The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
The Coming Clash with Iran
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
shutterstock_561625642

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

When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House Briefing Room to declare that “we are officially putting Iran on notice,” he drew a red line for President Trump. In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed.

His credibility is now on the line.

And what triggered this virtual ultimatum?

Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship and Tehran tested a missile, undermining “security, prosperity, and stability throughout the Middle East,” placing “American lives at risk.”

But how so?

The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars that they start?

Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?

As for the Iranian missile test, a 2015 U.N. resolution “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles, which Tehran insists this was.

Is the United States making new demands on Iran not written into the nuclear treaty or international law — to provoke a confrontation?

Did Flynn coordinate with our allies about this warning of possible military action against Iran? Is NATO obligated to join any action we might take?

Or are we going to carry out any retaliation alone, as our NATO allies observe, while the Israelis, Gulf Arabs, Saudis and the Beltway War Party, which wishes to be rid of Trump, cheer him on?

Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?

The Saudi king spoke with Trump Sunday. Did he persuade the president to get America more engaged against Iran?

Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker is among those delighted with the White House warning:

“No longer will Iran be given a pass for its repeated ballistic missile violations, continued support of terrorism, human rights abuses and other hostile activities that threaten international peace and security.”

The problem with making a threat public — Iran is “on notice” — is that it makes it almost impossible for Iran, or Trump, to back away.

Tehran seems almost obliged to defy it, especially the demand that it cease testing conventional missiles for its own defense.

This U.S. threat will surely strengthen those Iranians opposed to the nuclear deal and who wish to see its architects, President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, thrown out in this year’s elections.

If Rex Tillerson is not to become a wartime secretary of state like Colin Powell or Dean Rusk, he is going to have to speak to the Iranians, not with defiant declarations, but in a diplomatic dialogue.

Tillerson, of course, is on record as saying the Chinese should be blocked from visiting the half-dozen fortified islets they have built on rocks and reefs in the South China Sea.

A prediction: The Chinese will not be departing from their islands, and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against testing their missiles.

Wednesday’s White House statement makes a collision with Iran almost unavoidable, and a war with Iran quite possible.

Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to do this now?

ORDER IT NOW

There is an awful lot already on the foreign policy plate of the new president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again, and North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real, has yet to be addressed.

High among the reasons that many supported Trump was his understanding that George W. Bush blundered horribly in launching an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq.

Along with the 15-year war in Afghanistan and our wars in Libya, Syria and Yemen, our 21st-century U.S. Mideast wars have cost us trillions of dollars and thousands of dead. And they have produced a harvest of hatred of America that was exploited by al-Qaida and ISIS to recruit jihadists to murder and massacre Westerners.

Osama’s bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.

Unlike the other candidates, Trump seemed to recognize this.

It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it, Obama discovered that his countrymen wanted no part of the war that his military action might bring on.

President Obama backed down — in humiliation.

Neither the Ayatollah Khamenei nor Trump appears to be in a mood to back away, especially now that the president has made the threat public.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of the new book “The Greatest Comeback: How Richard Nixon Rose From Defeat to Create the New Majority.”

Copyright 2017 Creators.com.

 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: Donald Trump, Iran 
Hide 190 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Zod says:

    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @Ram
    Hillary C. was seen as the bigger by far war monger pre-election. However, we will soon be forced to revise our opinions. Trump has surrounded himself with militarists who are oblivious to their own culpability in the ongoing fiasco in the middle east and always end up pointing fingers at others.
    , @Inertriller
    Yes, it is troubling, that only after a month or so, the fake conservatives are doing a double take, joining the fake liberals. It's all a fake team sport, like professional wrestling. The election itself was a fraud, even with the 24/7 marketing screech of the ministry of information (this one really, really, really matters!) 100 million + could care less.

    Better questions and answers:

    Was Trump vetted and approved by the warmongers? Of course.

    Is Trump an independent maverick of some kind? Maybe with Twitter. Otherwise he retains the independent decision making power of any President, which is to say, not much independent power at all.
    , @Aren Haich
    This sort of hot-headed confrontation with Iran on behalf of Israel and Saudi Royals would have probably come after a year or more into a presidency of Hillary Clinton. With Trump it has taken less than 2 weeks!
    , @Jamal
    Thank you Mr. Buchanan. I always used to watch your show on CNN and enjoyed the debate and issues you bring to the public. I was excited when you planned to run for the presidency. I am not an American but I do believe in American values, freedom of speech, liberty and that all people are created equal. America needs to show leadership. It needs to lead through cooperation with other freedom loving nations in order to promote peace in this troubled world. America is the land of open opportunities, the land for immigrants from all over the world with different colors, religions, and cultures. That's what makes America great. Please keep it that's why and don't let the dream dies.
    , @Woofie
    Uh, Pat; you still honestly believe OBL had anything to do wit 9-1?? You were doing well until you referenced OBL doing 9-11. I think we can all agree that OBL was a patsy and that all facts & evidence points to MOSSAD. You just exposed yourself as either a dummy or a troll.
    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
    /pbuchanan/the-coming-clash-with-iran/#comment-1751853
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Old fogey says:

    Thank you, Mr. Buchanan, for this excellent post. I pray that the President and the Secretary of State give it a careful reading.

    Read More
    • Agree: dcthrowback, reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Simonsays
    Indeed! This what will make or break all
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Thank you, Mr. Buchanan.

    One hopes against hope that this is merely a run-up to some treaty negotiations where Iran will give up the testing of long-range missiles and maybe a few other things in exchange for a few minor concessions on our part, so the President can announce he’s kept his promise about renegotiating our nuclear agreement.

    One hopes. Trump’s seeming closeness with the Saudis is quite worrying, though.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  4. nsa says:

    Didn’t take long for Der Trumpster to become a Jooie owned Butt Boy a la Tokyo Rose McCain and Dame Lindsey Graham and in fact the whole congressional harem…..turning the US military into a free auxiliary of the IDF. From Der Trumpster to Der ButtBoy in just one week……..

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete, Rurik
    • Replies: @Z-man
    'Dame Lindsey Graham', LOL!!!
    He's becoming an Israeli firster a la his son in law!
    , @Druid
    Funny and well said
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. nickels says:

    So Trump is a neocon,
    Its over then.
    The world and America are in God’s hands now, may he be merciful.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    I hope you are wrong, good of Buchanan to lay it out so clearly. A war with Iran is not in the US national interest. Not to mention way more expensive than a bad deal.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. utu says:

    We might be finally seeing the true reason why Trump was allowed to be elected. Israel could not get war on Iran under Obama, though they tried three times, so he will get it under Trump.

    Read More
    • Agree: reiner Tor
    • Replies: @Quintus Sertorius
    Amen to that. Trump was allowed to win solely because he must have somehow outbid Hillary (an incredible feat!) in Israeli-first servility. We're sleepwalking into another abyss.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Mark Green says: • Website

    Another prescient analysis by Buchanan. My only complaint is his contention that Obama was “humiliated” by his reversal on Syria. All Obama did was change strategies. Sure, he blinked first. But the US confrontation with Assad went strictly underground. Washington stepped up covert funding of anti-Assad ‘moderates’. Ironically, a lot of these moderates turned out to be Sunni Iraqis–the same people US forces attacked mercilessly during the decade-long, US-initiated Iraq war that began under Bush 43.

    Sure, this strategy did weaken Assad but it failed to achieve the Zio-friendly objective of regime change. The Israelis however did ultimately benefit via the sharp rise in Arab fatalities.

    As for Iran, it looks as though Trump is starting to follow in his predecessor’s footsteps; namely antagonize and demonize Iran in order to please the neocons and neolibs who still rule Washington and control our media.

    Haven’t we seen this song and dance before?

    Trump–like Bush and Obama–is inching closer to bringing the US into another needless Mideast conflict that benefits Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcthrowback
    *zio- turk-ksa-qatari axis
    , @jimbojones
    Nah, he did get humiliated. And for all that, I think that that precise moment was the best moment of the Obama administration. Because that's when Obama, having seen what happened in Libya, took a step back and decided NOT to be a warmongering psychotic Neocon freak. He was still an imperialist; but there are gradations.

    Obama deserves great credit for expressing regret over the Libyan fiasco, and for not giving in to the Neocons over Syria.

    Now let's hope that Trump does not repeat Obama's mistakes. By far the easiest way to ruin his already embattled presidency is to get embroiled in useless conflicts. Especially with nations like Iran, China, and Russia (about whom Hailey mouthed off today).

    By the way, Buchanan was enthusiastic in his support of Trump, and so his worried tone is remarkable. Let's hope Trump chooses peace & prosperity over conflict & carnage.

    , @Wally
    The choice was either a definite Clinton war with Russia or a possible Trump war with Iran.

    Trump speaking in Cincinnati, December 1, 2016:

    "We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. I love it. forgot who called it but it was an article on this very webzine :) trump = changing targets, from russia to iran :) can’t wait to see EU, russia, china and iran vs trump :) that is some odds.

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

    I don’t get it and I don’t like it. Flynn was always a threat to go medieval on Iran, as he considers them the root of Islamic terrorism. However, he didn’t have to jump into it within the first month.

    Trump was the only candidate the wasn’t explicitly part of the neocon obsession with the Middle East. He got elected to fix the borders and quit fighting wars. However, I’m starting to think he is just as stupid as he appears. He seems to need to have a dog in every fight.

    He needs to get focused fast or he won’t last.

    It’s simple. Just say no.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  10. Ben_C says:

    Pat,

    I’m sorry, but I see no compelling evidence of “Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons”. Quite the contrary.

    Did Assad use the “chemical weapons” just to agree to give them up the next day? This obviously makes no sense whatsoever…

    ‘We’ could get into the granular details of all this, but it seems to me the “burden of proof” lies with the accusers here…not the accused…

    I know the US recently went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to disarm his nonexistent WMDs, but I guess that’s another conversation entirely…

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    No Assad dint use CW


    -According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

    The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

    The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC....."

    By -
    Kenneth Timmerman
    President, Foundation for Democracy in Iran


    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/#ixzz4XdP241rY
    , @JoeFour
    Here's a link to an article that concludes Assad did not use chemical weapons but the rebels opposing him did ...

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-opwc-confirms-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/5500017
    , @MarkinLA
    The Assad used chemical weapons meme is so widespread Pat probably thinks he needs to continue it to maintain credibility. All the talking heads repeat it even after confronted with the truth.

    The moron O'Reilly was spouting that as well as the Assad must go nonsense when Dennis Kucinich was trying to educate him and the moron just brushed it off with comment about yes we are helping the rebels but it not that much.

    These people know the US populace is totally clueless and they are way more concerned about keeping their high salary jobs than telling their audience the truth.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. It’s the Regime Change Addiction.

    The very promises to bring back good jobs bump up against the reality that an eviscerated peacetime manufacturing economy, with a societal responsibility to provide economic security to ordinary Americans, simply is no longer viable enough. What remains as a manufacturing base domestically is an anchor that is too heavy to pull up and sail away from – the ever more important military-industrial munitions business. In terms of balance of payments, exporting war is the only ace in the American deck to deal with trade deficits. But the hole is deep and getting deeper – it depends upon expanding as exponentially as the ballooning debt underwritten by inflation. That inflation is masked in statistics by subtracting from it the decline in the standard of living.

    Why does this matter for peace? In an age of “Just Keep Shopping” and “Dow 20,000” memes, the horror of war is not something Americans experience except as a Showtime HBO moment. What they do feel in flyover country is declining infrastructure and precarious personal economics – the reasons why only a billionaire eccentric impervious to elite status quo blandishments could be the piper playing their tune, and lead them to narrow victory despite united neoliberal opposition.

    Trump has to deliver jobs, and quick. The problem is, there can be no peace dividend to making the American global bootprint lighter and bringing the troops back home. Home to a labor market oversaturated with cheap exploited illegal immigrants and heavy on competition between PhD. grads for barista tips? (Even Starbucks announced it’s going to hire 30,000 refugees, courtesy Sanctuary Cities.)

    In the 20th century, foreign war was a Bull Market for the good old U.S. of A. The Great Depression was ended by its own Fash Bash, World War II. Giant peacetime factories mobilized to turn out weaponry on an industrial scale. Labor was so short with the best workers drafted into the military, that women had to fill the positions. Companies had to offer cheap and excellent health care. Not an acre of America suffered destruction, while an unscathed America inherited the spoils of overseas war. The boys came home, the women decamped home and the mighty industrial infrastructure absorbed almost everyone into a prosperity of full employment that made The Depression a distant half-remembered nightmare.

    There is no vast peacetime industrial infrastructure to come home to in the 21st century. Domestic peacetime police work turns out not a good fit for an over-deployed PTSD ex-soldier force, even with first dibs at it, too often thinking they’re still fighting it out in Sadr City. And in a way they are, strafed by snipers at Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

    If the new administration wants America to come home, there’s no welcome, just more unabsorbable drones in a Wall Street and Silicon papered over economy that neither wants or needs them. Instead of jobs coming home, more unemployment coming home.

    When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else.

    And while the jobs could come home if we could convince elites they should, and there’s our will to do it, (since decisions were made to offshore, decisions can be made again to onshore), it can’t happen fast enough for demobilization to occur at just the same time. And seriously, not while absorbing ever more immigrants competing for the same jobs at the same time, but even more desperate.

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.

    I hope someone can prove me wrong. The wars are morally bankrupt and that bankruptcy will eventually be economic. It’s essential that even if the politicians can’t get the flyover folks to sign on to waiting any longer after all they’ve had to endure, they must still get real and figure out how to bring good paying non-military-industrial work back for everyone who needs and wants it, so that eventually the insane reliance on Full Spectrum Global Dominance to power the American economy can be throttled down in Norquistian terms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    You left out the enormous amount of scab labor known as nonwhite legal immigrants and their US born children...
    , @annamaria
    "When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else."
    True. America is short on patriots. Plus the system has been rewarding the high-functioning psychopaths (see the Wall Street thieving titans of finance and the Insurance, Pharma, and Agro corporations). This is why the US is such an easy prey for ziocons (it is amazing how well the US citizenry tolerates the US government that is thoroughly corrupt by the Lobby). And this is why the US/NATO brass are so puzzled by the "curious" patriotism of Russians.
    When a Tokyo-Rose McCain (from a family of a betrayer of the USSLiberty martyrs) is hailed as a war hero and the "deciders" of bloody interventions abroad are mostly armchair warriors like the perfumed villain Morell and such, then the concepts of "defense of motherland" and "heroism" become nothing by curiosities.
    , @geokat62

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.
     
    So, the primary driver, according to Fran, is an economic one. Trouble with this explanation, Fran, is that it diminishes the significant role played by The Lobby. According to Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, The Lobby pushed for these wars in the ME not for economic reasons, as you claim, but to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby... and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. I give Trump a lot of credit for being smart and wily, and I tend to overlook the things he says in favor of the things he actually does. I don’t agree with Pat that he won’t back down – he may recolor it differently to save face, but he does back down. Note that he is already redrawing the picture of how the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem – now he says that there are two sides to this. The end result will be some watered down version of the original vow.

    I am positive that Trump knows that a war with Iran would be a complete disaster for us and would not have the support of this war-weary nation. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a large population in a country of mountainous terrain that is not hospitable to invaders. They are also now armed with the S-300 missile defense system from Russia since last October that would make mincemeat out of Israeli and US aerial attacks. Iran also has a vast array of missiles that can lay waste to Israel in short order. Their ‘swarm boats’ would decimate our fleet in the gulf, shutting it down and plunging the world into an economic crisis.

    And what makes us think that Russia and China would sit idly by and allow us to do this? Oh, and by the way, those guys have nukes too. It would probably trigger an attack on Israel from their neighbors who have advanced their military capabilities significantly since 1967. Remember how Israel’s forays into Lebanon ended with them retreating with their tail between their legs, and their much vaunted Markava tanks (so-called ‘God’s Chariot’) were laid waste in the desert with around 40 of them razed to the ground by Hezbollah guerillas?

    Nope, I don’t expect Trump to go to war with Iran – it’s bad for business and Trump is all about business. Pay no attention to the words that come out of his mouth, just watch his hands and feet.

    Let’s not forget that Trump is all about populism. He is doing something about barring refugees from our borders because that is what the people elected him for. He will build a wall (or something close) on our southern border because that is what the people who elected him want. Everything he has done so far has been compatible with what the people who elected him want.

    The people who elected him don’t want to go to another war, so he is not going to do it. Note how he lambasted McCain and Graham about wanting to start WW3? He wouldn’t follow that up by doing it himself, no siree. The people who elected him want our troops back home and his people are working furiously to make that happen as soon as possible. Everything else is just fodder for the media and his detractors. He is filling the airwaves with noise so that it dilutes the attacks of the opposition and distracts them while he goes about the business of draining the swamp.

    Trump is not suicidal, and an attack on Iran would be the most imbecilic of self-destructive moves that he could make. Not gonna happen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @dcthrowback
    Still, would be nice if kept a tighter leash on his #teamJSOC pitbulls.

    But I agree, POTUS TRUMP deserves a longer leash after the election and his first two weeks in office.
    , @Chu
    He's definitely being unpredictable. I agree that waging a battle with Iran would be ludicrous - especially after he spoke about the disastrous wars wage by Bush and Co in Iraq. Who wants another quagmire?

    But Iran has a right to their own defense. Why bother telling them what they can do...
    , @Z-man
    Hope you're right, but the force of 'the dark side' is strong in the beltway!
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    As I said in my original post above, Pat is wrong and Trump does back down, even if recoloring his original vow. Here is another example of that:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/376384-cia-prisons-us-reopen/

    There will be no attack on Iran.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. “We had to destroy humanity in order to save it”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. abner says:

    Trump has a true silent majority on issues like immigration, “law and order”, mass media partisanship.

    But it will all evaporate in a moment with yet another idiotic war and unleash endless amounts of naked Democrat revanchism. Whatever Israeli and Saudi political advantage they think they’re going to get from this bellicosity is trivial.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  15. If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Well, two additional thoughts — things could be a lot worse, we could have Hillary.

    And secondly, we have Bannon, Sessions, and Miller. We have hope. And even better, we have reason for hope. If Trump can turn around on Likud, anything is possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years in influential positions in numerous administrations.

    Pat Buchanan's column and articles were published for years and years in newspapers and magazines throughout the US.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years running for President and all he accomplished was the election of George Dubya Bush.

    And yet, here we are.

    Maybe there is something wrong with the Pat Buchanan approach.

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

    “As our NATO allies observe..”

    What allies? Oh, you mean those that Trump and his team denigrated and called names all year last year? Now he wants them to fight Iran for him and Israel? No, thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @elmysterio
    The United States doesn't have allies... it has vassals.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The absence of Saudi Arabia on the list of travel-ban countries is exhibit one that SA, not Russia, continues to be the principal paymaster of the US regime. The fretting over the Houthi attack on the SA ship is exhibit two. As for Iran, while SA might be the paymaster, it seems to be that Israelis are the puppetmasters. Trump has already allowed himself to be dragged into keeping the US mired in the region for the rest of his reign. God save us all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    yes, "Israelis are the puppet masters."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  18. Brabantian says: • Website

    Sadly, Donald Trump has begun mass killing of civilians like Obama did, Trump extending support of Israeli & some Saudi agendas, above all the ‘Oded Yinon’ plan of breaking up mid-east countries to better serve oligarch-serving Israeli mafias in their op centre … strongest regional rival nation is Iran, hence its targeting

    Killing Muslim women & children like Obama, Trump must know he is creating thousands more ‘terrorists’ … See the touching photo of 8-year-old girl Nora Al-Awlaki just killed under Trump’s orders in Yemen, her violent death by bullets fired by a US marine at close range … Nora bleeding to death for 2 hours, the brave little girl as she lay dying, even trying to comfort her tearful mother:

    “Nawar was shot several times, one bullet piercing her neck. She suffered & was bleeding for two hours because it was not possible to get her medical attention … Nawar was reassuring her mother as she was bleeding, ‘Don’t cry mama, I’m fine, I’m fine’” … According to medical sources on the ground, 30 people were killed by US soldiers, 10 of them women & children … Hailing the operation as a ‘success’, Trump & the US are preoccupied with the death of one US serviceman who was killed.”

    Arab media is running stories that Bashar Assad in Syria has had a stroke, & the TV-loving Assad had not appeared personally to buttress the official denials. Strokes are apparently easily induced now by CIA-Mossad tech … Assad could be hit by Israeli agents in the Russian entourage … A dirty deal by Mossad-Chabad-Netanyahu-tied Vladimir Putin to balkanise Syria, going along with Trump & Israel here like he indulged taking down & killing Qaddafi in Libya?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    Her death and her dignity will be the hell of her murderers in another life!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. bob elia says:

    Unpredictable. Loose cannon. He says one thing then does another. We are heading for big trouble. The one percent as well as the others. Maybe it’s bye bye American pie?
    Unfortunately for mankind is that while we are at war impeachment would be doubly difficult.
    Put on your seat belts everybody.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  20. Geeze Louise,

    Osama Bin Laden conducted the minor 911 event but everything that came after it was a hyper-successful ‘goad’ that induced supposedly reluctant M’urkans into the present quagmire? Dementia (1), Buchanan (0).

    Potential comment would exceed bandwidth. How about a little comic relief such as the capture and execution of said super genius. The respectful burial at sea was a real knee slapper.

    Cheers-

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Druid
    Sorry, it was an inside job.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  21. annamaria says:

    Saudi Arabia has been supporting terrorism for decades, the same terrorism that the US citizens have been losing their lives to. (9/11 anybody? what about the lives and $ trillions lost to the phony “war on terror?”) But because Saudis are perfect allies for Israel (and for certain prominent politicians in the US), the US citizenry must jump high against Iran. Here is a question to the Israel-occupied US Congress: Since when Iran is a danger to the US?
    The ongoing open provocation of Russian Federation along its western borders could lead to the annihilation of a large segment of humanity by nuclear weapons and to heavy contamination of the planet with radioactive materials. It seems that the US “warriors” have a particular dislike for the Europeans and European civilization.
    We are facing an unholy alliance of ziocons, banksters, and war profiteers, including the US/NATO brass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  22. Renoman says:

    How many enemy’s do you guys need? Yer lookin like the World idiot AGAIN just when I thought there might be a pause in the endless stupidity of America’s foreign policy.

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

    The US-promoted war crimes against civilians in eastern Ukraine: http://thesaker.is/the-ukronazis-used-a-ballistic-missile-to-strike-at-the-center-of-donetsk/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  24. KenH says:

    It’s barely been two weeks and Trump is already channeling his inner George W. Bush and inner Bibi on Middle East foreign policy. Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign or is getting really bad advice from Mike Flynn and others.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?

    This probably let’s the cat out of the bag as to who’s driving Trumps actions. Israel manipulated the U.S. into destroying Iraq and nearly destroying Syria and now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.

    Trump can’t simultaneously MAGA and continue to serve as muscle 24/7/365 for the state of Israel. One will come at the expense of the other and if I was a betting man I’d say the American people will be forced to take a back seat to Trump and Jared Kushner’s dearly beloved Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    { Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign....}

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
    Trump said the Deal with Iran was bad and that he was going to do something about it.
    Whatever that something is.


    { now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.}

    Ain't gonna happen.
    Russia forced Neocon warmongers to back down in distant Syria, and so far so good there.
    Russia is not going to allow anyone to wreck a country right on her highly sensitive Southern underbelly.
    As Flynn said: "Nothing is off the table" - for Russia also, when it comes to Iran.

    West (US&EU) did everything - short of open war - to bring Russia to heel.
    Assault on the ruble, sanctions, oil price manipulation, false accusations, upheaval in Ukraine,,.....
    Nothing worked: Russia came out of it in better shape and stronger.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran, but he appears to be a rational man, despite his bluster, and doubt he will start anything that will force Russia to respond with full force.
    A very Bad Deal for people of America for sure.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. The Sihk prostitute….Nikki Haley….. issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday….

    Trump=war with Christian Russia…

    Read More
    • Replies: @nickels
    Exactly. Trump appears to have gone full neocon.
    , @reuphen
    Trump is going to force you back into the closet, there Brokeback!
    , @Seamus Padraig

    The Sihk prostitute….Nikki Haley….. issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday….
     
    You'd almost get the impression she has some kind of allergy against St. Andrew's Cross ...

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9a/Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg/2000px-Confederate_Rebel_Flag.svg.png

    http://info-news.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Novorossia-terrorist-organization-flag.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Fran Macadam
    It’s the Regime Change Addiction.

    The very promises to bring back good jobs bump up against the reality that an eviscerated peacetime manufacturing economy, with a societal responsibility to provide economic security to ordinary Americans, simply is no longer viable enough. What remains as a manufacturing base domestically is an anchor that is too heavy to pull up and sail away from – the ever more important military-industrial munitions business. In terms of balance of payments, exporting war is the only ace in the American deck to deal with trade deficits. But the hole is deep and getting deeper – it depends upon expanding as exponentially as the ballooning debt underwritten by inflation. That inflation is masked in statistics by subtracting from it the decline in the standard of living.

    Why does this matter for peace? In an age of “Just Keep Shopping” and “Dow 20,000” memes, the horror of war is not something Americans experience except as a Showtime HBO moment. What they do feel in flyover country is declining infrastructure and precarious personal economics – the reasons why only a billionaire eccentric impervious to elite status quo blandishments could be the piper playing their tune, and lead them to narrow victory despite united neoliberal opposition.

    Trump has to deliver jobs, and quick. The problem is, there can be no peace dividend to making the American global bootprint lighter and bringing the troops back home. Home to a labor market oversaturated with cheap exploited illegal immigrants and heavy on competition between PhD. grads for barista tips? (Even Starbucks announced it’s going to hire 30,000 refugees, courtesy Sanctuary Cities.)

    In the 20th century, foreign war was a Bull Market for the good old U.S. of A. The Great Depression was ended by its own Fash Bash, World War II. Giant peacetime factories mobilized to turn out weaponry on an industrial scale. Labor was so short with the best workers drafted into the military, that women had to fill the positions. Companies had to offer cheap and excellent health care. Not an acre of America suffered destruction, while an unscathed America inherited the spoils of overseas war. The boys came home, the women decamped home and the mighty industrial infrastructure absorbed almost everyone into a prosperity of full employment that made The Depression a distant half-remembered nightmare.

    There is no vast peacetime industrial infrastructure to come home to in the 21st century. Domestic peacetime police work turns out not a good fit for an over-deployed PTSD ex-soldier force, even with first dibs at it, too often thinking they’re still fighting it out in Sadr City. And in a way they are, strafed by snipers at Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

    If the new administration wants America to come home, there’s no welcome, just more unabsorbable drones in a Wall Street and Silicon papered over economy that neither wants or needs them. Instead of jobs coming home, more unemployment coming home.

    When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else.

    And while the jobs could come home if we could convince elites they should, and there’s our will to do it, (since decisions were made to offshore, decisions can be made again to onshore), it can’t happen fast enough for demobilization to occur at just the same time. And seriously, not while absorbing ever more immigrants competing for the same jobs at the same time, but even more desperate.

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.

    I hope someone can prove me wrong. The wars are morally bankrupt and that bankruptcy will eventually be economic. It’s essential that even if the politicians can’t get the flyover folks to sign on to waiting any longer after all they’ve had to endure, they must still get real and figure out how to bring good paying non-military-industrial work back for everyone who needs and wants it, so that eventually the insane reliance on Full Spectrum Global Dominance to power the American economy can be throttled down in Norquistian terms.

    You left out the enormous amount of scab labor known as nonwhite legal immigrants and their US born children…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn't one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet. Those who want an excuse for Helter Skelter can go play with that elsewhere, far from where they can't play nice with others. But some people are just itching for a fight. For the forseeable future they can join up to kill and be killed, as I pointed out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Let’s be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bobzilla

    Let’s be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.
     
    Don't forget the 2,000 year grudge against Christians. If we go to war with Iran they get to punish two birds with one stone.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. Ram says:
    @Zod
    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    Hillary C. was seen as the bigger by far war monger pre-election. However, we will soon be forced to revise our opinions. Trump has surrounded himself with militarists who are oblivious to their own culpability in the ongoing fiasco in the middle east and always end up pointing fingers at others.

    Read More
    • Replies: @El Dato
    This seems to be the appalling truth.

    Is anyone supporting the administration in this except Israel-controlled local bots?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Will Jews in USA be blamed & attacked if Trump attacks Iran?

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    Will Jews in USA be blamed & attacked if Trump attacks Iran?
     
    Hey, I've been told, by Zio-sympathizers, not to sweat stuff like this because, hey, stuff like that happens. In any case, even if neocon Jews, Zionists, or Israel Firsters were to blame, we all know that the Eternal Victim cannot be held accountable. They're "Chosen" to be special, and exempt from all possibility of wrong-doing doncha ya know.

    Heaven forbid.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Would that Pat Buchanan were Secretary of State or better yet President!

    Pleased that Pres. Trump won the election, but he is no Pat Buchanan and while a clever man, there are others more clever than he lurking in the shadows, all too ready and willing to subvert his presidency. The swamp awaits cleaning, the nation awaits rebuilding, the voters await reaffirmation of words with deeds. His words on Iran, however, would be best undone.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Avery says:
    @KenH
    It's barely been two weeks and Trump is already channeling his inner George W. Bush and inner Bibi on Middle East foreign policy. Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign or is getting really bad advice from Mike Flynn and others.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    This probably let's the cat out of the bag as to who's driving Trumps actions. Israel manipulated the U.S. into destroying Iraq and nearly destroying Syria and now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.

    Trump can't simultaneously MAGA and continue to serve as muscle 24/7/365 for the state of Israel. One will come at the expense of the other and if I was a betting man I'd say the American people will be forced to take a back seat to Trump and Jared Kushner's dearly beloved Israel.

    { Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign….}

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
    Trump said the Deal with Iran was bad and that he was going to do something about it.
    Whatever that something is.

    { now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.}

    Ain’t gonna happen.
    Russia forced Neocon warmongers to back down in distant Syria, and so far so good there.
    Russia is not going to allow anyone to wreck a country right on her highly sensitive Southern underbelly.
    As Flynn said: “Nothing is off the table” – for Russia also, when it comes to Iran.

    West (US&EU) did everything – short of open war – to bring Russia to heel.
    Assault on the ruble, sanctions, oil price manipulation, false accusations, upheaval in Ukraine,,…..
    Nothing worked: Russia came out of it in better shape and stronger.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran, but he appears to be a rational man, despite his bluster, and doubt he will start anything that will force Russia to respond with full force.
    A very Bad Deal for people of America for sure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran...
     
    Hey, Avery. Did you really mean what you wrote, "no idea"?
    , @ogunsiron
    I also never really got the Iran obsession.
    "taking out" Iran may be what Trump's end of the deal he struck with the likud types (Adelson, Netanyahu, Horowitz, etc) ? Not good, at all.
    , @KenH

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
     
    His comments were limited to the Iran nuclear deal. There were no talks of red lines, putting them "on notice" for conducting military exercises and possibly resorting to war causing sanctions or gunboat diplomacy.

    He's been the biggest critic of pointless middle east wars yet he's not learning from past mistakes of Dubya and Hussein and could possibly blunder into another pointless middle east war of his own m making.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Agent76 says:

    All part of the Pentagons plan for a very long time. Just listen if anything to Clark.

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned – Seven Countries In Five Years

    “This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well, don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

    July 23, 2006 Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-2001-pentagon-plan-to-attack-lebanon/2797

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    2001 - A DECADE LATE

    The video you posted (Gen. Wesley Clark on Dem. Now) is widely known, but Clark told this story many times and the talk he gave for the Commonwealth Club of California is much more revealing.
    Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E
    General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years
    , @MEexpert

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
     
    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,
     
    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don't believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn't want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don't know the answer to that. One doesn't have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. I have been trying to figure out the inconsistency for a while now. Trump supposedly wants to be friends with Russia and sees ISIS as our greatest threat. Iran is cooperating with Russia to destroy ISIS. But now we want to reopen hostilities with Iran? Does Trump think he can drive a wedge between Russian and Iran? As long as Turkey remains in NATO, Iran is the single most powerful ally Russia can hope to have in the Middle East. Russia will not sacrifice that to join in an alliance against China, a country they need to be on good terms with.

    Obviously Israel can’t be very happy with the US being friendly with Iran. So who is really driving policy in the White House?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  34. Hey, the solution to everything is a wall and tariffs, doncha know?!!!

    Trump is de Messiah!

    Uuuuurp!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. @War for Blair Mountain
    You left out the enormous amount of scab labor known as nonwhite legal immigrants and their US born children...

    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn’t one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet. Those who want an excuse for Helter Skelter can go play with that elsewhere, far from where they can’t play nice with others. But some people are just itching for a fight. For the forseeable future they can join up to kill and be killed, as I pointed out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Nonwhites will not be abandoning hardcore racial identity politics anytime soon...they never will.


    It is going to end very badly.

    The consequences of being voted into a White racial minority...by nonwhite legal immigrants and their US born children....in post-white toilet "America" are going to be quite nasty and unbearable. It will be perceived for what it actually is:an invasion and occupation...and the Historic Native Born White American Majority will act accordingly.


    Without a doubt...Trump's jobs program for Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Males is a tour of duty in the Muslim World and the Ukraine....Oliver's Army=meet Trump's Army=Trump and the lovely Melania paying their respects to the aluminum coffins that contain the bodies of Native Born White American Teenage Working Class Males laid out in a USAF jumbo cargo plane....it has alteady started.....
    , @Randal

    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn’t one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet.
     
    So long as you meekly accept the basically leftist notion of "racism" as an inherent evil and political taboo in a desperate hope that you will thereby remain respectable, any analysis of the world you make will be incomplete.

    You can dislike "identity politics" all you like, but no matter how much you ignore and deny it, it will continue to exist and it won't ignore you.

    That's not to say that white identity advocates are necessarily correct, merely that the issues they raise (such as the evil and harm inherent in mass immigration and in national "diversity") are real.

    For instance, if you think that you can explain the Iraq war by reference to economics alone, without accounting for the crucial influence of the Israel lobby for fear of being deemed racist (in its most extremely taboo form of "antisemitism"), then you are simply wrong. There were far too many influential figures within the Bush regime and the US media pushing for war, who were clearly and openly motivated by Israeli interests, for your position to be tenable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. nickels says:

    If anyone doubts Trump has gone full neocon just look at Niki Haley’s picking up the same lies demonizing Russia over Crimea, without missing a beat from the Obama administration.

    One will notice that, in the Hannity interview one week after taking office, Trump had a weird sort of disturbed way about him. Somewhat subdued and introspective, very uncharacteristic for him.

    It is my personal belief that he received threats against himself or his family from the deep state that first week, basically commanding him to go along with the neocon agenda of suffer the consequences.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    "One of Yale's* assignments was to follow Wilson's preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann "somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919," and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
    Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, "If they don't," he said, "we'll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire." "
     
    -from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_john.html
    Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain's Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild
    By Robert John
    (h/t LondonBob http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/#comment-1749793)

    Zionism, particularly Revisionist zionism, was conceived in sin, a bad seed that has produced only bitter fruit. It's past time to harrow the field.

    -----
    * William Yale was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War and author of "The Near East: A Modern History."
    , @bullbearpig
    Trump has always been deep state. What was the very first thing he did immediately after being sworn in?...he went to the CIA to kiss the rings of his masters and their agenda.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. nickels says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The Sihk prostitute....Nikki Haley..... issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday....


    Trump=war with Christian Russia...

    Exactly. Trump appears to have gone full neocon.

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

    quoting this post from TAC-

    MEexpert says:
    February 1, 2017 at 2:37 am
    I am not surprised by the “Fake News” reporting by FOX. FOX is the beehive of neocons and they are itching to get into war with Iran. With Hillary they would have gotten it too. 
    Tonight on his show “O’Reilly Factor,” in answering the question by one of his listeners as to why Saudi Arabia was not included in the list of countries, O’Reilly answered, with a straight face, because Saudi Arabia is fighting Al-Qaeda in Yemen. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/sloppy-western-reporting-and-the-war-on-yemen/

    It has been some 16 yrs since 911 and since resulting war-vitriol draped atmosphere all around us mortgaged our intelligence to the PNAC gang , it is still enveloping our mind.

    What has it achieved ? Saudi was once the main target They bought the Israeli lobby in America to fend off those attacks because their lobbies couldn’t achieve the support at the grassroots and at the media level . Now they are off the hook Their fear and paranoia about potential US attack were much resolved to their satisfaction . One would expect them to cut their losses take a hike and stay quiet . Is someone blackmailing them to ramp up pressure against Iran ? It is equally possible they are doing it without any Israeli pressure .

    But the broader implication is this – how many times America will ratchet up pressure on contrived enemy until that enemy goes to Israel pays it and buys protection. Will Iran do it? Will tomorrow Pakistan , Sudan or Indonesia will do it ? And if they don’t ? So the American and muslim countries fight , “terrorism” index climbs up, anti Christian hatred and killings rake in more tolls in ME and Pakistan , while the Red states or some crazy in Quebec kills some muslims ( FOX supplies the truth there – yeah these Foxine bastards favorite of the “conservative” morons ) Who benefits ????

    Fox loves America!! Does it? This comment by O’Reily is a slap an affront to American memory . Only bought and paid shill could do this

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  39. annamaria says:
    @Fran Macadam
    It’s the Regime Change Addiction.

    The very promises to bring back good jobs bump up against the reality that an eviscerated peacetime manufacturing economy, with a societal responsibility to provide economic security to ordinary Americans, simply is no longer viable enough. What remains as a manufacturing base domestically is an anchor that is too heavy to pull up and sail away from – the ever more important military-industrial munitions business. In terms of balance of payments, exporting war is the only ace in the American deck to deal with trade deficits. But the hole is deep and getting deeper – it depends upon expanding as exponentially as the ballooning debt underwritten by inflation. That inflation is masked in statistics by subtracting from it the decline in the standard of living.

    Why does this matter for peace? In an age of “Just Keep Shopping” and “Dow 20,000” memes, the horror of war is not something Americans experience except as a Showtime HBO moment. What they do feel in flyover country is declining infrastructure and precarious personal economics – the reasons why only a billionaire eccentric impervious to elite status quo blandishments could be the piper playing their tune, and lead them to narrow victory despite united neoliberal opposition.

    Trump has to deliver jobs, and quick. The problem is, there can be no peace dividend to making the American global bootprint lighter and bringing the troops back home. Home to a labor market oversaturated with cheap exploited illegal immigrants and heavy on competition between PhD. grads for barista tips? (Even Starbucks announced it’s going to hire 30,000 refugees, courtesy Sanctuary Cities.)

    In the 20th century, foreign war was a Bull Market for the good old U.S. of A. The Great Depression was ended by its own Fash Bash, World War II. Giant peacetime factories mobilized to turn out weaponry on an industrial scale. Labor was so short with the best workers drafted into the military, that women had to fill the positions. Companies had to offer cheap and excellent health care. Not an acre of America suffered destruction, while an unscathed America inherited the spoils of overseas war. The boys came home, the women decamped home and the mighty industrial infrastructure absorbed almost everyone into a prosperity of full employment that made The Depression a distant half-remembered nightmare.

    There is no vast peacetime industrial infrastructure to come home to in the 21st century. Domestic peacetime police work turns out not a good fit for an over-deployed PTSD ex-soldier force, even with first dibs at it, too often thinking they’re still fighting it out in Sadr City. And in a way they are, strafed by snipers at Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

    If the new administration wants America to come home, there’s no welcome, just more unabsorbable drones in a Wall Street and Silicon papered over economy that neither wants or needs them. Instead of jobs coming home, more unemployment coming home.

    When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else.

    And while the jobs could come home if we could convince elites they should, and there’s our will to do it, (since decisions were made to offshore, decisions can be made again to onshore), it can’t happen fast enough for demobilization to occur at just the same time. And seriously, not while absorbing ever more immigrants competing for the same jobs at the same time, but even more desperate.

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.

    I hope someone can prove me wrong. The wars are morally bankrupt and that bankruptcy will eventually be economic. It’s essential that even if the politicians can’t get the flyover folks to sign on to waiting any longer after all they’ve had to endure, they must still get real and figure out how to bring good paying non-military-industrial work back for everyone who needs and wants it, so that eventually the insane reliance on Full Spectrum Global Dominance to power the American economy can be throttled down in Norquistian terms.

    “When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else.”
    True. America is short on patriots. Plus the system has been rewarding the high-functioning psychopaths (see the Wall Street thieving titans of finance and the Insurance, Pharma, and Agro corporations). This is why the US is such an easy prey for ziocons (it is amazing how well the US citizenry tolerates the US government that is thoroughly corrupt by the Lobby). And this is why the US/NATO brass are so puzzled by the “curious” patriotism of Russians.
    When a Tokyo-Rose McCain (from a family of a betrayer of the USSLiberty martyrs) is hailed as a war hero and the “deciders” of bloody interventions abroad are mostly armchair warriors like the perfumed villain Morell and such, then the concepts of “defense of motherland” and “heroism” become nothing by curiosities.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    It’s the Regime Change Addiction.

    The very promises to bring back good jobs bump up against the reality that an eviscerated peacetime manufacturing economy, with a societal responsibility to provide economic security to ordinary Americans, simply is no longer viable enough. What remains as a manufacturing base domestically is an anchor that is too heavy to pull up and sail away from – the ever more important military-industrial munitions business. In terms of balance of payments, exporting war is the only ace in the American deck to deal with trade deficits. But the hole is deep and getting deeper – it depends upon expanding as exponentially as the ballooning debt underwritten by inflation. That inflation is masked in statistics by subtracting from it the decline in the standard of living.

    Why does this matter for peace? In an age of “Just Keep Shopping” and “Dow 20,000” memes, the horror of war is not something Americans experience except as a Showtime HBO moment. What they do feel in flyover country is declining infrastructure and precarious personal economics – the reasons why only a billionaire eccentric impervious to elite status quo blandishments could be the piper playing their tune, and lead them to narrow victory despite united neoliberal opposition.

    Trump has to deliver jobs, and quick. The problem is, there can be no peace dividend to making the American global bootprint lighter and bringing the troops back home. Home to a labor market oversaturated with cheap exploited illegal immigrants and heavy on competition between PhD. grads for barista tips? (Even Starbucks announced it’s going to hire 30,000 refugees, courtesy Sanctuary Cities.)

    In the 20th century, foreign war was a Bull Market for the good old U.S. of A. The Great Depression was ended by its own Fash Bash, World War II. Giant peacetime factories mobilized to turn out weaponry on an industrial scale. Labor was so short with the best workers drafted into the military, that women had to fill the positions. Companies had to offer cheap and excellent health care. Not an acre of America suffered destruction, while an unscathed America inherited the spoils of overseas war. The boys came home, the women decamped home and the mighty industrial infrastructure absorbed almost everyone into a prosperity of full employment that made The Depression a distant half-remembered nightmare.

    There is no vast peacetime industrial infrastructure to come home to in the 21st century. Domestic peacetime police work turns out not a good fit for an over-deployed PTSD ex-soldier force, even with first dibs at it, too often thinking they’re still fighting it out in Sadr City. And in a way they are, strafed by snipers at Black Lives Matter demonstrations.

    If the new administration wants America to come home, there’s no welcome, just more unabsorbable drones in a Wall Street and Silicon papered over economy that neither wants or needs them. Instead of jobs coming home, more unemployment coming home.

    When Ronald Reagan ran for Governor of California fifty years ago, he could credibly say, “The businessmen of Los Angeles recognize their responsibility to provide good jobs for their community, so that families can take care of themselves.” No current CEO thinks that, it’s not in the job description. His/her responsibility is to maximize profits for investors alone, and his own job depends on beggaring his American neighbor, if he’s even in the country much. Theirs is no sense any longer that the system is designed for anything else.

    And while the jobs could come home if we could convince elites they should, and there’s our will to do it, (since decisions were made to offshore, decisions can be made again to onshore), it can’t happen fast enough for demobilization to occur at just the same time. And seriously, not while absorbing ever more immigrants competing for the same jobs at the same time, but even more desperate.

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.

    I hope someone can prove me wrong. The wars are morally bankrupt and that bankruptcy will eventually be economic. It’s essential that even if the politicians can’t get the flyover folks to sign on to waiting any longer after all they’ve had to endure, they must still get real and figure out how to bring good paying non-military-industrial work back for everyone who needs and wants it, so that eventually the insane reliance on Full Spectrum Global Dominance to power the American economy can be throttled down in Norquistian terms.

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.

    So, the primary driver, according to Fran, is an economic one. Trouble with this explanation, Fran, is that it diminishes the significant role played by The Lobby. According to Mearsheimer and Walt’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, The Lobby pushed for these wars in the ME not for economic reasons, as you claim, but to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby… and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    The poor sods in the economic precariat between the coasts didn't vote for Trump because of kabbalah magic. Some conspiratists have their noses out of joint because they can't see past the end of somebody else's. If an elite buys politics, it's not because of their ethnicity, it's because they have money. In that way the rich are more like each other, than you or me.
    , @Che Guava
    Mr. Buchanan,

    I have been following the news on this, was hoping that the Trump admin. would be good for the people of your nation, and the world, but always suspicious that it would not, because of the support for the continued colonial subvervience of the US to Israel and the painting of Iran as an automatic enemy.

    pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again
     
    That is a rubbish statement, your antipathy to orthodoxy as opposed to the Roman church seems to inspire it. The Ukrainian puppet government forces have been firing artillery at Donetsk and Lukhansk since the chocolate baron was appointed, by US neocons, as the president after a coup d'etat. As I say, I have long respected you, but you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox). It is no surprise that they finally started firing back after being fired upon in violation of the Minsk treaty for the time since then.

    North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real</i

    From accounts of the North Korean programme in Japanese, it is unlikely that any of their bomb tests have been of a weapon of the scale of Fat Man or Little Boy. Neither are they scalable to fit the tIp of an ICBM.

    Iran, if you have met and conversed with Persians, regime supporters too (I use 'regime' for a reason, the Islamists used, subverted and shoved aside the other participants against the Shah, or not) they are generally decent people.

    Unlike most places in the region, including Israel of now, they have had relathve peace for years, as many Persians, I dislike the Islamic state of Iran, but you would have to be a great fool to not see that they are the most enlightened people in the region, and that specifically includes Israelis, how horribly superior they are, groundlessly.

    Sure, the mullocrasy in Persia of now suppresses their own true religion (Zoroastrianism), but unlike Israel, where Jewish people spit on and beat Christians, including priests and monks, many disagree with the state established by Khomeinh.
    , @Randal

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby… and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.
     
    Surely both can be true?

    The primary driver of particular wars and confrontations, including Iraq, certainly has been the Israel lobby. To deny that can surely only be perverse or dishonest.

    But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US's general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole).

    The latter makes the task of the lobbies pushing for particular wars and confrontations relatively easy, of course.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. annamaria says:
    @The Alarmist
    The absence of Saudi Arabia on the list of travel-ban countries is exhibit one that SA, not Russia, continues to be the principal paymaster of the US regime. The fretting over the Houthi attack on the SA ship is exhibit two. As for Iran, while SA might be the paymaster, it seems to be that Israelis are the puppetmasters. Trump has already allowed himself to be dragged into keeping the US mired in the region for the rest of his reign. God save us all.

    yes, “Israelis are the puppet masters.”

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

    Trump wants to keep the “bad dude” out. But the path to the good intention is strewn with dead bodies and corpses – of men and mind -cluttering the drive He won’t reach there -that’s for sure . But will take us where he promised not to take us ?

    ” 2008 Pentagon-funded Rand report proposed a precise blueprint for what was about to happen. That report observes that control of the Persian Gulf oil and gas deposits will remain, for the U.S., “a strategic priority” that “will interact strongly with that of prosecuting the long war.” Rand recommended using “covert action, information operations, unconventional warfare” to enforce a “divide and rule” strategy. “The United States and its local allies could use the nationalist jihadists to launch a proxy campaign” and “U.S. leaders could also choose to capitalize on the sustained Shia-Sunni conflict trajectory by taking the side of the conservative Sunni regimes against Shiite empowerment movements in the Muslim world … possibly supporting authoritative Sunni governments against a continuingly hostile Iran.”

    http://www.politico.eu/article/why-the-arabs-dont-want-us-in-syria-mideast-conflict-oil-intervention/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  43. KA says:
    @Ben_C
    Pat,

    I'm sorry, but I see no compelling evidence of "Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons". Quite the contrary.

    Did Assad use the "chemical weapons" just to agree to give them up the next day? This obviously makes no sense whatsoever...

    'We' could get into the granular details of all this, but it seems to me the "burden of proof" lies with the accusers here...not the accused...

    I know the US recently went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to disarm his nonexistent WMDs, but I guess that's another conversation entirely...

    No Assad dint use CW

    -According to these officers, who served in top positions in the United States, Britain, France, Israel, and Jordan, a Syrian military communication intercepted by Israel’s famed Unit 8200 electronic intelligence outfit has been doctored so that it leads a reader to just the opposite conclusion reached by the original report.

    The doctored report was leaked to a private Internet-based newsletter that boasts of close ties to the Israeli intelligence community, and led to news reports that the United States now had firm evidence showing that the Syrian government had ordered the chemical weapons attack on August 21 against a rebel-controlled suburb of Damascus.

    The doctored report was picked up on Israel’s Channel 2 TV on Aug. 24, then by Focus magazine in Germany, the Times of Israel, and eventually by The Cable in Washington, DC…..”

    By -
    Kenneth Timmerman
    President, Foundation for Democracy in Iran

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2013/08/29/verify-chemical-weapons-use-before-unleashing-the-dogs-of-war/#ixzz4XdP241rY

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. geokat62 says:
    @Avery
    { Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign....}

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
    Trump said the Deal with Iran was bad and that he was going to do something about it.
    Whatever that something is.


    { now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.}

    Ain't gonna happen.
    Russia forced Neocon warmongers to back down in distant Syria, and so far so good there.
    Russia is not going to allow anyone to wreck a country right on her highly sensitive Southern underbelly.
    As Flynn said: "Nothing is off the table" - for Russia also, when it comes to Iran.

    West (US&EU) did everything - short of open war - to bring Russia to heel.
    Assault on the ruble, sanctions, oil price manipulation, false accusations, upheaval in Ukraine,,.....
    Nothing worked: Russia came out of it in better shape and stronger.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran, but he appears to be a rational man, despite his bluster, and doubt he will start anything that will force Russia to respond with full force.
    A very Bad Deal for people of America for sure.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran…

    Hey, Avery. Did you really mean what you wrote, “no idea”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump's ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad - despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster's crosshairs.
    So......why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria's dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can 'legally' digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel's saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (...unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it's just talk: Israel's leaders couldn't care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn't care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump's Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can't figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Fran Macadam
    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn't one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet. Those who want an excuse for Helter Skelter can go play with that elsewhere, far from where they can't play nice with others. But some people are just itching for a fight. For the forseeable future they can join up to kill and be killed, as I pointed out.

    Nonwhites will not be abandoning hardcore racial identity politics anytime soon…they never will.

    It is going to end very badly.

    The consequences of being voted into a White racial minority…by nonwhite legal immigrants and their US born children….in post-white toilet “America” are going to be quite nasty and unbearable. It will be perceived for what it actually is:an invasion and occupation…and the Historic Native Born White American Majority will act accordingly.

    Without a doubt…Trump’s jobs program for Native Born White American Working Class Teenage Males is a tour of duty in the Muslim World and the Ukraine….Oliver’s Army=meet Trump’s Army=Trump and the lovely Melania paying their respects to the aluminum coffins that contain the bodies of Native Born White American Teenage Working Class Males laid out in a USAF jumbo cargo plane….it has alteady started…..

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Agent76 says:

    February 02, 2017 Beyond funneling billions of dollars to Iran as he was leaving the White House, Obama also illegally sent $500 million to UN “climate” fund

    Former President Barak Obama knew that Donald Trump wanted to stop funding the United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF), so right before Obama left office, he sent them $500 million of taxpayer money.

    http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-02-beyond-funneling-billions-of-dollars-to-iran-outgoing-obama-also-illegally-sent-500-million-to-un-climate-fund.html

    Read More
    • Replies: @elmysterio

    Beyond funneling billions of dollars to Iran
     
    It wasn't Obama funnelling dollars to Iran... it was returning assets that were illegally seized to their rightful owner.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. geokat62 says:

    Osama’s bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.

    I beg to differ. Credit for the greatest achievement belongs to The Lobby. Think about it: things aren’t going so well for your pet project. Then two blueprints are developed to help improve things (The Yinon Plan and PNAC’s Clean Break). So you’ve got the blueprints, but how to implement it? Here’s where The Lobby steps in. Through key players in the Bush Administration (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Scooter Lewis Libby), they will convince the rapture-seeking Bush to launch a new Crusade against those raghead Muslims, who are still occupying Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land. But he is instructed to not use the term “crusade” as it may be too inflammatory. Next step, have key members of the media (e.g., Judith Miller) splash daily headlines in the newspaper of record that provide irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussain possesses WMD. And just to instill the appropriate amount of fear into the domestic population to support this so-called GWOT, have the Mossad launch the Anthrax attacks without making it obvious who the source is:

    The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:

    09-11-01
    THIS IS NEXT
    TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
    DEATH TO AMERICA
    DEATH TO ISRAEL
    ALLAH IS GREAT

    The second anthrax note
    The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.

    Think about the level of complexity to successful pull this off. Your goal is to launch a series of regime change wars against those countries deemed hostile to the villa in the jungle to enhance the security of said villa. You know it will cost trillions to wage these wars, so you have to convince the American rubes that these wars are meant to enhance their security, despite the mounting evidence that “terrorism” in the homeland is increasing not diminishing.

    But with all complicated plans of this nature, something can go wrong in the execution of the plan. And the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt provide the incriminating evidence:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”

    So, my vote for the greatest achievement goes to The Lobby.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    What was the purpose of anthrax to the National Enquirer?
    , @Wally
    The impossible 'holocau$t' storyline:

    We're talking about an alleged '6M Jews & 5M others' ... 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

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

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries
    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. dcthrowback says: • Website
    @Mark Green
    Another prescient analysis by Buchanan. My only complaint is his contention that Obama was "humiliated" by his reversal on Syria. All Obama did was change strategies. Sure, he blinked first. But the US confrontation with Assad went strictly underground. Washington stepped up covert funding of anti-Assad 'moderates'. Ironically, a lot of these moderates turned out to be Sunni Iraqis--the same people US forces attacked mercilessly during the decade-long, US-initiated Iraq war that began under Bush 43.

    Sure, this strategy did weaken Assad but it failed to achieve the Zio-friendly objective of regime change. The Israelis however did ultimately benefit via the sharp rise in Arab fatalities.

    As for Iran, it looks as though Trump is starting to follow in his predecessor's footsteps; namely antagonize and demonize Iran in order to please the neocons and neolibs who still rule Washington and control our media.

    Haven't we seen this song and dance before?

    Trump--like Bush and Obama--is inching closer to bringing the US into another needless Mideast conflict that benefits Israel.

    *zio- turk-ksa-qatari axis

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. @Anonymous
    Will Jews in USA be blamed & attacked if Trump attacks Iran?

    Will Jews in USA be blamed & attacked if Trump attacks Iran?

    Hey, I’ve been told, by Zio-sympathizers, not to sweat stuff like this because, hey, stuff like that happens. In any case, even if neocon Jews, Zionists, or Israel Firsters were to blame, we all know that the Eternal Victim cannot be held accountable. They’re “Chosen” to be special, and exempt from all possibility of wrong-doing doncha ya know.

    Heaven forbid.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Avery says:
    @geokat62

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran...
     
    Hey, Avery. Did you really mean what you wrote, "no idea"?

    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump’s son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump’s ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad – despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster’s crosshairs.
    So……why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria’s dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can ‘legally’ digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel’s saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (…unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it’s just talk: Israel’s leaders couldn’t care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn’t care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump’s Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can’t figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    Trump is playing games with Christian Russia...
    , @SolontoCroesus

    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can’t figure out.
     
    Short answers: 1, they're not finished w/ Syria; 2. the point of attacking Syria was to weaken Iran and to "make Izzies feel secure;" 3. 1 and 2 having met with sufficient success, cut out the middle man and go for the kill. but mostly 4. Putin saved Obama's bacon. Russia intervened, said, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE another Libya, forced the 'remove chemicals' scheme. Much to the dismay of people like Diane Feinstein who had propaganda all prepared to use to march USAians to war against Syria.

    1. They're not finished with Syria -- Deir Ezzor is still under siege, with only limited ability to provide for Syrians inside, and to defend it: ISIS controls much of the air space and highway around Deir Ezzor. ISIS forces are still in Idlib
    btw, Those are two good reasons for supporting Tulsi Gabbard's HR258, as RobinG recommended http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/#comment-1751989

    2. Izzies at the highest level are determined that Syria must be re-divided and that Assad must go (see extended quote by Israel Defense Minister Ya'alon, below ***)

    The point of destabilizing Syria was to de-couple Syria and Hezbollah from Iran, to isolate Iran.

    Syria has been weakened -- softened up preparatory for attack on Iran.

    3. US has enough bad actors in the regions that can walk and chew gum at the same time: they will continue to provide weapons to ISIS to harass Syria, coop up Hezbollah, and also attack, most likely using newer methods including cyber warfare, electronic destruction -- i.e. wipe out Iranian communications -- etc.

    ----------
    *** Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, with Aaron David Miller,
    March 2016, Wilson Center
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?406449-1/israeli-defense-minister-moshe-yaalon-remarks&start=2461
    @ 41 min:

    "If I have to think about any kind of [inaudible] situation in Syria as well as in Iraq, we have the two Kurdish sectors in Iraq and Syria.
    The only way that we can live is to have a kind of federation. There is no other way to unify Syria.
    Also, I’m [not] talking about strategy to unify Syria through Bashar Al Assad or someone else, leading Syria. No chance! Wishful thinking!
    And to talk about a kind of federation, we have already constrained [inaudible] Bashar Al Assad — he controls today only 30% of his former territory. That’s it.

    We have seen a Kurdistan already: we know the turks are not happy with it but in the end, there is a Kurdish autonomy in Syria, there is a Kurdish autonomy in Iraq. We might think about a Kurdistan in Syria; they might cooperate with the regime as they do now. The problem is when it comes to the Sunnis, we have DAESH, Jabat al Nusra, Al Qaeda followers, Muslim Brotherhood elements. [inaudible]

    So first of all, let’s find a way to have a kind of federation or whatever, let’s also agree to have this kind of federation and then fighting the other or whatever. The problem is that there are so many contradictory interests regarding the situation in Syria.
    As an example, there are those who support Bashar Al Assad’s regime, like Iran, Hezbollah, Russia — today, with its intervention in Syria. And even western parties first of all believing Iran should be a central part of the settlement or the solution as I mentioned earlier.
    So —the Kurds demonstrated their capabilities to fight DAESH, when they were supported. Why not support other moderates in Syria, like Sunni moderates, to fight for their cause?
    Most of them were ignored. Western parties decided to sit on the fence and the Kurds in Syria were defeated by DAESH [inaudible] to the point that it started to get support. And then you have to settle this contradictory interest with Turkey. Saudi Arabia its own interest.
    Yet there is a need for different grand strategy regarding Syria.
    But the idea to unify Syria back, to become as it was in the past is wishful thinking."
     
    , @geokat62

    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.
     
    Hey, Avery. I agree with your musings. It's always difficult reconciling contradictory positions.

    But, I believe, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

    Keep fighting the good fight, Avery.
    , @Rurik

    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can’t figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.
     
    good question

    and there's this

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Trump-warns-Israel-Stop-announcing-new-settlements-480446

    tepid I know.. but still it's something

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. dcthrowback says: • Website
    @Cloak And Dagger
    I give Trump a lot of credit for being smart and wily, and I tend to overlook the things he says in favor of the things he actually does. I don't agree with Pat that he won't back down - he may recolor it differently to save face, but he does back down. Note that he is already redrawing the picture of how the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem - now he says that there are two sides to this. The end result will be some watered down version of the original vow.

    I am positive that Trump knows that a war with Iran would be a complete disaster for us and would not have the support of this war-weary nation. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a large population in a country of mountainous terrain that is not hospitable to invaders. They are also now armed with the S-300 missile defense system from Russia since last October that would make mincemeat out of Israeli and US aerial attacks. Iran also has a vast array of missiles that can lay waste to Israel in short order. Their 'swarm boats' would decimate our fleet in the gulf, shutting it down and plunging the world into an economic crisis.

    And what makes us think that Russia and China would sit idly by and allow us to do this? Oh, and by the way, those guys have nukes too. It would probably trigger an attack on Israel from their neighbors who have advanced their military capabilities significantly since 1967. Remember how Israel's forays into Lebanon ended with them retreating with their tail between their legs, and their much vaunted Markava tanks (so-called 'God's Chariot') were laid waste in the desert with around 40 of them razed to the ground by Hezbollah guerillas?

    Nope, I don't expect Trump to go to war with Iran - it's bad for business and Trump is all about business. Pay no attention to the words that come out of his mouth, just watch his hands and feet.

    Let's not forget that Trump is all about populism. He is doing something about barring refugees from our borders because that is what the people elected him for. He will build a wall (or something close) on our southern border because that is what the people who elected him want. Everything he has done so far has been compatible with what the people who elected him want.

    The people who elected him don't want to go to another war, so he is not going to do it. Note how he lambasted McCain and Graham about wanting to start WW3? He wouldn't follow that up by doing it himself, no siree. The people who elected him want our troops back home and his people are working furiously to make that happen as soon as possible. Everything else is just fodder for the media and his detractors. He is filling the airwaves with noise so that it dilutes the attacks of the opposition and distracts them while he goes about the business of draining the swamp.

    Trump is not suicidal, and an attack on Iran would be the most imbecilic of self-destructive moves that he could make. Not gonna happen.

    Still, would be nice if kept a tighter leash on his #teamJSOC pitbulls.

    But I agree, POTUS TRUMP deserves a longer leash after the election and his first two weeks in office.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  52. Agent76 says:

    I am acutely aware of human imaginations and how governments use them as a tool. Here is something from an Australian and his visit in Iran.

    Jul 9, 2016 An Australian in Iran April 2016

    This was my second trip to Iran, my first being in 2011. Both times have been an amazing experience and nothing like the media would have you believe. An extremely friendly and hospitable nation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    ...and nothing like the media would have you believe.
     
    Which is a big reason why I ignore almost all mass media. 99% pure BS.


    An extremely friendly and hospitable nation.
     
    I've found that to be true wherever I've gone and that most definitely includes Muslim areas/countries.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  53. utu says:
    @geokat62

    Osama’s bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.
     
    I beg to differ. Credit for the greatest achievement belongs to The Lobby. Think about it: things aren't going so well for your pet project. Then two blueprints are developed to help improve things (The Yinon Plan and PNAC's Clean Break). So you've got the blueprints, but how to implement it? Here's where The Lobby steps in. Through key players in the Bush Administration (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Scooter Lewis Libby), they will convince the rapture-seeking Bush to launch a new Crusade against those raghead Muslims, who are still occupying Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land. But he is instructed to not use the term "crusade" as it may be too inflammatory. Next step, have key members of the media (e.g., Judith Miller) splash daily headlines in the newspaper of record that provide irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussain possesses WMD. And just to instill the appropriate amount of fear into the domestic population to support this so-called GWOT, have the Mossad launch the Anthrax attacks without making it obvious who the source is:

    The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:

    09-11-01
    THIS IS NEXT
    TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
    DEATH TO AMERICA
    DEATH TO ISRAEL
    ALLAH IS GREAT


    The second anthrax note
    The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.
     
    Think about the level of complexity to successful pull this off. Your goal is to launch a series of regime change wars against those countries deemed hostile to the villa in the jungle to enhance the security of said villa. You know it will cost trillions to wage these wars, so you have to convince the American rubes that these wars are meant to enhance their security, despite the mounting evidence that "terrorism" in the homeland is increasing not diminishing.

    But with all complicated plans of this nature, something can go wrong in the execution of the plan. And the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt provide the incriminating evidence:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
     
    So, my vote for the greatest achievement goes to The Lobby.

    What was the purpose of anthrax to the National Enquirer?

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    What was the purpose of anthrax to the National Enquirer?
     
    Same purpose it served sending to the other media outlets:

    The anthrax attacks came in two waves. Five letters are believed to have been mailed at this time to: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all located in New York City and to the National Enquirer at American Media, Inc. (AMI) in Boca Raton, Florida.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Boris N says:

    as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again

    Only after the Ukrainian had launched numerous atacks and conquered a few stripes of the frontier rebel terrory. And those “innocent” Ukrainians never stopped to bomb Donetsk, and now their bombings have intensified. A good way to recognize a man from the West: He only knows one side of the story, because his world view is shaped by the lying Western MSM, even if he thinks it is not.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war

    Everybody who was not hypnotized by the lying Western MSM knows that Assad’s chemical weapons is a lie, debunked a very long time ago.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. @Avery
    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump's ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad - despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster's crosshairs.
    So......why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria's dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can 'legally' digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel's saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (...unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it's just talk: Israel's leaders couldn't care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn't care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump's Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can't figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    Trump is playing games with Christian Russia…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  56. @nickels
    If anyone doubts Trump has gone full neocon just look at Niki Haley's picking up the same lies demonizing Russia over Crimea, without missing a beat from the Obama administration.

    One will notice that, in the Hannity interview one week after taking office, Trump had a weird sort of disturbed way about him. Somewhat subdued and introspective, very uncharacteristic for him.

    It is my personal belief that he received threats against himself or his family from the deep state that first week, basically commanding him to go along with the neocon agenda of suffer the consequences.

    “One of Yale’s* assignments was to follow Wilson’s preference for having private talks with key personalities capable of influencing the course of events. He did this with Lloyd George, General Allenby and Col. T.E. Lawrence, for example. Yale said he had a talk with Weizmann “somewhere in the Mediterranean in 1919,” and asked him what might happen if the British did not support a national home for the Jews in Palestine.
    Weizmann thumped his fist on the table and the teacups jumped, “If they don’t,” he said, “we’ll smash the British Empire as we smashed the Russian Empire.”

    -from http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p389_john.html
    Behind the Balfour Declaration: Britain’s Great War Pledge To Lord Rothschild
    By Robert John
    (h/t LondonBob http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/#comment-1749793)

    Zionism, particularly Revisionist zionism, was conceived in sin, a bad seed that has produced only bitter fruit. It’s past time to harrow the field.

    —–
    * William Yale was a Special Agent of the State Department in the Near East during the First World War and author of “The Near East: A Modern History.”

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

    ‘WE ARE PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE. Where did that slogan come from?

    It was used in the HBO series, Deadwood. First time I heard it. It went back and forth with zero effect except to further antagonize.

    As I have said several times, Trump is in the rock/hardplace with his pledge to eradicate ISIS and presumably the dozens of other groups.. jihadist warriors on missions from Gawd…..and to be that neutral arbiter in Palestine/Israel.

    Maybe Flynn is a bit goofy, like some earlier reports stated.

    Guns or Butter. Trump must choose. And if he chooses guns, we all lose.

    JW

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    What you don't understand, guns are butter.
    , @Anonymous
    Will you be doing your Uncle Sam routine in front of Trump Tower if Trump goes to war with Iran?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  58. iffen says:
    @Kyle McKenna
    If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Well, two additional thoughts -- things could be a lot worse, we could have Hillary.

    And secondly, we have Bannon, Sessions, and Miller. We have hope. And even better, we have reason for hope. If Trump can turn around on Likud, anything is possible.

    If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years in influential positions in numerous administrations.

    Pat Buchanan’s column and articles were published for years and years in newspapers and magazines throughout the US.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years running for President and all he accomplished was the election of George Dubya Bush.

    And yet, here we are.

    Maybe there is something wrong with the Pat Buchanan approach.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Yes he personally failed . personal failure in the backward swimming contests out of the rotten swamp land is not necessarily bad , it is good . It protects him from possibility of becoming Bush sr 2nd attempt, from becoming Bush Jr and Obama and ?from Trump.

    But he has provided with his wisdom and information that come once the ambition has long settled in the dust .
    , @RadicalCenter
    The man can't do it by himself. Give me a break.

    Pat has reached more people, tried harder, done better than you or I, that is for sure.

    If we had a million more men like Pat Buchanan in this country, we'd have a better chance of reclaiming our culture, our rights, and a decent future for our children.

    God Bless Pat Buchanan. I'm thankful for the work he has done advocating for peace, localism, national sovereignty, and liberty over the decades.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. ogunsiron says:
    @Avery
    { Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign....}

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
    Trump said the Deal with Iran was bad and that he was going to do something about it.
    Whatever that something is.


    { now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.}

    Ain't gonna happen.
    Russia forced Neocon warmongers to back down in distant Syria, and so far so good there.
    Russia is not going to allow anyone to wreck a country right on her highly sensitive Southern underbelly.
    As Flynn said: "Nothing is off the table" - for Russia also, when it comes to Iran.

    West (US&EU) did everything - short of open war - to bring Russia to heel.
    Assault on the ruble, sanctions, oil price manipulation, false accusations, upheaval in Ukraine,,.....
    Nothing worked: Russia came out of it in better shape and stronger.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran, but he appears to be a rational man, despite his bluster, and doubt he will start anything that will force Russia to respond with full force.
    A very Bad Deal for people of America for sure.

    I also never really got the Iran obsession.
    “taking out” Iran may be what Trump’s end of the deal he struck with the likud types (Adelson, Netanyahu, Horowitz, etc) ? Not good, at all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I also never really got the Iran obsession.
     
    I have to keep reminding myself not to try and explain these things in a rational manner. It helps to remember that we are dealing with very sick people in positions of power. There is almost no way that a sane and rational person could ever imagine what these sickos will be up to next.

    E.g., just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?

    Obama should've put Michelle to work while he enjoyed a little bud, Hillary should be home baking cookies and playing with the grandkids, and Trump should be humpin mama, but no, they have to play King of the World or some shit.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. @Avery
    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump's ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad - despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster's crosshairs.
    So......why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria's dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can 'legally' digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel's saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (...unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it's just talk: Israel's leaders couldn't care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn't care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump's Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can't figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can’t figure out.

    Short answers: 1, they’re not finished w/ Syria; 2. the point of attacking Syria was to weaken Iran and to “make Izzies feel secure;” 3. 1 and 2 having met with sufficient success, cut out the middle man and go for the kill. but mostly 4. Putin saved Obama’s bacon. Russia intervened, said, WE WILL NOT TOLERATE another Libya, forced the ‘remove chemicals’ scheme. Much to the dismay of people like Diane Feinstein who had propaganda all prepared to use to march USAians to war against Syria.

    1. They’re not finished with Syria — Deir Ezzor is still under siege, with only limited ability to provide for Syrians inside, and to defend it: ISIS controls much of the air space and highway around Deir Ezzor. ISIS forces are still in Idlib
    btw, Those are two good reasons for supporting Tulsi Gabbard’s HR258, as RobinG recommended http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/taking-down-british-officials/#comment-1751989

    2. Izzies at the highest level are determined that Syria must be re-divided and that Assad must go (see extended quote by Israel Defense Minister Ya’alon, below ***)

    The point of destabilizing Syria was to de-couple Syria and Hezbollah from Iran, to isolate Iran.

    Syria has been weakened — softened up preparatory for attack on Iran.

    3. US has enough bad actors in the regions that can walk and chew gum at the same time: they will continue to provide weapons to ISIS to harass Syria, coop up Hezbollah, and also attack, most likely using newer methods including cyber warfare, electronic destruction — i.e. wipe out Iranian communications — etc.

    ———-
    *** Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon, with Aaron David Miller,
    March 2016, Wilson Center

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?406449-1/israeli-defense-minister-moshe-yaalon-remarks&start=2461

    @ 41 min:

    [MORE]

    “If I have to think about any kind of [inaudible] situation in Syria as well as in Iraq, we have the two Kurdish sectors in Iraq and Syria.
    The only way that we can live is to have a kind of federation. There is no other way to unify Syria.
    Also, I’m [not] talking about strategy to unify Syria through Bashar Al Assad or someone else, leading Syria. No chance! Wishful thinking!
    And to talk about a kind of federation, we have already constrained [inaudible] Bashar Al Assad — he controls today only 30% of his former territory. That’s it.

    We have seen a Kurdistan already: we know the turks are not happy with it but in the end, there is a Kurdish autonomy in Syria, there is a Kurdish autonomy in Iraq. We might think about a Kurdistan in Syria; they might cooperate with the regime as they do now. The problem is when it comes to the Sunnis, we have DAESH, Jabat al Nusra, Al Qaeda followers, Muslim Brotherhood elements. [inaudible]

    So first of all, let’s find a way to have a kind of federation or whatever, let’s also agree to have this kind of federation and then fighting the other or whatever. The problem is that there are so many contradictory interests regarding the situation in Syria.
    As an example, there are those who support Bashar Al Assad’s regime, like Iran, Hezbollah, Russia — today, with its intervention in Syria. And even western parties first of all believing Iran should be a central part of the settlement or the solution as I mentioned earlier.
    So —the Kurds demonstrated their capabilities to fight DAESH, when they were supported. Why not support other moderates in Syria, like Sunni moderates, to fight for their cause?
    Most of them were ignored. Western parties decided to sit on the fence and the Kurds in Syria were defeated by DAESH [inaudible] to the point that it started to get support. And then you have to settle this contradictory interest with Turkey. Saudi Arabia its own interest.
    Yet there is a need for different grand strategy regarding Syria.
    But the idea to unify Syria back, to become as it was in the past is wishful thinking.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. geokat62 says:
    @Avery
    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump's ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad - despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster's crosshairs.
    So......why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria's dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can 'legally' digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel's saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (...unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it's just talk: Israel's leaders couldn't care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn't care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump's Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can't figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    Hey, Avery. I agree with your musings. It’s always difficult reconciling contradictory positions.

    But, I believe, all will be revealed in the fullness of time.

    Keep fighting the good fight, Avery.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Two things:

    Mr. Buchanan says:

    as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again

    That’s not entirely true. It is the Ukronazis that have instigated the current round of violence with the militias of Donbass responding in kind. I dislike the term “pro-Russian rebels” because that’s not exactly what they are. They are people who refuse to accept the US/EU instigated coup that put actual nazis in power. Frankly, that’s an admirable thing. Though the greatest “sin” in this modern world is to resist and/or have the capability to defend yourself against the Anglozionist empire…. which brings us to Iran

    Iran is NOT the source of global terrorism. To think otherwise is purely delusional and shows the influence of the zionists. Iran is targeted because they dare to resist the empire, have the means to defend themselves and are a “rival” of Israel/Saudi Arabia.

    If the Trump administration is serious about dealing with “Islamic Terrorism”, they first must address the issue of “Western terrorism” which is on a far greater scale. The primary sponsors are the Saudis & Gulf Emirates (on behalf of western intelligence). Cut off the weapons and cash from our so-called “allies” to the jihadi groups and they’ll quickly disintegrate.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  63. geokat62 says:
    @utu
    What was the purpose of anthrax to the National Enquirer?

    What was the purpose of anthrax to the National Enquirer?

    Same purpose it served sending to the other media outlets:

    The anthrax attacks came in two waves. Five letters are believed to have been mailed at this time to: ABC News, CBS News, NBC News and the New York Post, all located in New York City and to the National Enquirer at American Media, Inc. (AMI) in Boca Raton, Florida.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2001_anthrax_attacks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. @Agent76
    February 02, 2017 Beyond funneling billions of dollars to Iran as he was leaving the White House, Obama also illegally sent $500 million to UN “climate” fund

    Former President Barak Obama knew that Donald Trump wanted to stop funding the United Nations Green Climate Fund (GCF), so right before Obama left office, he sent them $500 million of taxpayer money.

    http://www.newstarget.com/2017-02-02-beyond-funneling-billions-of-dollars-to-iran-outgoing-obama-also-illegally-sent-500-million-to-un-climate-fund.html

    Beyond funneling billions of dollars to Iran

    It wasn’t Obama funnelling dollars to Iran… it was returning assets that were illegally seized to their rightful owner.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. @Anonymous
    "As our NATO allies observe.."

    What allies? Oh, you mean those that Trump and his team denigrated and called names all year last year? Now he wants them to fight Iran for him and Israel? No, thanks.

    The United States doesn’t have allies… it has vassals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. @geokat62

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.
     
    So, the primary driver, according to Fran, is an economic one. Trouble with this explanation, Fran, is that it diminishes the significant role played by The Lobby. According to Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, The Lobby pushed for these wars in the ME not for economic reasons, as you claim, but to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby... and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.

    The poor sods in the economic precariat between the coasts didn’t vote for Trump because of kabbalah magic. Some conspiratists have their noses out of joint because they can’t see past the end of somebody else’s. If an elite buys politics, it’s not because of their ethnicity, it’s because they have money. In that way the rich are more like each other, than you or me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    If an elite buys politics, it’s not because of their ethnicity, it’s because they have money. In that way the rich are more like each other, than you or me.
     
    So, tell me something, Fran. What is the role of the Israel Lobby? I always thought it was to promote the interests of Jewry in Israel and the host nations. What was PNAC, AIPAC, CofP, etc, etc up to when they lobbied for war against Iraq? Was it all for money, nothing to do with enhancing the security of the villa? Have you read M&W's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy? They make the case that enhancing the security of the villa was top of mind. Have a read... I highly recommend it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  67. KA says:
    @iffen
    If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years in influential positions in numerous administrations.

    Pat Buchanan's column and articles were published for years and years in newspapers and magazines throughout the US.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years running for President and all he accomplished was the election of George Dubya Bush.

    And yet, here we are.

    Maybe there is something wrong with the Pat Buchanan approach.

    Yes he personally failed . personal failure in the backward swimming contests out of the rotten swamp land is not necessarily bad , it is good . It protects him from possibility of becoming Bush sr 2nd attempt, from becoming Bush Jr and Obama and ?from Trump.

    But he has provided with his wisdom and information that come once the ambition has long settled in the dust .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Rurik says:
    @Avery
    Yo, geo:

    I am well aware that Trump's son-in-law is Jewish and an ardent supporter of Israel.
    I am well aware that Ivanka, born Christian, converted to Judaism after marrying Kushner.
    Certainly, both have Trump's ear.
    And then some.

    What I meant is this:

    Trump was the _only_ candidates from the dozens running for POTUS (both Dem and Rep) who openly sided with Russia and Assad - despite massive assault on his position from all quarters, particularly the warmongering MSM, and the warmongering debate moderators.
    He took a lot arrows for his pro-Assad position, but stood his ground.

    Syria was/is certainly in Israel-firster's crosshairs.
    So......why would Trump very rationally leave Syria alone, and yet irrationally zero-in on Iran even from the start of his campaign.

    Syria's dismemberment would give immediate, tangible benefit to Israel, e.g. if there is no existing State that has legal claim to Golan, then Israel can 'legally' digest it.

    Despite the manufactured hysteria, Iran is no threat to Israel: never been.
    Iran supports Hezbollah, of course, and Hezb is a major burr under Israel's saddle, but no more than a nuisance really (...unless Israel invades Lebanon again).
    Iran also speaks up for Palestinians, but it's just talk: Israel's leaders couldn't care less. Same with talk or actions from UN, EU, and all others: Nutso & Co couldn't care less.

    No profit in starting trouble with Iran for an America-firster, and lots of costs.
    So why Trump's Iran disconnect?
    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can't figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    If Israel-firsters are warping his mind re Iran, why were they not able to do it for Syria?
    That is what I can’t figure out.
    Maybe you or somebody else can explain.

    good question

    and there’s this

    http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Trump-warns-Israel-Stop-announcing-new-settlements-480446

    tepid I know.. but still it’s something

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  69. @joe webb
    'WE ARE PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE. Where did that slogan come from?

    It was used in the HBO series, Deadwood. First time I heard it. It went back and forth with zero effect except to further antagonize.

    As I have said several times, Trump is in the rock/hardplace with his pledge to eradicate ISIS and presumably the dozens of other groups.. jihadist warriors on missions from Gawd.....and to be that neutral arbiter in Palestine/Israel.

    Maybe Flynn is a bit goofy, like some earlier reports stated.

    Guns or Butter. Trump must choose. And if he chooses guns, we all lose.

    JW

    What you don’t understand, guns are butter.

    Read More
    • LOL: Che Guava
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    What you don’t understand, guns are butter.
     
    terrific.

    now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.
    , @Talha
    Unfortunately - the way we've geared the economy - yeah...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgAVpPNusTs
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Agent76
    I am acutely aware of human imaginations and how governments use them as a tool. Here is something from an Australian and his visit in Iran.

    Jul 9, 2016 An Australian in Iran April 2016

    This was my second trip to Iran, my first being in 2011. Both times have been an amazing experience and nothing like the media would have you believe. An extremely friendly and hospitable nation.

    https://youtu.be/-xUrRml7mN0

    …and nothing like the media would have you believe.

    Which is a big reason why I ignore almost all mass media. 99% pure BS.

    An extremely friendly and hospitable nation.

    I’ve found that to be true wherever I’ve gone and that most definitely includes Muslim areas/countries.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. geokat62 says:
    @Fran Macadam
    The poor sods in the economic precariat between the coasts didn't vote for Trump because of kabbalah magic. Some conspiratists have their noses out of joint because they can't see past the end of somebody else's. If an elite buys politics, it's not because of their ethnicity, it's because they have money. In that way the rich are more like each other, than you or me.

    If an elite buys politics, it’s not because of their ethnicity, it’s because they have money. In that way the rich are more like each other, than you or me.

    So, tell me something, Fran. What is the role of the Israel Lobby? I always thought it was to promote the interests of Jewry in Israel and the host nations. What was PNAC, AIPAC, CofP, etc, etc up to when they lobbied for war against Iraq? Was it all for money, nothing to do with enhancing the security of the villa? Have you read M&W’s The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy? They make the case that enhancing the security of the villa was top of mind. Have a read… I highly recommend it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @ogunsiron
    I also never really got the Iran obsession.
    "taking out" Iran may be what Trump's end of the deal he struck with the likud types (Adelson, Netanyahu, Horowitz, etc) ? Not good, at all.

    I also never really got the Iran obsession.

    I have to keep reminding myself not to try and explain these things in a rational manner. It helps to remember that we are dealing with very sick people in positions of power. There is almost no way that a sane and rational person could ever imagine what these sickos will be up to next.

    E.g., just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?

    Obama should’ve put Michelle to work while he enjoyed a little bud, Hillary should be home baking cookies and playing with the grandkids, and Trump should be humpin mama, but no, they have to play King of the World or some shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?
     
    true Jacques, but consider..

    Trump is a larger than life billionaire who has a nice family

    I've wondered if he's considered the future of his family in a nation run by psychotic psychopaths, and wondered to himself, seeing the cucks lining up to serve the Fiend in the GOP, if perhaps he has to step up to the plate personally, if there's ever going to be any hope for the future of this nation, that has treated him so well, and where his grandchildren will grow up.

    I think there's a lot of evidence for this chimera of a hope, if you look at his words regarding the presidency over the years when people interviewing him have asked him if he'd ever take the job. You can tell he's exasperated by the level of stupidity and fecklessness of our puppets in chief and all the rest of the treasonous scum.

    and so far, there's been reasons for optimism. He didn't pick someone like John Bolton, but a man friendly to Putin as SoS. He's said that we were misguided (to say the least) to go into Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. He just nixed the TPP.

    however, all that said, if he's now going to foment a war of sorts with Iran, then I'll (unhappily) concede that you were right all along, and that he just another Zio-stooge.

    I pray it's just sabre rattling to temporarily mollify the MIC and other scumfucks at the CFR and PNAC and all the rest of the rotten zio-rats and snakes. (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. @Zod
    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    Yes, it is troubling, that only after a month or so, the fake conservatives are doing a double take, joining the fake liberals. It’s all a fake team sport, like professional wrestling. The election itself was a fraud, even with the 24/7 marketing screech of the ministry of information (this one really, really, really matters!) 100 million + could care less.

    Better questions and answers:

    Was Trump vetted and approved by the warmongers? Of course.

    Is Trump an independent maverick of some kind? Maybe with Twitter. Otherwise he retains the independent decision making power of any President, which is to say, not much independent power at all.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @geokat62
    "It’s all a fake team sport, like professional wrestling." LOL Well put.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  74. reuphen says:
    @War for Blair Mountain
    The Sihk prostitute....Nikki Haley..... issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday....


    Trump=war with Christian Russia...

    Trump is going to force you back into the closet, there Brokeback!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  75. Che Guava says:
    @geokat62

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.
     
    So, the primary driver, according to Fran, is an economic one. Trouble with this explanation, Fran, is that it diminishes the significant role played by The Lobby. According to Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, The Lobby pushed for these wars in the ME not for economic reasons, as you claim, but to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby... and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.

    Mr. Buchanan,

    I have been following the news on this, was hoping that the Trump admin. would be good for the people of your nation, and the world, but always suspicious that it would not, because of the support for the continued colonial subvervience of the US to Israel and the painting of Iran as an automatic enemy.

    pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again

    That is a rubbish statement, your antipathy to orthodoxy as opposed to the Roman church seems to inspire it. The Ukrainian puppet government forces have been firing artillery at Donetsk and Lukhansk since the chocolate baron was appointed, by US neocons, as the president after a coup d’etat. As I say, I have long respected you, but you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox). It is no surprise that they finally started firing back after being fired upon in violation of the Minsk treaty for the time since then.

    North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real</i

    From accounts of the North Korean programme in Japanese, it is unlikely that any of their bomb tests have been of a weapon of the scale of Fat Man or Little Boy. Neither are they scalable to fit the tIp of an ICBM.

    Iran, if you have met and conversed with Persians, regime supporters too (I use 'regime' for a reason, the Islamists used, subverted and shoved aside the other participants against the Shah, or not) they are generally decent people.

    Unlike most places in the region, including Israel of now, they have had relathve peace for years, as many Persians, I dislike the Islamic state of Iran, but you would have to be a great fool to not see that they are the most enlightened people in the region, and that specifically includes Israelis, how horribly superior they are, groundlessly.

    Sure, the mullocrasy in Persia of now suppresses their own true religion (Zoroastrianism), but unlike Israel, where Jewish people spit on and beat Christians, including priests and monks, many disagree with the state established by Khomeinh.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox)
     
    Aren't the Ukies orthodox too?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  76. @Fran Macadam
    What you don't understand, guns are butter.

    What you don’t understand, guns are butter.

    terrific.

    now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Fran Macadam
    GE doesn't make Kelvinators; it's now a Wall Street global money mover heavily invested in military-industrial-contracting. That's the bread and butter of their business, manufacturing war.
    , @jacques sheete

    ...now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.
     
    Well then, I hope they at least wash their hands since they've already been inspecting our shorts!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  77. Chu says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    I give Trump a lot of credit for being smart and wily, and I tend to overlook the things he says in favor of the things he actually does. I don't agree with Pat that he won't back down - he may recolor it differently to save face, but he does back down. Note that he is already redrawing the picture of how the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem - now he says that there are two sides to this. The end result will be some watered down version of the original vow.

    I am positive that Trump knows that a war with Iran would be a complete disaster for us and would not have the support of this war-weary nation. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a large population in a country of mountainous terrain that is not hospitable to invaders. They are also now armed with the S-300 missile defense system from Russia since last October that would make mincemeat out of Israeli and US aerial attacks. Iran also has a vast array of missiles that can lay waste to Israel in short order. Their 'swarm boats' would decimate our fleet in the gulf, shutting it down and plunging the world into an economic crisis.

    And what makes us think that Russia and China would sit idly by and allow us to do this? Oh, and by the way, those guys have nukes too. It would probably trigger an attack on Israel from their neighbors who have advanced their military capabilities significantly since 1967. Remember how Israel's forays into Lebanon ended with them retreating with their tail between their legs, and their much vaunted Markava tanks (so-called 'God's Chariot') were laid waste in the desert with around 40 of them razed to the ground by Hezbollah guerillas?

    Nope, I don't expect Trump to go to war with Iran - it's bad for business and Trump is all about business. Pay no attention to the words that come out of his mouth, just watch his hands and feet.

    Let's not forget that Trump is all about populism. He is doing something about barring refugees from our borders because that is what the people elected him for. He will build a wall (or something close) on our southern border because that is what the people who elected him want. Everything he has done so far has been compatible with what the people who elected him want.

    The people who elected him don't want to go to another war, so he is not going to do it. Note how he lambasted McCain and Graham about wanting to start WW3? He wouldn't follow that up by doing it himself, no siree. The people who elected him want our troops back home and his people are working furiously to make that happen as soon as possible. Everything else is just fodder for the media and his detractors. He is filling the airwaves with noise so that it dilutes the attacks of the opposition and distracts them while he goes about the business of draining the swamp.

    Trump is not suicidal, and an attack on Iran would be the most imbecilic of self-destructive moves that he could make. Not gonna happen.

    He’s definitely being unpredictable. I agree that waging a battle with Iran would be ludicrous – especially after he spoke about the disastrous wars wage by Bush and Co in Iraq. Who wants another quagmire?

    But Iran has a right to their own defense. Why bother telling them what they can do…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Rurik says:
    @jacques sheete

    I also never really got the Iran obsession.
     
    I have to keep reminding myself not to try and explain these things in a rational manner. It helps to remember that we are dealing with very sick people in positions of power. There is almost no way that a sane and rational person could ever imagine what these sickos will be up to next.

    E.g., just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?

    Obama should've put Michelle to work while he enjoyed a little bud, Hillary should be home baking cookies and playing with the grandkids, and Trump should be humpin mama, but no, they have to play King of the World or some shit.

    just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?

    true Jacques, but consider..

    Trump is a larger than life billionaire who has a nice family

    I’ve wondered if he’s considered the future of his family in a nation run by psychotic psychopaths, and wondered to himself, seeing the cucks lining up to serve the Fiend in the GOP, if perhaps he has to step up to the plate personally, if there’s ever going to be any hope for the future of this nation, that has treated him so well, and where his grandchildren will grow up.

    I think there’s a lot of evidence for this chimera of a hope, if you look at his words regarding the presidency over the years when people interviewing him have asked him if he’d ever take the job. You can tell he’s exasperated by the level of stupidity and fecklessness of our puppets in chief and all the rest of the treasonous scum.

    and so far, there’s been reasons for optimism. He didn’t pick someone like John Bolton, but a man friendly to Putin as SoS. He’s said that we were misguided (to say the least) to go into Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. He just nixed the TPP.

    however, all that said, if he’s now going to foment a war of sorts with Iran, then I’ll (unhappily) concede that you were right all along, and that he just another Zio-stooge.

    I pray it’s just sabre rattling to temporarily mollify the MIC and other scumfucks at the CFR and PNAC and all the rest of the rotten zio-rats and snakes. (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump's grandchildren of whom I've heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.
    , @annamaria
    The schmucks are non-millifiabe.
    After the spectacular "celebration" at UC Berkeley (that was the word of choice by the Guardian correspondent Julia Wong from San Francisco), the "progressives" want to demonstrate their valor by any other available means. For instance, there was a distribution of leaflets with a letter from Richard P. Lifton, a president of the Rockefeller Universty, in which Mr. Lifton condemned Trump' policies against immigrants, just before a concert of classical music at Caspari Hall at the Rockefeller Center. First, the distribution of leaflets from Lifton office was disrespectful towards both the classical musicians that came to play Ravel & Beethoven and towards the public. Second, Mr. Lifton seems to be unaware that Mr. Obama has deported the greatest number of immigrants ever (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661). And thirdly, where these "progressives" had been when the Obama-Clinton team was destroying Libya and Syria thus making a huge numbers of the local people homeless and gravely endangered. The destruction of Libya and Syria has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, including tens of thousands of children. http://fpif.org/adding-costs-hillary-clintons-wars/ But hey, this theme - the dead brownish people in the faraway lands bombed by Obama administration - is not supposed to be on the revolutionary agenda of the "righteous" New Yorkers stomping their feet, like children, to show their un-approval of the newly selected president of the US. How about taking a closer look at why the US has been destroying the seven nations? -- Or this is too dangerous for the "progressives" careers?
    , @jacques sheete

    (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)
     
    I hope yer correct.

    BTW, apologies accepted! ;)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Che Guava says:
    @Rurik

    just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?
     
    true Jacques, but consider..

    Trump is a larger than life billionaire who has a nice family

    I've wondered if he's considered the future of his family in a nation run by psychotic psychopaths, and wondered to himself, seeing the cucks lining up to serve the Fiend in the GOP, if perhaps he has to step up to the plate personally, if there's ever going to be any hope for the future of this nation, that has treated him so well, and where his grandchildren will grow up.

    I think there's a lot of evidence for this chimera of a hope, if you look at his words regarding the presidency over the years when people interviewing him have asked him if he'd ever take the job. You can tell he's exasperated by the level of stupidity and fecklessness of our puppets in chief and all the rest of the treasonous scum.

    and so far, there's been reasons for optimism. He didn't pick someone like John Bolton, but a man friendly to Putin as SoS. He's said that we were misguided (to say the least) to go into Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. He just nixed the TPP.

    however, all that said, if he's now going to foment a war of sorts with Iran, then I'll (unhappily) concede that you were right all along, and that he just another Zio-stooge.

    I pray it's just sabre rattling to temporarily mollify the MIC and other scumfucks at the CFR and PNAC and all the rest of the rotten zio-rats and snakes. (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump’s grandchildren of whom I’ve heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump’s grandchildren of whom I’ve heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.
     
    Money's not the reason. Modern Israel does not use halakha to determine who's 'Jewish'. They use the Nuremberg Laws! In other words, either a Jewish mother or father will do. That way, they can maximize immigration ('alia').
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  80. geokat62 says:
    @Inertriller
    Yes, it is troubling, that only after a month or so, the fake conservatives are doing a double take, joining the fake liberals. It's all a fake team sport, like professional wrestling. The election itself was a fraud, even with the 24/7 marketing screech of the ministry of information (this one really, really, really matters!) 100 million + could care less.

    Better questions and answers:

    Was Trump vetted and approved by the warmongers? Of course.

    Is Trump an independent maverick of some kind? Maybe with Twitter. Otherwise he retains the independent decision making power of any President, which is to say, not much independent power at all.

    “It’s all a fake team sport, like professional wrestling.” LOL Well put.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  81. I reminisced last week (couple of people) that what is going on in Trumps Washington reminded me of gypsys going into a store with 1 or 2 causing a diversionary ruckus with the clerk or owner while the rest steal whatevers. Only difference in WDC is that Trump’s Band of Gypsies is itself being gypsied by a daisy chain of gypsy bands. Okay, dopy musing but it sure looks like what is going on in WDC to these eyes.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  82. Talha says:
    @Fran Macadam
    What you don't understand, guns are butter.

    Unfortunately – the way we’ve geared the economy – yeah…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. RobinG says:
    @Agent76
    All part of the Pentagons plan for a very long time. Just listen if anything to Clark.

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

    "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw

    July 23, 2006 Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon

    Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-2001-pentagon-plan-to-attack-lebanon/2797

    2001 – A DECADE LATE

    The video you posted (Gen. Wesley Clark on Dem. Now) is widely known, but Clark told this story many times and the talk he gave for the Commonwealth Club of California is much more revealing.
    Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state.

    General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state." - That was the plan. And George H. W. Bush did not want to go along with the plan. That's why we got Clinton with a little help from Ross Perot.
    , @Agent76
    Good share thanks. December 06, 2010 Wall Street’s Pentagon Papers: Biggest Financial Scam In World History $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayers' money


    What if the greatest scam ever perpetrated was blatantly exposed, and the US media didn’t cover it? Does that mean the scam could keep going? That’s what we are about to find out.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/wall-street-s-pentagon-papers-biggest-financial-scam-in-world-history/22291
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. El Dato says:
    @Ram
    Hillary C. was seen as the bigger by far war monger pre-election. However, we will soon be forced to revise our opinions. Trump has surrounded himself with militarists who are oblivious to their own culpability in the ongoing fiasco in the middle east and always end up pointing fingers at others.

    This seems to be the appalling truth.

    Is anyone supporting the administration in this except Israel-controlled local bots?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. MEexpert says:
    @Agent76
    All part of the Pentagons plan for a very long time. Just listen if anything to Clark.

    Sep 11, 2011 General Wesley Clark: Wars Were Planned - Seven Countries In Five Years

    "This is a memo that describes how we're going to take out seven countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran." I said, "Is it classified?" He said, "Yes, sir." I said, "Well, don't show it to me." And I saw him a year or so ago, and I said, "You remember that?" He said, "Sir, I didn't show you that memo! I didn't show it to you!"

    https://youtu.be/9RC1Mepk_Sw

    July 23, 2006 Secret 2001 Pentagon Plan to Attack Lebanon

    Bush's Plan for "Serial War" revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-2001-pentagon-plan-to-attack-lebanon/2797

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.

    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?

    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,

    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don’t believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn’t want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don’t know the answer to that. One doesn’t have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.

    Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this.
     
    Take a closer look:

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it.
     
    To be fair to PB, I believe the operative word in that sentence is "appeared."
    , @Agent76
    Absolutely I did and this is the reason I posted this here on this topic. The Pentagon is everyone's enemy on the planet because, 'All Wars Are Bankers Wars'!

    January 5, 2017 US SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES DEPLOY TO 138 NATIONS, 70 PERCENT OF THE WORLD'S COUNTRIES

    They could be found on the outskirts of Sirte, Libya, supporting local militia fighters, and in Mukalla, Yemen, backing troops from the United Arab Emirates. At Saakow, a remote outpost in southern Somalia, they assisted local commandos in killing several members of the terror group al-Shabab.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38993-the-year-of-the-commando-us-special-operations-forces-deploy-to-138-nations-70-percent-of-the-world-s-countries
    , @Agent76
    Nov 22, 2010 Project for the New American Century

    https://youtu.be/8sSDUN-esUI

    'ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS' By Michael Rivero

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
    , @Agent76
    The neoconservative agenda

    Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world.

    https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00010308/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Zod
    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    This sort of hot-headed confrontation with Iran on behalf of Israel and Saudi Royals would have probably come after a year or more into a presidency of Hillary Clinton. With Trump it has taken less than 2 weeks!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Ok, a simple primer for the over-analysts,

    Trump captured a zeitgeist. Nothing less and nothing more. He is nether savior nor devil. What will be will be. It is not going to be good because he will provide a ‘black swan ‘ accelerant to a thoroughly corrupt and insane world.

    Simplify and you will understand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. geokat62 says:
    @MEexpert

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
     
    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,
     
    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don't believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn't want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don't know the answer to that. One doesn't have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.

    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this.

    Take a closer look:

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it.

    To be fair to PB, I believe the operative word in that sentence is “appeared.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. KenH says:
    @Avery
    { Either he sold us a bill of goods during the campaign....}

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.
    Trump said the Deal with Iran was bad and that he was going to do something about it.
    Whatever that something is.


    { now have Iran within the sights of their nation wrecking ball.}

    Ain't gonna happen.
    Russia forced Neocon warmongers to back down in distant Syria, and so far so good there.
    Russia is not going to allow anyone to wreck a country right on her highly sensitive Southern underbelly.
    As Flynn said: "Nothing is off the table" - for Russia also, when it comes to Iran.

    West (US&EU) did everything - short of open war - to bring Russia to heel.
    Assault on the ruble, sanctions, oil price manipulation, false accusations, upheaval in Ukraine,,.....
    Nothing worked: Russia came out of it in better shape and stronger.

    Have no idea why Trump has his sights on Iran, but he appears to be a rational man, despite his bluster, and doubt he will start anything that will force Russia to respond with full force.
    A very Bad Deal for people of America for sure.

    No: he specifically singled out Iran during his campaign. I have no idea why he did, but he did.

    His comments were limited to the Iran nuclear deal. There were no talks of red lines, putting them “on notice” for conducting military exercises and possibly resorting to war causing sanctions or gunboat diplomacy.

    He’s been the biggest critic of pointless middle east wars yet he’s not learning from past mistakes of Dubya and Hussein and could possibly blunder into another pointless middle east war of his own m making.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. utu says:
    @RobinG
    2001 - A DECADE LATE

    The video you posted (Gen. Wesley Clark on Dem. Now) is widely known, but Clark told this story many times and the talk he gave for the Commonwealth Club of California is much more revealing.
    Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E
    General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years

    “Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state.” – That was the plan. And George H. W. Bush did not want to go along with the plan. That’s why we got Clinton with a little help from Ross Perot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  91. Bobzilla says:
    @Johnny Smoggins
    Let's be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.

    Let’s be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.

    Don’t forget the 2,000 year grudge against Christians. If we go to war with Iran they get to punish two birds with one stone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Druid
    That is the truth and most people are too ignorant to see it. This includes Ukraine and the ME and all European countries!
    , @athEIst
    In 600 something BCE, Cyrus(Persian) destroyed the NeoBabylonian Empire and allowed the Israelites to return to Israel. Most didn't.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  92. @iffen
    If only we had men as reasonable, experienced, and level-headed as Patrick Buchanan in this administration.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years in influential positions in numerous administrations.

    Pat Buchanan's column and articles were published for years and years in newspapers and magazines throughout the US.

    Pat Buchanan spent years and years running for President and all he accomplished was the election of George Dubya Bush.

    And yet, here we are.

    Maybe there is something wrong with the Pat Buchanan approach.

    The man can’t do it by himself. Give me a break.

    Pat has reached more people, tried harder, done better than you or I, that is for sure.

    If we had a million more men like Pat Buchanan in this country, we’d have a better chance of reclaiming our culture, our rights, and a decent future for our children.

    God Bless Pat Buchanan. I’m thankful for the work he has done advocating for peace, localism, national sovereignty, and liberty over the decades.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    All I said was that what Pat Buchanan has done has not worked.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. annamaria says:
    @Rurik

    just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?
     
    true Jacques, but consider..

    Trump is a larger than life billionaire who has a nice family

    I've wondered if he's considered the future of his family in a nation run by psychotic psychopaths, and wondered to himself, seeing the cucks lining up to serve the Fiend in the GOP, if perhaps he has to step up to the plate personally, if there's ever going to be any hope for the future of this nation, that has treated him so well, and where his grandchildren will grow up.

    I think there's a lot of evidence for this chimera of a hope, if you look at his words regarding the presidency over the years when people interviewing him have asked him if he'd ever take the job. You can tell he's exasperated by the level of stupidity and fecklessness of our puppets in chief and all the rest of the treasonous scum.

    and so far, there's been reasons for optimism. He didn't pick someone like John Bolton, but a man friendly to Putin as SoS. He's said that we were misguided (to say the least) to go into Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. He just nixed the TPP.

    however, all that said, if he's now going to foment a war of sorts with Iran, then I'll (unhappily) concede that you were right all along, and that he just another Zio-stooge.

    I pray it's just sabre rattling to temporarily mollify the MIC and other scumfucks at the CFR and PNAC and all the rest of the rotten zio-rats and snakes. (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    The schmucks are non-millifiabe.
    After the spectacular “celebration” at UC Berkeley (that was the word of choice by the Guardian correspondent Julia Wong from San Francisco), the “progressives” want to demonstrate their valor by any other available means. For instance, there was a distribution of leaflets with a letter from Richard P. Lifton, a president of the Rockefeller Universty, in which Mr. Lifton condemned Trump’ policies against immigrants, just before a concert of classical music at Caspari Hall at the Rockefeller Center. First, the distribution of leaflets from Lifton office was disrespectful towards both the classical musicians that came to play Ravel & Beethoven and towards the public. Second, Mr. Lifton seems to be unaware that Mr. Obama has deported the greatest number of immigrants ever (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obamas-deportation-policy-numbers/story?id=41715661). And thirdly, where these “progressives” had been when the Obama-Clinton team was destroying Libya and Syria thus making a huge numbers of the local people homeless and gravely endangered. The destruction of Libya and Syria has resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings, including tens of thousands of children. http://fpif.org/adding-costs-hillary-clintons-wars/ But hey, this theme – the dead brownish people in the faraway lands bombed by Obama administration – is not supposed to be on the revolutionary agenda of the “righteous” New Yorkers stomping their feet, like children, to show their un-approval of the newly selected president of the US. How about taking a closer look at why the US has been destroying the seven nations? — Or this is too dangerous for the “progressives” careers?

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

    I really hope that President Trump has the good sense to listen to Pat Buchanan’s very sane and practical advice on this issue rather than allowing himself to be lead along by some of the same members of the political establishment whose repeated foreign policy mistakes got us into this situation in the first place.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  95. Veritatis says:
    @nickels
    So Trump is a neocon,
    Its over then.
    The world and America are in God's hands now, may he be merciful.

    I hope you are wrong, good of Buchanan to lay it out so clearly. A war with Iran is not in the US national interest. Not to mention way more expensive than a bad deal.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. JoeFour says:
    @Ben_C
    Pat,

    I'm sorry, but I see no compelling evidence of "Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons". Quite the contrary.

    Did Assad use the "chemical weapons" just to agree to give them up the next day? This obviously makes no sense whatsoever...

    'We' could get into the granular details of all this, but it seems to me the "burden of proof" lies with the accusers here...not the accused...

    I know the US recently went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to disarm his nonexistent WMDs, but I guess that's another conversation entirely...

    Here’s a link to an article that concludes Assad did not use chemical weapons but the rebels opposing him did …

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/organization-for-the-prohibition-of-chemical-weapons-opwc-confirms-rebels-used-chemical-weapons-not-assad/5500017

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. @SolontoCroesus

    What you don’t understand, guns are butter.
     
    terrific.

    now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.

    GE doesn’t make Kelvinators; it’s now a Wall Street global money mover heavily invested in military-industrial-contracting. That’s the bread and butter of their business, manufacturing war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  98. Can anyone explain to me why the hawks are so fixated on Iran? I know they have the hots for killing Israelis, but beyond that, they don’t seem to have any interest in messing with us and a lot of interest in messing with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda crowd that really does want to terrorize Americans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    Can anyone explain to me why the hawks are so fixated on Iran?
     
    Israel wants to be the only game in the middle east. Any competition will not be tolerated. I don't see any other reason. If small resistance group like Hezbollah can kick Israeli behind twice, what do you think will happen with a fully armed and capable Iran.

    I know they have the hots for killing Israelis,
     
    This is again an Israeli propaganda. Israel has made more threats about bombing Iran than Iran has against Israel. The only comments that Israel uses was a misguided translation of Khomeini's speech. That threat was against the Israeli regime not against the Jews of Israel. Iran has the highest population of Jews in the middle east outside Israel. Furthermore, Israel and the US have tried to sabotage the nuclear plants and the infrastructure in Iran, not to mention killings of the Irani scientists.

    Furthermore, Iran is fighting Al-Qaeda and ISIS who are friends of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.
    , @jacques sheete

    I know they have the hots for killing Israelis...
     
    Sources, please.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. @Mark Green
    Another prescient analysis by Buchanan. My only complaint is his contention that Obama was "humiliated" by his reversal on Syria. All Obama did was change strategies. Sure, he blinked first. But the US confrontation with Assad went strictly underground. Washington stepped up covert funding of anti-Assad 'moderates'. Ironically, a lot of these moderates turned out to be Sunni Iraqis--the same people US forces attacked mercilessly during the decade-long, US-initiated Iraq war that began under Bush 43.

    Sure, this strategy did weaken Assad but it failed to achieve the Zio-friendly objective of regime change. The Israelis however did ultimately benefit via the sharp rise in Arab fatalities.

    As for Iran, it looks as though Trump is starting to follow in his predecessor's footsteps; namely antagonize and demonize Iran in order to please the neocons and neolibs who still rule Washington and control our media.

    Haven't we seen this song and dance before?

    Trump--like Bush and Obama--is inching closer to bringing the US into another needless Mideast conflict that benefits Israel.

    Nah, he did get humiliated. And for all that, I think that that precise moment was the best moment of the Obama administration. Because that’s when Obama, having seen what happened in Libya, took a step back and decided NOT to be a warmongering psychotic Neocon freak. He was still an imperialist; but there are gradations.

    Obama deserves great credit for expressing regret over the Libyan fiasco, and for not giving in to the Neocons over Syria.

    Now let’s hope that Trump does not repeat Obama’s mistakes. By far the easiest way to ruin his already embattled presidency is to get embroiled in useless conflicts. Especially with nations like Iran, China, and Russia (about whom Hailey mouthed off today).

    By the way, Buchanan was enthusiastic in his support of Trump, and so his worried tone is remarkable. Let’s hope Trump chooses peace & prosperity over conflict & carnage.

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

    The US only attacks weak enemies who are helpless, isolated and can’t defend themselves. I wouldn’t worry too much.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @SolontoCroesus

    What you don’t understand, guns are butter.
     
    terrific.

    now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.

    …now Homeland Security is going to start inspecting our refrigerators.

    Well then, I hope they at least wash their hands since they’ve already been inspecting our shorts!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Z-man says:
    @nsa
    Didn't take long for Der Trumpster to become a Jooie owned Butt Boy a la Tokyo Rose McCain and Dame Lindsey Graham and in fact the whole congressional harem.....turning the US military into a free auxiliary of the IDF. From Der Trumpster to Der ButtBoy in just one week........

    ‘Dame Lindsey Graham’, LOL!!!
    He’s becoming an Israeli firster a la his son in law!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Graham has never been married and has no children."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Z-man says:
    @Cloak And Dagger
    I give Trump a lot of credit for being smart and wily, and I tend to overlook the things he says in favor of the things he actually does. I don't agree with Pat that he won't back down - he may recolor it differently to save face, but he does back down. Note that he is already redrawing the picture of how the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem - now he says that there are two sides to this. The end result will be some watered down version of the original vow.

    I am positive that Trump knows that a war with Iran would be a complete disaster for us and would not have the support of this war-weary nation. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a large population in a country of mountainous terrain that is not hospitable to invaders. They are also now armed with the S-300 missile defense system from Russia since last October that would make mincemeat out of Israeli and US aerial attacks. Iran also has a vast array of missiles that can lay waste to Israel in short order. Their 'swarm boats' would decimate our fleet in the gulf, shutting it down and plunging the world into an economic crisis.

    And what makes us think that Russia and China would sit idly by and allow us to do this? Oh, and by the way, those guys have nukes too. It would probably trigger an attack on Israel from their neighbors who have advanced their military capabilities significantly since 1967. Remember how Israel's forays into Lebanon ended with them retreating with their tail between their legs, and their much vaunted Markava tanks (so-called 'God's Chariot') were laid waste in the desert with around 40 of them razed to the ground by Hezbollah guerillas?

    Nope, I don't expect Trump to go to war with Iran - it's bad for business and Trump is all about business. Pay no attention to the words that come out of his mouth, just watch his hands and feet.

    Let's not forget that Trump is all about populism. He is doing something about barring refugees from our borders because that is what the people elected him for. He will build a wall (or something close) on our southern border because that is what the people who elected him want. Everything he has done so far has been compatible with what the people who elected him want.

    The people who elected him don't want to go to another war, so he is not going to do it. Note how he lambasted McCain and Graham about wanting to start WW3? He wouldn't follow that up by doing it himself, no siree. The people who elected him want our troops back home and his people are working furiously to make that happen as soon as possible. Everything else is just fodder for the media and his detractors. He is filling the airwaves with noise so that it dilutes the attacks of the opposition and distracts them while he goes about the business of draining the swamp.

    Trump is not suicidal, and an attack on Iran would be the most imbecilic of self-destructive moves that he could make. Not gonna happen.

    Hope you’re right, but the force of ‘the dark side’ is strong in the beltway!

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

    If Trump is serious about eradicating ISIS his only reliable allies who can commit fighters on the ground are Iran, Hezbollah, the Kurds, the Syrian army and the Houthis, and of course Russia..
    Saudis and Turks ( an even Jordanians) are unreliable as they are ideologically close ot ISIS and other Islamists . In addition none are ready to commit troops on the ground.
    So Trump needs to get into a dialog with the countries and groups committed to the fight agaisnt ISIS
    Is the recent noise about the missiles yet another Trump posturing to start a dialog with Iran?
    By hitting at Iran and flirting and cajoling Saudi Arabia and Israel, is Trump setting the premices to hit them later with tough demands?
    After all, despite the early hopes, it is highly probable that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and Israel will have a tougher time with the Trump administration that they had with Obama.
    Iran may get ‘notices’ and empty threats but the other will get difficult demands.
    Not all is how it appears…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  105. iffen says:
    @RadicalCenter
    The man can't do it by himself. Give me a break.

    Pat has reached more people, tried harder, done better than you or I, that is for sure.

    If we had a million more men like Pat Buchanan in this country, we'd have a better chance of reclaiming our culture, our rights, and a decent future for our children.

    God Bless Pat Buchanan. I'm thankful for the work he has done advocating for peace, localism, national sovereignty, and liberty over the decades.

    All I said was that what Pat Buchanan has done has not worked.

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

    Except for a few wrong facts. Number one – it is the US backed junta in Ukraine who are shelling the people in Donbass. Didn’t Poroshenko admit that he is proud of his army advancing bit by bit? The evidence points 100 per cent at the US backed regime being the aggressor
    Second mistake. North Korea’s nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes. They acquired them after they saw what the US regime did to Iraq. The biggest nuclear threat is the US and it’s global domination policy.
    Third mistake – Russia has confirmed that the Iranian missile was not nuclear capable. Once again all the aggression is coming from the US – a regime which can’t keep it’s word on anything and is the source of virtually all global terrorism and wars.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The evidence points 100 per cent at the US backed regime being the aggressor"
    Correct. The war profiteers rejoice. The US "progressives" with the idiotic pink hats, as well as other "progressive defenders of the human rights and women rights" who are blind and deaf towards the Obama-Clinton crimes against humanity, are happily uniting with the CIA and ziocons against the very, very bad Russians -- exactly as the presstituting MSM has been programming the "progressives" to do.
    Since both physics and chemistry are not an obligatory part of school education in the US, the noisy "progressives" are blissfully unaware of the consequences of aggressive meddling with another nuclear power. The "progressive" noise is going on unabated, all why John Yoo (of torture memo fame) is comfortably teaching at the "progressive" UC Berkeley and the bloody war criminal Condi Rice resides at Stanford.
    Add to that the mass retrograde amnesia among the "progressives" re the role of Obama-Clinton team in the ongoing tragedy in Libya and Syria. And of course, there is not a peep from the "progressives" in relation to the $15 million/per month redistributed from the US budget to the Israel's budget, thanks to Obama. To notice the infusion of the US taxpayers' money to the obnoxious and worrisome apartheid state could be detrimental to a career; hence the "progressives" faint ignorance of the obscene corrupting influence by the Lobby. The "progressives" are also terribly shy re the video that exposes the way that the Israeli government has ‘infiltrated’ both the Conservative and Labour parties via its embassy in the UK, using secret cash and covert support. The footage shows the Israeli diplomat, intelligence expert Shai Masot [from Mossad] conversing with a fifth-columnist Maria Strizzolo (S), a leading pro-Israel Tory activist and an aide to Conservative Minister Robert Halfon: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098082/Astonishing-undercover-video-captures-diplomat-conspiring-rival-MP-s-aide-smear-Deputy-Foreign-Secretary.html
    One can be absolutely sure that the similar "Mossad activism" is going on in the US.
    By the way, the Fukushima situation is getting worse.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Rurik

    just look at Trump or any other prez or prez candidate. Who in their right mind would even want the job?
     
    true Jacques, but consider..

    Trump is a larger than life billionaire who has a nice family

    I've wondered if he's considered the future of his family in a nation run by psychotic psychopaths, and wondered to himself, seeing the cucks lining up to serve the Fiend in the GOP, if perhaps he has to step up to the plate personally, if there's ever going to be any hope for the future of this nation, that has treated him so well, and where his grandchildren will grow up.

    I think there's a lot of evidence for this chimera of a hope, if you look at his words regarding the presidency over the years when people interviewing him have asked him if he'd ever take the job. You can tell he's exasperated by the level of stupidity and fecklessness of our puppets in chief and all the rest of the treasonous scum.

    and so far, there's been reasons for optimism. He didn't pick someone like John Bolton, but a man friendly to Putin as SoS. He's said that we were misguided (to say the least) to go into Iraq and Libya and elsewhere. He just nixed the TPP.

    however, all that said, if he's now going to foment a war of sorts with Iran, then I'll (unhappily) concede that you were right all along, and that he just another Zio-stooge.

    I pray it's just sabre rattling to temporarily mollify the MIC and other scumfucks at the CFR and PNAC and all the rest of the rotten zio-rats and snakes. (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    (with apologies to real rats and snakes everywhere)

    I hope yer correct.

    BTW, apologies accepted! ;)

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

    Attacking Iran would be completely contrary to the America First policy. How does Iran threaten us? Even if, in the worst case, it developed a nuclear bomb and the means to deliver it, Iran wouldn’t dare attack us. We have thousands. We’d bury them in an hour. The countries that should be worried, if at all, are smaller nations that Iran could conceivably attack. We should be working with them rather than issuing ultimatums ourselves.

    Even if the deal Obama reached with Iran is a bad deal, we should stick with it until Iran clearly renounces or violates it. Testing a missile did not violate that agreement. If you want Iran to stop testing missiles, you should try to reach a new agreement with them. In fact, Iran could help us get rid of ISIS. There seem to be the makings of a new “deal” there.

    A war against Iran would make the Iraq war look like child’s play.

    Get real, Trump, Flynn et al. We voted for you because you seemed interested in working with other nations rather than fighting them. If we’d wanted war we would have voted for Hillary. Were we wrong? Are you going to disappoint us?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  109. MEexpert says:
    @The Millennial Falcon
    Can anyone explain to me why the hawks are so fixated on Iran? I know they have the hots for killing Israelis, but beyond that, they don't seem to have any interest in messing with us and a lot of interest in messing with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda crowd that really does want to terrorize Americans.

    Can anyone explain to me why the hawks are so fixated on Iran?

    Israel wants to be the only game in the middle east. Any competition will not be tolerated. I don’t see any other reason. If small resistance group like Hezbollah can kick Israeli behind twice, what do you think will happen with a fully armed and capable Iran.

    I know they have the hots for killing Israelis,

    This is again an Israeli propaganda. Israel has made more threats about bombing Iran than Iran has against Israel. The only comments that Israel uses was a misguided translation of Khomeini’s speech. That threat was against the Israeli regime not against the Jews of Israel. Iran has the highest population of Jews in the middle east outside Israel. Furthermore, Israel and the US have tried to sabotage the nuclear plants and the infrastructure in Iran, not to mention killings of the Irani scientists.

    Furthermore, Iran is fighting Al-Qaeda and ISIS who are friends of both Israel and Saudi Arabia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. @The Millennial Falcon
    Can anyone explain to me why the hawks are so fixated on Iran? I know they have the hots for killing Israelis, but beyond that, they don't seem to have any interest in messing with us and a lot of interest in messing with the ISIS/Al-Qaeda crowd that really does want to terrorize Americans.

    I know they have the hots for killing Israelis…

    Sources, please.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  111. annamaria says:
    @Z-man
    'Dame Lindsey Graham', LOL!!!
    He's becoming an Israeli firster a la his son in law!

    “Graham has never been married and has no children.”

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

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Yes, I was laughing because it's true. I call him 'poof boy' Graham, but 'Dame Lindsey' was hysterical. lol
    Graham, a classic 'chicken hawk'.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    Whether or not Trump thinks a war with Iran is a good idea, the fact remains that it is going to be almost impossible to get the public to support a war in the absence of a 9/11 event. George Bush was able to leverage the psychic trauma of 9/11 to go after Saddam and his phantom WMD programs, but Obama realized that tough talk doesn’t generate support for a war; calamities do. Obama’s foreign interventions were mostly through aerial drones and not “boots on the ground” so the public really didn’t care. Where was the anti-war movement for the past eight years?

    I doubt Trump intends to steer America into a war with Iran. First, he knows that we don’t have a game plan for what happens after the regime falls, so that there will only be more chaos in the Middle East, and more refugees heading to Europe. My sense is that many in Trump’s administration aren’t working for Trump, but the “deep state.” Remember when candidate Trump had to contradict his own vice-president during the third debate about how to handle Syria? I imagine that Haley’s views and Flynn’s views reflect the “deep state’s” views and not Trump’s.

    Trump won the presidency by calling for a Wall, a Muslim ban, and good trade deals. He never got any applause by claiming he was going to fire up the war engines because Iran was shooting off a few rockets.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    He could be throwing a bone at Jews who funded him.

    But it might stop with rhetoric.

    Hopefully... because if Trump begins war with Iran, he is a real scumsucker.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. annamaria says:
    @Albo
    Except for a few wrong facts. Number one - it is the US backed junta in Ukraine who are shelling the people in Donbass. Didn't Poroshenko admit that he is proud of his army advancing bit by bit? The evidence points 100 per cent at the US backed regime being the aggressor
    Second mistake. North Korea's nuclear weapons are for defensive purposes. They acquired them after they saw what the US regime did to Iraq. The biggest nuclear threat is the US and it's global domination policy.
    Third mistake - Russia has confirmed that the Iranian missile was not nuclear capable. Once again all the aggression is coming from the US - a regime which can't keep it's word on anything and is the source of virtually all global terrorism and wars.

    “The evidence points 100 per cent at the US backed regime being the aggressor”
    Correct. The war profiteers rejoice. The US “progressives” with the idiotic pink hats, as well as other “progressive defenders of the human rights and women rights” who are blind and deaf towards the Obama-Clinton crimes against humanity, are happily uniting with the CIA and ziocons against the very, very bad Russians — exactly as the presstituting MSM has been programming the “progressives” to do.
    Since both physics and chemistry are not an obligatory part of school education in the US, the noisy “progressives” are blissfully unaware of the consequences of aggressive meddling with another nuclear power. The “progressive” noise is going on unabated, all why John Yoo (of torture memo fame) is comfortably teaching at the “progressive” UC Berkeley and the bloody war criminal Condi Rice resides at Stanford.
    Add to that the mass retrograde amnesia among the “progressives” re the role of Obama-Clinton team in the ongoing tragedy in Libya and Syria. And of course, there is not a peep from the “progressives” in relation to the $15 million/per month redistributed from the US budget to the Israel’s budget, thanks to Obama. To notice the infusion of the US taxpayers’ money to the obnoxious and worrisome apartheid state could be detrimental to a career; hence the “progressives” faint ignorance of the obscene corrupting influence by the Lobby. The “progressives” are also terribly shy re the video that exposes the way that the Israeli government has ‘infiltrated’ both the Conservative and Labour parties via its embassy in the UK, using secret cash and covert support. The footage shows the Israeli diplomat, intelligence expert Shai Masot [from Mossad] conversing with a fifth-columnist Maria Strizzolo (S), a leading pro-Israel Tory activist and an aide to Conservative Minister Robert Halfon: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4098082/Astonishing-undercover-video-captures-diplomat-conspiring-rival-MP-s-aide-smear-Deputy-Foreign-Secretary.html
    One can be absolutely sure that the similar “Mossad activism” is going on in the US.
    By the way, the Fukushima situation is getting worse.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, jacques sheete
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Anon
    Whether or not Trump thinks a war with Iran is a good idea, the fact remains that it is going to be almost impossible to get the public to support a war in the absence of a 9/11 event. George Bush was able to leverage the psychic trauma of 9/11 to go after Saddam and his phantom WMD programs, but Obama realized that tough talk doesn't generate support for a war; calamities do. Obama's foreign interventions were mostly through aerial drones and not "boots on the ground" so the public really didn't care. Where was the anti-war movement for the past eight years?

    I doubt Trump intends to steer America into a war with Iran. First, he knows that we don't have a game plan for what happens after the regime falls, so that there will only be more chaos in the Middle East, and more refugees heading to Europe. My sense is that many in Trump's administration aren't working for Trump, but the "deep state." Remember when candidate Trump had to contradict his own vice-president during the third debate about how to handle Syria? I imagine that Haley's views and Flynn's views reflect the "deep state's" views and not Trump's.

    Trump won the presidency by calling for a Wall, a Muslim ban, and good trade deals. He never got any applause by claiming he was going to fire up the war engines because Iran was shooting off a few rockets.

    He could be throwing a bone at Jews who funded him.

    But it might stop with rhetoric.

    Hopefully… because if Trump begins war with Iran, he is a real scumsucker.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. Wally says:
    @Mark Green
    Another prescient analysis by Buchanan. My only complaint is his contention that Obama was "humiliated" by his reversal on Syria. All Obama did was change strategies. Sure, he blinked first. But the US confrontation with Assad went strictly underground. Washington stepped up covert funding of anti-Assad 'moderates'. Ironically, a lot of these moderates turned out to be Sunni Iraqis--the same people US forces attacked mercilessly during the decade-long, US-initiated Iraq war that began under Bush 43.

    Sure, this strategy did weaken Assad but it failed to achieve the Zio-friendly objective of regime change. The Israelis however did ultimately benefit via the sharp rise in Arab fatalities.

    As for Iran, it looks as though Trump is starting to follow in his predecessor's footsteps; namely antagonize and demonize Iran in order to please the neocons and neolibs who still rule Washington and control our media.

    Haven't we seen this song and dance before?

    Trump--like Bush and Obama--is inching closer to bringing the US into another needless Mideast conflict that benefits Israel.

    The choice was either a definite Clinton war with Russia or a possible Trump war with Iran.

    Trump speaking in Cincinnati, December 1, 2016:

    “We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past…We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments…. Our goal is stability not chaos, because we want to rebuild our country [the United States]… We will partner with any nation that is willing to join us in the effort to defeat ISIS and radical Islamic terrorism …In our dealings with other countries, we will seek shared interests wherever possible and pursue a new era of peace, understanding, and good will.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Wally says: • Website
    @geokat62

    Osama’s bin Laden’s greatest achievement was not to bring down the twin towers and kill 3,000 Americans, but to goad America into plunging headlong into the Middle East, a reckless and ruinous adventure that ended her post-Cold War global primacy.
     
    I beg to differ. Credit for the greatest achievement belongs to The Lobby. Think about it: things aren't going so well for your pet project. Then two blueprints are developed to help improve things (The Yinon Plan and PNAC's Clean Break). So you've got the blueprints, but how to implement it? Here's where The Lobby steps in. Through key players in the Bush Administration (e.g., Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Pearl, Elliot Abrams, Douglas Feith, Scooter Lewis Libby), they will convince the rapture-seeking Bush to launch a new Crusade against those raghead Muslims, who are still occupying Jerusalem and other parts of the Holy Land. But he is instructed to not use the term "crusade" as it may be too inflammatory. Next step, have key members of the media (e.g., Judith Miller) splash daily headlines in the newspaper of record that provide irrefutable evidence that Saddam Hussain possesses WMD. And just to instill the appropriate amount of fear into the domestic population to support this so-called GWOT, have the Mossad launch the Anthrax attacks without making it obvious who the source is:

    The New York Post and NBC News letters contained the following note:

    09-11-01
    THIS IS NEXT
    TAKE PENACILIN [sic] NOW
    DEATH TO AMERICA
    DEATH TO ISRAEL
    ALLAH IS GREAT


    The second anthrax note
    The second note that was addressed to Senators Daschle and Leahy read:

    09-11-01
    YOU CAN NOT STOP US.
    WE HAVE THIS ANTHRAX.
    YOU DIE NOW.
    ARE YOU AFRAID?
    DEATH TO AMERICA.
    DEATH TO ISRAEL.
    ALLAH IS GREAT.
     
    Think about the level of complexity to successful pull this off. Your goal is to launch a series of regime change wars against those countries deemed hostile to the villa in the jungle to enhance the security of said villa. You know it will cost trillions to wage these wars, so you have to convince the American rubes that these wars are meant to enhance their security, despite the mounting evidence that "terrorism" in the homeland is increasing not diminishing.

    But with all complicated plans of this nature, something can go wrong in the execution of the plan. And the two truth-telling Profs. Mearsheimer and Walt provide the incriminating evidence:

    Israel’s enthusiasm for war eventually led some of its allies in America to tell Israeli officials to damp down their hawkish rhetoric, lest the war look like it was being fought for Israel. In the fall of 2002, for example, a group of American political consultants known as the Israel Project circulated a six-page memorandum to key Israelis and pro-Israel leaders in the United States. The memo was titled “Talking about Iraq” and was intended as a guide for public statements about the war. “If your goal is regime change, you must be much more careful with your language because of the potential backlash. You do not want Americans to believe that the war on Iraq is being waged to protect Israel rather than to protect America.”
     
    So, my vote for the greatest achievement goes to The Lobby.

    The impossible ‘holocau$t’ storyline:

    We’re talking about an alleged ’6M Jews & 5M others’ … 11,000,000.
    There is not a single verifiable excavated enormous mass grave with contents actually SHOWN, not just claimed, (recall the claim of 900,000 buried at Treblinka, or 250,000 at Sobibor) even though Jews claim they still exist and claim to know exactly where these alleged enormous mass graves are.

    see the ‘holocaust’ scam further debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Must reads:
    Holocaust Handbooks & Documentaries

    http://holocausthandbooks.com/index.php?main_page=1

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  117. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @joe webb
    'WE ARE PUTTING YOU ON NOTICE. Where did that slogan come from?

    It was used in the HBO series, Deadwood. First time I heard it. It went back and forth with zero effect except to further antagonize.

    As I have said several times, Trump is in the rock/hardplace with his pledge to eradicate ISIS and presumably the dozens of other groups.. jihadist warriors on missions from Gawd.....and to be that neutral arbiter in Palestine/Israel.

    Maybe Flynn is a bit goofy, like some earlier reports stated.

    Guns or Butter. Trump must choose. And if he chooses guns, we all lose.

    JW

    Will you be doing your Uncle Sam routine in front of Trump Tower if Trump goes to war with Iran?

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

    President Reagan used to tell a story that people told him that if he voted for Goldwater, the Vietnam war will get worse. He did and sure enough the Vietnam war got worse. BTW Goldwater lost the election to President Johnson.

    I think this story can be told again with replacing the names of Goldwater with Hillary Clinton and Johnson with Donald Trump. We were all worried that if Hillary won she would start the WWIII. I now think that Trump is trying to do a better job of starting a war in middle east all on his own.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  119. @War for Blair Mountain
    The Sihk prostitute....Nikki Haley..... issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday....


    Trump=war with Christian Russia...

    The Sihk prostitute….Nikki Haley….. issued a threat to Christian Russia yesterday….

    You’d almost get the impression she has some kind of allergy against St. Andrew’s Cross …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Che Guava
    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump's grandchildren of whom I've heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.

    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump’s grandchildren of whom I’ve heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.

    Money’s not the reason. Modern Israel does not use halakha to determine who’s ‘Jewish’. They use the Nuremberg Laws! In other words, either a Jewish mother or father will do. That way, they can maximize immigration (‘alia’).

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "That way, they can maximize immigration (‘alia’)."
    Correct. See the economic migration of the former Soviets, many of whom are occupying the leading positions in Israeli government (such as the felon Lieberman and the mad Russophobe Sharansky). Funny how the former Soviet Jews have been "handling" the easily-corruptible US politicians.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. Jamal says:
    @Zod
    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    Thank you Mr. Buchanan. I always used to watch your show on CNN and enjoyed the debate and issues you bring to the public. I was excited when you planned to run for the presidency. I am not an American but I do believe in American values, freedom of speech, liberty and that all people are created equal. America needs to show leadership. It needs to lead through cooperation with other freedom loving nations in order to promote peace in this troubled world. America is the land of open opportunities, the land for immigrants from all over the world with different colors, religions, and cultures. That’s what makes America great. Please keep it that’s why and don’t let the dream dies.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  122. No War with Iran will be without the China and Russian consent, and they will object for now.

    Trump will only do sanctions on persons&companies, totally counter productive and unbusiness like, just like Obama. To please his masters Adelson/AIPAC.

    But hey, maybe the Maddog (once a Ghadaffi name) will attack anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  123. Randal says:

    A prediction: The Chinese will not be departing from their islands, and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against testing their missiles.

    Pretty safe predictions, I think.

    As for the discussion of Trump confrontationalism towards Iran, it’s always rather futile imo to try to analyse US regime statements and policies towards Iran without accounting for the basic irrationality of the US elites concerning Iran. (I don’t mean the dual loyalty Saudi/Israeli types, or the oil/military business types – their self-interested desire for the US to confront Iran is entirely rational and understandable, albeit profoundly immoral and arguably borderline treasonous as far as the American national interest is concerned.)

    If US regime members like Flynn get their way, and there is a war with Iran, its consequences for the US and the US regime, and for those who will have pushed and propagandised for the policy, will likely make Iraq look like a glorious and profitable triumph.

    There is an awful lot already on the foreign policy plate of the new president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again

    Gosh, I wonder why that might be the case?

    Could there be a clue in the recent actions of US Senators (and well known warmongers) Graham and McCain in Ukraine, openly pushing for Ukrainian military aggressions to provoke a Russian response? Could they perhaps see some usefulness in such actions to their own transparent efforts to push the US regime towards war with Russia?

    McCain and Graham visited Ukraine’s Front Line, told Leadership to go on Offensive

    Read More
    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @annamaria
    McCain, a Tokyo Rose from a family of a betrayer of the USS Liberty.

    Vietnam Veterans hate McCain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hr37eE0nO8
    McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2d0CKXy8HQ
    John McCain Praises Father’s Whitewashing of Israel’s Attack on the USS LIBERTY!: http://america-hijacked.com/2011/09/02/john-mccain-praises-fathers-whitewashing-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/
    McCain and neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Randal says:
    @geokat62

    So what’s the bottom line? That to keep employment from cratering, and political fortunes along with them before the next two years are up, pragmatically, the continuous wars must continue.
     
    So, the primary driver, according to Fran, is an economic one. Trouble with this explanation, Fran, is that it diminishes the significant role played by The Lobby. According to Mearsheimer and Walt's The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, The Lobby pushed for these wars in the ME not for economic reasons, as you claim, but to enhance the security of the villa in the jungle.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby... and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby… and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.

    Surely both can be true?

    The primary driver of particular wars and confrontations, including Iraq, certainly has been the Israel lobby. To deny that can surely only be perverse or dishonest.

    But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US’s general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole).

    The latter makes the task of the lobbies pushing for particular wars and confrontations relatively easy, of course.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Harold Smith
    "But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US’s general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole)."

    Nonsense. If someone has enough power and influence to do 9/11 and get away with it, trash our constitution, squander billions of dollars on failed weapon systems and anything else under the sun, simply "lose" trillions of dollars, squander trillions of dollars on blatantly immoral, aggressive wars based on false pretenses, all without any accountability whatsoever, why would such people need "confrontation", especially potentially world-as-we-know-it-ending confrontation, just to make a little extra money? They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.

    Rather, the "overall driver of confrontation and war" is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they're evil.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. annamaria says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    I am not keepmg track closely, but those of Trump’s grandchildren of whom I’ve heard, all are Israeli citizens, if not, automatically eligible. Funny how the maternal line principle vanishes if there is enough money involved.
     
    Money's not the reason. Modern Israel does not use halakha to determine who's 'Jewish'. They use the Nuremberg Laws! In other words, either a Jewish mother or father will do. That way, they can maximize immigration ('alia').

    “That way, they can maximize immigration (‘alia’).”
    Correct. See the economic migration of the former Soviets, many of whom are occupying the leading positions in Israeli government (such as the felon Lieberman and the mad Russophobe Sharansky). Funny how the former Soviet Jews have been “handling” the easily-corruptible US politicians.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. Randal says:
    @Fran Macadam
    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn't one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet. Those who want an excuse for Helter Skelter can go play with that elsewhere, far from where they can't play nice with others. But some people are just itching for a fight. For the forseeable future they can join up to kill and be killed, as I pointed out.

    Yeah, because I despise identity politics and racist cant. There isn’t one thing in any of it that tells me the character of any individual I will meet.

    So long as you meekly accept the basically leftist notion of “racism” as an inherent evil and political taboo in a desperate hope that you will thereby remain respectable, any analysis of the world you make will be incomplete.

    You can dislike “identity politics” all you like, but no matter how much you ignore and deny it, it will continue to exist and it won’t ignore you.

    That’s not to say that white identity advocates are necessarily correct, merely that the issues they raise (such as the evil and harm inherent in mass immigration and in national “diversity”) are real.

    For instance, if you think that you can explain the Iraq war by reference to economics alone, without accounting for the crucial influence of the Israel lobby for fear of being deemed racist (in its most extremely taboo form of “antisemitism”), then you are simply wrong. There were far too many influential figures within the Bush regime and the US media pushing for war, who were clearly and openly motivated by Israeli interests, for your position to be tenable.

    Read More
    • Agree: Miro23
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. The Trumpster fraudster’s campaign was a sophisticated psyop from the beginning.
    Why did candidate Trump openly side with Syria and Russia? Because the campaign to conquer Syria was already trashed, so why not take advantage of it to make the puppet look “reasonable”?
    The Jews apparently just accepted the loss and moved on to another target.
    The Jews also knew that the propaganda value of their mainstream media outlets is trashed, so we saw our “hero”, the Trumpster fraudster, wage a fierce scripted battle against the already dead MSM. The Trumpster fraudster looked like a man of action as he furiously beat the already dead corpse.
    Why did the Jews throw Sanders under the bus to put the Trumpster fraudster up against the more unelectable Clinton? Because they wanted Trump, not Sanders.
    We were scammed. This country will not survive another Godless, Jew-controlled fool.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  128. Agent76 says:
    @MEexpert

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
     
    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,
     
    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don't believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn't want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don't know the answer to that. One doesn't have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.

    Absolutely I did and this is the reason I posted this here on this topic. The Pentagon is everyone’s enemy on the planet because, ‘All Wars Are Bankers Wars’!

    January 5, 2017 US SPECIAL OPERATIONS FORCES DEPLOY TO 138 NATIONS, 70 PERCENT OF THE WORLD’S COUNTRIES

    They could be found on the outskirts of Sirte, Libya, supporting local militia fighters, and in Mukalla, Yemen, backing troops from the United Arab Emirates. At Saakow, a remote outpost in southern Somalia, they assisted local commandos in killing several members of the terror group al-Shabab.

    http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/38993-the-year-of-the-commando-us-special-operations-forces-deploy-to-138-nations-70-percent-of-the-world-s-countries

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. Agent76 says:
    @RobinG
    2001 - A DECADE LATE

    The video you posted (Gen. Wesley Clark on Dem. Now) is widely known, but Clark told this story many times and the talk he gave for the Commonwealth Club of California is much more revealing.
    Near the end, he recalls that in 1991, right after the First Gulf War, Paul Wolfowitz told him that the U.S. must move quickly to regime-change all the ME countries formerly allied with the (recently fallen) Soviet state.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nUCwCgthp_E
    General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years

    Good share thanks. December 06, 2010 Wall Street’s Pentagon Papers: Biggest Financial Scam In World History $12.3 TRILLION in taxpayers’ money

    What if the greatest scam ever perpetrated was blatantly exposed, and the US media didn’t cover it? Does that mean the scam could keep going? That’s what we are about to find out.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/wall-street-s-pentagon-papers-biggest-financial-scam-in-world-history/22291

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @Randal

    So, according to me, the primary driver is The Lobby… and the economic benefits of these wars are merely secondary byproducts.
     
    Surely both can be true?

    The primary driver of particular wars and confrontations, including Iraq, certainly has been the Israel lobby. To deny that can surely only be perverse or dishonest.

    But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US's general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole).

    The latter makes the task of the lobbies pushing for particular wars and confrontations relatively easy, of course.

    “But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US’s general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole).”

    Nonsense. If someone has enough power and influence to do 9/11 and get away with it, trash our constitution, squander billions of dollars on failed weapon systems and anything else under the sun, simply “lose” trillions of dollars, squander trillions of dollars on blatantly immoral, aggressive wars based on false pretenses, all without any accountability whatsoever, why would such people need “confrontation”, especially potentially world-as-we-know-it-ending confrontation, just to make a little extra money? They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.
     
    Personally, I think it's more a feeling of racial/class superiority expressed as contempt for "Deplorables" and the amusement of kicking them whenever possible.

    For example, the racial superiority idea was very current in the fashionable Imperial ambience of late 19th Century Europe. with most countries actively engaged in Imperial enlargement projects. It's psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets if you are going to steal their property and land and dominate their societies.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
    , @Randal

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.
     
    Not my experience. Most evil seems to be done by people who are absolutely convinced they are doing good, and who are not viewed as evil by most of the people who are on their side of whatever the issues are, most of whom are transparently not themselves "evil" at all.

    They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.
     
    You mean, "your straw man makes no sense at all".

    There is no all controlling "they", there are just people and groups with varying degrees of power and wealth, and most of them are always hunting for a bit more power and wealth, or if not that then they are attempting another exercise of said power and wealth to achieve their goals. That's what they manipulate the media and politics for.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. Agent76 says:
    @MEexpert

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
     
    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,
     
    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don't believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn't want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don't know the answer to that. One doesn't have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.

    Nov 22, 2010 Project for the New American Century

    ‘ALL WARS ARE BANKERS’ WARS’ By Michael Rivero

    I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Agent76 says:
    @MEexpert

    Bush’s Plan for “Serial War” revealed by General Wesley Clark. “[The] Five-year campaign plan [includes]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark) According to General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon, by late 2001.
     
    Did you notice the countries included in the list? The same countries, except Lebanon, that or on the refugees list.

    Bibi Netanyahu hailed Flynn’s statement, calling Iran’s missile test a flagrant violation of the U.N. resolution and declaring, “Iranian aggression must not go unanswered.” By whom, besides us?
     
    Netanyahu has no shame. Israel has been violating and ignoring every UN resolution against her. He has the audacity of condemning Iran. Some people have no shame.

    When Barack Obama drew his red line against Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons in Syria’s civil war, and Assad appeared to cross it,
     
    Every once in a while Pat makes a bonehead statement like this. He is smarter than that but he has to toe the line otherwise he will be totally marginalized. I don't believe he ever bought the official line that Assad did it. He knows full well that it was a ruse to draw the red line to please Netanyahu. Thanks to voter outrage Obama backed down.

    Trump is acting like a bull in the china shop. He is going to put his mark on the presidency even if he has to destroy it to do so. The executive orders are like a new toy to a child who doesn't want to let it go. He is having fun signing them and showing them around.

    Is he a neocon? Was he a neocon? I don't know the answer to that. One doesn't have to be a neocon to make stupid decisions. He has certainly become a war monger.

    Donald Trump came to Washington to drain the swamp. Right now he is drowning in that swamp instead. Somebody better throw him a line quick or he is a goner.

    The neoconservative agenda

    Established in the spring of 1997 and funded largely by the energy and arms industries, the Project for the New American Century was founded as the neoconservative think tank whose stated goal was to usher in a “new American century”. Having won the cold war and no military threat to speak of, this group of ideologues created a blueprint for the future whose agenda was to capitalize upon our surplus of military forces and funds and forcing American hegemony and corporate privatization throughout the world.

    https://www.loc.gov/item/lcwa00010308/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. These people really area bunch of amateurs taking us to nuclear Armageddon. Russia is allied to Iran and Syria and the erratic Trump seems not to understand that. Creating a safe zone in Syria (back on the table) would involve US occupation (illegally and would be considered an invasion) so that means regime change is still in the works and that also implies confrontation with Russia. How the fu** does Trump figure he can work with Putin when he is undermining him all over the place at the same time? He can’t.

    Allies have determined the US can never be trusted. The US has created this ME mess, refuses to take the repercussions of their actions, but can’t stop what they are doing–which has never worked. Ukraine is back in the headlines once more with Russia being accused (again) of aggression. Haley is making threats at the UN about retaliation if they are not with the US on all things. China is in their crazy cross-hairs as is NK. At last count, DT has pissed off 4 of our staunchest allies.

    This is only week 2 and he’s on a freaking roll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  134. MarkinLA says:
    @Ben_C
    Pat,

    I'm sorry, but I see no compelling evidence of "Bashar Assad’s use of chemical weapons". Quite the contrary.

    Did Assad use the "chemical weapons" just to agree to give them up the next day? This obviously makes no sense whatsoever...

    'We' could get into the granular details of all this, but it seems to me the "burden of proof" lies with the accusers here...not the accused...

    I know the US recently went to war with Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to disarm his nonexistent WMDs, but I guess that's another conversation entirely...

    The Assad used chemical weapons meme is so widespread Pat probably thinks he needs to continue it to maintain credibility. All the talking heads repeat it even after confronted with the truth.

    The moron O’Reilly was spouting that as well as the Assad must go nonsense when Dennis Kucinich was trying to educate him and the moron just brushed it off with comment about yes we are helping the rebels but it not that much.

    These people know the US populace is totally clueless and they are way more concerned about keeping their high salary jobs than telling their audience the truth.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    Seems like Kucinich is just on Fox to be a whipping boy, but something might get through. Maybe he'll get sympathy since O'Reilly is such a bully - especially if watchers catch on that Bill is just parroting crap.

    Meanwhile, InfoWars does some kooky stuff, but this is an excellent piece:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p3KnK6Lc4o&feature=youtu.be
    Congresswoman Tells Truth! There Are No Moderate Rebels
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. MarkinLA says:

    Trump probably did goof by going public. But Iran is also to blame. They are playing a game as well. If they wanted better relations with the US they surely know that Trump cannot be viewed as a pussy in the first few months he takes office, yet they launch missiles. Trump had to respond or the Israel firsters in the media would have made him out to be a wimp. Better to be a warmonger for Israel than a wimp.

    The reality is there is nothing the US can really do to Iran and we should just acknowledge it and live with it. Unfortunately, the stupid American public is so brainwashed into believing we can and must do something. It is this same dynamic that has gotten us into all sorts of stupid wars all the way back to Korea and Vietnam.

    Hopefully, Trump will realize this and find a way to back out.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Z-man
    Unfortunately there's not much we can do with the Zionist Beast, also.
    , @Avery
    Good points.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. annamaria says:
    @Randal

    A prediction: The Chinese will not be departing from their islands, and the Iranians will defy the U.S. threat against testing their missiles.
     
    Pretty safe predictions, I think.

    As for the discussion of Trump confrontationalism towards Iran, it's always rather futile imo to try to analyse US regime statements and policies towards Iran without accounting for the basic irrationality of the US elites concerning Iran. (I don't mean the dual loyalty Saudi/Israeli types, or the oil/military business types - their self-interested desire for the US to confront Iran is entirely rational and understandable, albeit profoundly immoral and arguably borderline treasonous as far as the American national interest is concerned.)

    If US regime members like Flynn get their way, and there is a war with Iran, its consequences for the US and the US regime, and for those who will have pushed and propagandised for the policy, will likely make Iraq look like a glorious and profitable triumph.


    There is an awful lot already on the foreign policy plate of the new president after only two weeks, as pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again
     
    Gosh, I wonder why that might be the case?

    Could there be a clue in the recent actions of US Senators (and well known warmongers) Graham and McCain in Ukraine, openly pushing for Ukrainian military aggressions to provoke a Russian response? Could they perhaps see some usefulness in such actions to their own transparent efforts to push the US regime towards war with Russia?

    McCain and Graham visited Ukraine's Front Line, told Leadership to go on Offensive

    McCain, a Tokyo Rose from a family of a betrayer of the USS Liberty.

    Vietnam Veterans hate McCain:
    McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices:
    John McCain Praises Father’s Whitewashing of Israel’s Attack on the USS LIBERTY!: http://america-hijacked.com/2011/09/02/john-mccain-praises-fathers-whitewashing-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/
    McCain and neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    The fact that McCain and Graham have been repeatedly re-elected and that they have not been regarded for years now as pariahs by their party's voters is an ongoing condemnation of US Republicans.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. Z-man says:
    @annamaria
    "Graham has never been married and has no children."
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Graham

    Yes, I was laughing because it’s true. I call him ‘poof boy’ Graham, but ‘Dame Lindsey’ was hysterical. lol
    Graham, a classic ‘chicken hawk’.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Z-man says:
    @MarkinLA
    Trump probably did goof by going public. But Iran is also to blame. They are playing a game as well. If they wanted better relations with the US they surely know that Trump cannot be viewed as a pussy in the first few months he takes office, yet they launch missiles. Trump had to respond or the Israel firsters in the media would have made him out to be a wimp. Better to be a warmonger for Israel than a wimp.

    The reality is there is nothing the US can really do to Iran and we should just acknowledge it and live with it. Unfortunately, the stupid American public is so brainwashed into believing we can and must do something. It is this same dynamic that has gotten us into all sorts of stupid wars all the way back to Korea and Vietnam.

    Hopefully, Trump will realize this and find a way to back out.

    Unfortunately there’s not much we can do with the Zionist Beast, also.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. RobinG says:
    @MarkinLA
    The Assad used chemical weapons meme is so widespread Pat probably thinks he needs to continue it to maintain credibility. All the talking heads repeat it even after confronted with the truth.

    The moron O'Reilly was spouting that as well as the Assad must go nonsense when Dennis Kucinich was trying to educate him and the moron just brushed it off with comment about yes we are helping the rebels but it not that much.

    These people know the US populace is totally clueless and they are way more concerned about keeping their high salary jobs than telling their audience the truth.

    Seems like Kucinich is just on Fox to be a whipping boy, but something might get through. Maybe he’ll get sympathy since O’Reilly is such a bully – especially if watchers catch on that Bill is just parroting crap.

    Meanwhile, InfoWars does some kooky stuff, but this is an excellent piece:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1p3KnK6Lc4o&feature=youtu.be

    Congresswoman Tells Truth! There Are No Moderate Rebels

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. Simonsays says:
    @Old fogey
    Thank you, Mr. Buchanan, for this excellent post. I pray that the President and the Secretary of State give it a careful reading.

    Indeed! This what will make or break all

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. Miro23 says:
    @Harold Smith
    "But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US’s general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole)."

    Nonsense. If someone has enough power and influence to do 9/11 and get away with it, trash our constitution, squander billions of dollars on failed weapon systems and anything else under the sun, simply "lose" trillions of dollars, squander trillions of dollars on blatantly immoral, aggressive wars based on false pretenses, all without any accountability whatsoever, why would such people need "confrontation", especially potentially world-as-we-know-it-ending confrontation, just to make a little extra money? They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.

    Rather, the "overall driver of confrontation and war" is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they're evil.

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.

    Personally, I think it’s more a feeling of racial/class superiority expressed as contempt for “Deplorables” and the amusement of kicking them whenever possible.

    For example, the racial superiority idea was very current in the fashionable Imperial ambience of late 19th Century Europe. with most countries actively engaged in Imperial enlargement projects. It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets if you are going to steal their property and land and dominate their societies.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete
    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they'd been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of "this kind of discourse" ("It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets") long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren't for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    , @jacques sheete

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Also please note that Hitler was a victim of that kind of discourse which is exactly why he was subjected to it and exactly why people believe that baloney to this day.

    The original masters of that kind of discourse had been practicing for quite some time. It was at one time called the Synagogue of Satan, and


    Jeremiah9:

    8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow;
    it speaks deceitfully.
    With their mouths they all speak cordially to their neighbors,
    but in their hearts they set traps for them.
     

    There's a lot more where that came from.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Druid says:
    @nsa
    Didn't take long for Der Trumpster to become a Jooie owned Butt Boy a la Tokyo Rose McCain and Dame Lindsey Graham and in fact the whole congressional harem.....turning the US military into a free auxiliary of the IDF. From Der Trumpster to Der ButtBoy in just one week........

    Funny and well said

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Druid says:
    @Brabantian
    Sadly, Donald Trump has begun mass killing of civilians like Obama did, Trump extending support of Israeli & some Saudi agendas, above all the 'Oded Yinon' plan of breaking up mid-east countries to better serve oligarch-serving Israeli mafias in their op centre ... strongest regional rival nation is Iran, hence its targeting

    Killing Muslim women & children like Obama, Trump must know he is creating thousands more 'terrorists' ... See the touching photo of 8-year-old girl Nora Al-Awlaki just killed under Trump's orders in Yemen, her violent death by bullets fired by a US marine at close range ... Nora bleeding to death for 2 hours, the brave little girl as she lay dying, even trying to comfort her tearful mother:

    "Nawar was shot several times, one bullet piercing her neck. She suffered & was bleeding for two hours because it was not possible to get her medical attention ... Nawar was reassuring her mother as she was bleeding, ‘Don’t cry mama, I’m fine, I’m fine’" ... According to medical sources on the ground, 30 people were killed by US soldiers, 10 of them women & children ... Hailing the operation as a 'success', Trump & the US are preoccupied with the death of one US serviceman who was killed."

    Arab media is running stories that Bashar Assad in Syria has had a stroke, & the TV-loving Assad had not appeared personally to buttress the official denials. Strokes are apparently easily induced now by CIA-Mossad tech ... Assad could be hit by Israeli agents in the Russian entourage ... A dirty deal by Mossad-Chabad-Netanyahu-tied Vladimir Putin to balkanise Syria, going along with Trump & Israel here like he indulged taking down & killing Qaddafi in Libya?

    Her death and her dignity will be the hell of her murderers in another life!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    A suggestion on how to deal justly with the major war profiteers:
    "The Bush Family wealth should be distributed to the TROOPS who were maimed and crippled in the wars the Bush Family LIED America into fighting. The Bush Family has huge investments in “defense” stocks such as the CARLYLE GROUP and the Bush Family was PROFITTING & got RICHer as American Troops bled. Then the NEOCON-War Mongers (Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol, Rove), the whole list of those who spread and supported the LIES) should also be stripped."
    See the pictures, the monument to Bush& Obama criminals administrations.
    http://theduran.com/photos-prove-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-nothing-love-islam/
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  144. Druid says:
    @Timur The Lame
    Geeze Louise,

    Osama Bin Laden conducted the minor 911 event but everything that came after it was a hyper-successful 'goad' that induced supposedly reluctant M'urkans into the present quagmire? Dementia (1), Buchanan (0).

    Potential comment would exceed bandwidth. How about a little comic relief such as the capture and execution of said super genius. The respectful burial at sea was a real knee slapper.

    Cheers-

    Sorry, it was an inside job.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. @Miro23

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.
     
    Personally, I think it's more a feeling of racial/class superiority expressed as contempt for "Deplorables" and the amusement of kicking them whenever possible.

    For example, the racial superiority idea was very current in the fashionable Imperial ambience of late 19th Century Europe. with most countries actively engaged in Imperial enlargement projects. It's psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets if you are going to steal their property and land and dominate their societies.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.

    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.

    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they’d been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of “this kind of discourse” (“It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets”) long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren’t for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    If these new islands are to become ours . . . can we hope to close the floodgates of immigration from the hordes of Chinese and the semisavage races coming from what will then be part of our own country?” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/books/review/true-flag-stephen-kinzer.html


    Following the annexation of Philippines ,this sentiment was quite common among leaders of all stripes .
    , @Miro23

    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they’d been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.
     
    I wouldn't disagree with that, but Imperialism was definitely out of fashion after WWI - it was an aristocratic Belle Époque thing. The new ideal was Wilson's 14 points (national/ethnic self determination - e.g. Point 10: "The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development").

    Hitler could have gone along with this for Germans in Germany but instead tried to build a continental Empire along 19th century lines, and was really only expressing a long held German elite opinion of the need for a Drive for the East (Drang nach Osten) and Eastern Living Space (Lebensraum). In fact after the 1871 German victory over the French, Von Moltke was already agitating for the transport of the victories armies to the East for a direct attack on Tsarist Russia (with not a Bolshevik in sight).

    The story was complicated by the resented Jewish takeover of the Weimar economy after WWI, the French occupation of the Ruhr and the hyperinflation of 1922-23 which propelled Hitler to power, with everything mixed in, along with ideas of German racial superiority and Imperialist Right is Might. And to make it even more complicated, his nationalist/socialist ideas for the reorganization of Germany were broadly accepted and effective in rebuilding the economy.
    , @dfordoom

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of “this kind of discourse” (“It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets”) long before Hitler was even on the scene.
     
    The British media went to great lengths to dehumanize and denigrate the Germans in the First World War. I don't know if the Germans were doing the same thing - they probably were.

    You can't wage war as a democracy without first dehumanizing your selected enemy.
    , @dfordoom

    In fact if it weren’t for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.
     
    You're quite right about Churchill. No-one did more to drag Britain into the tragic farce of the First World War than Churchill. If there was one thing that Winston Churchill loved more than Winston Churchill it was war.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  146. @Miro23

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.
     
    Personally, I think it's more a feeling of racial/class superiority expressed as contempt for "Deplorables" and the amusement of kicking them whenever possible.

    For example, the racial superiority idea was very current in the fashionable Imperial ambience of late 19th Century Europe. with most countries actively engaged in Imperial enlargement projects. It's psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets if you are going to steal their property and land and dominate their societies.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.

    Also please note that Hitler was a victim of that kind of discourse which is exactly why he was subjected to it and exactly why people believe that baloney to this day.

    The original masters of that kind of discourse had been practicing for quite some time. It was at one time called the Synagogue of Satan, and

    Jeremiah9:

    8 Their tongue is a deadly arrow;
    it speaks deceitfully.
    With their mouths they all speak cordially to their neighbors,
    but in their hearts they set traps for them.

    There’s a lot more where that came from.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. annamaria says:
    @Druid
    Her death and her dignity will be the hell of her murderers in another life!

    A suggestion on how to deal justly with the major war profiteers:
    “The Bush Family wealth should be distributed to the TROOPS who were maimed and crippled in the wars the Bush Family LIED America into fighting. The Bush Family has huge investments in “defense” stocks such as the CARLYLE GROUP and the Bush Family was PROFITTING & got RICHer as American Troops bled. Then the NEOCON-War Mongers (Cheney, Krauthammer, Kristol, Rove), the whole list of those who spread and supported the LIES) should also be stripped.”
    See the pictures, the monument to Bush& Obama criminals administrations.

    http://theduran.com/photos-prove-barack-obama-hillary-clinton-nothing-love-islam/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. KA says:
    @jacques sheete
    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they'd been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of "this kind of discourse" ("It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets") long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren't for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    If these new islands are to become ours . . . can we hope to close the floodgates of immigration from the hordes of Chinese and the semisavage races coming from what will then be part of our own country?” https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/27/books/review/true-flag-stephen-kinzer.html

    Following the annexation of Philippines ,this sentiment was quite common among leaders of all stripes .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. Miro23 says:
    @jacques sheete
    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they'd been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of "this kind of discourse" ("It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets") long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren't for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they’d been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    I wouldn’t disagree with that, but Imperialism was definitely out of fashion after WWI – it was an aristocratic Belle Époque thing. The new ideal was Wilson’s 14 points (national/ethnic self determination – e.g. Point 10: “The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development”).

    Hitler could have gone along with this for Germans in Germany but instead tried to build a continental Empire along 19th century lines, and was really only expressing a long held German elite opinion of the need for a Drive for the East (Drang nach Osten) and Eastern Living Space (Lebensraum). In fact after the 1871 German victory over the French, Von Moltke was already agitating for the transport of the victories armies to the East for a direct attack on Tsarist Russia (with not a Bolshevik in sight).

    The story was complicated by the resented Jewish takeover of the Weimar economy after WWI, the French occupation of the Ruhr and the hyperinflation of 1922-23 which propelled Hitler to power, with everything mixed in, along with ideas of German racial superiority and Imperialist Right is Might. And to make it even more complicated, his nationalist/socialist ideas for the reorganization of Germany were broadly accepted and effective in rebuilding the economy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    along with[Hitler's] ideas of German racial superiority
     
    -----

    But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry and envy. For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself
     
    - - speech by Samuel Untermyer, Aug. 7, 1933 --ironically, a key purpose of the speech was to raise money for Hebrew University. One silver lining of Spain's expulsion of Jews was that many landed in Italy and attended fine universities there. Post-emancipation in 1789 Jews attended universities in France; and with the Haskalah movement, by ~1880 Russian and Polish Jews started attending German and Austrian universities, a first exposure to secular scholarship.

    ------



    " . . . Dissy's [Benjamin Disraeli] favorite maxim that race is everything . . . [PM Aisquith, ~19160 "
     
    ". . .
    In his book Tancred, published. . . in 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race—there is no other truth” (page 106). And in his book Endymion, . . . he wrote:

    No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood."
     

    ---

    "We must beware of taking the Nazi doctrines, their Rassenkunde [racial anthropology] and their geopolitics and what not, too seriously. . . .
    The state calls itself "Aryan"-- but the term "Aryan," this product of this barbaric pedantry, has no intrinsic meaning whatsoever: its only meaning is negative, polemical: an Aryan simply means a non-Jew."
     
    -Leo Strauss, 1943 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452927?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents

    ---

    nb. for a contra-Straussian discussion of "Aryanism," see Prof. Jason Reza Jorjani, "The Iranian Renaissance and Aryan Imperium"

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkQfp2GmZH4

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Avery says:
    @MarkinLA
    Trump probably did goof by going public. But Iran is also to blame. They are playing a game as well. If they wanted better relations with the US they surely know that Trump cannot be viewed as a pussy in the first few months he takes office, yet they launch missiles. Trump had to respond or the Israel firsters in the media would have made him out to be a wimp. Better to be a warmonger for Israel than a wimp.

    The reality is there is nothing the US can really do to Iran and we should just acknowledge it and live with it. Unfortunately, the stupid American public is so brainwashed into believing we can and must do something. It is this same dynamic that has gotten us into all sorts of stupid wars all the way back to Korea and Vietnam.

    Hopefully, Trump will realize this and find a way to back out.

    Good points.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Che Guava
    Mr. Buchanan,

    I have been following the news on this, was hoping that the Trump admin. would be good for the people of your nation, and the world, but always suspicious that it would not, because of the support for the continued colonial subvervience of the US to Israel and the painting of Iran as an automatic enemy.

    pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine are firing artillery again
     
    That is a rubbish statement, your antipathy to orthodoxy as opposed to the Roman church seems to inspire it. The Ukrainian puppet government forces have been firing artillery at Donetsk and Lukhansk since the chocolate baron was appointed, by US neocons, as the president after a coup d'etat. As I say, I have long respected you, but you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox). It is no surprise that they finally started firing back after being fired upon in violation of the Minsk treaty for the time since then.

    North Korea’s nuclear missile threat, which, unlike Iran’s, is real</i

    From accounts of the North Korean programme in Japanese, it is unlikely that any of their bomb tests have been of a weapon of the scale of Fat Man or Little Boy. Neither are they scalable to fit the tIp of an ICBM.

    Iran, if you have met and conversed with Persians, regime supporters too (I use 'regime' for a reason, the Islamists used, subverted and shoved aside the other participants against the Shah, or not) they are generally decent people.

    Unlike most places in the region, including Israel of now, they have had relathve peace for years, as many Persians, I dislike the Islamic state of Iran, but you would have to be a great fool to not see that they are the most enlightened people in the region, and that specifically includes Israelis, how horribly superior they are, groundlessly.

    Sure, the mullocrasy in Persia of now suppresses their own true religion (Zoroastrianism), but unlike Israel, where Jewish people spit on and beat Christians, including priests and monks, many disagree with the state established by Khomeinh.

    you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox)

    Aren’t the Ukies orthodox too?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    That is complicated. In the north-east, a Polish Catholic sector. A little further south, an Eastern-rite catholic sector, orthodox under the Bishop of Rome. To the south and east, an orthodox church that is the same as Russias, but in schism with it. Further to the east, orthodoxy.

    Of course, it is a patchwork in many parts.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  152. Druid says:
    @Bobzilla

    Let’s be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.
     
    Don't forget the 2,000 year grudge against Christians. If we go to war with Iran they get to punish two birds with one stone.

    That is the truth and most people are too ignorant to see it. This includes Ukraine and the ME and all European countries!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @Miro23

    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they’d been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.
     
    I wouldn't disagree with that, but Imperialism was definitely out of fashion after WWI - it was an aristocratic Belle Époque thing. The new ideal was Wilson's 14 points (national/ethnic self determination - e.g. Point 10: "The people of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity to autonomous development").

    Hitler could have gone along with this for Germans in Germany but instead tried to build a continental Empire along 19th century lines, and was really only expressing a long held German elite opinion of the need for a Drive for the East (Drang nach Osten) and Eastern Living Space (Lebensraum). In fact after the 1871 German victory over the French, Von Moltke was already agitating for the transport of the victories armies to the East for a direct attack on Tsarist Russia (with not a Bolshevik in sight).

    The story was complicated by the resented Jewish takeover of the Weimar economy after WWI, the French occupation of the Ruhr and the hyperinflation of 1922-23 which propelled Hitler to power, with everything mixed in, along with ideas of German racial superiority and Imperialist Right is Might. And to make it even more complicated, his nationalist/socialist ideas for the reorganization of Germany were broadly accepted and effective in rebuilding the economy.

    along with[Hitler's] ideas of German racial superiority

    —–

    But why dwell longer upon this revolting picture of the ravages wrought by these ingrates and beasts of prey, animated by the loathsome motives of race hatred, bigotry and envy. For the Jews are the aristocrats of the world. From time immemorial they have been persecuted and have seen their persecutors come and go. They alone have survived. And so will history repeat itself

    – – speech by Samuel Untermyer, Aug. 7, 1933 –ironically, a key purpose of the speech was to raise money for Hebrew University. One silver lining of Spain’s expulsion of Jews was that many landed in Italy and attended fine universities there. Post-emancipation in 1789 Jews attended universities in France; and with the Haskalah movement, by ~1880 Russian and Polish Jews started attending German and Austrian universities, a first exposure to secular scholarship.

    ——

    ” . . . Dissy’s [Benjamin Disraeli] favorite maxim that race is everything . . . [PM Aisquith, ~19160 "

    ". . .
    In his book Tancred, published. . . in 1868, Disraeli wrote: “All is race—there is no other truth” (page 106). And in his book Endymion, . . . he wrote:

    No man will treat with indifference the principle of race. It is the key to history and why history is so often confused is that it has been written by men who were ignorant of this principle and all the knowledge it involves… Language and religion do not make a race—there is only one thing which makes a race, and that is blood."

    ---

    "We must beware of taking the Nazi doctrines, their Rassenkunde [racial anthropology] and their geopolitics and what not, too seriously. . . .
    The state calls itself “Aryan”– but the term “Aryan,” this product of this barbaric pedantry, has no intrinsic meaning whatsoever: its only meaning is negative, polemical: an Aryan simply means a non-Jew.”

    -Leo Strauss, 1943 http://www.jstor.org/stable/20452927?seq=6#page_scan_tab_contents

    nb. for a contra-Straussian discussion of “Aryanism,” see Prof. Jason Reza Jorjani, “The Iranian Renaissance and Aryan Imperium”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jacques sheete
    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they'd been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of "this kind of discourse" ("It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets") long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren't for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of “this kind of discourse” (“It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets”) long before Hitler was even on the scene.

    The British media went to great lengths to dehumanize and denigrate the Germans in the First World War. I don’t know if the Germans were doing the same thing – they probably were.

    You can’t wage war as a democracy without first dehumanizing your selected enemy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. dfordoom says: • Website
    @jacques sheete
    You were doing well until this.

    Unsurprisingly, Hitler was a master of this kind of discourse while he planned and executed his project for an Imperial Greater Germany reaching to the Urals.
     
    Just as Germany was late to the unification party, and late to the imperialism extravaganza, Hitler was late to racism class. The early birds had to demonize him for doing what they'd been doing for decades because, like, who needs competition.

    For instance, FDR, Churchill, and their buddies the Bolshies were long a masters of "this kind of discourse" ("It’s psychologically useful to dehumanize and denigrate your targets") long before Hitler was even on the scene. In fact if it weren't for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    In fact if it weren’t for the war mongering scumbags, such as Churchill an the Bolshies, he may never have come to power.

    You’re quite right about Churchill. No-one did more to drag Britain into the tragic farce of the First World War than Churchill. If there was one thing that Winston Churchill loved more than Winston Churchill it was war.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. athEIst says:
    @Bobzilla

    Let’s be honest; the casus belli for the ongoing U.S. hostility with Iran is the 3000 year old grudge Jews have been holding against Persia.
     
    Don't forget the 2,000 year grudge against Christians. If we go to war with Iran they get to punish two birds with one stone.

    In 600 something BCE, Cyrus(Persian) destroyed the NeoBabylonian Empire and allowed the Israelites to return to Israel. Most didn’t.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Miro23 says:

    It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran, but there are still some interesting differences from Iraq.

    Saddam gambled that the US wouldn’t attack his country so he was mostly unprepared, but Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study, and to understand how the US operates a modern technological assault in the Middle East – and it could probably correctly assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).

    Result that the US could get more of a surprise than the Iranians, and, to avoid losing face, be obliged to escalate much faster and further than anticipated – maybe involving a large scale loss of civilian lives. If a point like this is reached, the whole project could well blow up politically as Europe turns its back on the US, or the US population finally gets out on the street (Republicans and Democrats) to call Trump out on his No-ME War lies.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Above post was reply to #157.
    , @annamaria
    "There’s no doubt that the US would win this war..."
    You mean another war against Grenada?
    , @MEexpert

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war
     
    You mean like they won in Afghanistan. The only way the US can win the war is to carpet bomb and kill everyone which they are incapable of doing. Not only the Russians will back Iran but the war will spread throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah will attack Israel and Iran will not only defend the homeland but also retaliate against the Gulf monarchies. Furthermore, US will be doing this alone. This time Europe will not be siding with US because all the allies would have been alienated by then.

    Oddly, after making this statement you go on to show why they can't win. American public has had enough of these wars for the benefit of corporations and Israel. They didn't vote for more wars.
    , @Randal

    Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study
     
    And the example of Hezbollah. And plenty of real combat experience in both Iraq and in Syria.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran
     
    I think "no doubt" is putting it much too strongly, unless you tightly qualify what you mean by winning the war. Granted the US is a superpower (and one moreover that has spent nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on its military for decades), whereas Iran is merely a medium sized regional power with an underdeveloped military by first world standards, so it's no surprise that the US has clear and overwhelming military superiority.

    But you have to ask what "winning" would mean. Does it just mean successfully doing some random destruction in Iran without comparable reply? That seems to be the only definition that results in any certainty of US "victory".

    If victory means regime change or Iranian surrender to US regime demands, then it would appear unlikely this could necessarily be achieved by mere bombardment. The Iranian constitutional settlement clearly has the broad support of the people of Iran (as witnessed by the failure of the US-backed "colour revolution" there a few years ago), and people tend to rally round even despised governments when foreigners are slaughtering their friends and relatives. In the meantime, the US will be paying a massive popular opinion and diplomatic price everywhere except in Israel and in some sunni Arab countries, as well as bearing the costs of the ongoing war and such retaliations as the Iranians and their allies can manage.

    The Yugoslav experience suggests that, absent an ongoing civil war as in the Libya case, at least a credible threat of ground invasion is required to force a surrender.

    If there is no surrender then whatever damage is done will be repaired in a few years and the Iranians will have learned the lesson that only nuclear weapons can ultimately protect you from a lawless, aggressive military power like the US.

    If a ground invasion is required then there is absolutely no certainty that the US will "win". It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on, but unlike in Iraq there will be no formerly repressed majority community to collaborate in the occupation.

    As for active Russian and Chinese support, that is a clear possibility in Iran, as it was not in Iraq. The relationship between the US and Russia, and to a lesser extent that between the US and China, is far more openly confrontational than either was in 2003, and Russia especially will see an urgent need to ensure the US does not gain a "victory" in Iran. US threats of retaliation will seem all the less threatening given that the US regime is already doing most of what it can to attack Russian interests in core Russian security sphere areas such as Ukraine anyway. As seen in Syria, Russia is now prepared to openly defy the US militarily.

    Iran is a very different matter from Iraq, and not in any ways that are good for the US interventionists.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Avery says:

    {There’s no doubt that the US would win this war,}
    {assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).}

    List some wars that US military has won _without_ ground troops.
    I can’t think of any.

    Aerial bombing, cruise missiles, etc will cause massive damage to Iranian infrastructure, but will not break Iran.
    The people will rally around the leadership.
    Iranian navy will be largely wiped out, but there will be enough left to cause lots of damage to US Navy in the Persian gulf.
    A simulation by US Navy few years ago showed that US would lose several capital ships in the Persian gulf engagement.

    Iranians can and will easily close off Hormuz: they have a large supply of anti-ship missiles on shore (I think Chinese Silkworm).
    Oil prices will skyrocket, possibly plunging US into a deep recession.
    Lots of other unpredictable results.

    Also, if US attacks Iran, Iranians will not hesitate to attack Saudi oil infrastructure, either via long range missiles or via Shia agents in KSA.

    And when the dust settles, Iranians will most certainly start a crash program to develop nukes. Then everybody else in the region will do the same.

    The whole notion of US starting a war with Iran is sheer insanity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    List some wars that US military has won _without_ ground troops.
     
    It depends how far they are willing to go. They didn't need to invade Japan - the destruction of two cities with nuclear bombs was sufficient to make the Japanese realize that any more resitance would be futile.

    The question then is for Netanyahu, the US Neocons and the US deep state who would be the true initiators of an Iran war. Would they be willing to use US nuclear weapons against Iran to get things over quickly?

    Unfortunately the answer is probably Yes - they were crazy enough to organize 9/11 and have no regard whatsoever for the interests of the US public.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. Avery says:
    @Miro23

    It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
     
    There's no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran, but there are still some interesting differences from Iraq.

    Saddam gambled that the US wouldn't attack his country so he was mostly unprepared, but Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study, and to understand how the US operates a modern technological assault in the Middle East - and it could probably correctly assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).

    Result that the US could get more of a surprise than the Iranians, and, to avoid losing face, be obliged to escalate much faster and further than anticipated - maybe involving a large scale loss of civilian lives. If a point like this is reached, the whole project could well blow up politically as Europe turns its back on the US, or the US population finally gets out on the street (Republicans and Democrats) to call Trump out on his No-ME War lies.

    Above post was reply to #157.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. annamaria says:
    @Miro23

    It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
     
    There's no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran, but there are still some interesting differences from Iraq.

    Saddam gambled that the US wouldn't attack his country so he was mostly unprepared, but Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study, and to understand how the US operates a modern technological assault in the Middle East - and it could probably correctly assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).

    Result that the US could get more of a surprise than the Iranians, and, to avoid losing face, be obliged to escalate much faster and further than anticipated - maybe involving a large scale loss of civilian lives. If a point like this is reached, the whole project could well blow up politically as Europe turns its back on the US, or the US population finally gets out on the street (Republicans and Democrats) to call Trump out on his No-ME War lies.

    “There’s no doubt that the US would win this war…”
    You mean another war against Grenada?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. MEexpert says:
    @Miro23

    It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
     
    There's no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran, but there are still some interesting differences from Iraq.

    Saddam gambled that the US wouldn't attack his country so he was mostly unprepared, but Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study, and to understand how the US operates a modern technological assault in the Middle East - and it could probably correctly assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).

    Result that the US could get more of a surprise than the Iranians, and, to avoid losing face, be obliged to escalate much faster and further than anticipated - maybe involving a large scale loss of civilian lives. If a point like this is reached, the whole project could well blow up politically as Europe turns its back on the US, or the US population finally gets out on the street (Republicans and Democrats) to call Trump out on his No-ME War lies.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war

    You mean like they won in Afghanistan. The only way the US can win the war is to carpet bomb and kill everyone which they are incapable of doing. Not only the Russians will back Iran but the war will spread throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah will attack Israel and Iran will not only defend the homeland but also retaliate against the Gulf monarchies. Furthermore, US will be doing this alone. This time Europe will not be siding with US because all the allies would have been alienated by then.

    Oddly, after making this statement you go on to show why they can’t win. American public has had enough of these wars for the benefit of corporations and Israel. They didn’t vote for more wars.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. Miro23 says:
    @Avery
    {There’s no doubt that the US would win this war,}
    {assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).}

    List some wars that US military has won _without_ ground troops.
    I can't think of any.


    Aerial bombing, cruise missiles, etc will cause massive damage to Iranian infrastructure, but will not break Iran.
    The people will rally around the leadership.
    Iranian navy will be largely wiped out, but there will be enough left to cause lots of damage to US Navy in the Persian gulf.
    A simulation by US Navy few years ago showed that US would lose several capital ships in the Persian gulf engagement.

    Iranians can and will easily close off Hormuz: they have a large supply of anti-ship missiles on shore (I think Chinese Silkworm).
    Oil prices will skyrocket, possibly plunging US into a deep recession.
    Lots of other unpredictable results.

    Also, if US attacks Iran, Iranians will not hesitate to attack Saudi oil infrastructure, either via long range missiles or via Shia agents in KSA.

    And when the dust settles, Iranians will most certainly start a crash program to develop nukes. Then everybody else in the region will do the same.

    The whole notion of US starting a war with Iran is sheer insanity.

    List some wars that US military has won _without_ ground troops.

    It depends how far they are willing to go. They didn’t need to invade Japan – the destruction of two cities with nuclear bombs was sufficient to make the Japanese realize that any more resitance would be futile.

    The question then is for Netanyahu, the US Neocons and the US deep state who would be the true initiators of an Iran war. Would they be willing to use US nuclear weapons against Iran to get things over quickly?

    Unfortunately the answer is probably Yes – they were crazy enough to organize 9/11 and have no regard whatsoever for the interests of the US public.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Agree that the lunatics of the ziocon-MIC persuasion could try a nuclear attack on Iran. I guess that for such a case both Iran and Russia have prepared a surprise, first for Israel and second for the US.
    The greatest danger to the US (and the world at large) is the proliferation of aggressive ignoramuses in the highest echelons of the US power. Look at the half-wit Morrel (CIA), lazy Haley (State Dept.), and the money-mad "collective" of US Congress. Look in the past for the power-hungry and totally immoral Condi Rice (the soulless pianist and faux expert in the history of the Soviet Union), the pliable Powell, the cynical Wolfowits-Feith duo and the whole bunch of dual citizens who have been acting in accordance to their true allegiance (Israel), however illogical and harmful hese activities were for the US.
    But the main traitors to the US have been those who worked as "elected puppets at the wheel:" Clinton, Bush, and Obama. In some 30 years these three ignoramuses have managed to reduce the US to a weaponized banana republic ruled by the financial oligarchy and MIC.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. @utu
    We might be finally seeing the true reason why Trump was allowed to be elected. Israel could not get war on Iran under Obama, though they tried three times, so he will get it under Trump.

    Amen to that. Trump was allowed to win solely because he must have somehow outbid Hillary (an incredible feat!) in Israeli-first servility. We’re sleepwalking into another abyss.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    It was thought he would disengage us from these wars, not rattle a saber at an Iran that is three times the size of Iraq and has as its primary weapons supplier and partner Vladimir Putin’s Russia.
     
    There's no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran, but there are still some interesting differences from Iraq.

    Saddam gambled that the US wouldn't attack his country so he was mostly unprepared, but Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study, and to understand how the US operates a modern technological assault in the Middle East - and it could probably correctly assume that the American military would try for a repeat performance (without the ground troops).

    Result that the US could get more of a surprise than the Iranians, and, to avoid losing face, be obliged to escalate much faster and further than anticipated - maybe involving a large scale loss of civilian lives. If a point like this is reached, the whole project could well blow up politically as Europe turns its back on the US, or the US population finally gets out on the street (Republicans and Democrats) to call Trump out on his No-ME War lies.

    Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study

    And the example of Hezbollah. And plenty of real combat experience in both Iraq and in Syria.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran

    I think “no doubt” is putting it much too strongly, unless you tightly qualify what you mean by winning the war. Granted the US is a superpower (and one moreover that has spent nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on its military for decades), whereas Iran is merely a medium sized regional power with an underdeveloped military by first world standards, so it’s no surprise that the US has clear and overwhelming military superiority.

    But you have to ask what “winning” would mean. Does it just mean successfully doing some random destruction in Iran without comparable reply? That seems to be the only definition that results in any certainty of US “victory”.

    If victory means regime change or Iranian surrender to US regime demands, then it would appear unlikely this could necessarily be achieved by mere bombardment. The Iranian constitutional settlement clearly has the broad support of the people of Iran (as witnessed by the failure of the US-backed “colour revolution” there a few years ago), and people tend to rally round even despised governments when foreigners are slaughtering their friends and relatives. In the meantime, the US will be paying a massive popular opinion and diplomatic price everywhere except in Israel and in some sunni Arab countries, as well as bearing the costs of the ongoing war and such retaliations as the Iranians and their allies can manage.

    The Yugoslav experience suggests that, absent an ongoing civil war as in the Libya case, at least a credible threat of ground invasion is required to force a surrender.

    If there is no surrender then whatever damage is done will be repaired in a few years and the Iranians will have learned the lesson that only nuclear weapons can ultimately protect you from a lawless, aggressive military power like the US.

    If a ground invasion is required then there is absolutely no certainty that the US will “win”. It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on, but unlike in Iraq there will be no formerly repressed majority community to collaborate in the occupation.

    As for active Russian and Chinese support, that is a clear possibility in Iran, as it was not in Iraq. The relationship between the US and Russia, and to a lesser extent that between the US and China, is far more openly confrontational than either was in 2003, and Russia especially will see an urgent need to ensure the US does not gain a “victory” in Iran. US threats of retaliation will seem all the less threatening given that the US regime is already doing most of what it can to attack Russian interests in core Russian security sphere areas such as Ukraine anyway. As seen in Syria, Russia is now prepared to openly defy the US militarily.

    Iran is a very different matter from Iraq, and not in any ways that are good for the US interventionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23

    But you have to ask what “winning” would mean.
     
    I think that there is a subtext here. "Winning" could have a very different definition from a Neocon, US Zionist perspective. Israel and Saudi Arabia may be quite happy to have Iranian industries, infrastructure and military capability destroyed, but US Zionists and Neocons also have a dangerous US orientation that was briefly on view on 9/11.

    An integral part of the failed 9/11 Coup was an attempt to launch a US Emergency Regime (which actually existed for while, headed by Cheney with Bush deliberately kept out of touch in Florida) with enforcement through the newly activated Patriot Act and Homeland Security (interesting read for the Florida side is Daniel Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486306972&sr=8-1&keywords=welcome+to+terrorland ).

    So the issue from the US Zionist/Neocon viewpoint might not really involve "winning against Iran or Russia", just sufficient "Crisis" to introduce an Emergency Regime in the US, operating under a special set of laws devised under the Reagan administration, in fact a Coup, with Democracy suspended and top positions held by the Neocon/Deep State alliance. If this is the case, it's not clear where Trump fits in - if anywhere, but the 9/11 planners would be safely beyond investigation.

    Jews have been praying for millennia for a return to Israel, but now that they have the opportunity, many seem to have decided that taking power in the United States is a more attractive option - even the avowed Zionists.
    , @L.K
    Randal:

    'It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on'
     
    Not really. For one thing, gone are the days ZUSA could afford heavy casualties...
    Iran would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like strolls in a park...
    The zamericans would have to be really, really stupid to go into a ground war in Iran, it would end very badly for them.
    Airstrikes, cruise missiles won't accomplish much, as you noted. Besides pissing the Iranians off.

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA's real military capabilities... they have fallen prey to ZUSA' propaganda machine.
    Some also seem not to understand that comparing ZUSA'S Gulf war success or the initial easy win in Iraq in 2003 has little next to nothing to do with a war with Iran, on so many different levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Randal says:
    @Harold Smith
    "But the overall driver of confrontation and war as the US’s general approach to international relations is economic (though in the sense that it is to the economic benefit of particular powerful players and interest groups, not of the nation as a whole)."

    Nonsense. If someone has enough power and influence to do 9/11 and get away with it, trash our constitution, squander billions of dollars on failed weapon systems and anything else under the sun, simply "lose" trillions of dollars, squander trillions of dollars on blatantly immoral, aggressive wars based on false pretenses, all without any accountability whatsoever, why would such people need "confrontation", especially potentially world-as-we-know-it-ending confrontation, just to make a little extra money? They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.

    Rather, the "overall driver of confrontation and war" is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they're evil.

    Rather, the “overall driver of confrontation and war” is the spiritual force of evil. To put it simply: Evil people do what they do because they’re evil.

    Not my experience. Most evil seems to be done by people who are absolutely convinced they are doing good, and who are not viewed as evil by most of the people who are on their side of whatever the issues are, most of whom are transparently not themselves “evil” at all.

    They can raid the treasury, print money, simply demand money from anyone, etc. Your theory makes no sense at all.

    You mean, “your straw man makes no sense at all”.

    There is no all controlling “they”, there are just people and groups with varying degrees of power and wealth, and most of them are always hunting for a bit more power and wealth, or if not that then they are attempting another exercise of said power and wealth to achieve their goals. That’s what they manipulate the media and politics for.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Randal says:
    @annamaria
    McCain, a Tokyo Rose from a family of a betrayer of the USS Liberty.

    Vietnam Veterans hate McCain: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hr37eE0nO8
    McCain Confronted on USS Liberty Cover-up & Media Accomplices: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2d0CKXy8HQ
    John McCain Praises Father’s Whitewashing of Israel’s Attack on the USS LIBERTY!: http://america-hijacked.com/2011/09/02/john-mccain-praises-fathers-whitewashing-of-israels-attack-on-the-uss-liberty/
    McCain and neo-Nazis: http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-u-s-has-installed-a-neo-nazi-government-in-ukraine/5371554

    The fact that McCain and Graham have been repeatedly re-elected and that they have not been regarded for years now as pariahs by their party’s voters is an ongoing condemnation of US Republicans.

    Read More
    • Agree: Che Guava
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. Che Guava says:
    @Anon

    you let your Catholic prejudices get ahead of your reason
    (hate the Orthodox)
     
    Aren't the Ukies orthodox too?

    That is complicated. In the north-east, a Polish Catholic sector. A little further south, an Eastern-rite catholic sector, orthodox under the Bishop of Rome. To the south and east, an orthodox church that is the same as Russias, but in schism with it. Further to the east, orthodoxy.

    Of course, it is a patchwork in many parts.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. Miro23 says:
    @Randal

    Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study
     
    And the example of Hezbollah. And plenty of real combat experience in both Iraq and in Syria.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran
     
    I think "no doubt" is putting it much too strongly, unless you tightly qualify what you mean by winning the war. Granted the US is a superpower (and one moreover that has spent nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on its military for decades), whereas Iran is merely a medium sized regional power with an underdeveloped military by first world standards, so it's no surprise that the US has clear and overwhelming military superiority.

    But you have to ask what "winning" would mean. Does it just mean successfully doing some random destruction in Iran without comparable reply? That seems to be the only definition that results in any certainty of US "victory".

    If victory means regime change or Iranian surrender to US regime demands, then it would appear unlikely this could necessarily be achieved by mere bombardment. The Iranian constitutional settlement clearly has the broad support of the people of Iran (as witnessed by the failure of the US-backed "colour revolution" there a few years ago), and people tend to rally round even despised governments when foreigners are slaughtering their friends and relatives. In the meantime, the US will be paying a massive popular opinion and diplomatic price everywhere except in Israel and in some sunni Arab countries, as well as bearing the costs of the ongoing war and such retaliations as the Iranians and their allies can manage.

    The Yugoslav experience suggests that, absent an ongoing civil war as in the Libya case, at least a credible threat of ground invasion is required to force a surrender.

    If there is no surrender then whatever damage is done will be repaired in a few years and the Iranians will have learned the lesson that only nuclear weapons can ultimately protect you from a lawless, aggressive military power like the US.

    If a ground invasion is required then there is absolutely no certainty that the US will "win". It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on, but unlike in Iraq there will be no formerly repressed majority community to collaborate in the occupation.

    As for active Russian and Chinese support, that is a clear possibility in Iran, as it was not in Iraq. The relationship between the US and Russia, and to a lesser extent that between the US and China, is far more openly confrontational than either was in 2003, and Russia especially will see an urgent need to ensure the US does not gain a "victory" in Iran. US threats of retaliation will seem all the less threatening given that the US regime is already doing most of what it can to attack Russian interests in core Russian security sphere areas such as Ukraine anyway. As seen in Syria, Russia is now prepared to openly defy the US militarily.

    Iran is a very different matter from Iraq, and not in any ways that are good for the US interventionists.

    But you have to ask what “winning” would mean.

    I think that there is a subtext here. “Winning” could have a very different definition from a Neocon, US Zionist perspective. Israel and Saudi Arabia may be quite happy to have Iranian industries, infrastructure and military capability destroyed, but US Zionists and Neocons also have a dangerous US orientation that was briefly on view on 9/11.

    An integral part of the failed 9/11 Coup was an attempt to launch a US Emergency Regime (which actually existed for while, headed by Cheney with Bush deliberately kept out of touch in Florida) with enforcement through the newly activated Patriot Act and Homeland Security (interesting read for the Florida side is Daniel Hopsicker’s “Welcome to Terrorland” https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486306972&sr=8-1&keywords=welcome+to+terrorland ).

    So the issue from the US Zionist/Neocon viewpoint might not really involve “winning against Iran or Russia”, just sufficient “Crisis” to introduce an Emergency Regime in the US, operating under a special set of laws devised under the Reagan administration, in fact a Coup, with Democracy suspended and top positions held by the Neocon/Deep State alliance. If this is the case, it’s not clear where Trump fits in – if anywhere, but the 9/11 planners would be safely beyond investigation.

    Jews have been praying for millennia for a return to Israel, but now that they have the opportunity, many seem to have decided that taking power in the United States is a more attractive option – even the avowed Zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes, I certainly agree that winning means different things for different interest groups. Indeed, the tragedy of US foreign policy is precisely that many of those most influential on US foreign policy have very different interests from Americans or the American nation, and hence very different ideas of what "victory" includes, often including profoundly costly outcomes for America and for Americans in general.

    But if you assert that "there’s no doubt that the US would win this war" then I think we have to interpret that in its superficial sense, of America as a whole somehow winning, both militarily and in terms of the wider overall outcomes.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. Randal says:
    @Miro23

    But you have to ask what “winning” would mean.
     
    I think that there is a subtext here. "Winning" could have a very different definition from a Neocon, US Zionist perspective. Israel and Saudi Arabia may be quite happy to have Iranian industries, infrastructure and military capability destroyed, but US Zionists and Neocons also have a dangerous US orientation that was briefly on view on 9/11.

    An integral part of the failed 9/11 Coup was an attempt to launch a US Emergency Regime (which actually existed for while, headed by Cheney with Bush deliberately kept out of touch in Florida) with enforcement through the newly activated Patriot Act and Homeland Security (interesting read for the Florida side is Daniel Hopsicker's "Welcome to Terrorland" https://www.amazon.com/Welcome-Terrorland-Mohamed-Cover-up-Florida/dp/0970659164/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1486306972&sr=8-1&keywords=welcome+to+terrorland ).

    So the issue from the US Zionist/Neocon viewpoint might not really involve "winning against Iran or Russia", just sufficient "Crisis" to introduce an Emergency Regime in the US, operating under a special set of laws devised under the Reagan administration, in fact a Coup, with Democracy suspended and top positions held by the Neocon/Deep State alliance. If this is the case, it's not clear where Trump fits in - if anywhere, but the 9/11 planners would be safely beyond investigation.

    Jews have been praying for millennia for a return to Israel, but now that they have the opportunity, many seem to have decided that taking power in the United States is a more attractive option - even the avowed Zionists.

    Yes, I certainly agree that winning means different things for different interest groups. Indeed, the tragedy of US foreign policy is precisely that many of those most influential on US foreign policy have very different interests from Americans or the American nation, and hence very different ideas of what “victory” includes, often including profoundly costly outcomes for America and for Americans in general.

    But if you assert that “there’s no doubt that the US would win this war” then I think we have to interpret that in its superficial sense, of America as a whole somehow winning, both militarily and in terms of the wider overall outcomes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Miro23
    I was just looking at the military angle, as in physically destroying Iran in the same way that they destroyed Iraq - infrastructure, power stations, military, administration, bridges etc. This would put Iran out of action for years and be good enough for Israel without the complications of Regime Change and it could all be done (once again) at US expense only using air power.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Miro23 says:
    @Randal
    Yes, I certainly agree that winning means different things for different interest groups. Indeed, the tragedy of US foreign policy is precisely that many of those most influential on US foreign policy have very different interests from Americans or the American nation, and hence very different ideas of what "victory" includes, often including profoundly costly outcomes for America and for Americans in general.

    But if you assert that "there’s no doubt that the US would win this war" then I think we have to interpret that in its superficial sense, of America as a whole somehow winning, both militarily and in terms of the wider overall outcomes.

    I was just looking at the military angle, as in physically destroying Iran in the same way that they destroyed Iraq – infrastructure, power stations, military, administration, bridges etc. This would put Iran out of action for years and be good enough for Israel without the complications of Regime Change and it could all be done (once again) at US expense only using air power.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Infrastructure certainly could be badly damaged through ZUSA's use of air power but no, it would NOT destroy Iran's military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. Che Guava says:

    Whether one can even judge the Houthi to be rebels. considering that they fight for the last legitimate pres. of the place, should be very much in question.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  172. annamaria says:
    @Miro23

    List some wars that US military has won _without_ ground troops.
     
    It depends how far they are willing to go. They didn't need to invade Japan - the destruction of two cities with nuclear bombs was sufficient to make the Japanese realize that any more resitance would be futile.

    The question then is for Netanyahu, the US Neocons and the US deep state who would be the true initiators of an Iran war. Would they be willing to use US nuclear weapons against Iran to get things over quickly?

    Unfortunately the answer is probably Yes - they were crazy enough to organize 9/11 and have no regard whatsoever for the interests of the US public.

    Agree that the lunatics of the ziocon-MIC persuasion could try a nuclear attack on Iran. I guess that for such a case both Iran and Russia have prepared a surprise, first for Israel and second for the US.
    The greatest danger to the US (and the world at large) is the proliferation of aggressive ignoramuses in the highest echelons of the US power. Look at the half-wit Morrel (CIA), lazy Haley (State Dept.), and the money-mad “collective” of US Congress. Look in the past for the power-hungry and totally immoral Condi Rice (the soulless pianist and faux expert in the history of the Soviet Union), the pliable Powell, the cynical Wolfowits-Feith duo and the whole bunch of dual citizens who have been acting in accordance to their true allegiance (Israel), however illogical and harmful hese activities were for the US.
    But the main traitors to the US have been those who worked as “elected puppets at the wheel:” Clinton, Bush, and Obama. In some 30 years these three ignoramuses have managed to reduce the US to a weaponized banana republic ruled by the financial oligarchy and MIC.

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

    On war-makers
    Saker: “In reality we have an umpteen number of nameless unelected officials coming up with more and more strategies to upset status quo and plunge countries, regions and continents into all-out wars. The power that these small nameless people wield over our lives and over our children’s future is obscene and horrendous.” Here comes another bloody cannibal Evelyn Farkas, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia/Ukraine/Eurasia and co-rebel with Nuland-Kagan: http://thesaker.is/how-the-kiev-regimes-war-on-donbass-broke-geopolitics-by-scott-humor/

    This is a great summary for where the Ukrainian conflict is heading to and why the US has been paying for “moderate” neo-Nazis in Ukraine : “The most significant and the most damaging for Ukraine is the IMF demand of privatization of the arable lands, the only national treasure which is not stolen yet. The IMF demands to have a privatization law by March 3, 2017 … When millions of farmers will be kicked off their rented lots of land and forced to hand it over to German and Saudis agro-giants, every villager will start speaking Russian overnight. Another issue is that February-March 2017 is the pre-planned by the IMF period of dramatic cuts in social payments and pensions and dramatic growth of the price of the basic services as electric, water, gas, and internet connection. Also, by February-March Ukraine will take out all the gas it purchased for the winter, and it will inevitably start stealing gas destined for Europe. The easiest way for the Kiev authorities is to blame the shortage of gas on the war with Russia. Yes, Kiev is ready to blame the shortage of gas that Europe buys from Russia on the “war with Russia.”

    The “Three Horses of Death” – Dame Lindsey Graham, the treasonous John McCain (Tokyo Rose of USS Forrestal fame) and Senator Amy Klobuchar, a Democrat from Minnesota – traveled throughout the former Soviet Union “to destabilize the situation on the Russia’s border in light of NATO’s buildup.”
    Senator Lindsey Graham: “All of us will go back to Washington and we will push the case against Russia. Enough of a Russian aggression. It is time for them to pay a heavier price.”
    McCain: “I believe you will win. I am convinced you will win and we will do everything we can to provide you with what you need to win. … we cannot allow Vladimir Putin to succeed here because if he succeeds here, he will succeed in other countries.”
    The two old men and an old woman from the Israel-subservient US Congress, are cheerleading for the WWIII. Criminals.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  174. L.K says:
    @Randal

    Iran has been a serious declared target of Israel/US for many years and has had time to prepare a defence. It has also had the example of Iraq to study
     
    And the example of Hezbollah. And plenty of real combat experience in both Iraq and in Syria.

    There’s no doubt that the US would win this war, and that Russia would pull back from full engagement in Iran
     
    I think "no doubt" is putting it much too strongly, unless you tightly qualify what you mean by winning the war. Granted the US is a superpower (and one moreover that has spent nearly as much as the entire rest of the world on its military for decades), whereas Iran is merely a medium sized regional power with an underdeveloped military by first world standards, so it's no surprise that the US has clear and overwhelming military superiority.

    But you have to ask what "winning" would mean. Does it just mean successfully doing some random destruction in Iran without comparable reply? That seems to be the only definition that results in any certainty of US "victory".

    If victory means regime change or Iranian surrender to US regime demands, then it would appear unlikely this could necessarily be achieved by mere bombardment. The Iranian constitutional settlement clearly has the broad support of the people of Iran (as witnessed by the failure of the US-backed "colour revolution" there a few years ago), and people tend to rally round even despised governments when foreigners are slaughtering their friends and relatives. In the meantime, the US will be paying a massive popular opinion and diplomatic price everywhere except in Israel and in some sunni Arab countries, as well as bearing the costs of the ongoing war and such retaliations as the Iranians and their allies can manage.

    The Yugoslav experience suggests that, absent an ongoing civil war as in the Libya case, at least a credible threat of ground invasion is required to force a surrender.

    If there is no surrender then whatever damage is done will be repaired in a few years and the Iranians will have learned the lesson that only nuclear weapons can ultimately protect you from a lawless, aggressive military power like the US.

    If a ground invasion is required then there is absolutely no certainty that the US will "win". It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on, but unlike in Iraq there will be no formerly repressed majority community to collaborate in the occupation.

    As for active Russian and Chinese support, that is a clear possibility in Iran, as it was not in Iraq. The relationship between the US and Russia, and to a lesser extent that between the US and China, is far more openly confrontational than either was in 2003, and Russia especially will see an urgent need to ensure the US does not gain a "victory" in Iran. US threats of retaliation will seem all the less threatening given that the US regime is already doing most of what it can to attack Russian interests in core Russian security sphere areas such as Ukraine anyway. As seen in Syria, Russia is now prepared to openly defy the US militarily.

    Iran is a very different matter from Iraq, and not in any ways that are good for the US interventionists.

    Randal:

    ‘It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on’

    Not really. For one thing, gone are the days ZUSA could afford heavy casualties…
    Iran would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like strolls in a park…
    The zamericans would have to be really, really stupid to go into a ground war in Iran, it would end very badly for them.
    Airstrikes, cruise missiles won’t accomplish much, as you noted. Besides pissing the Iranians off.

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA’s real military capabilities… they have fallen prey to ZUSA’ propaganda machine.
    Some also seem not to understand that comparing ZUSA’S Gulf war success or the initial easy win in Iraq in 2003 has little next to nothing to do with a war with Iran, on so many different levels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA’s real military capabilities
     
    I don't think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that), but rather with the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of achieving any goals that could remotely plausibly be described as a victory, and also with, as you pointed out, the likely political intolerance in the US for casualties.

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location. But most likely they won't try to do so anyway, recognising the politically unacceptable costs of an open-ended invasion. More likely it would be something like the Kosovo and Libya campaigns which, as we've both noted, will achieve nothing.
    , @anonymous
    Where's Richard Steven Hack?
    He has been tracking 'attack Iran' scenarios for almost a decade.

    Will USA/Israel use electronic weapons -- simple ones like destroy Iranian communications systems first, then more sophisticated methods?

    It didn't take more than half a brain to know that the Iran deal was all about getting spies into Iran to figure out what their defense capabilities were and how to destroy them.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. L.K says:
    @Miro23
    I was just looking at the military angle, as in physically destroying Iran in the same way that they destroyed Iraq - infrastructure, power stations, military, administration, bridges etc. This would put Iran out of action for years and be good enough for Israel without the complications of Regime Change and it could all be done (once again) at US expense only using air power.

    Infrastructure certainly could be badly damaged through ZUSA’s use of air power but no, it would NOT destroy Iran’s military.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Norman Podhoretz practiced his sperm count on PNACer Midge Decter at least four times, and as a result of this sacrifice our country’s never-to-be-right-about-anything punditry got enriched with this not very bright (Winning Jewpardy championships doesn’t count in my book), and ,not very strong, not very imposing, or impressive kid named John Podhoretz:

    http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/02/15/podhoretz-iraq-war-cheerleader-trump-so-awful/

    This is John’s mom, Mrs. Decter doing a classic projection on “some people would kill for a senatorial seat”, while undermining merit of the career man whose success was solely based on legacy and nepotism :

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  177. @Cloak And Dagger
    I give Trump a lot of credit for being smart and wily, and I tend to overlook the things he says in favor of the things he actually does. I don't agree with Pat that he won't back down - he may recolor it differently to save face, but he does back down. Note that he is already redrawing the picture of how the US embassy would be moved to Jerusalem - now he says that there are two sides to this. The end result will be some watered down version of the original vow.

    I am positive that Trump knows that a war with Iran would be a complete disaster for us and would not have the support of this war-weary nation. Unlike Iraq, Iran has a large population in a country of mountainous terrain that is not hospitable to invaders. They are also now armed with the S-300 missile defense system from Russia since last October that would make mincemeat out of Israeli and US aerial attacks. Iran also has a vast array of missiles that can lay waste to Israel in short order. Their 'swarm boats' would decimate our fleet in the gulf, shutting it down and plunging the world into an economic crisis.

    And what makes us think that Russia and China would sit idly by and allow us to do this? Oh, and by the way, those guys have nukes too. It would probably trigger an attack on Israel from their neighbors who have advanced their military capabilities significantly since 1967. Remember how Israel's forays into Lebanon ended with them retreating with their tail between their legs, and their much vaunted Markava tanks (so-called 'God's Chariot') were laid waste in the desert with around 40 of them razed to the ground by Hezbollah guerillas?

    Nope, I don't expect Trump to go to war with Iran - it's bad for business and Trump is all about business. Pay no attention to the words that come out of his mouth, just watch his hands and feet.

    Let's not forget that Trump is all about populism. He is doing something about barring refugees from our borders because that is what the people elected him for. He will build a wall (or something close) on our southern border because that is what the people who elected him want. Everything he has done so far has been compatible with what the people who elected him want.

    The people who elected him don't want to go to another war, so he is not going to do it. Note how he lambasted McCain and Graham about wanting to start WW3? He wouldn't follow that up by doing it himself, no siree. The people who elected him want our troops back home and his people are working furiously to make that happen as soon as possible. Everything else is just fodder for the media and his detractors. He is filling the airwaves with noise so that it dilutes the attacks of the opposition and distracts them while he goes about the business of draining the swamp.

    Trump is not suicidal, and an attack on Iran would be the most imbecilic of self-destructive moves that he could make. Not gonna happen.

    As I said in my original post above, Pat is wrong and Trump does back down, even if recoloring his original vow. Here is another example of that:

    https://www.rt.com/usa/376384-cia-prisons-us-reopen/

    There will be no attack on Iran.

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

    Iran may become Trump’s Nemesis if he does not stop the petty provocations
    The GCC countries, US allies, are in a state if panic. They know that if Iran decides to punish the USA, they are the first to suffer. Yemen’s Houthis will soon be inundated with weapons, instability will grow in all areas where there are Shias minorites. Expect a regain of tensions in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and Bahrain.
    Trump does not want to send any troops in the region? Yet the only ‘reliable’ allies the USA have in the region that are determined to fight ISIS are Syria, Iran, the Kurds and the Shias militias from Lebanon and Iraq. Only the Kurds are not connected to Iran. Without Iran the USA is powerless in front of ISIS.
    Antagonizing Iran may simply throw ISIS on all USA allies in the region. Will Trump come to help them? With what?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  179. Randal says:
    @L.K
    Randal:

    'It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on'
     
    Not really. For one thing, gone are the days ZUSA could afford heavy casualties...
    Iran would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like strolls in a park...
    The zamericans would have to be really, really stupid to go into a ground war in Iran, it would end very badly for them.
    Airstrikes, cruise missiles won't accomplish much, as you noted. Besides pissing the Iranians off.

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA's real military capabilities... they have fallen prey to ZUSA' propaganda machine.
    Some also seem not to understand that comparing ZUSA'S Gulf war success or the initial easy win in Iraq in 2003 has little next to nothing to do with a war with Iran, on so many different levels.

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA’s real military capabilities

    I don’t think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that), but rather with the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of achieving any goals that could remotely plausibly be described as a victory, and also with, as you pointed out, the likely political intolerance in the US for casualties.

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location. But most likely they won’t try to do so anyway, recognising the politically unacceptable costs of an open-ended invasion. More likely it would be something like the Kosovo and Libya campaigns which, as we’ve both noted, will achieve nothing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.
     
    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight. Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.
    , @L.K
    Randal:

    "I don’t think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that)..."
     
    No, Miro is not correct and neither are you.

    Randal:

    'As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.'
     
    ZUSA had air supremacy in Korea and Vietnam, 2 third world countries with a fraction of Iran's area and population. They bombed the hell out of those places but could NOT prevail.
    Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money. The Talibs have been controlling large parts of the country for years, since what, 2007, even the fraudulent Brit media admitted as much.
    As the Saker wrote: "The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically."

    If you think Iran would fight a ground war on ZUSA's terms, you just have no idea.

    But I'll say it again; you, like miro, greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
    You might wanna take a look at what Colonel David Hackworth(who passed in 2005) had to say on the subject of the modern day US army, in his 'The March of the Porcelain Soldiers'. Hack was an American Korean War and Vietnam War veteran who received many combat decorations for heroism in both these wars and is known for his role in the creation and command of the Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerrilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietcong guerrilla fighters. It had me LOL.
    Or listen to what William Lind, author of 'the Maneuver Warfare Handbook' had to say on ZUSA's ground forces;

    In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, "we are lost."  So why do we keep doing airstrikes?
    The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad.  They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire.  The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes.  So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically[...] It is the price of bad tactics.[...]
    There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand.  The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps and infantry officers in particular.  Most read nothing about their profession. [...]This ignorance is buttressed by hubris, false pride.  The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is...
    The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training.  [...]
    The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system.[...] 
     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @L.K
    Randal:

    'It can defeat the Iranian military time and again, and occupy the ground it stands on'
     
    Not really. For one thing, gone are the days ZUSA could afford heavy casualties...
    Iran would make the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan look like strolls in a park...
    The zamericans would have to be really, really stupid to go into a ground war in Iran, it would end very badly for them.
    Airstrikes, cruise missiles won't accomplish much, as you noted. Besides pissing the Iranians off.

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA's real military capabilities... they have fallen prey to ZUSA' propaganda machine.
    Some also seem not to understand that comparing ZUSA'S Gulf war success or the initial easy win in Iraq in 2003 has little next to nothing to do with a war with Iran, on so many different levels.

    Where’s Richard Steven Hack?
    He has been tracking ‘attack Iran’ scenarios for almost a decade.

    Will USA/Israel use electronic weapons — simple ones like destroy Iranian communications systems first, then more sophisticated methods?

    It didn’t take more than half a brain to know that the Iran deal was all about getting spies into Iran to figure out what their defense capabilities were and how to destroy them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. MEexpert says:
    @Randal

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA’s real military capabilities
     
    I don't think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that), but rather with the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of achieving any goals that could remotely plausibly be described as a victory, and also with, as you pointed out, the likely political intolerance in the US for casualties.

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location. But most likely they won't try to do so anyway, recognising the politically unacceptable costs of an open-ended invasion. More likely it would be something like the Kosovo and Libya campaigns which, as we've both noted, will achieve nothing.

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.

    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight. Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cloak And Dagger
    • Replies: @Randal

    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight.
     
    In both cases the US military defeated its opponents - in Iraq the Iraqi military actually surrendered and in Afghanistan the US had effectively uncontested military freedom of action within the country. (See my reply to LK on the other thread.)

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance

    Most likely the same would apply in Iran, broadly - the US military would destroy any open conventional military resistance, but the Iranians would simply refuse to admit defeat and the US would lack the ability to impose an Afghanistan-style collaboration government on the country.

    Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.
     
    I agree. As I've noted repeatedly, it's hard to see any plausible prospect for the US to achieve anything other than a disaster in Iran on a scale that will make Iraq look like a political and military triumph. But almost certainly not because the US military will be defeated by the Iranian military.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. L.K says:
    @Randal

    Problem with these guys like miro is that they greatly overstimate ZUSA’s real military capabilities
     
    I don't think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that), but rather with the difficulty (perhaps impossibility) of achieving any goals that could remotely plausibly be described as a victory, and also with, as you pointed out, the likely political intolerance in the US for casualties.

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location. But most likely they won't try to do so anyway, recognising the politically unacceptable costs of an open-ended invasion. More likely it would be something like the Kosovo and Libya campaigns which, as we've both noted, will achieve nothing.

    Randal:

    “I don’t think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that)…”

    No, Miro is not correct and neither are you.

    Randal:

    ‘As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.’

    ZUSA had air supremacy in Korea and Vietnam, 2 third world countries with a fraction of Iran’s area and population. They bombed the hell out of those places but could NOT prevail.
    Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money. The Talibs have been controlling large parts of the country for years, since what, 2007, even the fraudulent Brit media admitted as much.
    As the Saker wrote: “The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically.”

    If you think Iran would fight a ground war on ZUSA’s terms, you just have no idea.

    But I’ll say it again; you, like miro, greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
    You might wanna take a look at what Colonel David Hackworth(who passed in 2005) had to say on the subject of the modern day US army, in his ‘The March of the Porcelain Soldiers‘. Hack was an American Korean War and Vietnam War veteran who received many combat decorations for heroism in both these wars and is known for his role in the creation and command of the Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerrilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietcong guerrilla fighters. It had me LOL.
    Or listen to what William Lind, author of ‘the Maneuver Warfare Handbook’ had to say on ZUSA’s ground forces;

    In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, “we are lost.”  So why do we keep doing airstrikes?
    The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad.  They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire.  The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes.  So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically[...] It is the price of bad tactics.[...]
    There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand.  The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps and infantry officers in particular.  Most read nothing about their profession. [...]This ignorance is buttressed by hubris, false pride.  The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is…
    The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training.  [...]
    The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system.[...] 

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    So we are not duplicating material, it's probably best if I refer you to my reply in our similar exchange on the other thread
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Randal says:
    @MEexpert

    As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.
     
    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight. Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.

    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight.

    In both cases the US military defeated its opponents – in Iraq the Iraqi military actually surrendered and in Afghanistan the US had effectively uncontested military freedom of action within the country. (See my reply to LK on the other thread.)

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance

    Most likely the same would apply in Iran, broadly – the US military would destroy any open conventional military resistance, but the Iranians would simply refuse to admit defeat and the US would lack the ability to impose an Afghanistan-style collaboration government on the country.

    Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.

    I agree. As I’ve noted repeatedly, it’s hard to see any plausible prospect for the US to achieve anything other than a disaster in Iran on a scale that will make Iraq look like a political and military triumph. But almost certainly not because the US military will be defeated by the Iranian military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @MEexpert

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance
     
    The military objective of the US invasion to eradicate the Talibans. Today, after 16 years, Talibans are stronger than they were before the invasion. They control more area now than they did before the invasion. How could this be called military victory?

    In Iraq, not only the Sunni insurgents are still operating, but the invasion gave rise to first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Both countries are in shambles. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and/or displaced from their homes.

    In Afghanistan, the story is the same. We were going to liberate Afghani women. Nothin has changed. If the destruction of these countries is victory then by all means call it that. The story is same in Libya and Syria.

    In Iran, the US may be able to bomb the country to ashes but Iran has been preparing for the US invasion for the past 16 years. The US doesn't have the stomach to put boots on the ground. The public is fed up with the wars for Israel. Israel is the only country that benefits from these wars. There won't be any regime change in Iran. It will only speed up the nuclear weapon development and soon the Middle East will be in flames including Israel.

    I don't believe that the US achieved either the military or the political victory in both places.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. Randal says:
    @L.K
    Randal:

    "I don’t think so. The issue really is not with the military capabilities as such (miro is correct on that)..."
     
    No, Miro is not correct and neither are you.

    Randal:

    'As far as fighting on the ground for any particular objective is concerned, most likely US troops, with complete air supremacy from day one, will tactically and operationally defeat any defence the Iranians might put up in any particular location.'
     
    ZUSA had air supremacy in Korea and Vietnam, 2 third world countries with a fraction of Iran's area and population. They bombed the hell out of those places but could NOT prevail.
    Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money. The Talibs have been controlling large parts of the country for years, since what, 2007, even the fraudulent Brit media admitted as much.
    As the Saker wrote: "The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically."

    If you think Iran would fight a ground war on ZUSA's terms, you just have no idea.

    But I'll say it again; you, like miro, greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
    You might wanna take a look at what Colonel David Hackworth(who passed in 2005) had to say on the subject of the modern day US army, in his 'The March of the Porcelain Soldiers'. Hack was an American Korean War and Vietnam War veteran who received many combat decorations for heroism in both these wars and is known for his role in the creation and command of the Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerrilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietcong guerrilla fighters. It had me LOL.
    Or listen to what William Lind, author of 'the Maneuver Warfare Handbook' had to say on ZUSA's ground forces;

    In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, "we are lost."  So why do we keep doing airstrikes?
    The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad.  They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire.  The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes.  So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically[...] It is the price of bad tactics.[...]
    There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand.  The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps and infantry officers in particular.  Most read nothing about their profession. [...]This ignorance is buttressed by hubris, false pride.  The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is...
    The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training.  [...]
    The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system.[...] 
     

    So we are not duplicating material, it’s probably best if I refer you to my reply in our similar exchange on the other thread

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. MEexpert says:
    @Randal

    Have you forgotten Afghanistan and Iraq? US had complete air supremacy from day one and also had boots on the ground and yet after sixteen years there is no victory in sight.
     
    In both cases the US military defeated its opponents - in Iraq the Iraqi military actually surrendered and in Afghanistan the US had effectively uncontested military freedom of action within the country. (See my reply to LK on the other thread.)

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance

    Most likely the same would apply in Iran, broadly - the US military would destroy any open conventional military resistance, but the Iranians would simply refuse to admit defeat and the US would lack the ability to impose an Afghanistan-style collaboration government on the country.

    Here again Iran is better equipped than Afghan Guerillas. US better think long and hard before embarking on this misadventure.
     
    I agree. As I've noted repeatedly, it's hard to see any plausible prospect for the US to achieve anything other than a disaster in Iran on a scale that will make Iraq look like a political and military triumph. But almost certainly not because the US military will be defeated by the Iranian military.

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance

    The military objective of the US invasion to eradicate the Talibans. Today, after 16 years, Talibans are stronger than they were before the invasion. They control more area now than they did before the invasion. How could this be called military victory?

    In Iraq, not only the Sunni insurgents are still operating, but the invasion gave rise to first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Both countries are in shambles. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and/or displaced from their homes.

    In Afghanistan, the story is the same. We were going to liberate Afghani women. Nothin has changed. If the destruction of these countries is victory then by all means call it that. The story is same in Libya and Syria.

    In Iran, the US may be able to bomb the country to ashes but Iran has been preparing for the US invasion for the past 16 years. The US doesn’t have the stomach to put boots on the ground. The public is fed up with the wars for Israel. Israel is the only country that benefits from these wars. There won’t be any regime change in Iran. It will only speed up the nuclear weapon development and soon the Middle East will be in flames including Israel.

    I don’t believe that the US achieved either the military or the political victory in both places.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    We agree on the inadvisability of any attack on Iran, so I'll just address the issue where we disagree, which appears to be partly semantic, in the sense that it is about the definitions and scope of terms we are using such as victory, military victory, political victory, defeat etc.

    The military objective of the US invasion to eradicate the Talibans. Today, after 16 years, Talibans are stronger than they were before the invasion. They control more area now than they did before the invasion. How could this be called military victory?
     
    The real objectives of the invasion are as always a matter of opinion, and shrouded by propaganda, but on its face, it was to destroy Al Qaeda's open presence there and to regime change the country. These objectives were achieved, and furthermore the military forces opposing the US presence were defeated militarily and driven underground. The subsequent failure to eradicate the ongoing presence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban as guerrilla and insurgent forces is more a political and internal security matter than a military one.

    This can specifically be regarded as a military victory but not a political one, because that's the best way to describe it.

    In Iraq, not only the Sunni insurgents are still operating, but the invasion gave rise to first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Both countries are in shambles. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and/or displaced from their homes.
     
    As I noted above, the Iraqi military was defeated by the invasion, totally (it surrendered), and the country occupied. That's the very definition of a total military victory. Again, the fact that no long term favourable settlement could subsequently be imposed was a political failure by the US regime, not a military one.

    In Afghanistan, the story is the same. We were going to liberate Afghani women. Nothin has changed. If the destruction of these countries is victory then by all means call it that. The story is same in Libya and Syria.
     
    I don't think the "liberating Afghan women" stuff was widely pushed until there was a need to justify ongoing interference there. It wasn't the original justification or motive, more a dishonest after the fact pretext to keep the lefties on board with slaughtering foreigners.

    In Libya, again the operation was a military success but a political disaster. An open military intervention in Syria would undoubtedly have been the same.

    I don’t believe that the US achieved either the military or the political victory in both places.
     
    The reason I think it's important to maintain what might seem to be a pedantic distinction between military victory and political or overall victory is that there is a real danger otherwise of underestimating the military power wielded by the superpower, which is just as harmful for analysis as overestimating it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Randal says:
    @MEexpert

    In both cases the US defeat was political not military, in that the Iraqis (with Iranian backing), while collaborating with the initial invasion and occupation, declined to accept a US puppet government being imposed upon them for the long term, and the Taliban simply refused to accept that their military defeat meant they should give up resistance
     
    The military objective of the US invasion to eradicate the Talibans. Today, after 16 years, Talibans are stronger than they were before the invasion. They control more area now than they did before the invasion. How could this be called military victory?

    In Iraq, not only the Sunni insurgents are still operating, but the invasion gave rise to first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Both countries are in shambles. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and/or displaced from their homes.

    In Afghanistan, the story is the same. We were going to liberate Afghani women. Nothin has changed. If the destruction of these countries is victory then by all means call it that. The story is same in Libya and Syria.

    In Iran, the US may be able to bomb the country to ashes but Iran has been preparing for the US invasion for the past 16 years. The US doesn't have the stomach to put boots on the ground. The public is fed up with the wars for Israel. Israel is the only country that benefits from these wars. There won't be any regime change in Iran. It will only speed up the nuclear weapon development and soon the Middle East will be in flames including Israel.

    I don't believe that the US achieved either the military or the political victory in both places.

    We agree on the inadvisability of any attack on Iran, so I’ll just address the issue where we disagree, which appears to be partly semantic, in the sense that it is about the definitions and scope of terms we are using such as victory, military victory, political victory, defeat etc.

    The military objective of the US invasion to eradicate the Talibans. Today, after 16 years, Talibans are stronger than they were before the invasion. They control more area now than they did before the invasion. How could this be called military victory?

    The real objectives of the invasion are as always a matter of opinion, and shrouded by propaganda, but on its face, it was to destroy Al Qaeda’s open presence there and to regime change the country. These objectives were achieved, and furthermore the military forces opposing the US presence were defeated militarily and driven underground. The subsequent failure to eradicate the ongoing presence of Al Qaeda and the Taliban as guerrilla and insurgent forces is more a political and internal security matter than a military one.

    This can specifically be regarded as a military victory but not a political one, because that’s the best way to describe it.

    In Iraq, not only the Sunni insurgents are still operating, but the invasion gave rise to first Al-Qaeda and then ISIS. Both countries are in shambles. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and/or displaced from their homes.

    As I noted above, the Iraqi military was defeated by the invasion, totally (it surrendered), and the country occupied. That’s the very definition of a total military victory. Again, the fact that no long term favourable settlement could subsequently be imposed was a political failure by the US regime, not a military one.

    In Afghanistan, the story is the same. We were going to liberate Afghani women. Nothin has changed. If the destruction of these countries is victory then by all means call it that. The story is same in Libya and Syria.

    I don’t think the “liberating Afghan women” stuff was widely pushed until there was a need to justify ongoing interference there. It wasn’t the original justification or motive, more a dishonest after the fact pretext to keep the lefties on board with slaughtering foreigners.

    In Libya, again the operation was a military success but a political disaster. An open military intervention in Syria would undoubtedly have been the same.

    I don’t believe that the US achieved either the military or the political victory in both places.

    The reason I think it’s important to maintain what might seem to be a pedantic distinction between military victory and political or overall victory is that there is a real danger otherwise of underestimating the military power wielded by the superpower, which is just as harmful for analysis as overestimating it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. Trump was deep state from the beginning. His purpose is continuity of agenda. You’ve been duped… again!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  188. @nickels
    If anyone doubts Trump has gone full neocon just look at Niki Haley's picking up the same lies demonizing Russia over Crimea, without missing a beat from the Obama administration.

    One will notice that, in the Hannity interview one week after taking office, Trump had a weird sort of disturbed way about him. Somewhat subdued and introspective, very uncharacteristic for him.

    It is my personal belief that he received threats against himself or his family from the deep state that first week, basically commanding him to go along with the neocon agenda of suffer the consequences.

    Trump has always been deep state. What was the very first thing he did immediately after being sworn in?…he went to the CIA to kiss the rings of his masters and their agenda.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Woofie says:
    @Zod
    This is very troubling. Are the warmongers finally getting to Trump?

    Uh, Pat; you still honestly believe OBL had anything to do wit 9-1?? You were doing well until you referenced OBL doing 9-11. I think we can all agree that OBL was a patsy and that all facts & evidence points to MOSSAD. You just exposed yourself as either a dummy or a troll.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. […] by Patrick J. Buchanan […]

    Read More
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 Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation