all up to that place of that battle with Turks. Means a lot for them, apparently. And Russians, of course, will support them if they could get Serbs into their military-economic sphere. I guess Russians wouldn’t mind their own troops in that Bondsteel place.
    And their oligarchs wouldn’t mind owning everything here. As our friends Americans own us as we speak.
    Who knows, Russians could probably even keep pushing into Montenegro. A good port there. I remember Russian warships being overhauled there every now and then before the breakup.
    A little regime change in Montenegro and the port is Russian.

    So, we really aren’t looking for that multipolar world and definitely not for Americans getting weak and pulling back.

    Makes sense?

    We can put here, in similar vein, Baltic countries too if you want.
    Hungarians too, probably (based on events in 1956).
    Slovaks, Czechs (based on events in 1968).
    Poles?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Replay your scenario as a Serb, even a "little guy" Serb, and then wonder why there are people who do not want your global masters to remain masters for all time. I swear, its insane how tone-deaf some people are.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks Wiz, If I did misspell Daulton, only parents (he was adopted) and teachers called him Andrew. I did not know that Boyce committed armed robbery subsequent to his release but I was referring to the original events that saw him convicted initially. As for later, it is well known that prisons are universities for crime. Too bad for him, he came from a good family, had a nice girlfriend and had a good life ahead except that, as he claims, his disillusionment over the US treatment of its ally, Australia, caused him to rebel with disastrous consequences for him. I don't doubt that Whitlam's intent to close Pine Gap was the clincher in his overthrow, think about it.

    Here’s a bit of fun you may have seen but I haven’t had time to read

    http://click.e.theaustralian.com.au/?qs=c88281be63d2928fd29b8005fe689ae23c7d1c8f8008106a7d69ae0076a18b5fda7943c7c023a745a7f05bf6b6ffe2bc540cf40801884957

    I may not have got the link copied correctly but it is in the Oz today and about Murphy whom I never met and of whom the only good I ever hear was that be could be entertaining. I am reminded of a lunch with former presidents of our two major parties where one,arriving late, said “I’ve just been trying to get off the phone with Gough. He was discussing which of the comrades as well as Murphy and Cairns were screwing Juni Morosi”. Fun times when government had become impossible for those who thought great positive changes were needed and would be easy. CIA would have been baffled to brain explosion point by Whitlam’s crew.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. peterAUS says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    Depends what you see as a failure.
     
    Ni it doesn't, it has very strict criteria which no obfuscation can hide anymore.

    The same all empires gain from their vassals.
     
    You again, didn't answer the question and it becomes systemic. I surrender, I am not taught to speak in platitudes.

    Depends what you see as a failure.

    Ni it doesn’t, it has very strict criteria which no obfuscation can hide anymore.

    I think I got, probably, what you are trying to say.

    Now it’s getting serious and, well, complicated. Not sure I’ll be able to convey, here, what I mean.

    I am getting an impression that you use “military measures” to measure defeat, victory, success, failure. And, yes, you are correct there.
    And it doesn’t matter.

    It isn’t military that matters and/or measures, but the political will which rules over military.
    And political will is, itself, ruled by power groups struggling for primacy, or, one group which already won that struggle and rules the paradigm.

    I’ll use an example.
    The Rulers of the Country1 want to get resources of a Country2 (pure greed; critically needed for own economy; promised to the big brother).
    They pass the order to the Politicians. They create a case, say, there is own minority in that Country2 that needs protection from tyranny of the regime in that Country2. The most of resources (say, mines/oil/pick something) are, incidentally, in the area with own minority in some numbers.
    The Politicians, with the Media, create “we need to help our brethren” perception in own populace. Result, say, “we are going to get rid of that genocidal regime there”.
    The Politicians pass the order to the Military. The objective given to the military is to destroy armed forces of the Country2 and occupy the capital.
    BANG. War: after initial success the armed forces of the Country1 got defeated by the stiff resistance of the Country2. Stalemate ensues. International community steps in. Ceasefire.

    End result:
    The armed forces of the Country1 got beaten in the final battle and didn’t reach the objective. Casualty ratio 3 to one to Country2.
    The separation line, now managed by International Community, keeps the Country2 with 3rd of land occupied by the Country1.
    The mines are in the area controlled by the Country1.

    Who won?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Pete, let me explain how you are avoiding any substantive discussion and constantly shift (which is a first indication of an agenda, a hidden one) focus of discussion. I wrote to you:

    1. There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Australia. Zilch, nada.
     
    Look with what you reply to me, and I quote you changing my quote:

    There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Eastern Europe. Zilch, nada.
     
    Apart from shifting focus you go for a direct falsification. Here is how you falsify the issue.

    1. But there ARE, as in they DO exist, contingency plans in Russia to, I never denied it. In fact, if such plans wouldn't exist GOU GSh should have been court martialled. Here how those plans look today :

    a) conduct of combined arms operations in border areas (prigranichnye raiony) in the case of war with NATO;
    b) in case providing the "land bridge" to Kaliningrad Oblast, which would involve offensive into Baltic States

    2. Those contingencies exist for the case of NATO's (suicidal) aggression on Russia. Having said that.

    When was the last time you opened the latest 2014 Russia's Military Doctrine, which is explicitly defensive? How can you explain Article 26 of this Doctrine on Conventional Force Containment and the use of conventional PGMs? You make an impression for all your (supposed) combat duty of a man completely detached from the realities of the modern war within peer-to-peer scenario. It is like 15 years since the more-or-less conclusion of (second) Chechnya War never happened for you. But here comes this issue--what is "policing".

    1. Can Russia defeat conventionally NATO forces in her immediate vicinity in case of their attack? Yes. With high probability.

    2. Is Russia interested in "occupying" Poland? Absolutely not. Why would Russia want to do that? To get 30+ hostile freeloaders on her neck? Thus the next question:

    3. When was you the last time to Russia? Only person who has no clue what is going on there can continue to use faux-historic "parallels". But then again, one has to look at modern Poland's GDP structure to see most of the answers.

    But the main issue remains, Russia has NO plans for Australia.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Erebus says:

    How else can one explain one strategic screw up after another.

    Easy.
    Not screw ups at all.
    Fat cats getting fatter………

    Peter, your over-simplifications may make issues easier to place in a vaguely plausible narrative, but they serve primarily to help obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.
    In this case, for instance, the operative word in Andrei’s statement is “strategic”. “Fat cats getting fatter” is not Imperial Strategy. It comes at a cost to the Empire, or more accurately flies in the face of Imperial Strategy. As it develops, and becomes the driving, if not strategic, purpose behind Imperial decisions, the Empire’s collapse will proceed at an accelerating rate.

    IOW, the last act of the last Emperor is to loot the Empire. ‘Twas ever thus.

    As for Russian fat cats, you apparently didn’t notice that the ones who looted Russia’s wealth as the Soviet Empire collapsed were sent packing, and some wound up in jail. The ones who stayed on, were restrained in their looting and forced to act within the rules. Though that process may not be complete, it’s as fair as internal great politics gets.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  191. peterAUS says:

    Peter, your over-simplifications may make issues easier to place in a vaguely plausible narrative, but they serve primarily to help obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.

    Agree.
    Over-simplification is necessary for this medium I think.
    We can’t, really, seriously discuss this topic here.
    And, yes, I especially agree with

    obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.

    THAT is something that has been, sort of, puzzling me since the victory in November last year.

    In this case, for instance, the operative word in Andrei’s statement is “strategic”. “Fat cats getting fatter” is not Imperial Strategy. It comes at a cost to the Empire, or more accurately flies in the face of Imperial Strategy. As it develops, and becomes the driving, if not strategic, purpose behind Imperial decisions, the Empire’s collapse will proceed at an accelerating rate.

    Agree.
    Now we are talking.
    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
    What if Trump realized that?

    Now, will the collapse proceed at accelerating rate I don’t know.
    And what if that collapse collapses all of us?

    As for Russian fat cats, you apparently didn’t notice that the ones who looted Russia’s wealth as the Soviet Empire collapsed were sent packing, and some wound up in jail. The ones who stayed on, were restrained in their looting and forced to act within the rules. Though that process may not be complete, it’s as fair as internal great politics gets.

    Well, not good enough. But, that’s not the primary concern here. US is.
    Russia is interesting as long as it doesn’t, as a system, look as a better alternative. Or China for that matter. I see all three of them as very similar, just with a different level of power.

    I used Game of Thrones analogy a couple of times so far.

    How about this:
    Western oligarch will smile at me, have a quick pleasant chat, steal almost all my money but leave me enough to buy my next meal.
    Russian oligarch will talk down to me, steal all my money from me, slap me on my face and laugh at me.
    Chinese oligarch will say nothing, steal all my money from me and just walk away.

    Makes sense?

    Makes sense which one I prefer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
    What if Trump realized that?
     
    Timing.
    I'll probably continue with this question at James Petraus "Who rules America?".
    , @Erebus
    I've come to think there's a lot of confused and confusing discussion that could be short-circuited with some definitions. Specifically, terms like “the System”, “the Global System”, “the Empire”, “the American Empire”, “the Evil Empire” and so on, get tossed about with abandon, sometimes as if they were interchangeable, and other times not, but without any clear meaning for readers. The net result is that lots of words get typed, but little/no understanding is reached.
    I refer to two of your statements:
    First from your post here (emphasis mine)

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
     
    which you re-phrased in the Who Rules America thread (@#7) as:

    What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
    What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?
     
    Though I believe you meant them as more or less equivalent, to my mind they're utterly different, and the difference is critical to both how I would respond to those two statements, and to how the two very different “collapses” would play out in the real world.

    This is how I see it in a nutshell. Well, it turned out to be a pretty big nutshell.
    In my mind, “the Empire/American Empire/Evil Empire” is nothing more than “American Management” of parts, but not all, of the existing, operational, and growing “System/Global System” that runs the world. In this sense, the former can collapse, while the latter could & would, if the Russians, Chinese and others have their way, continue on under new management.
    The so-called “multi-polar world” is nothing more than the demand to shift the management structure of the Global System as it goes about expanding its remit via the process known as “Globalization”, away from the US being Chairman & CEO, to a new more horizontal management structure that gives leading roles to other players such as China, Russia, the EU and others as they arise.
    The Global System is a global matrix of interwoven Treaties, Conventions and Agreements made between countries, groups of countries, and institutions, both domestic and international, of various types that covers trade and the movement of goods, financial and monetary management, security issues and alliances, health standards, defines borders and water rights and mechanisms for settling disputes in these areas. There's plenty more, covering damn near everything anybody does, as countries have committed to change domestic law in conformance with the treaties it's signed.
    Not every country has signed up to every Treaty, Convention, or Agreement, and not every country implements everything they've signed up for with the same vigor. The process whereby countries are encouraged to sign up to more, or to implement their commitments more vigorously is called Globalization.
    This is the Global System that went into gear at the end of WW2, and turned on its afterburners when the Soviet system collapsed. It fell to the US, as "last man standing”, to drive the Global System's creation in the late 1940s, and it again fell to the US to expand the system when the Soviet System collapsed. The way they went about expanding it, and how they went about increasing and defending their role in it, is what everyone's complaining about.
    Simply put, as the rest of the World sees it, the Americans have abused their managerial position to the point where the Global System is faltering. First, they illegally invaded and smashed a few countries who didn't want to join, and threatened others, then they brought the financial system to the abyss by mismanaging their currency for domestic purposes. They've abused the dollar on which the Global System's financial structures are based, they've used those structures for political purposes (breaking a Chinese Wall in the system) and they've abused the security structures as well.
    The world does not want the Global System and Globalization to fail. Xi made that message loud and clear at Davos. The Global System may need adjustment and renewal, but it's got everything it needs to work other than the fact that there's a nutcase occupying the Chairman & CEO positions (figuratively speaking), and by an accident of history got to write himself into those positions at the advent, and then at the turbo-expansion of the System, and so also to be the prime beneficiary of the advantages that the system generated. EG: It alone can run multi-100s of $Bs of trade and fiscal deficits without facing bankruptcy. That allowed it to build a Brobdingnagian miltary, far beyond any imaginable defensive requirement, which it uses to browbeat (or worse) anyone not kowtowing to “American values”, as if the Global System said anything about them.
    Figuratively speaking (again), the rest of the world wants to re-write some of the rules so that no-one can ever hold those two positions simultaneously again.

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone. However, make no mistake, the two primary drivers of the re-write are not going to take no for an answer, and they have set themselves up both to initiate and to survive a melt down in the Global System if America gets more belligerent in defence of its position. More than that, they've set up parallel security, financial and trade structures that anyone is welcome to join should the Global System fail. Until then, we'll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America's credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they'll finally abandon their duties and resign.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. peterAUS says:
    @peterAUS

    Peter, your over-simplifications may make issues easier to place in a vaguely plausible narrative, but they serve primarily to help obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.
     
    Agree.
    Over-simplification is necessary for this medium I think.
    We can’t, really, seriously discuss this topic here.
    And, yes, I especially agree with

    obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.
     
    THAT is something that has been, sort of, puzzling me since the victory in November last year.

    In this case, for instance, the operative word in Andrei’s statement is “strategic”. “Fat cats getting fatter” is not Imperial Strategy. It comes at a cost to the Empire, or more accurately flies in the face of Imperial Strategy. As it develops, and becomes the driving, if not strategic, purpose behind Imperial decisions, the Empire’s collapse will proceed at an accelerating rate.
     
    Agree.
    Now we are talking.
    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
    What if Trump realized that?

    Now, will the collapse proceed at accelerating rate I don’t know.
    And what if that collapse collapses all of us?


    As for Russian fat cats, you apparently didn’t notice that the ones who looted Russia’s wealth as the Soviet Empire collapsed were sent packing, and some wound up in jail. The ones who stayed on, were restrained in their looting and forced to act within the rules. Though that process may not be complete, it’s as fair as internal great politics gets.
     
    Well, not good enough. But, that’s not the primary concern here. US is.
    Russia is interesting as long as it doesn’t, as a system, look as a better alternative. Or China for that matter. I see all three of them as very similar, just with a different level of power.

    I used Game of Thrones analogy a couple of times so far.

    How about this:
    Western oligarch will smile at me, have a quick pleasant chat, steal almost all my money but leave me enough to buy my next meal.
    Russian oligarch will talk down to me, steal all my money from me, slap me on my face and laugh at me.
    Chinese oligarch will say nothing, steal all my money from me and just walk away.

    Makes sense?

    Makes sense which one I prefer?

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
    What if Trump realized that?

    Timing.
    I’ll probably continue with this question at James Petraus “Who rules America?”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @NoseytheDuke
    Thanks Wiz, If I did misspell Daulton, only parents (he was adopted) and teachers called him Andrew. I did not know that Boyce committed armed robbery subsequent to his release but I was referring to the original events that saw him convicted initially. As for later, it is well known that prisons are universities for crime. Too bad for him, he came from a good family, had a nice girlfriend and had a good life ahead except that, as he claims, his disillusionment over the US treatment of its ally, Australia, caused him to rebel with disastrous consequences for him. I don't doubt that Whitlam's intent to close Pine Gap was the clincher in his overthrow, think about it.

    Further to my last link to the Oz

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/lionel-murphy-files-swiss-bank-account-secret-keys-and-an-east-german-operative/news-story/0d3b816756665fb824ad5af664670529

    There are a few more links in a sidebar that I shall now have a look at. The obviois inference about the Whitlam government from this piece is that his hopeless shower of a government (think Khemlani affair; think Rex Connor’s grand pipeline plan: think Lionel Murphy’s raid on the ASIO offices etc. etc.) was a naturall prey for shysters and blackmailers. As indicated in the report Zunderman was probably a con man hoping to set up a blackmail payoff. Why do I feel confident about that,as I am? Because the idea of Whitlam being involved in secret payments to a Swiss bank account is incredible. Murphy maybe but not any of our PMs (at least while PM or Leader of the Opposition). And yet…. Whitlam was implicated in some absurd effort to raise money gor the ALP from Iraq while he was Leader of the Opposition after his dizmissal and election loss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @peterAUS

    Depends what you see as a failure.

    Ni it doesn’t, it has very strict criteria which no obfuscation can hide anymore.
     

    I think I got, probably, what you are trying to say.

    Now it’s getting serious and, well, complicated. Not sure I’ll be able to convey, here, what I mean.

    I am getting an impression that you use “military measures” to measure defeat, victory, success, failure. And, yes, you are correct there.
    And it doesn’t matter.

    It isn’t military that matters and/or measures, but the political will which rules over military.
    And political will is, itself, ruled by power groups struggling for primacy, or, one group which already won that struggle and rules the paradigm.

    I’ll use an example.
    The Rulers of the Country1 want to get resources of a Country2 (pure greed; critically needed for own economy; promised to the big brother).
    They pass the order to the Politicians. They create a case, say, there is own minority in that Country2 that needs protection from tyranny of the regime in that Country2. The most of resources (say, mines/oil/pick something) are, incidentally, in the area with own minority in some numbers.
    The Politicians, with the Media, create “we need to help our brethren” perception in own populace. Result, say, “we are going to get rid of that genocidal regime there”.
    The Politicians pass the order to the Military. The objective given to the military is to destroy armed forces of the Country2 and occupy the capital.
    BANG. War: after initial success the armed forces of the Country1 got defeated by the stiff resistance of the Country2. Stalemate ensues. International community steps in. Ceasefire.

    End result:
    The armed forces of the Country1 got beaten in the final battle and didn’t reach the objective. Casualty ratio 3 to one to Country2.
    The separation line, now managed by International Community, keeps the Country2 with 3rd of land occupied by the Country1.
    The mines are in the area controlled by the Country1.

    Who won?

    Pete, let me explain how you are avoiding any substantive discussion and constantly shift (which is a first indication of an agenda, a hidden one) focus of discussion. I wrote to you:

    1. There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Australia. Zilch, nada.

    Look with what you reply to me, and I quote you changing my quote:

    There are NO contingency planning in Russia for “policing” (I assume we can call it operations) Eastern Europe. Zilch, nada.

    Apart from shifting focus you go for a direct falsification. Here is how you falsify the issue.

    1. But there ARE, as in they DO exist, contingency plans in Russia to, I never denied it. In fact, if such plans wouldn’t exist GOU GSh should have been court martialled. Here how those plans look today :

    a) conduct of combined arms operations in border areas (prigranichnye raiony) in the case of war with NATO;
    b) in case providing the “land bridge” to Kaliningrad Oblast, which would involve offensive into Baltic States

    2. Those contingencies exist for the case of NATO’s (suicidal) aggression on Russia. Having said that.

    When was the last time you opened the latest 2014 Russia’s Military Doctrine, which is explicitly defensive? How can you explain Article 26 of this Doctrine on Conventional Force Containment and the use of conventional PGMs? You make an impression for all your (supposed) combat duty of a man completely detached from the realities of the modern war within peer-to-peer scenario. It is like 15 years since the more-or-less conclusion of (second) Chechnya War never happened for you. But here comes this issue–what is “policing”.

    1. Can Russia defeat conventionally NATO forces in her immediate vicinity in case of their attack? Yes. With high probability.

    2. Is Russia interested in “occupying” Poland? Absolutely not. Why would Russia want to do that? To get 30+ hostile freeloaders on her neck? Thus the next question:

    3. When was you the last time to Russia? Only person who has no clue what is going on there can continue to use faux-historic “parallels”. But then again, one has to look at modern Poland’s GDP structure to see most of the answers.

    But the main issue remains, Russia has NO plans for Australia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @peterAUS
    O.K.

    I’ll try to explain "The Empire and vassal” element using, probably, rather extreme case.

    Let’s imagine that I am an ex-Kosovo Liberation Army officer.
    We got our state based on US military might. "Operation Noble Anvil" etc. And Russians being weak (Yeltsin etc).
    Life is good for me and my mates, as long as we obey our masters, Americans.
    We’ll keep our independence and, who knows, maybe even manage to get all Serbs out of that pocket in the north. Hell, we could even start chipping some parts of Serbia, Montenegro and Macedonia. Anyway……
    But, what happens if Americans leave (Bondsteel) ?
    Or, at least, get weak enough not to care of supporting us anymore?
    Some say nothing. Could be.
    But, judging from our long history, the most likely scenario is….Serbs will want Kosovo back. If not all of it at least all up to that place of that battle with Turks. Means a lot for them, apparently. And Russians, of course, will support them if they could get Serbs into their military-economic sphere. I guess Russians wouldn’t mind their own troops in that Bondsteel place.
    And their oligarchs wouldn’t mind owning everything here. As our friends Americans own us as we speak.
    Who knows, Russians could probably even keep pushing into Montenegro. A good port there. I remember Russian warships being overhauled there every now and then before the breakup.
    A little regime change in Montenegro and the port is Russian.

    So, we really aren’t looking for that multipolar world and definitely not for Americans getting weak and pulling back.

    Makes sense?

    We can put here, in similar vein, Baltic countries too if you want.
    Hungarians too, probably (based on events in 1956).
    Slovaks, Czechs (based on events in 1968).
    Poles?

    Replay your scenario as a Serb, even a “little guy” Serb, and then wonder why there are people who do not want your global masters to remain masters for all time. I swear, its insane how tone-deaf some people are.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    Replay your scenario as a Serb, even a “little guy” Serb, and then wonder why there are people who do not want your global masters to remain masters for all time. I swear, its insane how tone-deaf some people are.
     
    Welcome.

    While we are waiting for more of you guys (both, I mean, all....how many....four sides?), no prob.
    Please try not to murder the thread fast. Give us some more time.

    Here we go:
    Let's imagine, for the sake of conversation that I am an ex-Serb Army officer.
    A bit about me:
    I was born around Knin, Yugoslavia at the time. Completed secondary military school and academy, infantry. Served in Slovenia.
    When the breakup started, after a brief, but brutal, skirmish in Slovenia, where we were betrayed by Yugoslav army and Serbian leadership and “evicted” in Croatia.
    A couple of months later the war in Croatia started. I was involved in some action there.
    Then, when the war in Bosnia started I started getting involved there too. A bit in Croatia, a bit in Bosnia….wherever my unit was required.
    Then, we lost in Croatia. Even today we don’t know what really happened, but all my surviving family members were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and found themselves in Serbia, Kosovo in fact.
    Then the peace came, imposed by Americans, and most of our leadership got imprisoned for war crimes. Some Croats but surprisingly little number of Muslims. Even those who worked with Mujahedin and Iranians. Anyway…..
    I got retired. Found some job in Kosovo where my family lived. We had some peace but things weren’t going well.
    We got Albanians doing the same as the rest of all those who didn’t like is. I, of course, got back with my old friends into a unit. We, easily, smacked the Albanians. I mean, one has to draw the line somewhere. Kosovo was very important to us.
    But, then Americans came. You can’t fight all that. We tried, and it was working actually.
    Then, Americans, and Russians made a good deal with our leadership to stop all that. And Americans betrayed the deal straight away and Russians couldn’t stop them. So, my family was, again, ethnically cleansed from Kosovo into Serbia proper.
    So…..it is what it is.
    But……..ONE day…we’ll get back. With vengeance. If Americans get weak. And Russians get strong.

    What do you say?
    An "A" for an effort?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. peterAUS says:
    @Anonymous
    Replay your scenario as a Serb, even a "little guy" Serb, and then wonder why there are people who do not want your global masters to remain masters for all time. I swear, its insane how tone-deaf some people are.

    Replay your scenario as a Serb, even a “little guy” Serb, and then wonder why there are people who do not want your global masters to remain masters for all time. I swear, its insane how tone-deaf some people are.

    Welcome.

    While we are waiting for more of you guys (both, I mean, all….how many….four sides?), no prob.
    Please try not to murder the thread fast. Give us some more time.

    Here we go:
    Let’s imagine, for the sake of conversation that I am an ex-Serb Army officer.
    A bit about me:
    I was born around Knin, Yugoslavia at the time. Completed secondary military school and academy, infantry. Served in Slovenia.
    When the breakup started, after a brief, but brutal, skirmish in Slovenia, where we were betrayed by Yugoslav army and Serbian leadership and “evicted” in Croatia.
    A couple of months later the war in Croatia started. I was involved in some action there.
    Then, when the war in Bosnia started I started getting involved there too. A bit in Croatia, a bit in Bosnia….wherever my unit was required.
    Then, we lost in Croatia. Even today we don’t know what really happened, but all my surviving family members were ethnically cleansed from Croatia and found themselves in Serbia, Kosovo in fact.
    Then the peace came, imposed by Americans, and most of our leadership got imprisoned for war crimes. Some Croats but surprisingly little number of Muslims. Even those who worked with Mujahedin and Iranians. Anyway…..
    I got retired. Found some job in Kosovo where my family lived. We had some peace but things weren’t going well.
    We got Albanians doing the same as the rest of all those who didn’t like is. I, of course, got back with my old friends into a unit. We, easily, smacked the Albanians. I mean, one has to draw the line somewhere. Kosovo was very important to us.
    But, then Americans came. You can’t fight all that. We tried, and it was working actually.
    Then, Americans, and Russians made a good deal with our leadership to stop all that. And Americans betrayed the deal straight away and Russians couldn’t stop them. So, my family was, again, ethnically cleansed from Kosovo into Serbia proper.
    So…..it is what it is.
    But……..ONE day…we’ll get back. With vengeance. If Americans get weak. And Russians get strong.

    What do you say?
    An “A” for an effort?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    Well....it's getting "personal" here and that's ALWAYS a bad idea.

    But, it's a good example enough, I guess, to address an issue.
    Not "person"..........."issue".

    I’m still a believer in a strong military, on principle, but I’m damned if I can see how that can be maintained without it being abused by the powers that be, as it has been over and over again, in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria, to name but the most obvious.
     
    Aren't we now entering that, almost metaphysical (semantics...) issue?
    The TRUTH?

    Can we, humans, even get it?

    Plato...Machiavelli.....Lord Acton....blah...blah.....

    "I am all for gun bans; YOU first."
    Cain and Abel.

    Brits.
    Navy, hence no Armada, hence survival.
    Then, Navy...."rule Britannia"......
    Racists, imperialists....blah...blah.....
    Not imperialists anymore.
    Africa now......no, we do not want Brits back, we want their money only. So a couple of us can spend it in West. Besides, whatever isn't working here is Brit fault.
    Racists, but we want to live there. And when we do not want to even respect local customs it's all racists fault.

    Aristocracy and the church stiffing life and spirit. Sail to the New World. Make the perfect world. Genocide locals in the process. Rebel against The Crown. Freedom. Get stronger. Get the strongest. And do what The Empire is doing now.

    Aristocracy and elites sucking blood from people. Revolution. Revolutionary leadership, first thing, gets into those palaces. Deserved that. Complain means bullet or Gulag. People had enough. Revolution. Nationalistic leaders, first thing, get into those palaces..........

    How about small people?
    THEY are abusing us (say, "the right of the first night.").Rebellion. Genocide of losers.
    "They are shelling us, killing our kids. Oh, we got guns. SHELL those towns/villages. Kill them all"

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it's been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha....want more?
    Can't make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So...the only way to make it happen is to change a man.
    Education will work. Sometimes education camps work better. And,well, there are always those that can't be educated. Unfortunately, they have to be put away, even down. And, of course, WE (my group) make those decisions. We won't abuse it. Promise. You doubt me? GUARDS!

    Funny, a?

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they've been doing?
    With some improvements, of course.

    Now......what improvements?
    WHO will decide on them?
    Sorry.....

    Abuse of power is, I guess, THE ISSUE.

    Now, personally, it’s been a pet project for a while, obviously, looking at my incoherent rambling in this post.

    So, The Question then: how to devise a system to keep the powers that be in check?
    Haha….want more?
    Can’t make that system working. A man will always find a way around it.So…the only way to make it happen is to change a man.

    The closest thing I’ve achieved to an answer is that one’s attitudes to the military must be situational. There are times when your country faces a plausible external military threat and times when it does not. In both times the military will be abused by the powers that be if they can get away with it, and that abuse should be opposed because it is abuse.

    However, in times of the latter kind it is reasonable to be less indulgent of militarism than in times of the former kind.

    For Britain, and for the US, allowing for the existence of nuclear weapons, these are unquestionably times of the latter kind – neither country faces any plausible military threat, except of the MAD kind. In those times there is no need to coddle volunteer military men and creep up to them in the nauseating way so many Americans do (“thank you for your service”). They are professionals doing a job for money like any other (albeit having its own particular characteristics, as does each job), and not in practice one that serves the general good of the nation. Though I would not necessarily condemn them either – that should mostly be reserved for the politicians and media and other elites who enable their abuse as aforementioned.

    The only time military men deserve real gratitude is when they actually defend the nation against a real threat. Just being willing to do so if called on is not enough – that applies to us all, in principle (and probably the vast majority, in practice, as WW1 and WW2 showed).

    And in these times, calls for increased military budgets ought to be opposed, in general, because such increases will not notably increase the security of the nation, but rather go to increase the ease with which the elites can abuse the military murderously, for their own purposes. When the level of interventionist abuse reduces, then the general principle of supporting a strong defence can come to the fore again.

    In other words, I suppose, increasing military strength is not a pure benefit. Rather, increasing military power carries increasing costs after a certain point has been passed. That point can never be identified precisely, but for sure we are well past it in the societies of the US sphere at the moment.

    In meantime, how about we just let the dear Major and his mates doing what they’ve been doing?

    No particular reason to do so, since what he is doing does not serve any particular general good for his nation, at this particular moment (and indeed is arguably both doing his nation harm and engaging in morally depraved practices).

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

    A thoughtful post.
    But, I feel, it still hasn’t gone deep enough.

    Some guys here, and some other places in Internet, of course, hinted as:
    US very way of life is reliant now on that abusive projection of power worldwide.
    Abusive for all those at receiving end, that is.

    True, the top skims the most of that benefit, BUT, what’s lacking in almost all conversations is, how much benefit lower classes of US society and West in general, get from that world projection of power?

    So, when people criticize US foreign policy in general and military “adventures” in particular, I feel there is a certain willful ignorance, even hypocrisy.

    Maybe a cynic would say that

    In those times there is no need to coddle volunteer military men and creep up to them in the nauseating way so many Americans do (“thank you for your service”).

    is actually “thank you for me having more than the rest of people in my class position, in this world”.
    Or, to be really frank: “we own the world and rob most of it because we are the strongest. We get the spoils, all of us. Elites get the most, of course, but even I am, on welfare, getting something of it.”

    Of course, admitting it would be really bad for one’s self-esteem.

    So, the Major is a little cog in that big enforcing machine.
    A little man does not mind that as long as he gets some spoils.

    And other two contenders for the position are the same. Just not as strong as The Empire at the moment. And worse in dividing the spoils to the own masses.

    Add to that a desire for a payback, and, well….we still want the Major to keep doing what he’s been doing and be better at his job.

    Vicious circle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    So, the Major is a little cog in that big enforcing machine.
     
    In the cynical world you propose (I'm not saying there's no truth in it), it would be rather fatuous to expect gratitude towards anyone, least of all the little cogs in the big enforcing machine. Apart from anything else, that same enforcing machine protects the big guys from the smaller guys here at home, when necessary.


    A little man does not mind that as long as he gets some spoils.

    And other two contenders for the position are the same. Just not as strong as The Empire at the moment. And worse in dividing the spoils to the own masses.

    Add to that a desire for a payback, and, well….we still want the Major to keep doing what he’s been doing and be better at his job.
     
    This merely returns us to my original point that the simple fact is that we do not face any military threat at the moment, so there's no reason to support the military at the moment. (Obviously if the military were to vanish overnight then we would face such threats, but that's not on the cards and hence is beside the point).

    It appears the difference between our positions perhaps comes down to you nursing an underlying and seemingly irrational fear that any slight easing of the interventionist aggression will result in a wholesale change in the balance of power. It won't. What it will do, though, is stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments being exploited for the benefit of foreigners and corrupt lobbies.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. Randal says:
    @peterAUS
    A thoughtful post.
    But, I feel, it still hasn’t gone deep enough.

    Some guys here, and some other places in Internet, of course, hinted as:
    US very way of life is reliant now on that abusive projection of power worldwide.
    Abusive for all those at receiving end, that is.

    True, the top skims the most of that benefit, BUT, what’s lacking in almost all conversations is, how much benefit lower classes of US society and West in general, get from that world projection of power?

    So, when people criticize US foreign policy in general and military “adventures” in particular, I feel there is a certain willful ignorance, even hypocrisy.

    Maybe a cynic would say that

    In those times there is no need to coddle volunteer military men and creep up to them in the nauseating way so many Americans do (“thank you for your service”).
     
    is actually “thank you for me having more than the rest of people in my class position, in this world”.
    Or, to be really frank: “we own the world and rob most of it because we are the strongest. We get the spoils, all of us. Elites get the most, of course, but even I am, on welfare, getting something of it.”

    Of course, admitting it would be really bad for one’s self-esteem.

    So, the Major is a little cog in that big enforcing machine.
    A little man does not mind that as long as he gets some spoils.

    And other two contenders for the position are the same. Just not as strong as The Empire at the moment. And worse in dividing the spoils to the own masses.

    Add to that a desire for a payback, and, well....we still want the Major to keep doing what he's been doing and be better at his job.

    Vicious circle.

    So, the Major is a little cog in that big enforcing machine.

    In the cynical world you propose (I’m not saying there’s no truth in it), it would be rather fatuous to expect gratitude towards anyone, least of all the little cogs in the big enforcing machine. Apart from anything else, that same enforcing machine protects the big guys from the smaller guys here at home, when necessary.

    A little man does not mind that as long as he gets some spoils.

    And other two contenders for the position are the same. Just not as strong as The Empire at the moment. And worse in dividing the spoils to the own masses.

    Add to that a desire for a payback, and, well….we still want the Major to keep doing what he’s been doing and be better at his job.

    This merely returns us to my original point that the simple fact is that we do not face any military threat at the moment, so there’s no reason to support the military at the moment. (Obviously if the military were to vanish overnight then we would face such threats, but that’s not on the cards and hence is beside the point).

    It appears the difference between our positions perhaps comes down to you nursing an underlying and seemingly irrational fear that any slight easing of the interventionist aggression will result in a wholesale change in the balance of power. It won’t. What it will do, though, is stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments being exploited for the benefit of foreigners and corrupt lobbies.

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

    In the cynical world you propose (I’m not saying there’s no truth in it), it would be rather fatuous to expect gratitude towards anyone, least of all the little cogs in the big enforcing machine. Apart from anything else, that same enforcing machine protects the big guys from the smaller guys here at home, when necessary.

    Well, don’t know about that.
    “Keep your head down, get the spoils and spout what’s needed from you”.
    Simple I guess.

    It appears the difference between our positions perhaps comes down to you nursing an underlying and seemingly irrational fear that any slight easing of the interventionist aggression will result in a wholesale change in the balance of power.

    Agree.
    Would change “underlying and seemingly irrational fear” into simple “realization”, but yes.

    It won’t,

    Well, how about this: not keen on proving that. Not at all.

    What it will do, though, is stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments being exploited for the benefit of foreigners and corrupt lobbies.

    How about we first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”?
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react?
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Well, how about this: not keen on proving that. Not at all.
     
    Well obviously you aren't. After all, your alternative is based on an "underlying and ...irrational fear". :-)

    How about we first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”?
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react?
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”?
     
    I'm fine with that, in theory. But I thought we'd established that it's inevitable?

    Unless you are saying that if we can't prevent abuse by the powerful in general, we can at least exclude the powerful foreign and corrupt?

    I'm all ears.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    In the cynical world you propose (I’m not saying there’s no truth in it), it would be rather fatuous to expect gratitude towards anyone, least of all the little cogs in the big enforcing machine. Apart from anything else, that same enforcing machine protects the big guys from the smaller guys here at home, when necessary.
     
    Well, don't know about that.
    "Keep your head down, get the spoils and spout what's needed from you".
    Simple I guess.

    It appears the difference between our positions perhaps comes down to you nursing an underlying and seemingly irrational fear that any slight easing of the interventionist aggression will result in a wholesale change in the balance of power.
     
    Agree.
    Would change "underlying and seemingly irrational fear" into simple "realization", but yes.

    It won’t,
     
    Well, how about this: not keen on proving that. Not at all.

    What it will do, though, is stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments being exploited for the benefit of foreigners and corrupt lobbies.
     
    How about we first address "foreigners and corrupt lobbies"?
    Then we see how the other two "guys" react?
    And then and only then "stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments"?

    Well, how about this: not keen on proving that. Not at all.

    Well obviously you aren’t. After all, your alternative is based on an “underlying and …irrational fear”. :-)

    How about we first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”?
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react?
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”?

    I’m fine with that, in theory. But I thought we’d established that it’s inevitable?

    Unless you are saying that if we can’t prevent abuse by the powerful in general, we can at least exclude the powerful foreign and corrupt?

    I’m all ears.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    I’m all ears.
     
    We first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”.
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react.
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”.

    I’m fine with that, in theory
     
    That's it then.

    Now we move on the practical.
    One step at the time.

    We first focus on
    “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”

    When we get that fixed we'll move on the step 2.

    In meantime, we do NOT "stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments".
    Just rearrange priorities in spending.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  202. peterAUS says:
    @Randal

    Well, how about this: not keen on proving that. Not at all.
     
    Well obviously you aren't. After all, your alternative is based on an "underlying and ...irrational fear". :-)

    How about we first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”?
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react?
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”?
     
    I'm fine with that, in theory. But I thought we'd established that it's inevitable?

    Unless you are saying that if we can't prevent abuse by the powerful in general, we can at least exclude the powerful foreign and corrupt?

    I'm all ears.

    I’m all ears.

    We first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”.
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react.
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”.

    I’m fine with that, in theory

    That’s it then.

    Now we move on the practical.
    One step at the time.

    We first focus on
    “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”

    When we get that fixed we’ll move on the step 2.

    In meantime, we do NOT “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”.
    Just rearrange priorities in spending.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, you have repeatedly proposed that we first focus on the foreigners and corrupt lobbies manipulating our foreign and military policies, and I have agreed in principle. What I'm waiting for are some concrete and realistic proposals for doing so, bearing in mind that the said foreigners and corrupt lobbies are only able to influence our governments' policies because they are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their "influence" - politics and the media.

    When you have a militarily powerful state, the capabilities that provides when abused are inevitably irresistibly attractive to those who have uses for such power. And the more acceptable interventionism is in the culture, the more easily manipulated policies will be towards abuse of the military and the more the powerful will seek to do so. The only plausible way to reduce the attraction of spending money to influence policy towards intervention is to have hard cultural and political resistances against interventionism. I don't suppose the Israel or Saudi lobbies, for instance, bother spending much money, time or effort to try to corrupt Swiss politics.

    So come on then, what are your proposals?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  203. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS

    Peter, your over-simplifications may make issues easier to place in a vaguely plausible narrative, but they serve primarily to help obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.
     
    Agree.
    Over-simplification is necessary for this medium I think.
    We can’t, really, seriously discuss this topic here.
    And, yes, I especially agree with

    obscure the much more complex, and more interesting layers underlying it.
     
    THAT is something that has been, sort of, puzzling me since the victory in November last year.

    In this case, for instance, the operative word in Andrei’s statement is “strategic”. “Fat cats getting fatter” is not Imperial Strategy. It comes at a cost to the Empire, or more accurately flies in the face of Imperial Strategy. As it develops, and becomes the driving, if not strategic, purpose behind Imperial decisions, the Empire’s collapse will proceed at an accelerating rate.
     
    Agree.
    Now we are talking.
    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
    What if Trump realized that?

    Now, will the collapse proceed at accelerating rate I don’t know.
    And what if that collapse collapses all of us?


    As for Russian fat cats, you apparently didn’t notice that the ones who looted Russia’s wealth as the Soviet Empire collapsed were sent packing, and some wound up in jail. The ones who stayed on, were restrained in their looting and forced to act within the rules. Though that process may not be complete, it’s as fair as internal great politics gets.
     
    Well, not good enough. But, that’s not the primary concern here. US is.
    Russia is interesting as long as it doesn’t, as a system, look as a better alternative. Or China for that matter. I see all three of them as very similar, just with a different level of power.

    I used Game of Thrones analogy a couple of times so far.

    How about this:
    Western oligarch will smile at me, have a quick pleasant chat, steal almost all my money but leave me enough to buy my next meal.
    Russian oligarch will talk down to me, steal all my money from me, slap me on my face and laugh at me.
    Chinese oligarch will say nothing, steal all my money from me and just walk away.

    Makes sense?

    Makes sense which one I prefer?

    I’ve come to think there’s a lot of confused and confusing discussion that could be short-circuited with some definitions. Specifically, terms like “the System”, “the Global System”, “the Empire”, “the American Empire”, “the Evil Empire” and so on, get tossed about with abandon, sometimes as if they were interchangeable, and other times not, but without any clear meaning for readers. The net result is that lots of words get typed, but little/no understanding is reached.
    I refer to two of your statements:
    First from your post here (emphasis mine)

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?

    which you re-phrased in the Who Rules America thread (@#7) as:

    What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
    What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?

    Though I believe you meant them as more or less equivalent, to my mind they’re utterly different, and the difference is critical to both how I would respond to those two statements, and to how the two very different “collapses” would play out in the real world.

    This is how I see it in a nutshell. Well, it turned out to be a pretty big nutshell.
    In my mind, “the Empire/American Empire/Evil Empire” is nothing more than “American Management” of parts, but not all, of the existing, operational, and growing “System/Global System” that runs the world. In this sense, the former can collapse, while the latter could & would, if the Russians, Chinese and others have their way, continue on under new management.
    The so-called “multi-polar world” is nothing more than the demand to shift the management structure of the Global System as it goes about expanding its remit via the process known as “Globalization”, away from the US being Chairman & CEO, to a new more horizontal management structure that gives leading roles to other players such as China, Russia, the EU and others as they arise.
    The Global System is a global matrix of interwoven Treaties, Conventions and Agreements made between countries, groups of countries, and institutions, both domestic and international, of various types that covers trade and the movement of goods, financial and monetary management, security issues and alliances, health standards, defines borders and water rights and mechanisms for settling disputes in these areas. There’s plenty more, covering damn near everything anybody does, as countries have committed to change domestic law in conformance with the treaties it’s signed.
    Not every country has signed up to every Treaty, Convention, or Agreement, and not every country implements everything they’ve signed up for with the same vigor. The process whereby countries are encouraged to sign up to more, or to implement their commitments more vigorously is called Globalization.
    This is the Global System that went into gear at the end of WW2, and turned on its afterburners when the Soviet system collapsed. It fell to the US, as “last man standing”, to drive the Global System’s creation in the late 1940s, and it again fell to the US to expand the system when the Soviet System collapsed. The way they went about expanding it, and how they went about increasing and defending their role in it, is what everyone’s complaining about.
    Simply put, as the rest of the World sees it, the Americans have abused their managerial position to the point where the Global System is faltering. First, they illegally invaded and smashed a few countries who didn’t want to join, and threatened others, then they brought the financial system to the abyss by mismanaging their currency for domestic purposes. They’ve abused the dollar on which the Global System’s financial structures are based, they’ve used those structures for political purposes (breaking a Chinese Wall in the system) and they’ve abused the security structures as well.
    The world does not want the Global System and Globalization to fail. Xi made that message loud and clear at Davos. The Global System may need adjustment and renewal, but it’s got everything it needs to work other than the fact that there’s a nutcase occupying the Chairman & CEO positions (figuratively speaking), and by an accident of history got to write himself into those positions at the advent, and then at the turbo-expansion of the System, and so also to be the prime beneficiary of the advantages that the system generated. EG: It alone can run multi-100s of $Bs of trade and fiscal deficits without facing bankruptcy. That allowed it to build a Brobdingnagian miltary, far beyond any imaginable defensive requirement, which it uses to browbeat (or worse) anyone not kowtowing to “American values”, as if the Global System said anything about them.
    Figuratively speaking (again), the rest of the world wants to re-write some of the rules so that no-one can ever hold those two positions simultaneously again.

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone. However, make no mistake, the two primary drivers of the re-write are not going to take no for an answer, and they have set themselves up both to initiate and to survive a melt down in the Global System if America gets more belligerent in defence of its position. More than that, they’ve set up parallel security, financial and trade structures that anyone is welcome to join should the Global System fail. Until then, we’ll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America’s credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Agree with explanation about what is going on.
    Disagree with the current "globalization", it's inevitability etc. but let's not go there now.

    As for

    Until then, we’ll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America’s credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.
     
    as we agreed before, we'll see.

    It could be: "we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.'

    Or cockroaches inherit the world.
    , @Miro23

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone.
     
    Well, that's the main point, and the irony is that most Americans are not on board with these lunatic policies. They voted against foreign wars, mass immigration and in favor of investment in US infrastructure and "America First".

    If US democracy worked the way it is supposed to, then the US would already be withdrawing from its Empire, and getting its budget under control. The problem is with entrenched Special Interests, that want the vast spending for their wars and monopolies, and they're going to print the money to enable it.

    My conclusion is that the US is already a de facto Deep State dictatorship with a Democratic facade (light version but turning malignant), and it's an open question whether it blows up first through a major war (e.g. against Russia, China or maybe Iran) or economically with the collapse of the US dollar and fast inflation, or maybe the whole lot together.

    Either way the US public have lost their country and are in for a rough ride.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  204. Randal says:
    @peterAUS

    I’m all ears.
     
    We first address “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”.
    Then we see how the other two “guys” react.
    And then and only then “stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments”.

    I’m fine with that, in theory
     
    That's it then.

    Now we move on the practical.
    One step at the time.

    We first focus on
    “foreigners and corrupt lobbies”

    When we get that fixed we'll move on the step 2.

    In meantime, we do NOT "stop (or reduce) our military and our tax payments".
    Just rearrange priorities in spending.

    Yes, you have repeatedly proposed that we first focus on the foreigners and corrupt lobbies manipulating our foreign and military policies, and I have agreed in principle. What I’m waiting for are some concrete and realistic proposals for doing so, bearing in mind that the said foreigners and corrupt lobbies are only able to influence our governments’ policies because they are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their “influence” – politics and the media.

    When you have a militarily powerful state, the capabilities that provides when abused are inevitably irresistibly attractive to those who have uses for such power. And the more acceptable interventionism is in the culture, the more easily manipulated policies will be towards abuse of the military and the more the powerful will seek to do so. The only plausible way to reduce the attraction of spending money to influence policy towards intervention is to have hard cultural and political resistances against interventionism. I don’t suppose the Israel or Saudi lobbies, for instance, bother spending much money, time or effort to try to corrupt Swiss politics.

    So come on then, what are your proposals?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well………if there were any concrete and realistic proposals at this stage, much smarter people than me, or you for that matter, would’ve already come up with them.

    I guess that your angle is sort of: let’s NOT have that capability, so it can’t be abused?
    For me it means: OTHER parties will, then, have that capability so we’ll be at the abused end of it. True, it’s bad to have own power abused but it’s worse to be abused by it.

    As for concrete and realistic proposals, there are none at this stage. The powers that be, as you said “are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their “influence” – politics and the media”.
    See, they worked hard, for decades, to get what they want. They thought hard what to do, got organized and worked hard, for decades to get it.
    And, what exactly the people, who, effectively, in democracies allowed that, have done?
    I believe much less hard thinking, let alone hard working on THOSE issues. Look around you. You see them interested in that at all? I don’t. They look to me too busy with social media, shopping and entertainment. They……..do……….not……..care….We know that.
    So, the first step in order to change, concrete and realistically, anything, is to have those people getting up of their bums and start doing something. Thinking for example.
    And that’s not going to work by “informing and educating” them. “If we just show people the truth………”. No.
    It’s going to work AFTER those people really get hurt. Then, and only then, they’ll put some effort in thinking.
    At the moment, they aren’t really hurting. They think they are, but that’s not it. Real hurt is something else and it’s coming.
    So, WHEN it comes we can start talking about “concrete and realistic proposals”. Maybe, say, 5 years from now. Who knows really. But definitely not now.
    It’s like an overweight person asking for concrete and realistic proposals on how to lose weight, but not willing to change anything.
    Fine.
    We’ll wait for him to get really worried about his health first and then propose something concrete and realistic.
    Now, if that never happens and he drops dead from a heart attack, fine too.
    , @peterAUS
    Maybe something interesting.

    Has it ever occurred to you how, fundamentally, pathetic we here are?
    Sort of like those guys who contemplated on how many angels can sit on top of a needle.

    We look at the world and see it as not good.
    We, here, try to talk about it and, maybe figure out something.
    Well, at least, maybe 10 % of us. The rest are guys with agenda, fanboys, people looking for entertainment, and of course, a couple of "monitors". One or two sociopaths too.

    The value, for some of us, is to, essentially, "brainstorm" some ideas (less and less likely to have that type of conversation anywhere else) and, yes, a bit of therapy, our own 'safe space". Safe from increasingly humiliating social engineering.

    But, how much of what we find serious the 90 % of population around us find serious?
    We know the answer to that.

    We try to find a solution and they just don't care for anything of it.
    Anything.

    We know even how it works when you actually try to initiate a conversation about it with them.
    I do it a couple of times per day; just "fire a probe" when waiting in a queue, getting my coffee, stuff like that. And, as ALWAYS, around 1 person in 10 reacts in some way. 9 give me blank stares.

    So, "we" like to say "this must stop", "this is bad", " something has to be done". That's not true.
    This can go as long as they do not care. In any imaginable (bad to worse) direction.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  205. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus
    I've come to think there's a lot of confused and confusing discussion that could be short-circuited with some definitions. Specifically, terms like “the System”, “the Global System”, “the Empire”, “the American Empire”, “the Evil Empire” and so on, get tossed about with abandon, sometimes as if they were interchangeable, and other times not, but without any clear meaning for readers. The net result is that lots of words get typed, but little/no understanding is reached.
    I refer to two of your statements:
    First from your post here (emphasis mine)

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
     
    which you re-phrased in the Who Rules America thread (@#7) as:

    What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
    What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?
     
    Though I believe you meant them as more or less equivalent, to my mind they're utterly different, and the difference is critical to both how I would respond to those two statements, and to how the two very different “collapses” would play out in the real world.

    This is how I see it in a nutshell. Well, it turned out to be a pretty big nutshell.
    In my mind, “the Empire/American Empire/Evil Empire” is nothing more than “American Management” of parts, but not all, of the existing, operational, and growing “System/Global System” that runs the world. In this sense, the former can collapse, while the latter could & would, if the Russians, Chinese and others have their way, continue on under new management.
    The so-called “multi-polar world” is nothing more than the demand to shift the management structure of the Global System as it goes about expanding its remit via the process known as “Globalization”, away from the US being Chairman & CEO, to a new more horizontal management structure that gives leading roles to other players such as China, Russia, the EU and others as they arise.
    The Global System is a global matrix of interwoven Treaties, Conventions and Agreements made between countries, groups of countries, and institutions, both domestic and international, of various types that covers trade and the movement of goods, financial and monetary management, security issues and alliances, health standards, defines borders and water rights and mechanisms for settling disputes in these areas. There's plenty more, covering damn near everything anybody does, as countries have committed to change domestic law in conformance with the treaties it's signed.
    Not every country has signed up to every Treaty, Convention, or Agreement, and not every country implements everything they've signed up for with the same vigor. The process whereby countries are encouraged to sign up to more, or to implement their commitments more vigorously is called Globalization.
    This is the Global System that went into gear at the end of WW2, and turned on its afterburners when the Soviet system collapsed. It fell to the US, as "last man standing”, to drive the Global System's creation in the late 1940s, and it again fell to the US to expand the system when the Soviet System collapsed. The way they went about expanding it, and how they went about increasing and defending their role in it, is what everyone's complaining about.
    Simply put, as the rest of the World sees it, the Americans have abused their managerial position to the point where the Global System is faltering. First, they illegally invaded and smashed a few countries who didn't want to join, and threatened others, then they brought the financial system to the abyss by mismanaging their currency for domestic purposes. They've abused the dollar on which the Global System's financial structures are based, they've used those structures for political purposes (breaking a Chinese Wall in the system) and they've abused the security structures as well.
    The world does not want the Global System and Globalization to fail. Xi made that message loud and clear at Davos. The Global System may need adjustment and renewal, but it's got everything it needs to work other than the fact that there's a nutcase occupying the Chairman & CEO positions (figuratively speaking), and by an accident of history got to write himself into those positions at the advent, and then at the turbo-expansion of the System, and so also to be the prime beneficiary of the advantages that the system generated. EG: It alone can run multi-100s of $Bs of trade and fiscal deficits without facing bankruptcy. That allowed it to build a Brobdingnagian miltary, far beyond any imaginable defensive requirement, which it uses to browbeat (or worse) anyone not kowtowing to “American values”, as if the Global System said anything about them.
    Figuratively speaking (again), the rest of the world wants to re-write some of the rules so that no-one can ever hold those two positions simultaneously again.

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone. However, make no mistake, the two primary drivers of the re-write are not going to take no for an answer, and they have set themselves up both to initiate and to survive a melt down in the Global System if America gets more belligerent in defence of its position. More than that, they've set up parallel security, financial and trade structures that anyone is welcome to join should the Global System fail. Until then, we'll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America's credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they'll finally abandon their duties and resign.

    Agree with explanation about what is going on.
    Disagree with the current “globalization”, it’s inevitability etc. but let’s not go there now.

    As for

    Until then, we’ll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America’s credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.

    as we agreed before, we’ll see.

    It could be: “we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.’

    Or cockroaches inherit the world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus
    Um, do you realize that

    Agree with explanation about what is going on.
     
    and...

    Disagree with the current “globalization”, it’s inevitability etc. but let’s not go there now.
     
    are contradictory?
    That is, if you read/understood my post.
    "Globalization" is like "evolution", namely an empirical fact. We may disagree about the mechanisms that drive it, but we can't disagree that it is. You might as well argue that the standard meter is too short.

    It could be: “we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.’
     
    No, it couldn't. If you think so, you are so wildly off the mark as to be on another range, in another era. Perhaps the '80s? Sorry mate, but if you think those are equally probable, you haven't been paying attention to reality.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  206. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    Yes, you have repeatedly proposed that we first focus on the foreigners and corrupt lobbies manipulating our foreign and military policies, and I have agreed in principle. What I'm waiting for are some concrete and realistic proposals for doing so, bearing in mind that the said foreigners and corrupt lobbies are only able to influence our governments' policies because they are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their "influence" - politics and the media.

    When you have a militarily powerful state, the capabilities that provides when abused are inevitably irresistibly attractive to those who have uses for such power. And the more acceptable interventionism is in the culture, the more easily manipulated policies will be towards abuse of the military and the more the powerful will seek to do so. The only plausible way to reduce the attraction of spending money to influence policy towards intervention is to have hard cultural and political resistances against interventionism. I don't suppose the Israel or Saudi lobbies, for instance, bother spending much money, time or effort to try to corrupt Swiss politics.

    So come on then, what are your proposals?

    Well………if there were any concrete and realistic proposals at this stage, much smarter people than me, or you for that matter, would’ve already come up with them.

    I guess that your angle is sort of: let’s NOT have that capability, so it can’t be abused?
    For me it means: OTHER parties will, then, have that capability so we’ll be at the abused end of it. True, it’s bad to have own power abused but it’s worse to be abused by it.

    As for concrete and realistic proposals, there are none at this stage. The powers that be, as you said “are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their “influence” – politics and the media”.
    See, they worked hard, for decades, to get what they want. They thought hard what to do, got organized and worked hard, for decades to get it.
    And, what exactly the people, who, effectively, in democracies allowed that, have done?
    I believe much less hard thinking, let alone hard working on THOSE issues. Look around you. You see them interested in that at all? I don’t. They look to me too busy with social media, shopping and entertainment. They……..do……….not……..care….We know that.
    So, the first step in order to change, concrete and realistically, anything, is to have those people getting up of their bums and start doing something. Thinking for example.
    And that’s not going to work by “informing and educating” them. “If we just show people the truth………”. No.
    It’s going to work AFTER those people really get hurt. Then, and only then, they’ll put some effort in thinking.
    At the moment, they aren’t really hurting. They think they are, but that’s not it. Real hurt is something else and it’s coming.
    So, WHEN it comes we can start talking about “concrete and realistic proposals”. Maybe, say, 5 years from now. Who knows really. But definitely not now.
    It’s like an overweight person asking for concrete and realistic proposals on how to lose weight, but not willing to change anything.
    Fine.
    We’ll wait for him to get really worried about his health first and then propose something concrete and realistic.
    Now, if that never happens and he drops dead from a heart attack, fine too.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  207. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS
    Agree with explanation about what is going on.
    Disagree with the current "globalization", it's inevitability etc. but let's not go there now.

    As for

    Until then, we’ll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America’s credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.
     
    as we agreed before, we'll see.

    It could be: "we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.'

    Or cockroaches inherit the world.

    Um, do you realize that

    Agree with explanation about what is going on.

    and…

    Disagree with the current “globalization”, it’s inevitability etc. but let’s not go there now.

    are contradictory?
    That is, if you read/understood my post.
    “Globalization” is like “evolution”, namely an empirical fact. We may disagree about the mechanisms that drive it, but we can’t disagree that it is. You might as well argue that the standard meter is too short.

    It could be: “we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.’

    No, it couldn’t. If you think so, you are so wildly off the mark as to be on another range, in another era. Perhaps the ’80s? Sorry mate, but if you think those are equally probable, you haven’t been paying attention to reality.

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS

    “Globalization” is like “evolution”, namely an empirical fact.
     
    It is.
    Like cancer.
    Or Communists ruling from Easter Germany to North Korea.

    Globalization can easily turn back into isolationism, nationalism.....chauvinism, racism, cannibalism.
    Whatever.

    My point is, it is not inevitable.

    I feel that you push, as stated SEVERAL times so far, into 'let's split the world into three spheres and each of us big boys ruling one". Yes, you can wrap that package up into anything and market it any way you want and it won't change how I see it.
    And, true, I do not like much this American way of doing things shown down our throats, but I even less like Russian or Chinese way. Or Indian for that matter. Or Japanese.

    Now, if REGIMES in Russia and China were something else maybe I'd indulge in that thinking. But they are not. I stated that also several times so far with why as well.

    If Russia was internally first and foremost, as, say, Denmark, they yes, I'd go for it.
    If China was internally as Denmark, then yes too, I'd go for it.

    Which brings us back to the fact that power corrupts.
    US, Russia, China. Look at them.
    Give, by some miracle, Denmark that power and I strongly suspect we'd see the same.

    I admit it's a vicious circle but there we are.
    Founding Fathers had a good idea. Apparently didn't last long.

    There are, at the end, IMHO, four ways out of the present paradigm.
    US Empire takes over, having the rest as vassals. Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    The three big boys split the world into three spheres. Each having the core and periphery; master and vassals. Each Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    Nuclear war. How big and what happens after that no idea.
    By some miracle, facing strong possibility of nuclear war, common people, using technology, switch their core interests from Facebook, entertainment and shopping, communicate, learn and find a proper solution and then, impose it on ruling elites. Something as that A.Clarke short story.....

    So, back to the Major and his self-doubt.
    Start doing that when you see Russian and Chinese Majors doing the same.
    Or Indian. Or Pakistani. Or Israeli.
    Let's leave Brits out of it; they do tend to do self-loathing very well. But you never know how sincere that really is..
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  208. Erebus says:

    So come on then, what are your proposals?

    Randal, without the American people, and I’m guessing this means the Deplorables, getting in their Congressmans’ faces and demanding change or they’ll be replaced, neither this nor any other change will come to the American political scene. The American people have to man-up and drive this themselves, or lose their country for the last time.
    As an outsider, I’d bet that they’ve lost it. But what do I know?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  209. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus
    Um, do you realize that

    Agree with explanation about what is going on.
     
    and...

    Disagree with the current “globalization”, it’s inevitability etc. but let’s not go there now.
     
    are contradictory?
    That is, if you read/understood my post.
    "Globalization" is like "evolution", namely an empirical fact. We may disagree about the mechanisms that drive it, but we can't disagree that it is. You might as well argue that the standard meter is too short.

    It could be: “we’ll see America whittling away, mm by mm, at Russia/China credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they’ll finally abandon their duties and resign.’
     
    No, it couldn't. If you think so, you are so wildly off the mark as to be on another range, in another era. Perhaps the '80s? Sorry mate, but if you think those are equally probable, you haven't been paying attention to reality.

    “Globalization” is like “evolution”, namely an empirical fact.

    It is.
    Like cancer.
    Or Communists ruling from Easter Germany to North Korea.

    Globalization can easily turn back into isolationism, nationalism…..chauvinism, racism, cannibalism.
    Whatever.

    My point is, it is not inevitable.

    I feel that you push, as stated SEVERAL times so far, into ‘let’s split the world into three spheres and each of us big boys ruling one”. Yes, you can wrap that package up into anything and market it any way you want and it won’t change how I see it.
    And, true, I do not like much this American way of doing things shown down our throats, but I even less like Russian or Chinese way. Or Indian for that matter. Or Japanese.

    Now, if REGIMES in Russia and China were something else maybe I’d indulge in that thinking. But they are not. I stated that also several times so far with why as well.

    If Russia was internally first and foremost, as, say, Denmark, they yes, I’d go for it.
    If China was internally as Denmark, then yes too, I’d go for it.

    Which brings us back to the fact that power corrupts.
    US, Russia, China. Look at them.
    Give, by some miracle, Denmark that power and I strongly suspect we’d see the same.

    I admit it’s a vicious circle but there we are.
    Founding Fathers had a good idea. Apparently didn’t last long.

    There are, at the end, IMHO, four ways out of the present paradigm.
    US Empire takes over, having the rest as vassals. Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    The three big boys split the world into three spheres. Each having the core and periphery; master and vassals. Each Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    Nuclear war. How big and what happens after that no idea.
    By some miracle, facing strong possibility of nuclear war, common people, using technology, switch their core interests from Facebook, entertainment and shopping, communicate, learn and find a proper solution and then, impose it on ruling elites. Something as that A.Clarke short story…..

    So, back to the Major and his self-doubt.
    Start doing that when you see Russian and Chinese Majors doing the same.
    Or Indian. Or Pakistani. Or Israeli.
    Let’s leave Brits out of it; they do tend to do self-loathing very well. But you never know how sincere that really is..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    Start doing that when you see Russian and Chinese Majors doing the same.
     
    We won't start seeing Russian and Chinese Majors exhibit that sort of faux remorse until they start finding themselves 10,000kms from home blowing up schools, water treatment plants, hospitals & wedding parties, while protecting fields of opium poppies.

    In other words, not in the lifetime of anybody reading this thread.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  210. peterAUS says:
    @Randal
    Yes, you have repeatedly proposed that we first focus on the foreigners and corrupt lobbies manipulating our foreign and military policies, and I have agreed in principle. What I'm waiting for are some concrete and realistic proposals for doing so, bearing in mind that the said foreigners and corrupt lobbies are only able to influence our governments' policies because they are immensely wealthy and hugely well connected and influential, especially in the areas on which they have focussed for decades in order to ensure the maintenance of their "influence" - politics and the media.

    When you have a militarily powerful state, the capabilities that provides when abused are inevitably irresistibly attractive to those who have uses for such power. And the more acceptable interventionism is in the culture, the more easily manipulated policies will be towards abuse of the military and the more the powerful will seek to do so. The only plausible way to reduce the attraction of spending money to influence policy towards intervention is to have hard cultural and political resistances against interventionism. I don't suppose the Israel or Saudi lobbies, for instance, bother spending much money, time or effort to try to corrupt Swiss politics.

    So come on then, what are your proposals?

    Maybe something interesting.

    Has it ever occurred to you how, fundamentally, pathetic we here are?
    Sort of like those guys who contemplated on how many angels can sit on top of a needle.

    We look at the world and see it as not good.
    We, here, try to talk about it and, maybe figure out something.
    Well, at least, maybe 10 % of us. The rest are guys with agenda, fanboys, people looking for entertainment, and of course, a couple of “monitors”. One or two sociopaths too.

    The value, for some of us, is to, essentially, “brainstorm” some ideas (less and less likely to have that type of conversation anywhere else) and, yes, a bit of therapy, our own ‘safe space”. Safe from increasingly humiliating social engineering.

    But, how much of what we find serious the 90 % of population around us find serious?
    We know the answer to that.

    We try to find a solution and they just don’t care for anything of it.
    Anything.

    We know even how it works when you actually try to initiate a conversation about it with them.
    I do it a couple of times per day; just “fire a probe” when waiting in a queue, getting my coffee, stuff like that. And, as ALWAYS, around 1 person in 10 reacts in some way. 9 give me blank stares.

    So, “we” like to say “this must stop”, “this is bad”, ” something has to be done”. That’s not true.
    This can go as long as they do not care. In any imaginable (bad to worse) direction.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  211. Erebus says:
    @peterAUS

    “Globalization” is like “evolution”, namely an empirical fact.
     
    It is.
    Like cancer.
    Or Communists ruling from Easter Germany to North Korea.

    Globalization can easily turn back into isolationism, nationalism.....chauvinism, racism, cannibalism.
    Whatever.

    My point is, it is not inevitable.

    I feel that you push, as stated SEVERAL times so far, into 'let's split the world into three spheres and each of us big boys ruling one". Yes, you can wrap that package up into anything and market it any way you want and it won't change how I see it.
    And, true, I do not like much this American way of doing things shown down our throats, but I even less like Russian or Chinese way. Or Indian for that matter. Or Japanese.

    Now, if REGIMES in Russia and China were something else maybe I'd indulge in that thinking. But they are not. I stated that also several times so far with why as well.

    If Russia was internally first and foremost, as, say, Denmark, they yes, I'd go for it.
    If China was internally as Denmark, then yes too, I'd go for it.

    Which brings us back to the fact that power corrupts.
    US, Russia, China. Look at them.
    Give, by some miracle, Denmark that power and I strongly suspect we'd see the same.

    I admit it's a vicious circle but there we are.
    Founding Fathers had a good idea. Apparently didn't last long.

    There are, at the end, IMHO, four ways out of the present paradigm.
    US Empire takes over, having the rest as vassals. Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    The three big boys split the world into three spheres. Each having the core and periphery; master and vassals. Each Brasil type society with strong panopticon.
    Nuclear war. How big and what happens after that no idea.
    By some miracle, facing strong possibility of nuclear war, common people, using technology, switch their core interests from Facebook, entertainment and shopping, communicate, learn and find a proper solution and then, impose it on ruling elites. Something as that A.Clarke short story.....

    So, back to the Major and his self-doubt.
    Start doing that when you see Russian and Chinese Majors doing the same.
    Or Indian. Or Pakistani. Or Israeli.
    Let's leave Brits out of it; they do tend to do self-loathing very well. But you never know how sincere that really is..

    Start doing that when you see Russian and Chinese Majors doing the same.

    We won’t start seeing Russian and Chinese Majors exhibit that sort of faux remorse until they start finding themselves 10,000kms from home blowing up schools, water treatment plants, hospitals & wedding parties, while protecting fields of opium poppies.

    In other words, not in the lifetime of anybody reading this thread.

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

    until they start finding themselves 10,000kms from home blowing up schools, water treatment plants, hospitals & wedding parties, while protecting fields of opium poppies.

    In other words, not in the lifetime of anybody reading this thread.

    Some can only hope.

    Not that, historically, Russians, didn’t do all that, and more, but, true, some really don’t want them to have that opportunity, again.

    It’s better, for some, to have some (not too many) Yanks with that feeling than having Russians and Chinese in the same position.

    Probably boils down to who is doing the feeling and who is doing being a target of the feeling.
    Who is winner and who is loser, in that game.

    Some prefer Yanks as winners.
    There are plenty around who’d prefer Russians and/or Chinese. Or Indians (brown types). Or Islamists. Or whoever.

    To each his own.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    "To each his own."

    You're obviously referring to facts there since the rest of that comment is just so much nonsense. The USSR was building roads, essential infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities etc as a way of bringing Afghanistan into the modern era and of course into their sphere of influence. There is abundant photographic evidence of Afghan men and women becoming engineers, architects, doctors and so on. The women were able to drive vehicles, walk around in modern attire and with their hair uncovered. It wasn't in the least like what the US has "achieved" there since the phoney "War on Terror" launched by the US after the 9/11 False Flag attacks.

    The religious fanatics didn't like the modernisation of "their" nation and used violence to destabilise it and this was deliberately and easily exploited by the CIA to give the USSR a defeat to equal the one the US received in Vietnam, again well documented, and so the mujahideen was born and nurtured.

    Erebus pointed out previously that you are living decades in the past and your constant use of Russia in place of USSR only serves to underline that. If only you were the formidable warrior at the keyboard that you claim to have been when in uniform you might have gained some traction here but it hasn't happened yet and I very much doubt it will. I'd suggest you'd be better off spending even more of your time watching Game of Thrones on TeeVee since fiction is where you seem to excel.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  213. Erebus says:

    Not that, historically, Russians, didn’t do all that, and more, but, true, some really don’t want them to have that opportunity, again.

    Huh? When and where?
    The furthest the Russians ventured was when Russian warships showed up in NY and San Francisco, preventing a French-British invasion on the side of the Confederacy, but no record I’m aware of shows them guarding opium poppies and blowing up kindergartens while there.

    Maybe you’d expand on your assertion, showing they did it somewhere else?

    Read More
    • Replies: @peterAUS
    Well......

    Polish–Soviet War February 1919 – March 1921
    Talvisota 1939-1940
    Treatment of German non-combatants in 1944-1945 (females in particular).
    Treatment of all "allied" non-combatants in the push towards Berlin (females in particular).
    Uprisings:
    1953, East Germany
    1956, Hungary
    1968,Czechoslovakia
    1979 - 1989 Soviet–Afghan War
    And, of course, Chechnya

    Let's not get into fine semantics here.

    I have no problem accepting US being an empire.
    I don't see why it is such a problem accepting that Russia has tried to be the same when it could.
    And if the regime in Moscow had the same power as the regime in Washington they would do the same.
    The only difference in their projection of power is their ability to project that power.

    And, some people, should they have to choose under which imperial regime they'd prefer to live, they would choose Washington. Tywin Lannister. Lucky Luciano. Top Dog 1.
    I am sure some would choose Moscow. Roose Bolton. Salvatore Maranzano. Top Dog 2.

    Problem is that, most of the time, nobody asks them (those small guys) anything.
    Like,say, Estonians.

    When West has muscle, Estonia is in West.
    When Russia has muscle, Estonia is in East.
    That most of Estonians have preferred West most of the time meant nothing.

    At the moment they are in West and they like it.
    They KNOW, should Russia get muscle again (or US loses muscle), they'll get in East again. And most of them don't like it.
    Mr Sjursen types are important in that picture.

    I mean, with a lot of fine effort, picturing Russia as a "good guy" could work with Westerners.
    It will never work with all those from Finland to Bulgaria. Never.
    Except Serbs, and some parts of Montenegro .

    I actually don't get where is a disagreement here.

    That some people want to live in District One ruled by Top Dog 1 and some want to live in District Two ruled by Top Dog 2?

    What those two Top Dogs do with/to each other is of secondary importance.
    Save MAD.

    And, the Major, being an enforcer for the Top Dog 1 should just do his job. Or resign. Plenty of replacement around, especially in this economy.
    The same applies to enforcers of the Top Dog 2.

    Simple.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  214. peterAUS says:
    @Erebus

    Not that, historically, Russians, didn’t do all that, and more, but, true, some really don’t want them to have that opportunity, again.
     
    Huh? When and where?
    The furthest the Russians ventured was when Russian warships showed up in NY and San Francisco, preventing a French-British invasion on the side of the Confederacy, but no record I'm aware of shows them guarding opium poppies and blowing up kindergartens while there.

    Maybe you'd expand on your assertion, showing they did it somewhere else?

    Well……

    Polish–Soviet War February 1919 – March 1921
    Talvisota 1939-1940
    Treatment of German non-combatants in 1944-1945 (females in particular).
    Treatment of all “allied” non-combatants in the push towards Berlin (females in particular).
    Uprisings:
    1953, East Germany
    1956, Hungary
    1968,Czechoslovakia
    1979 – 1989 Soviet–Afghan War
    And, of course, Chechnya

    Let’s not get into fine semantics here.

    I have no problem accepting US being an empire.
    I don’t see why it is such a problem accepting that Russia has tried to be the same when it could.
    And if the regime in Moscow had the same power as the regime in Washington they would do the same.
    The only difference in their projection of power is their ability to project that power.

    And, some people, should they have to choose under which imperial regime they’d prefer to live, they would choose Washington. Tywin Lannister. Lucky Luciano. Top Dog 1.
    I am sure some would choose Moscow. Roose Bolton. Salvatore Maranzano. Top Dog 2.

    Problem is that, most of the time, nobody asks them (those small guys) anything.
    Like,say, Estonians.

    When West has muscle, Estonia is in West.
    When Russia has muscle, Estonia is in East.
    That most of Estonians have preferred West most of the time meant nothing.

    At the moment they are in West and they like it.
    They KNOW, should Russia get muscle again (or US loses muscle), they’ll get in East again. And most of them don’t like it.
    Mr Sjursen types are important in that picture.

    I mean, with a lot of fine effort, picturing Russia as a “good guy” could work with Westerners.
    It will never work with all those from Finland to Bulgaria. Never.
    Except Serbs, and some parts of Montenegro .

    I actually don’t get where is a disagreement here.

    That some people want to live in District One ruled by Top Dog 1 and some want to live in District Two ruled by Top Dog 2?

    What those two Top Dogs do with/to each other is of secondary importance.
    Save MAD.

    And, the Major, being an enforcer for the Top Dog 1 should just do his job. Or resign. Plenty of replacement around, especially in this economy.
    The same applies to enforcers of the Top Dog 2.

    Simple.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  215. @peterAUS

    until they start finding themselves 10,000kms from home blowing up schools, water treatment plants, hospitals & wedding parties, while protecting fields of opium poppies.

    In other words, not in the lifetime of anybody reading this thread.
     
    Some can only hope.

    Not that, historically, Russians, didn't do all that, and more, but, true, some really don't want them to have that opportunity, again.

    It's better, for some, to have some (not too many) Yanks with that feeling than having Russians and Chinese in the same position.

    Probably boils down to who is doing the feeling and who is doing being a target of the feeling.
    Who is winner and who is loser, in that game.

    Some prefer Yanks as winners.
    There are plenty around who'd prefer Russians and/or Chinese. Or Indians (brown types). Or Islamists. Or whoever.

    To each his own.

    “To each his own.”

    You’re obviously referring to facts there since the rest of that comment is just so much nonsense. The USSR was building roads, essential infrastructure, hospitals, schools and universities etc as a way of bringing Afghanistan into the modern era and of course into their sphere of influence. There is abundant photographic evidence of Afghan men and women becoming engineers, architects, doctors and so on. The women were able to drive vehicles, walk around in modern attire and with their hair uncovered. It wasn’t in the least like what the US has “achieved” there since the phoney “War on Terror” launched by the US after the 9/11 False Flag attacks.

    The religious fanatics didn’t like the modernisation of “their” nation and used violence to destabilise it and this was deliberately and easily exploited by the CIA to give the USSR a defeat to equal the one the US received in Vietnam, again well documented, and so the mujahideen was born and nurtured.

    Erebus pointed out previously that you are living decades in the past and your constant use of Russia in place of USSR only serves to underline that. If only you were the formidable warrior at the keyboard that you claim to have been when in uniform you might have gained some traction here but it hasn’t happened yet and I very much doubt it will. I’d suggest you’d be better off spending even more of your time watching Game of Thrones on TeeVee since fiction is where you seem to excel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Erebus

    ... the rest of that comment is just so much nonsense.
     
    Not quite all. He's left a gap in the wall.
    Namely, he let slip that "I actually don’t get where is a disagreement here" which hints at a disturbance moving through his glib, primary school equilibrium. Perhaps a disquiet has settled into some dark corner, leading to a sense, however dim, that standing rooted in the propaganda of the 1980s, and peering into the 21st century through 10' of 1" pipe doesn't necessarily offer a coherent view of the world his interlocutors are discussing.

    We'll see if he moves on to a 2" pipe.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  216. Miro23 says:
    @Erebus
    I've come to think there's a lot of confused and confusing discussion that could be short-circuited with some definitions. Specifically, terms like “the System”, “the Global System”, “the Empire”, “the American Empire”, “the Evil Empire” and so on, get tossed about with abandon, sometimes as if they were interchangeable, and other times not, but without any clear meaning for readers. The net result is that lots of words get typed, but little/no understanding is reached.
    I refer to two of your statements:
    First from your post here (emphasis mine)

    What if….if….there is no other way The Empire can operate?
     
    which you re-phrased in the Who Rules America thread (@#7) as:

    What if there is no other way but to proceed along the current course?
    What if the system is so entrenched that changing it, properly, would collapse it?
     
    Though I believe you meant them as more or less equivalent, to my mind they're utterly different, and the difference is critical to both how I would respond to those two statements, and to how the two very different “collapses” would play out in the real world.

    This is how I see it in a nutshell. Well, it turned out to be a pretty big nutshell.
    In my mind, “the Empire/American Empire/Evil Empire” is nothing more than “American Management” of parts, but not all, of the existing, operational, and growing “System/Global System” that runs the world. In this sense, the former can collapse, while the latter could & would, if the Russians, Chinese and others have their way, continue on under new management.
    The so-called “multi-polar world” is nothing more than the demand to shift the management structure of the Global System as it goes about expanding its remit via the process known as “Globalization”, away from the US being Chairman & CEO, to a new more horizontal management structure that gives leading roles to other players such as China, Russia, the EU and others as they arise.
    The Global System is a global matrix of interwoven Treaties, Conventions and Agreements made between countries, groups of countries, and institutions, both domestic and international, of various types that covers trade and the movement of goods, financial and monetary management, security issues and alliances, health standards, defines borders and water rights and mechanisms for settling disputes in these areas. There's plenty more, covering damn near everything anybody does, as countries have committed to change domestic law in conformance with the treaties it's signed.
    Not every country has signed up to every Treaty, Convention, or Agreement, and not every country implements everything they've signed up for with the same vigor. The process whereby countries are encouraged to sign up to more, or to implement their commitments more vigorously is called Globalization.
    This is the Global System that went into gear at the end of WW2, and turned on its afterburners when the Soviet system collapsed. It fell to the US, as "last man standing”, to drive the Global System's creation in the late 1940s, and it again fell to the US to expand the system when the Soviet System collapsed. The way they went about expanding it, and how they went about increasing and defending their role in it, is what everyone's complaining about.
    Simply put, as the rest of the World sees it, the Americans have abused their managerial position to the point where the Global System is faltering. First, they illegally invaded and smashed a few countries who didn't want to join, and threatened others, then they brought the financial system to the abyss by mismanaging their currency for domestic purposes. They've abused the dollar on which the Global System's financial structures are based, they've used those structures for political purposes (breaking a Chinese Wall in the system) and they've abused the security structures as well.
    The world does not want the Global System and Globalization to fail. Xi made that message loud and clear at Davos. The Global System may need adjustment and renewal, but it's got everything it needs to work other than the fact that there's a nutcase occupying the Chairman & CEO positions (figuratively speaking), and by an accident of history got to write himself into those positions at the advent, and then at the turbo-expansion of the System, and so also to be the prime beneficiary of the advantages that the system generated. EG: It alone can run multi-100s of $Bs of trade and fiscal deficits without facing bankruptcy. That allowed it to build a Brobdingnagian miltary, far beyond any imaginable defensive requirement, which it uses to browbeat (or worse) anyone not kowtowing to “American values”, as if the Global System said anything about them.
    Figuratively speaking (again), the rest of the world wants to re-write some of the rules so that no-one can ever hold those two positions simultaneously again.

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone. However, make no mistake, the two primary drivers of the re-write are not going to take no for an answer, and they have set themselves up both to initiate and to survive a melt down in the Global System if America gets more belligerent in defence of its position. More than that, they've set up parallel security, financial and trade structures that anyone is welcome to join should the Global System fail. Until then, we'll see them whittling away, mm by mm, at America's credibility and capability in the security sphere, as well as in the financial & trade spheres, in the hope that they'll finally abandon their duties and resign.

    The question is, how to do this while treading carefully around the lunatic, and not blow the Global System up everywhere for everyone.

    Well, that’s the main point, and the irony is that most Americans are not on board with these lunatic policies. They voted against foreign wars, mass immigr