The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewEric Margolis Archive
Another Jolly Little War
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

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

It seems that every new US president has to prove his machismo…or make his bones, as wiseguys say…by bombing the usual Arabs. By now, it’s almost a rite of passage. The American public loves it.

So we just saw the US launch 59 or 60 $1.5million apiece cruise missiles at a western Syrian airfield to express President Trump’s outrage caused by seeing injured children allegedly caused by a Syrian government toxic gas attack.

But what, Mr. President, about all those Iraqi, Syrian and Afghan babies killed by US B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers? Or the destruction of the defiant Iraqi city of Fallujah where the US used forbidden white phosphorus that burns right to the bone?

Washington claimed its radar had conclusively identified Syrian warplanes dropping chemical weapons. This sounds to me to be unlikely. Where was the US radar? Hundreds of miles away aboard ships? Was the info from Israel or Turkey, both with axes to grind? Is US radar so sharp that it can tell the difference between a chemical and high explosive bomb at great distance? Sounds highly fishy to me.

The cruise missile strike was planned well in advance and the missiles programmed accordingly. This was likely done before the alleged chemical attack. What a hell of a rude act to launch the attack just before China’s leader, Xi Jinping, sat down to dinner with Trump in Palm Beach. This was the most important China-US meeting since President Richard Nixon went to meet Chairman Mao in 1972. What a monumental loss of face for Xi and for China. He was made to look small and irrelevant. Was this planned in advance? Xi should have walked out, gotten onto his plane and returned to China.

Couldn’t Trump have waited till Xi’s visit was over, a mere additional day? What was so urgent about bombing a Syrian air base? Do we not think that Russia, China and Iran, all Syria’s ally, will take some negative action? Trump had actually blasted former President Barack Obama for even thinking about attacking Syria…and now here he goes and does the same thing.

While the new president was showing how tough and decisive he is by bombing the usual Arabs, the US is openly threatening war against North Korea. Washington’s most urgent objective in the Florida summit was to somehow convince, cajole or coerce China into lowering the boom on irksome North Korea and ending its nuclear programs.

The huge insult to Xi will hardly motivate China to invade North Korea and depose Kim Jong-un. In fact, North Korea is quite useful for China in spite of its eccentric ways and offers no threat to them. The DPRK helps protect China’s sensitive northeast region and Manchuria from US/South Korean intervention. Collapse of the Kim regime would drive millions of starving refugees to China, South Korea and Japan.

ORDER IT NOW

Worse, a now threatened US attack on North Korea could cause it to fire nuclear-armed missiles at Japan, South Korea and US bases in Japanese Okinawa and Guam. Two nuclear warheads would be enough to turn Japan into a vast wasteland. There are some 88,000 US troops and large numbers of dependents in the region. South Korea’s 20-million people capitol, Seoul, is partly in range of Kim Jong-un’s 170mm heavy guns dug in on the Demilitarized Zone.

An accidental naval or air clash over the South China Sea between the US and China seems inevitable. The US is making a big fuss over atoll airbases that China has created there, but are these really so different from US Navy aircraft carriers cruising the China Sea?

The US has lost its old strategic superiority over China in the western Pacific. China’s land, air, naval and rocket forces are near parity with those of the US and well advanced in plans to drive the US far from its coasts. Any clash would see US forces fighting half a world away against home-based Chinese forces. US military officials are struggling to invent new strategies while cautioning the White House to avoid a fight it could lose.

As if potential wars against China and North Korea are not enough, the US is kicking sand into Russia’s face and beating the war drums over eastern Ukraine and Crimea, two regions utterly unknown to Americans. There seems collective amnesia that Russia has thousands of nuclear-armed missiles, many pointed at the US. Anti-Russian hysteria in the US has assumed epidemic proportions and makes the US look silly.

The US is also broadening its little wars in Yemen and Somalia in an effort to dominate the Red Sea. The hottest new US command is the new Africa Command.
This while being at bayonets drawn with China and Russia. Amazing strategic stupidity that would make old Bismarck turn in his grave. Add America’s forgotten, foolish war in Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, and its provocations of Iran.

Trump likely views these issues through the eyes of a businessman, not realizing that Empire has its costs that do not fit on a balance sheet. Sure, the US pays more for NATO than other members. NATO is an organ of the US Empire, not a simple partnership. Ruling the globe costs lots of money. Even worse, much of it is being borrowed. Interestingly, America owes more money to Comrade Xi Jin-ping’s China than anyone else.

(Republished from EricMargolis.com by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Russia, Syria 
Hide 37 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. To quote As’ad AbuKhalil:

    Remember this number: 7912 US attack on Syria

    There are people who are acting that US has never bombed Syria before. This is attack number 7912 by US (or its coalition partners) on Syria, according to Airwars monitoring group.

    http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/04/remember-this-number-7912-us-attack-on.html

    Read More
    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
    /emargolis/another-jolly-little-war-2/#comment-1829565
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. “The American public loves it”

    No, not really Eric. You should read some comments on this site before you barge ahead with the usual biased, bigoted claptrap.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Steve Naidamast
    I have to completely agree...

    So far, I believe most Americans, at least the sane ones, are in a state of shock. I know I am and I have been following this situation for quite a while.

    Though I had very little hope for a Trump administration and did not vote for either he or the other witch that was running for president, I did not expect this 180 degree turn on Trump's part.

    I believe that many Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we have a complete moron in charge of the executive branch with a very dangerous cheering section across many institutions that simply won't shut up.

    Serious military personnel and intelligence officers are not at all enamored with Trump and his irrationality and our enlisted personnel especially and their commanders would prefer to protect the nation far closer to home than to be constantly sent overseas to fight insensible conflicts as a result of the greed of a few power hungry cretins.
    , @Anonymous
    You should reflect more on Americans before you so ignorantly call someone a bigot. What are you a SJW or something?

    Most Americans will not admit to loving war or condone these attacks, but Americans sure do love their cheap oil and their petrodollar.

    When all is said and done, Americans can connect the dots (and so can Trump), and choose their own material wealth over faux concerns about the Middle East.
    , @jimbojones
    Do your homework. The American public DOES love it, much to its discredit.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328030-poll-majority-supports-strikes-on-syria

    And keep in mind that a lot of those opposing the strike are disgruntled democrats who would insist that 2+2=5 if Trump says that 2+2=4.
    , @BASUDEB
    I watched the protest rally in NYC the other day. I am hopeful.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Randal says:

    to express President Trump’s outrage caused by seeing injured children allegedly caused by a Syrian government toxic gas attack.

    But what, Mr. President, about all those Iraqi, Syrian and Afghan babies killed by US B-52 and B-1 heavy bombers? Or the destruction of the defiant Iraqi city of Fallujah where the US used forbidden white phosphorus that burns right to the bone?

    In my experience, the people who express that kind of sentimental outrage are invariably dishonest hypocrites who find it perfectly easy to harden their hearts about the often agonising and drawn out deaths of women and children inflicted by their own side.

    That’s certainly, self-evidently the case with Trump and his oh so “humanitarian” warmonger daughter.

    The huge insult to Xi will hardly motivate China to invade North Korea and depose Kim Jong-un.

    It will be interesting to see where and when China chooses to make the US pay a price for that. There will be a cost attached to it, without a doubt.

    It’s remarkable how childish much American “analysis” of world affairs is, thinking that the Chinese (or Russians, for that matter) are some kind of children to be intimidated into cooperating by a few symbolic cruise missiles.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. @Bragadocious
    "The American public loves it"

    No, not really Eric. You should read some comments on this site before you barge ahead with the usual biased, bigoted claptrap.

    I have to completely agree…

    So far, I believe most Americans, at least the sane ones, are in a state of shock. I know I am and I have been following this situation for quite a while.

    Though I had very little hope for a Trump administration and did not vote for either he or the other witch that was running for president, I did not expect this 180 degree turn on Trump’s part.

    I believe that many Americans are finally waking up to the fact that we have a complete moron in charge of the executive branch with a very dangerous cheering section across many institutions that simply won’t shut up.

    Serious military personnel and intelligence officers are not at all enamored with Trump and his irrationality and our enlisted personnel especially and their commanders would prefer to protect the nation far closer to home than to be constantly sent overseas to fight insensible conflicts as a result of the greed of a few power hungry cretins.

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

    “The American public loves it.”

    Not true at all. The Republicrats are all the same. Both parties are basically indistinguishable when it comes to overseas interventions. The American people have no real non-interventionist party.

    It should also be mentioned that the shameful US media does a lot to stir up action here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Agreed.

    I think Americans DON'T love it at all....and they are steaming...boiling mad.... at the price tag of all these stupid wars.

    This is probably why we have not seen a congressional approval poll in a while...because everyone knows its gone from single digits to negative digits .
    , @redplum
    "The American people have no real non-interventionist party." Why? Because you morons want a moron to lead you. You have the means to alter course, but in every election you elect a moron.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. KenH says:

    If this article is accurate, then Ivanka, Trump’s little princess, used her tears and sorrow to chide daddy into striking Assad.

    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286978/trump-airstrike-syria-daughter-heart-break/

    I hope I never do anything to upset queen Ivanka (a WASP convert to Judaism). Like most WASP elites her heart bleeds for every race except her own.

    The Trump presidency is becoming the Jared and Ivanka reality show.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Lol. You mean Jared told his wife what to do and she did it.
    , @Dan Hayes
    KenH:

    God help this country if it is run by an Ignoramus In Chief and his progeny and progeny-in-law!
    , @Kiza
    Ivanka and Jared - the Anglo-Zionists united (although Ivanka is arguably a German-Czech who adopted Anglo culture and then converted to Judaism). But while we are at it - you should buy her latest line of elegant apparel and her exquisite perfumes. This new scum has got to make billions just like the Clintons before.

    The stench of the swamp is unbearable and that sucking sound that you can hear is the Trumpswamp dwellers sucking the bone-marrow of the US people.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Since a number of people voted for Trump to avoid Hillary’s promised war on Russia based on her support for el qaeda, this is really a shark jumping moment for Trump. It is obvious it was the jihadis, not the Syrian government that were responsible for whatever poison gas might have poisoned people at the Idlib site. The attack on the Syrian airbase in response was mounted based on a successful propaganda campaign. The western mainstream media resembles the German media during the Nazi era: there are differences allowed within strict parameters, but the regime, in this case the yankee deep state and its European and Canadian satellites, determine the limits of what can be said within the propaganda framework of the rogue power structure. Meanwhile, in light of the obvious risk of war with Russia, the yankee attack is not only criminal but stupid. If, as is possible, Trump even knows that the allegations are unproven, this compounds the criminality. Since the other party is even more intent this criminality, democracy and the rule of law have ceased to exist within the yankee imperium and its vassal states.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. Trump warned Putin about the purely symbolic strike in advance, but it was sufficient to assuage the War Party and buy time to the prevent thermonuclear war they appear to desire.

    Xi’s visit was purely personal. Trump even invited him to stay with him at his own home. If Xi wanted a State occasion they’d have met in the White House.

    There was no public agenda and no talk of negotiations, yet Trump was obviously very happy: “We have made tremendous progress in our relationship with China,” Mr Trump said on Friday, without going into detail.

    Why did Xi fly around the world for a personal, 24-hour visit at Trump’s private home where his own security staff can protect him from bugging?

    Remember that Xi’s father survived two death sentences and he knows how the game is played: People who have little experience with power–those who are far from it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level.

    The coming months will provide answers but here is an hypothesis: Xi told Trump, personally, that China wants to help him. Big time. Allow Trump to ‘bully’ China into creating a million US jobs a year? No problem. The net cost to China would be zilch while a destabilized Trump government would be a costly nightmare.

    Since Woodrow Wilson’s time, any American who seriously obstructed war has either gone to prison, lost office or been assassinated. Trump is in grave danger and his best friends are probably the guys whose countries have the most to lose by war: Xi and Putin.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dearieme
    "Since Woodrow Wilson’s time, any American who seriously obstructed war has either gone to prison, lost office or been assassinated": I take it that the assassination reference was to RFK. JFK did bugger all to obstruct war.
    , @Kiza
    Aha, you are one of those claiming that Trump is playing 6-D, 8-D, multi-D chess with his opponents (he is so smart although he does not look it). The only problem is that that "D" stands for Dummy who believes in such bull. In other words, you can be a little bit of a war criminal as much as you can be a little bit pregnant.

    Once he became a war criminal, many liberals and Soros paid individuals are now discovering Trump as smart and good, are you one of those?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. The reference to Otto von Bismarck reminded me of a statement attributed to the Iron Chancellor: “God has a special providence for drunks, fools, children and the United States of America.” I think the U.S. is testing the limits of that providence.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. dearieme says:
    @Godfree Roberts
    Trump warned Putin about the purely symbolic strike in advance, but it was sufficient to assuage the War Party and buy time to the prevent thermonuclear war they appear to desire.

    Xi's visit was purely personal. Trump even invited him to stay with him at his own home. If Xi wanted a State occasion they'd have met in the White House.

    There was no public agenda and no talk of negotiations, yet Trump was obviously very happy: "We have made tremendous progress in our relationship with China," Mr Trump said on Friday, without going into detail.

    Why did Xi fly around the world for a personal, 24-hour visit at Trump's private home where his own security staff can protect him from bugging?

    Remember that Xi's father survived two death sentences and he knows how the game is played: People who have little experience with power–those who are far from it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level.

    The coming months will provide answers but here is an hypothesis: Xi told Trump, personally, that China wants to help him. Big time. Allow Trump to 'bully' China into creating a million US jobs a year? No problem. The net cost to China would be zilch while a destabilized Trump government would be a costly nightmare.

    Since Woodrow Wilson's time, any American who seriously obstructed war has either gone to prison, lost office or been assassinated. Trump is in grave danger and his best friends are probably the guys whose countries have the most to lose by war: Xi and Putin.

    “Since Woodrow Wilson’s time, any American who seriously obstructed war has either gone to prison, lost office or been assassinated”: I take it that the assassination reference was to RFK. JFK did bugger all to obstruct war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. @ Diversity Heretic,

    Thanks for reminding me of that Bismarkian quote. Brilliant really. The other one that comes to mind is ” laws are like sausages, it is best not to see them being made”.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Boris N says:

    Now* nobody can blame North Koreans and Iranians in their longing for a nuclear bomb. If Syria had one the USA wouldn’t even dare to destabilize it, much less so to directly attack it without a UN sanction. However bad both the regimes are, you cannot help but slightly sympathize them. How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships! The USA hardly ever said they hate the Kims and the Ayatollahs just because the regimes are oppressing the people. No, the American establishment just want to kill bunches of gooks and ragheads just to acquire more power and more money. Probably I would feel OK if the Americans wanted to assassinate the adversary elites with special forces (see Hafizullah Amin), not hurting any other common people. But instead they are killing more and more laymen, which just signifies they care little about the sufferings of the people under the “regimes”. Syrians are suffering under Assad? Let us bring them more suffering, let us start a civil war, raze the whole country down to the ground and kill and wound some odd millions of Syrians and finally bomb them directly. Obviously North Koreans and Iranians may deserve better than they have now, but they surely do not deserve the fate of Libya and Syria.

    *Of course, it is not now, all started with Serbia, when the world’s bully had made clear for everybody that no country can be safe from “humanitarian bombings” unless it has a potential to retaliate with a nuclear bomb.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Duglarri
    There's a simpler interpretation of the establishment's behaviour that I'd invite you to consider, one that might actually be more scary. And that is that it's dominated, now, by military men. And therefore not really concerned with profit and loss.

    But the military men are trained from early youth to be problem-solvers. The key word is "solver", not "problem manager", not "problem smoother". Solver. They are highly focused not on considering what the point of the war is or was; they are focused on taking that hill.

    So they look at every issue around the world with this lens. How do we solve it?

    Once and for all?

    North Korea? Iran? Syria? Afghanistan?

    Consider what happens when you put these in front of military men, and say not, "help me manage these", but instead, "solve them."

    You get what we're seeing now. Break the stalemate in Afghanistan. Push Assad out of power. Start boarding Iranian ships.

    Nuke North Korea.

    That last might seem insane (well, they're all insane), but military men will say, "you want a solution? You want to end the problem? That's how you end the problem."

    That's where we are now. We are seeing a President who is asking his military to solve these problems.

    You ask, they will answer, they will give you a plan.

    The plan might involve blowing up the world.

    But they'll give it to you just the same.
    , @Kiza

    How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships!
     
    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.

    Firstly, in many countries of this world dictatorship is simply the only system which can keep internal peace and guarantee prosperity (jobs, healthcare, education etc) to the nation. It would be hard to argue that peace and true prosperity are the primary social goal for the vast majority of citizens, not the dogmatic method of political arrangement (politics is always an interest of a minority who want to challenge the ruler for personal gain). For one such example, just consider Libya. Therefore, in such countries, it is the democracy which is a negative political arrangement, whilst dictatorship is positive.

    Secondly, Syria is a democracy, probably more than US or UK or Israel, and it is an old and worn out Western regime trick to call their enemy a dictator. The same trick has been applied before to every World leader who has opposed the West, most of all Vladimir Putin a fully democratically elected leader who actually does what the people elected him for, unlike all elected officials in the West.

    The moment I hear this qualification "dictator" from anyone I switch off from this person's opinion. In other words, grow up by shaking off the bull of the Western establishment!

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Bragadocious
    "The American public loves it"

    No, not really Eric. You should read some comments on this site before you barge ahead with the usual biased, bigoted claptrap.

    You should reflect more on Americans before you so ignorantly call someone a bigot. What are you a SJW or something?

    Most Americans will not admit to loving war or condone these attacks, but Americans sure do love their cheap oil and their petrodollar.

    When all is said and done, Americans can connect the dots (and so can Trump), and choose their own material wealth over faux concerns about the Middle East.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @KenH
    If this article is accurate, then Ivanka, Trump's little princess, used her tears and sorrow to chide daddy into striking Assad.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286978/trump-airstrike-syria-daughter-heart-break/

    I hope I never do anything to upset queen Ivanka (a WASP convert to Judaism). Like most WASP elites her heart bleeds for every race except her own.

    The Trump presidency is becoming the Jared and Ivanka reality show.

    Lol. You mean Jared told his wife what to do and she did it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Dan Hayes says:
    @KenH
    If this article is accurate, then Ivanka, Trump's little princess, used her tears and sorrow to chide daddy into striking Assad.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286978/trump-airstrike-syria-daughter-heart-break/

    I hope I never do anything to upset queen Ivanka (a WASP convert to Judaism). Like most WASP elites her heart bleeds for every race except her own.

    The Trump presidency is becoming the Jared and Ivanka reality show.

    KenH:

    God help this country if it is run by an Ignoramus In Chief and his progeny and progeny-in-law!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    What an idotic analysis, but where to begin with a take as scaldingly hot take as this one.

    Or the destruction of the defiant Iraqi city of Fallujah where the US used forbidden white phosphorus that burns right to the bone?

    Like the white phosphorus used only yesterday by your beloved Assad regime?

    I can’t understand why I need to love Assad now because I don’t want US intervention to topple him. The US should get out of Syria *entirely* and let this imbecile deal with ISIS himself, since he is so effective.

    This sounds to me to be unlikely. Where was the US radar? Hundreds of miles away aboard ships? Was the info from Israel or Turkey, both with axes to grind? Is US radar so sharp that it can tell the difference between a chemical and high explosive bomb at great distance? Sounds highly fishy to me.

    That’s because you are intentionally misunderstanding what the US is claiming, or, more likely, *lying* about what what the US is claiming.
    Maybe you are smart enough to understand this quote from the beginning of a USA Today article

    WASHINGTON — U.S. radar showed Syrian warplanes in the vicinity of the suspected chemical-weapon attack that killed dozens of people in northern Syria on Tuesday, according to a senior Defense Department official.

    [1]

    US radar simply puts Syrian warplanes in the vicinity of the chemical attack, which is 100% reasonable. As you know Russia’s official story is that a chemical weapons warehouse was bombed, so no one is really disputing this.

    What a hell of a rude act to launch the attack just before China’s leader, Xi Jinping, sat down to dinner with Trump in Palm Beach. This was the most important China-US meeting since President Richard Nixon went to meet Chairman Mao in 1972. What a monumental loss of face for Xi and for China. He was made to look small and irrelevant. Was this planned in advance? Xi should have walked out, gotten onto his plane and returned to China. Couldn’t Trump have waited till Xi’s visit was over, a mere additional day? What was so urgent about bombing a Syrian air base?

    Thanks for your opinion Eric-boy but the Chinese didn’t seem too upset about it. Their statement at the UN was fairly neutral and the view in China overall is that the meeting went very well. Maybe China isn’t a part of the anti-US resistance axis like you so desperately want it to be.

    https://twitter.com/i/web/status/850532555468058626

    The rest of the piece is mostly anti-US and anti-Western raving that I am shocked, just shocked, to hear from a half-Muslim, half-Jewish reporter.
    A Jewish journalist who prefers the third world to the West, colour me surprised!

    [1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/04/05/president-trump-defense-secretary-mattis-chemical-attack-bashar-al-assad-obama-administration/100093210/

    Read More
    • Disagree: Dan Hayes, Kiza
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. @Bragadocious
    "The American public loves it"

    No, not really Eric. You should read some comments on this site before you barge ahead with the usual biased, bigoted claptrap.

    Do your homework. The American public DOES love it, much to its discredit.

    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328030-poll-majority-supports-strikes-on-syria

    And keep in mind that a lot of those opposing the strike are disgruntled democrats who would insist that 2+2=5 if Trump says that 2+2=4.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bragadocious
    Yes, a whopping 51% of the American public expresses "support" for the airstrikes, according to the story, which I guess in your mind equals "love" and "an overwhelming majority."

    Sorry, when 49% of the U.S. public either opposes the action or is unsure, saying "the American public loves it" is statistically indefensible, descriptively reckless, and bigoted.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. BASUDEB says: • Website
    @Bragadocious
    "The American public loves it"

    No, not really Eric. You should read some comments on this site before you barge ahead with the usual biased, bigoted claptrap.

    I watched the protest rally in NYC the other day. I am hopeful.

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

    In times of universal deceipt, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. – George Orwell

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Does American leadership get the people it deserves?

    A corollary to Mencken’s quip, “in our democracy, everybody gets what the majority deserve.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @jimbojones
    Do your homework. The American public DOES love it, much to its discredit.
    http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/328030-poll-majority-supports-strikes-on-syria

    And keep in mind that a lot of those opposing the strike are disgruntled democrats who would insist that 2+2=5 if Trump says that 2+2=4.

    Yes, a whopping 51% of the American public expresses “support” for the airstrikes, according to the story, which I guess in your mind equals “love” and “an overwhelming majority.”

    Sorry, when 49% of the U.S. public either opposes the action or is unsure, saying “the American public loves it” is statistically indefensible, descriptively reckless, and bigoted.

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

    Would a destroyed Washington DC in our next instigated war be beneficial to the world in the long run?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  23. Duglarri says:
    @Boris N
    Now* nobody can blame North Koreans and Iranians in their longing for a nuclear bomb. If Syria had one the USA wouldn't even dare to destabilize it, much less so to directly attack it without a UN sanction. However bad both the regimes are, you cannot help but slightly sympathize them. How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships! The USA hardly ever said they hate the Kims and the Ayatollahs just because the regimes are oppressing the people. No, the American establishment just want to kill bunches of gooks and ragheads just to acquire more power and more money. Probably I would feel OK if the Americans wanted to assassinate the adversary elites with special forces (see Hafizullah Amin), not hurting any other common people. But instead they are killing more and more laymen, which just signifies they care little about the sufferings of the people under the "regimes". Syrians are suffering under Assad? Let us bring them more suffering, let us start a civil war, raze the whole country down to the ground and kill and wound some odd millions of Syrians and finally bomb them directly. Obviously North Koreans and Iranians may deserve better than they have now, but they surely do not deserve the fate of Libya and Syria.

    *Of course, it is not now, all started with Serbia, when the world's bully had made clear for everybody that no country can be safe from "humanitarian bombings" unless it has a potential to retaliate with a nuclear bomb.

    There’s a simpler interpretation of the establishment’s behaviour that I’d invite you to consider, one that might actually be more scary. And that is that it’s dominated, now, by military men. And therefore not really concerned with profit and loss.

    But the military men are trained from early youth to be problem-solvers. The key word is “solver”, not “problem manager”, not “problem smoother”. Solver. They are highly focused not on considering what the point of the war is or was; they are focused on taking that hill.

    So they look at every issue around the world with this lens. How do we solve it?

    Once and for all?

    North Korea? Iran? Syria? Afghanistan?

    Consider what happens when you put these in front of military men, and say not, “help me manage these”, but instead, “solve them.”

    You get what we’re seeing now. Break the stalemate in Afghanistan. Push Assad out of power. Start boarding Iranian ships.

    Nuke North Korea.

    That last might seem insane (well, they’re all insane), but military men will say, “you want a solution? You want to end the problem? That’s how you end the problem.”

    That’s where we are now. We are seeing a President who is asking his military to solve these problems.

    You ask, they will answer, they will give you a plan.

    The plan might involve blowing up the world.

    But they’ll give it to you just the same.

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

    Hey Eric, I wonder if you’d consider writing something about the reports that the Russian military budget is being cut by 27% next year. The drumbeat of “the Russians are coming” seems to fly in the face of the fact that Russia’s economy is currently just a bit smaller in terms of GDP than the economy of Canada- and that they are making massive cuts to their defense spending. How does this square with their plans for global conquest?

    Seems like an inconvenient fact to me.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  25. alexander says:
    @anon
    "The American public loves it."

    Not true at all. The Republicrats are all the same. Both parties are basically indistinguishable when it comes to overseas interventions. The American people have no real non-interventionist party.

    It should also be mentioned that the shameful US media does a lot to stir up action here.

    Agreed.

    I think Americans DON’T love it at all….and they are steaming…boiling mad…. at the price tag of all these stupid wars.

    This is probably why we have not seen a congressional approval poll in a while…because everyone knows its gone from single digits to negative digits .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Kiza says:
    @KenH
    If this article is accurate, then Ivanka, Trump's little princess, used her tears and sorrow to chide daddy into striking Assad.
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3286978/trump-airstrike-syria-daughter-heart-break/

    I hope I never do anything to upset queen Ivanka (a WASP convert to Judaism). Like most WASP elites her heart bleeds for every race except her own.

    The Trump presidency is becoming the Jared and Ivanka reality show.

    Ivanka and Jared – the Anglo-Zionists united (although Ivanka is arguably a German-Czech who adopted Anglo culture and then converted to Judaism). But while we are at it – you should buy her latest line of elegant apparel and her exquisite perfumes. This new scum has got to make billions just like the Clintons before.

    The stench of the swamp is unbearable and that sucking sound that you can hear is the Trumpswamp dwellers sucking the bone-marrow of the US people.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Kiza says:
    @Boris N
    Now* nobody can blame North Koreans and Iranians in their longing for a nuclear bomb. If Syria had one the USA wouldn't even dare to destabilize it, much less so to directly attack it without a UN sanction. However bad both the regimes are, you cannot help but slightly sympathize them. How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships! The USA hardly ever said they hate the Kims and the Ayatollahs just because the regimes are oppressing the people. No, the American establishment just want to kill bunches of gooks and ragheads just to acquire more power and more money. Probably I would feel OK if the Americans wanted to assassinate the adversary elites with special forces (see Hafizullah Amin), not hurting any other common people. But instead they are killing more and more laymen, which just signifies they care little about the sufferings of the people under the "regimes". Syrians are suffering under Assad? Let us bring them more suffering, let us start a civil war, raze the whole country down to the ground and kill and wound some odd millions of Syrians and finally bomb them directly. Obviously North Koreans and Iranians may deserve better than they have now, but they surely do not deserve the fate of Libya and Syria.

    *Of course, it is not now, all started with Serbia, when the world's bully had made clear for everybody that no country can be safe from "humanitarian bombings" unless it has a potential to retaliate with a nuclear bomb.

    How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships!

    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.

    Firstly, in many countries of this world dictatorship is simply the only system which can keep internal peace and guarantee prosperity (jobs, healthcare, education etc) to the nation. It would be hard to argue that peace and true prosperity are the primary social goal for the vast majority of citizens, not the dogmatic method of political arrangement (politics is always an interest of a minority who want to challenge the ruler for personal gain). For one such example, just consider Libya. Therefore, in such countries, it is the democracy which is a negative political arrangement, whilst dictatorship is positive.

    Secondly, Syria is a democracy, probably more than US or UK or Israel, and it is an old and worn out Western regime trick to call their enemy a dictator. The same trick has been applied before to every World leader who has opposed the West, most of all Vladimir Putin a fully democratically elected leader who actually does what the people elected him for, unlike all elected officials in the West.

    The moment I hear this qualification “dictator” from anyone I switch off from this person’s opinion. In other words, grow up by shaking off the bull of the Western establishment!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.
     
    Maybe you're right. Even if I'm trying, I'm not a saint, not even close, and liable to errors and misconceptions like everybody else. And you're not an exception, either.

    But I'm not sure why or if I've used the negative meaning. Probably, it was rather a figure of speech. And I was rather bearing in mind others, mainly Western people, like R.B. Spencer or P.J. Watson, or our A. Karlin, who now support Assad more vehemently than before. As for me I have surely had nothing against "dictators" per se if they really bring peace and prosperity, especially in countries that knew nothing better. But that is not always the case. You see people are always dissatisfied with something and it is very easily for us to think with our after-knowledge that toppling down Saddam, Gaddafi, or trying to do so with Assad was a bad idea. We NOW know it is a bad idea, but back then people couldn't predict such outcomes, especially those who live there, they surely didn't expected that, they just hoped to live better than they lived, and it was natural for them to blame their dictators for their not-so-perfect-living. And often their dictators gave them something far from prosperity, as it was with Saddam, though now he, even with his known atrocities against the Kurds, seems to be a rather decent option than the ISIS. Surely after such an experience most sober-minded people in the world absolutely would agree that meddling into other countries is a very bad idea. Dictators per se are often a lesser among two evils and toppling them down will never bring prosperity to the country by default. Though, I must confess one my sin, I would feel Schadenfreude, if they topple down the Saudis, because among the whole Mideast this country deserve the most a total annihilation, it's one of the real evil empires. I'm not sure if I'd like to see the sufferings of the common people there, but the country does not deserve to go on like that unpunished, meddling around the world and spreading the worst version of Islam. Yes, the real master deserves it more, but it's only likely to see that at the end of the world.

    P.S. Of course, toppling down dictators does not always have to end bad. Tunisia went through lucky. And most real dictators (not "dictators") across the world (Pol Pot, Bokassa, etc.) deserved zero sympathy when having been overthrown.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Kiza says:
    @Godfree Roberts
    Trump warned Putin about the purely symbolic strike in advance, but it was sufficient to assuage the War Party and buy time to the prevent thermonuclear war they appear to desire.

    Xi's visit was purely personal. Trump even invited him to stay with him at his own home. If Xi wanted a State occasion they'd have met in the White House.

    There was no public agenda and no talk of negotiations, yet Trump was obviously very happy: "We have made tremendous progress in our relationship with China," Mr Trump said on Friday, without going into detail.

    Why did Xi fly around the world for a personal, 24-hour visit at Trump's private home where his own security staff can protect him from bugging?

    Remember that Xi's father survived two death sentences and he knows how the game is played: People who have little experience with power–those who are far from it–tend to regard politics as mysterious and exciting. But I look past the superficialities, the power, the flowers, the glory, the applause. I see the detention houses, the fickleness of human relationships. I understand politics on a deeper level.

    The coming months will provide answers but here is an hypothesis: Xi told Trump, personally, that China wants to help him. Big time. Allow Trump to 'bully' China into creating a million US jobs a year? No problem. The net cost to China would be zilch while a destabilized Trump government would be a costly nightmare.

    Since Woodrow Wilson's time, any American who seriously obstructed war has either gone to prison, lost office or been assassinated. Trump is in grave danger and his best friends are probably the guys whose countries have the most to lose by war: Xi and Putin.

    Aha, you are one of those claiming that Trump is playing 6-D, 8-D, multi-D chess with his opponents (he is so smart although he does not look it). The only problem is that that “D” stands for Dummy who believes in such bull. In other words, you can be a little bit of a war criminal as much as you can be a little bit pregnant.

    Once he became a war criminal, many liberals and Soros paid individuals are now discovering Trump as smart and good, are you one of those?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Godfree Roberts
    Virtually every American president has been either a war criminal or genocidist. Besides, his attack was number 7912 or its partners on Syria, according to Airwars monitoring.

    In other words, it was unexceptional.

    What was exceptional was Xi's offer and Tillerson's statement the next morning, saying that it's up to the Syrian people to choose their leader.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. @Kiza
    Aha, you are one of those claiming that Trump is playing 6-D, 8-D, multi-D chess with his opponents (he is so smart although he does not look it). The only problem is that that "D" stands for Dummy who believes in such bull. In other words, you can be a little bit of a war criminal as much as you can be a little bit pregnant.

    Once he became a war criminal, many liberals and Soros paid individuals are now discovering Trump as smart and good, are you one of those?

    Virtually every American president has been either a war criminal or genocidist. Besides, his attack was number 7912 or its partners on Syria, according to Airwars monitoring.

    In other words, it was unexceptional.

    What was exceptional was Xi’s offer and Tillerson’s statement the next morning, saying that it’s up to the Syrian people to choose their leader.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Boris N says:
    @Kiza

    How crazy our world has become that you are left with little choice but to sympathize dictatorships!
     
    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.

    Firstly, in many countries of this world dictatorship is simply the only system which can keep internal peace and guarantee prosperity (jobs, healthcare, education etc) to the nation. It would be hard to argue that peace and true prosperity are the primary social goal for the vast majority of citizens, not the dogmatic method of political arrangement (politics is always an interest of a minority who want to challenge the ruler for personal gain). For one such example, just consider Libya. Therefore, in such countries, it is the democracy which is a negative political arrangement, whilst dictatorship is positive.

    Secondly, Syria is a democracy, probably more than US or UK or Israel, and it is an old and worn out Western regime trick to call their enemy a dictator. The same trick has been applied before to every World leader who has opposed the West, most of all Vladimir Putin a fully democratically elected leader who actually does what the people elected him for, unlike all elected officials in the West.

    The moment I hear this qualification "dictator" from anyone I switch off from this person's opinion. In other words, grow up by shaking off the bull of the Western establishment!

    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.

    Maybe you’re right. Even if I’m trying, I’m not a saint, not even close, and liable to errors and misconceptions like everybody else. And you’re not an exception, either.

    But I’m not sure why or if I’ve used the negative meaning. Probably, it was rather a figure of speech. And I was rather bearing in mind others, mainly Western people, like R.B. Spencer or P.J. Watson, or our A. Karlin, who now support Assad more vehemently than before. As for me I have surely had nothing against “dictators” per se if they really bring peace and prosperity, especially in countries that knew nothing better. But that is not always the case. You see people are always dissatisfied with something and it is very easily for us to think with our after-knowledge that toppling down Saddam, Gaddafi, or trying to do so with Assad was a bad idea. We NOW know it is a bad idea, but back then people couldn’t predict such outcomes, especially those who live there, they surely didn’t expected that, they just hoped to live better than they lived, and it was natural for them to blame their dictators for their not-so-perfect-living. And often their dictators gave them something far from prosperity, as it was with Saddam, though now he, even with his known atrocities against the Kurds, seems to be a rather decent option than the ISIS. Surely after such an experience most sober-minded people in the world absolutely would agree that meddling into other countries is a very bad idea. Dictators per se are often a lesser among two evils and toppling them down will never bring prosperity to the country by default. Though, I must confess one my sin, I would feel Schadenfreude, if they topple down the Saudis, because among the whole Mideast this country deserve the most a total annihilation, it’s one of the real evil empires. I’m not sure if I’d like to see the sufferings of the common people there, but the country does not deserve to go on like that unpunished, meddling around the world and spreading the worst version of Islam. Yes, the real master deserves it more, but it’s only likely to see that at the end of the world.

    P.S. Of course, toppling down dictators does not always have to end bad. Tunisia went through lucky. And most real dictators (not “dictators”) across the world (Pol Pot, Bokassa, etc.) deserved zero sympathy when having been overthrown.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    You needed to overthrow a few "dictators" to learn that meddling into other nations business is a nasty business which almost always results in a huge disaster!? Similarly, your common sense tells you that you should arbitrate between husbands and wives in their quarrels till divorce, with children left in broken up families? And you know examples where overthrowing "dictators" worked well?

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me. Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?

    Why do you think that Putin's Russia does not get involved in overthrowing even the astoundingly vile Saudi monarchy? Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused? The West wrecks a country on behalf of Israel and in the name of "democracy" and "humanitarianism", and then simply ignores millions of dead (Iraq) and the continuing suffering of the population and moves on to wreck another country and another and another. For the democratizers the resulting chaos and death are just as you write: "Oops!" The governments keep being overthrown even when this regularly ends up a total disaster. Even the Shiites in Iraq say that times were much better under Sunni "dictator" Saddam and Libyan revolutionaries admit that they had a better life (peace, healthcare, education) under Gaddafi. But no, the failure of "regime-change" is always the fault of the peoples of the destroyed countries not those who interfered.

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now. Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Kiza says:
    @Boris N

    It appears that you are using the word dictator(ship) for its negative connotation. This suggest that, despite your good intentions, you have fallen for the MSM generated Western regime BS.
     
    Maybe you're right. Even if I'm trying, I'm not a saint, not even close, and liable to errors and misconceptions like everybody else. And you're not an exception, either.

    But I'm not sure why or if I've used the negative meaning. Probably, it was rather a figure of speech. And I was rather bearing in mind others, mainly Western people, like R.B. Spencer or P.J. Watson, or our A. Karlin, who now support Assad more vehemently than before. As for me I have surely had nothing against "dictators" per se if they really bring peace and prosperity, especially in countries that knew nothing better. But that is not always the case. You see people are always dissatisfied with something and it is very easily for us to think with our after-knowledge that toppling down Saddam, Gaddafi, or trying to do so with Assad was a bad idea. We NOW know it is a bad idea, but back then people couldn't predict such outcomes, especially those who live there, they surely didn't expected that, they just hoped to live better than they lived, and it was natural for them to blame their dictators for their not-so-perfect-living. And often their dictators gave them something far from prosperity, as it was with Saddam, though now he, even with his known atrocities against the Kurds, seems to be a rather decent option than the ISIS. Surely after such an experience most sober-minded people in the world absolutely would agree that meddling into other countries is a very bad idea. Dictators per se are often a lesser among two evils and toppling them down will never bring prosperity to the country by default. Though, I must confess one my sin, I would feel Schadenfreude, if they topple down the Saudis, because among the whole Mideast this country deserve the most a total annihilation, it's one of the real evil empires. I'm not sure if I'd like to see the sufferings of the common people there, but the country does not deserve to go on like that unpunished, meddling around the world and spreading the worst version of Islam. Yes, the real master deserves it more, but it's only likely to see that at the end of the world.

    P.S. Of course, toppling down dictators does not always have to end bad. Tunisia went through lucky. And most real dictators (not "dictators") across the world (Pol Pot, Bokassa, etc.) deserved zero sympathy when having been overthrown.

    You needed to overthrow a few “dictators” to learn that meddling into other nations business is a nasty business which almost always results in a huge disaster!? Similarly, your common sense tells you that you should arbitrate between husbands and wives in their quarrels till divorce, with children left in broken up families? And you know examples where overthrowing “dictators” worked well?

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me. Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?

    Why do you think that Putin’s Russia does not get involved in overthrowing even the astoundingly vile Saudi monarchy? Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused? The West wrecks a country on behalf of Israel and in the name of “democracy” and “humanitarianism”, and then simply ignores millions of dead (Iraq) and the continuing suffering of the population and moves on to wreck another country and another and another. For the democratizers the resulting chaos and death are just as you write: “Oops!” The governments keep being overthrown even when this regularly ends up a total disaster. Even the Shiites in Iraq say that times were much better under Sunni “dictator” Saddam and Libyan revolutionaries admit that they had a better life (peace, healthcare, education) under Gaddafi. But no, the failure of “regime-change” is always the fault of the peoples of the destroyed countries not those who interfered.

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now. Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    And you know examples where overthrowing “dictators” worked well?
     
    Would you consider, for example, that Pol Pot had to be left alone? Bokassa? Mobutu? Batista? Or, sorry for that last example, Mussolini and Hitler? After all, the Allies had no right to invade Germany and Italy. Alright, they "liberated" North Africa and Europe, but why did they overstep the German and Italian borders and invade further? It was not their businesses what Hitler did inside of his country, while Mussolini did nothing wrong.

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me.
     
    You must be kidding. I understand the meanings of words are devalued today, so that leftie nuts call Trump a "dictator", but a dictator is not "the guy I don't like". At least according to one dictionary a dictator is "a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force", and according to another, "one ruling in an absolute and often oppressive way".

    Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?
     
    You must have confused me with Soros.

    Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused?
     
    Both. Frankly, Russia has no proper business in the Mideast, including Syria. After all Russia is not a global policeman and even does not embrace "world Socialist revolution" anymore. I agree with you on the rest.
    , @Boris N

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now.
     
    No bother. You know, such statements always amuse me. Why do people consider that their virtual "respect" is of an uttermost importance, so that they proudly declare they do not "respect" me anymore, when this has zero consequences in my life, when I even do not know them at all, they just some unknown mostly anonymous guys thousands miles away from me. Anyway I'm always glad to have a civil conversation with you, with "respect" for me or without.

    Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.
     
    You must be very self-critical, come on you, you're not that bad.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. …who now support Assad more vehemently than before

    Just a thought: personification of insubordinate foreign governments is another feature of western imperialist propaganda. Saddam, Assad, Milosevic, Putin – persons you’re supposed to hate, simply because they are declared dictators, evil persons, hitlers. No context is provided. And those who object to western imperialism automatically become supporters of these persons, again, without any context. This is so very orwellian: Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers. You need to ignore the names and faces, and analyze things conceptually, namely: their geopolitical meaning.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Boris N

    And those who object to western imperialism automatically become supporters of these persons, again, without any context.
     
    By the way, I do not think that people like Karlin or Spencer put the Syrian flag near their Twitter nicknames "automatically". This is what I meant by "support".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. redplum says:
    @anon
    "The American public loves it."

    Not true at all. The Republicrats are all the same. Both parties are basically indistinguishable when it comes to overseas interventions. The American people have no real non-interventionist party.

    It should also be mentioned that the shameful US media does a lot to stir up action here.

    “The American people have no real non-interventionist party.” Why? Because you morons want a moron to lead you. You have the means to alter course, but in every election you elect a moron.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Boris N says:
    @Kiza
    You needed to overthrow a few "dictators" to learn that meddling into other nations business is a nasty business which almost always results in a huge disaster!? Similarly, your common sense tells you that you should arbitrate between husbands and wives in their quarrels till divorce, with children left in broken up families? And you know examples where overthrowing "dictators" worked well?

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me. Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?

    Why do you think that Putin's Russia does not get involved in overthrowing even the astoundingly vile Saudi monarchy? Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused? The West wrecks a country on behalf of Israel and in the name of "democracy" and "humanitarianism", and then simply ignores millions of dead (Iraq) and the continuing suffering of the population and moves on to wreck another country and another and another. For the democratizers the resulting chaos and death are just as you write: "Oops!" The governments keep being overthrown even when this regularly ends up a total disaster. Even the Shiites in Iraq say that times were much better under Sunni "dictator" Saddam and Libyan revolutionaries admit that they had a better life (peace, healthcare, education) under Gaddafi. But no, the failure of "regime-change" is always the fault of the peoples of the destroyed countries not those who interfered.

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now. Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.

    And you know examples where overthrowing “dictators” worked well?

    Would you consider, for example, that Pol Pot had to be left alone? Bokassa? Mobutu? Batista? Or, sorry for that last example, Mussolini and Hitler? After all, the Allies had no right to invade Germany and Italy. Alright, they “liberated” North Africa and Europe, but why did they overstep the German and Italian borders and invade further? It was not their businesses what Hitler did inside of his country, while Mussolini did nothing wrong.

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me.

    You must be kidding. I understand the meanings of words are devalued today, so that leftie nuts call Trump a “dictator”, but a dictator is not “the guy I don’t like”. At least according to one dictionary a dictator is “a ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force”, and according to another, “one ruling in an absolute and often oppressive way”.

    Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?

    You must have confused me with Soros.

    Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused?

    Both. Frankly, Russia has no proper business in the Mideast, including Syria. After all Russia is not a global policeman and even does not embrace “world Socialist revolution” anymore. I agree with you on the rest.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. Boris N says:
    @Kiza
    You needed to overthrow a few "dictators" to learn that meddling into other nations business is a nasty business which almost always results in a huge disaster!? Similarly, your common sense tells you that you should arbitrate between husbands and wives in their quarrels till divorce, with children left in broken up families? And you know examples where overthrowing "dictators" worked well?

    See, I am unhappy with the government of the Western country that I live in. The current leader of the country is a dictator according to me. Will you help me overthrow him? Do you have the money that we can use to pay the revolutionaries (the killers)?

    Why do you think that Putin's Russia does not get involved in overthrowing even the astoundingly vile Saudi monarchy? Because it is afraid of US retaliation or because it does not want to be owning up to the hundreds of thousands of dead, if not millions that the overthrow caused? The West wrecks a country on behalf of Israel and in the name of "democracy" and "humanitarianism", and then simply ignores millions of dead (Iraq) and the continuing suffering of the population and moves on to wreck another country and another and another. For the democratizers the resulting chaos and death are just as you write: "Oops!" The governments keep being overthrown even when this regularly ends up a total disaster. Even the Shiites in Iraq say that times were much better under Sunni "dictator" Saddam and Libyan revolutionaries admit that they had a better life (peace, healthcare, education) under Gaddafi. But no, the failure of "regime-change" is always the fault of the peoples of the destroyed countries not those who interfered.

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now. Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.

    Even if I had any respect for you before, I have absolutely none now.

    No bother. You know, such statements always amuse me. Why do people consider that their virtual “respect” is of an uttermost importance, so that they proudly declare they do not “respect” me anymore, when this has zero consequences in my life, when I even do not know them at all, they just some unknown mostly anonymous guys thousands miles away from me. Anyway I’m always glad to have a civil conversation with you, with “respect” for me or without.

    Internet is a ship of fools. One meets all kind of perverted brains that one cannot find among acquaintances.

    You must be very self-critical, come on you, you’re not that bad.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Boris N says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    ...who now support Assad more vehemently than before
     
    Just a thought: personification of insubordinate foreign governments is another feature of western imperialist propaganda. Saddam, Assad, Milosevic, Putin - persons you're supposed to hate, simply because they are declared dictators, evil persons, hitlers. No context is provided. And those who object to western imperialism automatically become supporters of these persons, again, without any context. This is so very orwellian: Emmanuel Goldstein and his followers. You need to ignore the names and faces, and analyze things conceptually, namely: their geopolitical meaning.

    And those who object to western imperialism automatically become supporters of these persons, again, without any context.

    By the way, I do not think that people like Karlin or Spencer put the Syrian flag near their Twitter nicknames “automatically”. This is what I meant by “support”.

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

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


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Eric Margolis Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Bin Laden is dead, but his strategy still bleeds the United States.
Egyptians revolted against American rule as well as Mubarak’s.
“America’s strategic and economic interests in the Mideast and Muslim world are being threatened by the agony in Palestine, which inevitably invites terrorist attacks against US citizens and property.”
A menace grows from Bush’s Korean blind spot.
Far from being a model for a “liberated” Iraq, Afghanistan shows how the U.S. can get bogged down Soviet-style.