The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Patrick Cockburn ArchiveBlogview
After His First 100 Days, We Should Fear Trump More Than Ever
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Politicians and establishment media have greeted what they see as President Trump’s return to the norms of American foreign policy. They welcome the actual or threatened use of military force in Syria, Afghanistan and North Korea, and praise his appointment of a bevvy of generals to senior security posts. A striking feature of Trump’s first 100 days was the way in which the campaign to demonise him and his entourage as creatures of the Kremlin was suddenly switched off like a light as soon as he retreated from his earlier radicalism.

In reality, the Trump administration should be more feared as a danger to world peace at the end of his first 100 days in office than it was at the beginning. This is because Trump in the White House empowers many of those who, so far from being “a safe pair of hands”, have led the US into a series of disastrous wars in the Middle East in the post 9/11 era. There is no reason to think that they have changed their ways or learned from past mistakes.

This point is understood better in the Middle East than in it is in the US and Europe. In Baghdad, for instance, people are worried because they see the US building towards a renewed confrontation with Iran, possibly reneging on the nuclear agreement with Tehran and trying to curtail or eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq. Jim Mattis, the Secretary for Defence and former Marine general, and HR McMaster, the National Security Adviser and a general with combat experience in Iraq, are both volubly anti-Iranian. For soldiers like McMaster, the US failure in Iraq was unnecessary and self-inflicted and they intend to reverse it.

A US-Iran confrontation is bad news for Iraq because it may not mean an all-out war (though this is perfectly possible), but will be fought out on Iraqi territory by local proxies and allies. “Iraq really cannot take any more violence,” says one Iraqi commentator, “and there would be no clear winner.” He argues that the experience of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, when the Iranians lost half a million dead, is seared into the minds of Iranian leaders and they will never permit a hostile foreign state like the US to become dominant in Iraq.

Many Western commentators were jubilant over Trump’s missile strike in Syria on 7 April, interpreting it as a return to a US policy that demands Assad’s departure as part of a peace deal. But this policy has long been dead in the water because Assad has no reason to go. Trump’s Syrian policy during the presidential election campaign always made more sense than that of Hillary Clinton as the voice of the US foreign policy establishment.

ORDER IT NOW

The great dilemma for ordinary Syrians and the Western powers is that if Assad goes or is weakened, then the main beneficiaries will be al-Qaeda and Isis. The choice is between very bad and even worse. There have been propaganda efforts to pretend that the Syrian armed opposition is not overwhelmingly led by Salafi-Jihadi groups. But these attempts are dying away as Jabhat al-Nusra, which is prone to name changes, mops up its last opponents in northern Syria.

An influential piece of propaganda has been to claim that the Syrian government is either complicit with Isis or not doing anything to fight them. But this is contradicted by a new analysis by the monitoring group IHS Markit, revealing that over the last year Isis has fought the Syrian government forces more than any other opponent. Between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, 43 per cent of Isis fighting in Syria was directed against Assad forces, 17 per cent against the US backed but Kurdish dominated Syrian Democratic Forces and 40 per cent against other groups, most notably Turkish proxies reinforced by the Turkish army north of Aleppo.

“It is an inconvenient reality that any US action taken to weaken the Syrian government will inadvertently benefit the Islamic State and other Jihadi groups,” says Columb Strack, senior Middle East analyst at IHS Markit. “The Syrian government is essentially the anvil to the US-led coalition’s hammer. While the US-backed forces surround Raqqa, the Islamic State is engaged in intense fighting with the Syrian Government around Palmyra and in other parts of Homs and Deir al-Zour provinces.” If Isis was to capture Deir al-Zour, the largest city in eastern Syria, this would rejuvenate the group even if it loses Raqqa and Mosul.

The Trump administration says its priority is still to eliminate Isis and nobody openly disagrees with this. But the resurgent influence of the US foreign policy establishment along with that of Israel and the neo-cons, despite their dismal record in Iraq and Syria, is good news for Isis. Washington is seeking closer relations with Sunni states like Turkey and Saudi Arabia which have shadowy links to Salafi-jihadi groups and were at odds with President Obama.

People and policies gaining the power to make decisions in the Trump administration are the very same as those who helped turn the wider Middle East from Hindu Kush to the Sahara into an arena for endless wars. They have no idea how to end these conflicts and show little desire to do so.

There is a more general reason why Washington may in future be more inclined to employ the threat or use of military force to project its power. This is because its political, economic and ideological power is declining relative to the rest of the world. It was at its apogee between the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 and the financial crisis of 2007-8. The rise of China and the return of Russia as an international player cramps its ability to act unilaterally. The election of Trump is evidence of a deeply divided society.

As a military power the US can still claim predominance: international derision of Trump was instantly muted when he fired 59 Tomahawk missiles into Syria, dropped a big bomb in Afghanistan and claimed, falsely as it turns out, that a US armada was sailing towards North Korea. The lesson of recent US foreign interventions is that it is difficult to turn military power into political gains, but this does not mean that Washington will not try to do so.

Trump will have learned over the last month that minimal sabre rattling abroad produces major political dividends at home. Leaders down the ages have been tempted to stage a small short successful war to rally their country behind them. Frequently they have got this absolutely and self-destructively wrong and these wars have turned out to be large, long and unsuccessful.

Trump campaigned as an isolationist, which should protect him from foreign misadventures, but he has never had many isolationists around him. The architects of America’s failed military interventions since Afghanistan are still in business. Strip Trump of his isolationism and what you have left is largely jingoistic bravado and bragging about a return of American greatness. In future crises, both these impulses will make compromise more difficult and war more likely.

(Republished from The Independent by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Military, Donald Trump 
    []
  1. Is this article written by Ron Unz or Patrick Cockburn? It shows under the name of the first on the main page and upon clicking it, displays the name of the latter… What gives here?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pcockburn/after-his-first-100-days-we-should-fear-trump-more-than-ever/#comment-1853694
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. Sean says:

    People and policies gaining the power to make decisions in the Trump administration are the very same as those who helped turn the wider Middle East from Hindu Kush to the Sahara into an arena for endless wars. They have no idea how to end these conflicts and show little desire to do so.

    To me at least, it is far from obvious that area has been an arena for endless wars because of anything the US has done.
    Wars are undesirable from a humanitarian point of view ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4208862/More-two-million-children-starving-war-torn-Yemen.html). It is far from obvious that the US can end them by staying out. They didn’t actually start them and they are not intervening to keep them going. Here is a long rather flippant article about the history https://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/. While the article ends by complaining that the West stifled progressive forces because they were Nasser-and-thus-Soviet backed, it seems to me that the Yemen drew in near neighbours and then more distant powers, the latest round (which started in 1962) was not caused by anything but a mass of Yemenis being disgruntled, and being based in a large community, virtually impossible to finally defeat . As in so many cases the allegiances straddle borders and the neighbours back a dog in the fight and won’t see it lose.

    I think the interminable conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria are largely case of governments that don’t actually command the allegiance of an overwhelming majority of the people. They’ll maybe fight against or defend it . The US could just step back in Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over, but that would be seen as a huge defeat for the US.

    Trump has no mandate to do such a thing; he ran on isolation perhaps but it was a magnificent isolation, not the crawling home to lick wounds type. Trump is keeping faith with his voters with giant bombs on the insurgent Taliban types, and has good reasons of international diplomatic and domestic political prestige for keeping Afghanistan ostensibly out of the hands of the Taliban In reality Afghanistan is more or less half inhabited by Taliban-sympathetic populations and always will be.

    “It is an inconvenient reality that any US action taken to weaken the Syrian government will inadvertently benefit the Islamic State and other Jihadi groups,” [...]

    The US stood off while Assad’s brutal police state response to demonstrations turned protests into a popular uprising. And when Assad using a large army lost most of the heavily inhabited regions of the country to a rag tag disorganized rebellion without heavy weapons, it was still without any subversion by the US. Then the US under Obama finally said it would punish Assad (for gas attacks on noncombatants), but changed its mind because the neocon dominated US was politically and militarily reluctant to do it. Neocons had no pull under Obama?

    The only reason Assad has not lost already and fled the country and brought conditions for secession of hostilities/settlemen , is because the Russians, emboldened by US passivity, came in and blasted the helpless against air-power rebels (non jihadi first note ) out of their gains. The US could have given the rebel anti-aircraft defences, but didn’t. The US owes the Assad hereditary dictatorship mass murdering its own people absolutely nothing. The proven stupidity of the Assad regieme in losing control of the country is. Those who think the Assad regieme is indispensable as a bulwark against Isis and company might ponder where and why Isis got off the ground. It was then Assad government in power that created Isis and similar movements. The desirability of restoring Assad to dominance (all the Russians need is a little more time and they can break the back of the rebellion) and thus recreating the conditions that led to the birth of Isis is not obvious to me.

    Assad victory wouldn’t eliminate the apparent majority of conservative Islam supporters in Syria and that tendency of the Syrian masses would find another outlet, unless vast numbers preferred to come to the West than take their chances under an Assad reign of terror throughout the reconquered regions of the country. Assad remaining in power in his little heartland is a different thing (there could be a partition) but him returning to rule over all Syria would be disastrous for the stability of the region.

    The Trump administration says its priority is still to eliminate Isis and nobody openly disagrees with this. But the resurgent influence of the US foreign policy establishment along with that of Israel and the neo-cons, despite their dismal record in Iraq and Syria, is good news for Isis.

    If the Syrians want to live under something like an Isis type government, preferring that to living under Assad , that is their business. Better that they live as they want in their own country than leave it as refugees. Isis as such will never be allowed to win anyway, the US could no more do that than let the Talban achieve victory. Not going to happen can supply any rebel group with what it needs to. That group will not be secular– so what as long as Syrian are at peace and staying in their own country.

    Trump campaigned as an isolationist, which should protect him from foreign misadventures, but he has never had many isolationists around him. The architects of America’s failed military interventions since Afghanistan are still in business. Strip Trump of his isolationism and what you have left is largely jingoistic bravado and bragging about a return of American greatness. In future crises, both these impulses will make compromise more difficult and war more likely.

    “Make America Great Again”, that slogan of the well known isolationist Ronald Reagan. Trump owes his voters action on what the phase actually means, which is not passivity. If you price what you’re trying to sell at absolute rock bottom, the prospective buyer is not going to be able to get concessionary movement, and might be so frustrated that he walks away from for him was actually a good deal. Trump sets out his stall as jingoist, well that puts the onus on someone who wants to deal to come up with a counter proposal, and it leaver Trump with somewhere to go to get an agreement. Compromise means moving, the other side likes to think they have moved you toward their position. A major criticism of Ehud Barak’s negotiating style with Palestinians was he was sufficiently parsimonious in an opening position, which contained the maximum possible concessions, but the Palestinian side were frustrated because the naturally thought they should try for some progress from that early offer.

    As for the matter of isolationism, the US came into WW1 and 2 against Germany in order to prevent it winning. The blame for starting WW1 and 2, which had been going for years before US entry was hardly at issue. I feel that many critics of Trump are implying that taking America into an existing conflict that it didn’t start is somehow retroactively taking on the culpability for having aggressively started the wars, while staying out washes America’s soul pure.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anon
    same bs on every level
    Take US out of equation, wars in ME will die tomorrow or day after .
    Somalia war is US creation
    Libyan war is US creation/Syrian war is US creation
    Iraq war is US creation.
    Iraq -Kuwait war was US creation
    Afghanistan is US creation.

    Iran has been experiencing the effects of war because of sanctions . It is a war when the other side has been collectively immobilized from responding - it is illegal war.
    ( these things wont go unaddressed for long May be the generals wont pay but you can be sure their downward progeny will and it will be same collective punishment. Laws can be enacted and forced down the throat of future Americans to pay back by labor and cash . Wait for the future. )
    Yemen war is US creation not Saudi . Saudi cant breathe oxygen unless US allows it .

    Sure there are violence in ME but those incidents are like what happened Baltimore, LA,(1992) Ferguson ( 2014 2015 like and they would have died down like these violence died down These violence in ME did not resolve because US intervened.

  3. Trump should be a lesson.

    Don’t be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.

    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned. Anyone who supported him should be ashamed, everyone on r/the_Donald needs to pray to Allah for forgiveness, because they’ve all committed shirk.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned.
     
    By whom? And why should I bother choosing between Zionists and Islamists?

    Don’t be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.
     
    You are so painfully close to truth here that the near-miss is agonizing.
    , @Sean
    Maybe you think he should have killed his daughter's in laws and forced her to renounce her faith. If remember rightly it would be in keeping with Mohammed's practices, because didn't the prophet carry off at least one (very young) Jewish girl as his wife-- after his followers killed most her family. Trump hardly sinned by not kidnapping himself a Jewish wife.

    Universal liberal values are a chimera. The liberal regimes in the US were accepted because they were rooted, not in universal values, but a particular culture that exists in the US. Trump got elected because the outcome of Liberalism is now recognized by a lot of the voters steeped in the same US culture as having outcomes deleterious to them (immigration, outsourcing, increasing poverty among non minorities ).

    , @Authenticjazzman
    " In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal"

    Just wtf does this mean? In spite of my "Mensa" membership and upwards of 150 IQ points, I have not the vaguest clue as to the essence of this assertion.

    But in actuality I understand that this person is simply trying to say : something, anything, which sounds important.

    Authenticjazzman " Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    If a man who has given hand of his daughter to a Zionist (Jew?) should be scorned then a man who gives his daughter in marriage to an Islamist (Arab?) should be hanged for condemning her to the life of slavery!
  4. voicum says:

    what the hell? is your brain totally incapacitated? are you completely unable to think?

    Read More
  5. He argues that the experience of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, when the Iranians lost half a million dead, is seared into the minds of Iranian leaders and they will never permit a hostile foreign state like the US to become dominant in Iraq.

    Until Uncle Sam toppled Saddam in 2003, Iraq was a hostile state bent on expanding at Iran’s expense. Funny how the Iranians have gotten used to a status quo created at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars of US funding and thousands of GI lives, and somehow think it’s their birthright. Between the Embassy hostage situation and the Marine barracks bombing, payback is coming.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sean
    • Replies: @epnngg
    Your assessment here may be correct, but don't forget that it was Uncle Sam who provided Iraq with the chemical weapons that were used against Iran during that terrible war.
    , @Sean
    I think the main reason there is so much hostility to Iran among the military- intel appointees of Trump -- both the faddist Snake-eater Flynn and olde school Clausewitzian McMaster (McM on his ideas here)-- is the Iranians supplied Shia terrorists in Iraq with Explosively formed penetrator for IEDs to kill American soldiers. Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile. The nuke-less Iranians used 1940's technology to kill Americans in Iraq, and of course US policymakers are now worried what Iran-packing-a nuke might do. The Iranians have brought it on themselves.
  6. epnngg says:
    @Johann Ricke

    He argues that the experience of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, when the Iranians lost half a million dead, is seared into the minds of Iranian leaders and they will never permit a hostile foreign state like the US to become dominant in Iraq.
     
    Until Uncle Sam toppled Saddam in 2003, Iraq was a hostile state bent on expanding at Iran's expense. Funny how the Iranians have gotten used to a status quo created at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars of US funding and thousands of GI lives, and somehow think it's their birthright. Between the Embassy hostage situation and the Marine barracks bombing, payback is coming.

    Your assessment here may be correct, but don’t forget that it was Uncle Sam who provided Iraq with the chemical weapons that were used against Iran during that terrible war.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    Be that as it may, those weapons were used on a battlefield against Iranian infantry. Ancient Persian -Arab conflict erupting had what Gunnar Heinsohn calls demographic armament triggers (Iran had a shortage of weapons while Iran had a lot of men of fighting age. It had little to do with the US. Iraq and Iran are natural enemies, them under a single government could never work and Saddam should have kept to the defensive, it was silly of him to try and conquer Iran.
  7. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Trump should be a lesson.


    Don't be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.


    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned. Anyone who supported him should be ashamed, everyone on r/the_Donald needs to pray to Allah for forgiveness, because they've all committed shirk.

    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned.

    By whom? And why should I bother choosing between Zionists and Islamists?

    Don’t be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.

    You are so painfully close to truth here that the near-miss is agonizing.

    Read More
  8. Sean says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Trump should be a lesson.


    Don't be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.


    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned. Anyone who supported him should be ashamed, everyone on r/the_Donald needs to pray to Allah for forgiveness, because they've all committed shirk.

    Maybe you think he should have killed his daughter’s in laws and forced her to renounce her faith. If remember rightly it would be in keeping with Mohammed’s practices, because didn’t the prophet carry off at least one (very young) Jewish girl as his wife– after his followers killed most her family. Trump hardly sinned by not kidnapping himself a Jewish wife.

    Universal liberal values are a chimera. The liberal regimes in the US were accepted because they were rooted, not in universal values, but a particular culture that exists in the US. Trump got elected because the outcome of Liberalism is now recognized by a lot of the voters steeped in the same US culture as having outcomes deleterious to them (immigration, outsourcing, increasing poverty among non minorities ).

    Read More
  9. Sean says:
    @epnngg
    Your assessment here may be correct, but don't forget that it was Uncle Sam who provided Iraq with the chemical weapons that were used against Iran during that terrible war.

    Be that as it may, those weapons were used on a battlefield against Iranian infantry. Ancient Persian -Arab conflict erupting had what Gunnar Heinsohn calls demographic armament triggers (Iran had a shortage of weapons while Iran had a lot of men of fighting age. It had little to do with the US. Iraq and Iran are natural enemies, them under a single government could never work and Saddam should have kept to the defensive, it was silly of him to try and conquer Iran.

    Read More
  10. Sean says:
    @Johann Ricke

    He argues that the experience of the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88, when the Iranians lost half a million dead, is seared into the minds of Iranian leaders and they will never permit a hostile foreign state like the US to become dominant in Iraq.
     
    Until Uncle Sam toppled Saddam in 2003, Iraq was a hostile state bent on expanding at Iran's expense. Funny how the Iranians have gotten used to a status quo created at the expense of hundreds of billions of dollars of US funding and thousands of GI lives, and somehow think it's their birthright. Between the Embassy hostage situation and the Marine barracks bombing, payback is coming.

    I think the main reason there is so much hostility to Iran among the military- intel appointees of Trump — both the faddist Snake-eater Flynn and olde school Clausewitzian McMaster (McM on his ideas here)– is the Iranians supplied Shia terrorists in Iraq with Explosively formed penetrator for IEDs to kill American soldiers. Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile. The nuke-less Iranians used 1940′s technology to kill Americans in Iraq, and of course US policymakers are now worried what Iran-packing-a nuke might do. The Iranians have brought it on themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile
     
    You probably believe Iraq had WMDs. And Judith Miller's NYT piece about Iraq secretly moving these WMDs to Syria before the 2003 invasion. And you probably believe Assad used Sarin against an insignificant poor town for no military significance whatsoever.

    The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

    The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On Jun. 21, 2005, Gen. John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army.

    A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness," according to the Pentagon source.

    But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week."

    The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government."

    These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

    But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

    British troops in Shi'ite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shi'ite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armored vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005, that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

    The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah." But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

    Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

    Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

    The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006, that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south...

    Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices.

    The day after Bush's press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq...

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10339
     

    The lie about Iran supplying shaped-charged IEDs is still being propogated by both neocon Charlie McCarthys and the demonic Ziocons.
    , @Bill Jones
    You do realize that the "Iranian" IED myth was exposed as fake news a decade ago, don't you?
  11. After His First 100 Days, We Should Fear Trump More Than Ever

    Is it Trump who’s to be feared or is it us? Is it the American madness that asserts itself at the top as well as everywhere else in our fair land? We have so lost our way. Most of Eurasia and large chunks of the Mideast, (even areas where we still are causing havoc) are joining the China sponsored linkage effort for sanity and mutual benefit. Can we please take a decade off; chill and stay home? Let the world heal for goodness sake.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  12. The author of this tripe is obviously still in intense pain because HRC lost, as things would have been so much better with her and her crew of SJWs in charge.

    What nobody seems to realize is that DT is on a tightrope and juggling a dozen oranges at the same time, and the world political pandemonia changes by the hour.
    All of these “Experts” would not be doing any different.

    Republicans are bad enough but Democrats are truely insane, and when they are in the drivers seat everything just goes from bad to worse.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mike from Ikea
    You are clearly in possession of a MENSA level IQ, as you still firmly believe in Rush Limbaugh style playground insults and a blood simple Dems vs Repubs partisan divide. Or is that your Airborne training coming through?
  13. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Trump should be a lesson.


    Don't be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.


    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned. Anyone who supported him should be ashamed, everyone on r/the_Donald needs to pray to Allah for forgiveness, because they've all committed shirk.

    ” In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal”

    Just wtf does this mean? In spite of my “Mensa” membership and upwards of 150 IQ points, I have not the vaguest clue as to the essence of this assertion.

    But in actuality I understand that this person is simply trying to say : something, anything, which sounds important.

    Authenticjazzman ” Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  14. @Authenticjazzman
    The author of this tripe is obviously still in intense pain because HRC lost, as things would have been so much better with her and her crew of SJWs in charge.

    What nobody seems to realize is that DT is on a tightrope and juggling a dozen oranges at the same time, and the world political pandemonia changes by the hour.
    All of these "Experts" would not be doing any different.

    Republicans are bad enough but Democrats are truely insane, and when they are in the drivers seat everything just goes from bad to worse.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    You are clearly in possession of a MENSA level IQ, as you still firmly believe in Rush Limbaugh style playground insults and a blood simple Dems vs Repubs partisan divide. Or is that your Airborne training coming through?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    I love Rush Limbaugh, and as far as my Airborne training is concerned : You would crap your pants if you were obliged to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft with sixty pounds of gear on your back and at night. On my first jump I was first one out.

    And regarding your beef with my "Mensa" credentials: Why don't you contact them with the advice that according to your parameters they are affording unqualified persons such as myself membership, and then I will return to them my gold-embossed membership certificate, which I have held for over four decades.

    And apparently due to your reading deficiency you did not notice that I said quote : "Republicans are bad enough"

    Otherwise : Uckfay ouya.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
  15. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean
    I think the main reason there is so much hostility to Iran among the military- intel appointees of Trump -- both the faddist Snake-eater Flynn and olde school Clausewitzian McMaster (McM on his ideas here)-- is the Iranians supplied Shia terrorists in Iraq with Explosively formed penetrator for IEDs to kill American soldiers. Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile. The nuke-less Iranians used 1940's technology to kill Americans in Iraq, and of course US policymakers are now worried what Iran-packing-a nuke might do. The Iranians have brought it on themselves.

    Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile

    You probably believe Iraq had WMDs. And Judith Miller’s NYT piece about Iraq secretly moving these WMDs to Syria before the 2003 invasion. And you probably believe Assad used Sarin against an insignificant poor town for no military significance whatsoever.

    The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration’s acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

    The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On Jun. 21, 2005, Gen. John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein’s army.

    A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents’ “resourcefulness,” according to the Pentagon source.

    But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had “intercepted” dozens of shaped charges said to have been “smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week.”

    The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were “convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government.”

    These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were “clearly, unambiguously from Iran” and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

    But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shi’ite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

    British troops in Shi’ite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shi’ite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armored vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005, that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

    The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers “lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah.” But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

    Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

    Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn’t hold water. “A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network,” he told Associated Press. “What works in one country gets known elsewhere.”

    The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006, that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no “reliable intelligence” connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south…

    Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, “Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices.

    The day after Bush’s press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq…

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10339

    The lie about Iran supplying shaped-charged IEDs is still being propogated by both neocon Charlie McCarthys and the demonic Ziocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Iraqis might be able to lash up a simple shaped charge (an RPG has them in the warhead) but the kind of thing the Americans were complaining about coming from Iran was Explosively formed penetrator weapons which are are a much more sophisticated variety of precision shaped charge (yet another variety of sophisticated precision shaped charges are used to initiate nuclear weapons).Iraqis couldn't lash up Explosively formed penetrators . McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

    Trump's original pick General Flynn was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well.

  16. anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean

    People and policies gaining the power to make decisions in the Trump administration are the very same as those who helped turn the wider Middle East from Hindu Kush to the Sahara into an arena for endless wars. They have no idea how to end these conflicts and show little desire to do so.
     
    To me at least, it is far from obvious that area has been an arena for endless wars because of anything the US has done.
    Wars are undesirable from a humanitarian point of view ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4208862/More-two-million-children-starving-war-torn-Yemen.html). It is far from obvious that the US can end them by staying out. They didn't actually start them and they are not intervening to keep them going. Here is a long rather flippant article about the history https://pando.com/2015/03/28/the-war-nerd-a-brief-history-of-the-yemen-clusterfck/. While the article ends by complaining that the West stifled progressive forces because they were Nasser-and-thus-Soviet backed, it seems to me that the Yemen drew in near neighbours and then more distant powers, the latest round (which started in 1962) was not caused by anything but a mass of Yemenis being disgruntled, and being based in a large community, virtually impossible to finally defeat . As in so many cases the allegiances straddle borders and the neighbours back a dog in the fight and won't see it lose.

    I think the interminable conflicts in Afghanistan and Syria are largely case of governments that don't actually command the allegiance of an overwhelming majority of the people. They'll maybe fight against or defend it . The US could just step back in Afghanistan and let the Taliban take over, but that would be seen as a huge defeat for the US.

    Trump has no mandate to do such a thing; he ran on isolation perhaps but it was a magnificent isolation, not the crawling home to lick wounds type. Trump is keeping faith with his voters with giant bombs on the insurgent Taliban types, and has good reasons of international diplomatic and domestic political prestige for keeping Afghanistan ostensibly out of the hands of the Taliban In reality Afghanistan is more or less half inhabited by Taliban-sympathetic populations and always will be.


    “It is an inconvenient reality that any US action taken to weaken the Syrian government will inadvertently benefit the Islamic State and other Jihadi groups,” [...]
     
    The US stood off while Assad's brutal police state response to demonstrations turned protests into a popular uprising. And when Assad using a large army lost most of the heavily inhabited regions of the country to a rag tag disorganized rebellion without heavy weapons, it was still without any subversion by the US. Then the US under Obama finally said it would punish Assad (for gas attacks on noncombatants), but changed its mind because the neocon dominated US was politically and militarily reluctant to do it. Neocons had no pull under Obama?

    The only reason Assad has not lost already and fled the country and brought conditions for secession of hostilities/settlemen , is because the Russians, emboldened by US passivity, came in and blasted the helpless against air-power rebels (non jihadi first note ) out of their gains. The US could have given the rebel anti-aircraft defences, but didn't. The US owes the Assad hereditary dictatorship mass murdering its own people absolutely nothing. The proven stupidity of the Assad regieme in losing control of the country is. Those who think the Assad regieme is indispensable as a bulwark against Isis and company might ponder where and why Isis got off the ground. It was then Assad government in power that created Isis and similar movements. The desirability of restoring Assad to dominance (all the Russians need is a little more time and they can break the back of the rebellion) and thus recreating the conditions that led to the birth of Isis is not obvious to me.

    Assad victory wouldn't eliminate the apparent majority of conservative Islam supporters in Syria and that tendency of the Syrian masses would find another outlet, unless vast numbers preferred to come to the West than take their chances under an Assad reign of terror throughout the reconquered regions of the country. Assad remaining in power in his little heartland is a different thing (there could be a partition) but him returning to rule over all Syria would be disastrous for the stability of the region.


    The Trump administration says its priority is still to eliminate Isis and nobody openly disagrees with this. But the resurgent influence of the US foreign policy establishment along with that of Israel and the neo-cons, despite their dismal record in Iraq and Syria, is good news for Isis.
     
    If the Syrians want to live under something like an Isis type government, preferring that to living under Assad , that is their business. Better that they live as they want in their own country than leave it as refugees. Isis as such will never be allowed to win anyway, the US could no more do that than let the Talban achieve victory. Not going to happen can supply any rebel group with what it needs to. That group will not be secular-- so what as long as Syrian are at peace and staying in their own country.

    Trump campaigned as an isolationist, which should protect him from foreign misadventures, but he has never had many isolationists around him. The architects of America’s failed military interventions since Afghanistan are still in business. Strip Trump of his isolationism and what you have left is largely jingoistic bravado and bragging about a return of American greatness. In future crises, both these impulses will make compromise more difficult and war more likely.
     
    "Make America Great Again", that slogan of the well known isolationist Ronald Reagan. Trump owes his voters action on what the phase actually means, which is not passivity. If you price what you're trying to sell at absolute rock bottom, the prospective buyer is not going to be able to get concessionary movement, and might be so frustrated that he walks away from for him was actually a good deal. Trump sets out his stall as jingoist, well that puts the onus on someone who wants to deal to come up with a counter proposal, and it leaver Trump with somewhere to go to get an agreement. Compromise means moving, the other side likes to think they have moved you toward their position. A major criticism of Ehud Barak's negotiating style with Palestinians was he was sufficiently parsimonious in an opening position, which contained the maximum possible concessions, but the Palestinian side were frustrated because the naturally thought they should try for some progress from that early offer.

    As for the matter of isolationism, the US came into WW1 and 2 against Germany in order to prevent it winning. The blame for starting WW1 and 2, which had been going for years before US entry was hardly at issue. I feel that many critics of Trump are implying that taking America into an existing conflict that it didn't start is somehow retroactively taking on the culpability for having aggressively started the wars, while staying out washes America's soul pure.

    same bs on every level
    Take US out of equation, wars in ME will die tomorrow or day after .
    Somalia war is US creation
    Libyan war is US creation/Syrian war is US creation
    Iraq war is US creation.
    Iraq -Kuwait war was US creation
    Afghanistan is US creation.

    Iran has been experiencing the effects of war because of sanctions . It is a war when the other side has been collectively immobilized from responding – it is illegal war.
    ( these things wont go unaddressed for long May be the generals wont pay but you can be sure their downward progeny will and it will be same collective punishment. Laws can be enacted and forced down the throat of future Americans to pay back by labor and cash . Wait for the future. )
    Yemen war is US creation not Saudi . Saudi cant breathe oxygen unless US allows it .

    Sure there are violence in ME but those incidents are like what happened Baltimore, LA,(1992) Ferguson ( 2014 2015 like and they would have died down like these violence died down These violence in ME did not resolve because US intervened.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @Sean

    McMaster: Finally, the ‘RSVP fallacy’ solves the problem of future war by opting out of armed conflict, or at least certain forms of it. The problem with this fallacy lies in its failure to give due consideration to enemies in wars or adversaries between wars. As Leon Trotsky said, ‘you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you’. If Western armed forces do not possess ready joint forces capable of operating at the scale and for the duration required to win, adversaries are likely to become emboldened and deterrence is likely to fail. In the words of the first US president, George Washington, ‘To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace’.

    Preparing effectively for war to prevent conflict, shape security environments and, if necessary, win in armed conflict requires clear thinking. Western militaries and their civilian leaders might begin by rejecting fallacies that are inconsistent with the enduring nature of war. As nineteenth-century Prussian philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz observed:

    The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish ... the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.

     

    These fallacies persist, in large measure, because they define war as one might like it to be rather than as an uncertain and complex human competition usually aimed at achieving a political outcome.
     
  17. Sean says:
    @Anonymous

    Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile
     
    You probably believe Iraq had WMDs. And Judith Miller's NYT piece about Iraq secretly moving these WMDs to Syria before the 2003 invasion. And you probably believe Assad used Sarin against an insignificant poor town for no military significance whatsoever.

    The origins of the theme of Iranian complicity strongly suggest that it was a propaganda line aimed at reducing the Bush administration's acute embarrassment at its inability to stop the growing death toll of U.S. troops from shaped charges fired at armored vehicles by Sunni insurgents.

    The U.S. command admitted at first that the Sunnis were making the shaped charges themselves. On Jun. 21, 2005, Gen. John R. Vines, then the senior U.S. commander in Iraq, told reporters that the insurgents had probably drawn on bomb-making expertise from former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's army.

    A Pentagon official involved in combating the new IEDs also told the New York Times that the first such bombs examined by the U.S. military had required considerable expertise, and that well-trained former government specialists were probably involved in making them. The use of infrared detonators was regarded as a tribute to the insurgents' "resourcefulness," according to the Pentagon source.

    But sometime in the next six weeks, the Bush administration made a decision to start blaming its new problem in Iraq on Tehran. On Aug. 4, 2005, Pentagon and intelligence officials leaked the story to NBC and CBS that U.S. troops had "intercepted" dozens of shaped charges said to have been "smuggled into northeastern Iraq only last week."

    The NBC story quoted intelligence officials as saying they believed the IEDs were shipped into Iraq by Iranian Revolutionary Guards or Hezbollah, but were "convinced it could not have happened without the full consent of the Iranian government."

    These stories were leaked to coincide with public accusations by then Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad that Iran was meddling in Iraqi affairs. A few days after the stories appeared, Rumsfeld declared that these shaped charges were "clearly, unambiguously from Iran" and blamed Tehran for allowing the cross-border traffic.

    But the administration had a major credibility problem with that story. It could not explain why Iran would want to assist the enemies of the militant Shi'ite parties in Iraq that were aligned with Iran.

    British troops in Shi'ite southern Iraq, where the shaped charges were apparently used by Shi'ite militias, had an equally embarrassing problem with the IEDs penetrating their armored vehicles. An unnamed senior British official in London told BCC on Oct. 5, 2005, that the shaped charges that had killed British troops in southern Iraq had come from Hezbollah in Lebanon via Iran.

    The following day, British Prime Minister Tony Blair took the occasion of a joint press conference with Iraqi President Jalal Talabani to declare that the circumstances surrounding the bombs that killed British soldiers "lead us either to Iranian elements or to Hezbollah." But Blair conceded that he had no evidence of such a link.

    Privately British officials said that the only basis for their suspicions was that the technology was similar in design to the shaped charges used by Hezbollah in its war to drive Israel out of southern Lebanon in the 1980s.

    Anthony Cordesman, a highly respected military analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, explained why the story line blaming Iran for the IED problem in Iraq didn't hold water. "A lot of this is just technology that is leaked into an informal network," he told Associated Press. "What works in one country gets known elsewhere."

    The Blair government soon dropped that propaganda line. The Independent reported Jan. 5, 2006, that government officials acknowledged privately that there was no "reliable intelligence" connecting the Iranian government to the more powerful IEDs in the south...

    Bush quoted the director of national intelligence, John Negroponte, as testifying, "Tehran has been responsible for at least some of the increasing lethality of anti-coalition attacks by providing Shia militia with the capability to building improvised explosive devices.

    The day after Bush's press conference, Gen. Peter Pace, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, admitted at a Pentagon news conference that he had no evidence of the Iranian government sending any military equipment or personnel into Iraq...

    http://www.antiwar.com/orig/porter.php?articleid=10339
     

    The lie about Iran supplying shaped-charged IEDs is still being propogated by both neocon Charlie McCarthys and the demonic Ziocons.

    The Iraqis might be able to lash up a simple shaped charge (an RPG has them in the warhead) but the kind of thing the Americans were complaining about coming from Iran was Explosively formed penetrator weapons which are are a much more sophisticated variety of precision shaped charge (yet another variety of sophisticated precision shaped charges are used to initiate nuclear weapons).Iraqis couldn’t lash up Explosively formed penetrators . McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

    Trump’s original pick General Flynn was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    Cause and effect much? If the Americans were never in Iraq to begin with, they wouldn't have had to worry about Iranian supplied IEDs, now would they?
  18. Sean says:
    @anon
    same bs on every level
    Take US out of equation, wars in ME will die tomorrow or day after .
    Somalia war is US creation
    Libyan war is US creation/Syrian war is US creation
    Iraq war is US creation.
    Iraq -Kuwait war was US creation
    Afghanistan is US creation.

    Iran has been experiencing the effects of war because of sanctions . It is a war when the other side has been collectively immobilized from responding - it is illegal war.
    ( these things wont go unaddressed for long May be the generals wont pay but you can be sure their downward progeny will and it will be same collective punishment. Laws can be enacted and forced down the throat of future Americans to pay back by labor and cash . Wait for the future. )
    Yemen war is US creation not Saudi . Saudi cant breathe oxygen unless US allows it .

    Sure there are violence in ME but those incidents are like what happened Baltimore, LA,(1992) Ferguson ( 2014 2015 like and they would have died down like these violence died down These violence in ME did not resolve because US intervened.

    McMaster: Finally, the ‘RSVP fallacy’ solves the problem of future war by opting out of armed conflict, or at least certain forms of it. The problem with this fallacy lies in its failure to give due consideration to enemies in wars or adversaries between wars. As Leon Trotsky said, ‘you may not be interested in war but war is interested in you’. If Western armed forces do not possess ready joint forces capable of operating at the scale and for the duration required to win, adversaries are likely to become emboldened and deterrence is likely to fail. In the words of the first US president, George Washington, ‘To be prepared for war is one of the most effective means of preserving peace’.

    Preparing effectively for war to prevent conflict, shape security environments and, if necessary, win in armed conflict requires clear thinking. Western militaries and their civilian leaders might begin by rejecting fallacies that are inconsistent with the enduring nature of war. As nineteenth-century Prussian philosopher of war Carl von Clausewitz observed:

    The first, the supreme, the most far-reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is to establish … the kind of war on which they are embarking; neither mistaking it for, nor trying to turn it into, something that is alien to its nature. This is the first of all strategic questions and the most comprehensive.

    These fallacies persist, in large measure, because they define war as one might like it to be rather than as an uncertain and complex human competition usually aimed at achieving a political outcome.

    Read More
  19. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    Trump should be a lesson.


    Don't be desperate, no democratically elected politician will ever not be liberal. In order to believe in democracy you have to be liberal.


    Democratically elected capitalists who give their daughters away to Zionists should be scorned. Anyone who supported him should be ashamed, everyone on r/the_Donald needs to pray to Allah for forgiveness, because they've all committed shirk.

    If a man who has given hand of his daughter to a Zionist (Jew?) should be scorned then a man who gives his daughter in marriage to an Islamist (Arab?) should be hanged for condemning her to the life of slavery!

    Read More
    • Replies: @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    That doesn't make sense, because a Muslim woman isn't a slave.

    It's funny how it always comes back to "muh feminism" with so called conservative Islamophobes. Muslim women have all the rights that women need.

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?

  20. @Mike from Ikea
    You are clearly in possession of a MENSA level IQ, as you still firmly believe in Rush Limbaugh style playground insults and a blood simple Dems vs Repubs partisan divide. Or is that your Airborne training coming through?

    I love Rush Limbaugh, and as far as my Airborne training is concerned : You would crap your pants if you were obliged to jump out of a perfectly good aircraft with sixty pounds of gear on your back and at night. On my first jump I was first one out.

    And regarding your beef with my “Mensa” credentials: Why don’t you contact them with the advice that according to your parameters they are affording unqualified persons such as myself membership, and then I will return to them my gold-embossed membership certificate, which I have held for over four decades.

    And apparently due to your reading deficiency you did not notice that I said quote : “Republicans are bad enough”

    Otherwise : Uckfay ouya.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  21. @Anon
    http://theduran.com/10-countries-that-threaten-world-peace-more-than-north-korea/

    Turkey at No.4. No surprise there.

    Read More
  22. The great irony of Trump is the Israel First, Saudi Arabia Second foreign policy, which ultimately dictates domestic policy.

    So we have Jewish and Wahhabi Islamic interests over Christians. Keeping the hostile states around Israel fractured is divide/conquer 101. It requires siding with at least one weaker agent in the region. In this case, ISIS. But the conquistador knows he must strengthen this party without allowing it to acquire sovereignty over the whole.

    So it is rational to both support ISIS against Asssad, but keep them from conquering the whole damned region. We strengthen the Kurds to keep ISIS in check, but they’re in a virtual war with Turkey, a NATO member who we are by treaty bound to defend.

    Talk about “Entangling Alliances”! Again how ironic that the first and foremost one is not actually a treaty: Israel. I’d prefer a treaty to the current state of unspoken alliance – because it would have to be spelled out and voted on by the Senate and then adhered to.

    We’d be in hell with Hillary for sure. But Trump is a disappointment so far. He’s put himself in a position where he’ll either have to keep denying his Syria missile attack was based on a lie, or acknowledge so. That would show character.

    But it seems his need to demonstrate the earnestness in making war without congressional declaration, without international agreement: America striking any state, for any reason like your daughter crying, at any time… this was Trump’s highest priority. I will nuke you while eating chocolate cake with a communist.

    It does not bode well, by our Founder’s standards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Authenticjazzman
    " while eating chocolate cake with a communist"

    Which Communist? The Chinese are far removed from communism, the US democrats are much closer to it.

    "Trump is a disappointment so far"

    Look he is confronted with a thousand different issues minute by minute, and he has to find his stride, or did you, like the gloating democrats, expect him to win on every contentious issue, while fighting them and his own party at the same time. He is doing great as far as conditions allow, and he is a shrewd guy, so he will get on top of the situation asap.

    Authenticjazzman "Mensa" society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.
  23. @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    If a man who has given hand of his daughter to a Zionist (Jew?) should be scorned then a man who gives his daughter in marriage to an Islamist (Arab?) should be hanged for condemning her to the life of slavery!

    That doesn’t make sense, because a Muslim woman isn’t a slave.

    It’s funny how it always comes back to “muh feminism” with so called conservative Islamophobes. Muslim women have all the rights that women need.

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha

    “muh feminism”
     
    LOL!

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?
     
    LLLOOOLLL!!!

    Ya akhi, inni uhibbuka fillah!

    Wa salaam.
    , @Pachyderm Pachyderma
    If by the word 'wife' you mean ownership of a body then no, one doesn't have a right to look at the body of another man's wife, just as you would not have the right to view the Shroud of Turin as a non-Catholic...
  24. The US is like a dying star which consumes everything around it as it fades. Who knows if we will survive?

    Read More
  25. JL says:
    @Sean
    The Iraqis might be able to lash up a simple shaped charge (an RPG has them in the warhead) but the kind of thing the Americans were complaining about coming from Iran was Explosively formed penetrator weapons which are are a much more sophisticated variety of precision shaped charge (yet another variety of sophisticated precision shaped charges are used to initiate nuclear weapons).Iraqis couldn't lash up Explosively formed penetrators . McMaster was in Iraq at the time and he knows it was the Iranians .

    Trump's original pick General Flynn was there in Iraq too and later head of the DIA. By all accounts he was infuriated by Iranians supplying the Explosively formed penetrator weapons to Shia groups so their IEDs could blast though armour on US vehicles in Iraq. They, especially Flynn had access to all the examination of the wrecked vehicles and I suppose autopsies on US soldiers as well.

    Cause and effect much? If the Americans were never in Iraq to begin with, they wouldn’t have had to worry about Iranian supplied IEDs, now would they?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey JL,

    Yeah, I mean if China invaded Canada, I would think it's pretty obvious we'd be helping the resistance there overtly and covertly. Iraq has tons of Shiah people and masoleums. It would actually have been ludicrous for them to have not done a single thing about the invasion.

    Peace.
  26. @Backwoods Bob
    The great irony of Trump is the Israel First, Saudi Arabia Second foreign policy, which ultimately dictates domestic policy.

    So we have Jewish and Wahhabi Islamic interests over Christians. Keeping the hostile states around Israel fractured is divide/conquer 101. It requires siding with at least one weaker agent in the region. In this case, ISIS. But the conquistador knows he must strengthen this party without allowing it to acquire sovereignty over the whole.

    So it is rational to both support ISIS against Asssad, but keep them from conquering the whole damned region. We strengthen the Kurds to keep ISIS in check, but they're in a virtual war with Turkey, a NATO member who we are by treaty bound to defend.

    Talk about "Entangling Alliances"! Again how ironic that the first and foremost one is not actually a treaty: Israel. I'd prefer a treaty to the current state of unspoken alliance - because it would have to be spelled out and voted on by the Senate and then adhered to.

    We'd be in hell with Hillary for sure. But Trump is a disappointment so far. He's put himself in a position where he'll either have to keep denying his Syria missile attack was based on a lie, or acknowledge so. That would show character.

    But it seems his need to demonstrate the earnestness in making war without congressional declaration, without international agreement: America striking any state, for any reason like your daughter crying, at any time... this was Trump's highest priority. I will nuke you while eating chocolate cake with a communist.

    It does not bode well, by our Founder's standards.

    ” while eating chocolate cake with a communist”

    Which Communist? The Chinese are far removed from communism, the US democrats are much closer to it.

    “Trump is a disappointment so far”

    Look he is confronted with a thousand different issues minute by minute, and he has to find his stride, or did you, like the gloating democrats, expect him to win on every contentious issue, while fighting them and his own party at the same time. He is doing great as far as conditions allow, and he is a shrewd guy, so he will get on top of the situation asap.

    Authenticjazzman “Mensa” society member since 1973, airborne qualified US Army vet, and pro jazz artist.

    Read More
  27. Talha says:
    @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    That doesn't make sense, because a Muslim woman isn't a slave.

    It's funny how it always comes back to "muh feminism" with so called conservative Islamophobes. Muslim women have all the rights that women need.

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?

    “muh feminism”

    LOL!

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?

    LLLOOOLLL!!!

    Ya akhi, inni uhibbuka fillah!

    Wa salaam.

    Read More
  28. Talha says:
    @JL
    Cause and effect much? If the Americans were never in Iraq to begin with, they wouldn't have had to worry about Iranian supplied IEDs, now would they?

    Hey JL,

    Yeah, I mean if China invaded Canada, I would think it’s pretty obvious we’d be helping the resistance there overtly and covertly. Iraq has tons of Shiah people and masoleums. It would actually have been ludicrous for them to have not done a single thing about the invasion.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    As Mearsheimer says, a good state knows its limitations. The US is vastly more powerful than China, so the analogy may be morally apposite but falls down when the consequences are considered. Moreover, the US invasion freed the Iraq Shia from Sunni dominance so the Shia attacks on US forces were not simple resistance to an invasion of their country because although Shia are a majority in Iraq they had never held power untill the US toppled Saddam. Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.

    The US now understands that Iran was behind the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, so how did further alienating the most powerful country in the world by that campaign benefit Iran? They didn't think it through.

    My dad, an ordinary working man, once had a gun put to his head in a London pub by a gangster (it was over a girl). My dad left with his pal, who suggested going intermediately back in to take the gangster by surprise (assuming the gun was now put away) and giving him a beating. My dad said "No, don't start something you cannot finish".

  29. Sean says:
    @Talha
    Hey JL,

    Yeah, I mean if China invaded Canada, I would think it's pretty obvious we'd be helping the resistance there overtly and covertly. Iraq has tons of Shiah people and masoleums. It would actually have been ludicrous for them to have not done a single thing about the invasion.

    Peace.

    As Mearsheimer says, a good state knows its limitations. The US is vastly more powerful than China, so the analogy may be morally apposite but falls down when the consequences are considered. Moreover, the US invasion freed the Iraq Shia from Sunni dominance so the Shia attacks on US forces were not simple resistance to an invasion of their country because although Shia are a majority in Iraq they had never held power untill the US toppled Saddam. Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.

    The US now understands that Iran was behind the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, so how did further alienating the most powerful country in the world by that campaign benefit Iran? They didn’t think it through.

    My dad, an ordinary working man, once had a gun put to his head in a London pub by a gangster (it was over a girl). My dad left with his pal, who suggested going intermediately back in to take the gangster by surprise (assuming the gun was now put away) and giving him a beating. My dad said “No, don’t start something you cannot finish”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.
     
    The majority of innocent people and children who died in Iraq because of the sanctions preceding the war were Shiah. I knew Shiah people in the US who had extended families in Iraq who suffered greatly because of this. The idea that the US was going to be hailed as liberators by the Shiah was a pipe dream that only the neocons could sell to a public that couldn't find Iraq on a map. Anybody that knew the history would have known exactly what the Shiah reaction would have been to the US toppling Saddam; thanks - now leave.

    They didn’t think it through.
     
    They did, it's called the Persian Gulf for a reason. That's their turf, it's been for centuries. the Persians have survived invasions by the Greek, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc. and they're still there. We are the visitors.

    don’t start something you cannot finish
     
    The neocons should have been given that memo. How far do you want this mistake to go - do you want us to lose a field army over it before we wake up? Which US city do you want potentially going up in flames?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtX2QrDIt9M

    Peace.
  30. @Sean
    I think the main reason there is so much hostility to Iran among the military- intel appointees of Trump -- both the faddist Snake-eater Flynn and olde school Clausewitzian McMaster (McM on his ideas here)-- is the Iranians supplied Shia terrorists in Iraq with Explosively formed penetrator for IEDs to kill American soldiers. Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile. The nuke-less Iranians used 1940's technology to kill Americans in Iraq, and of course US policymakers are now worried what Iran-packing-a nuke might do. The Iranians have brought it on themselves.

    You do realize that the “Iranian” IED myth was exposed as fake news a decade ago, don’t you?

    Read More
  31. Cyrano says:

    Trump being elected as president showed that you can vote any which way you want, but you can’t vote the deep state out of office. Those who voted for Trump believed that they can do this. As Henry Ford used to say – you can have any color Ford T as long as it’s black. Same thing in US elections – you can have any candidate you want as long as he is deep state. Trump at the beginning gave the impression that he might be a brand new model of car, until he was recalled by the manufacturer (deep state) for parts non-compliant with their standards. Now he is compliant. Elections only serve to give the illusion of a choice and if you want any change, elections are pretty much an exercise in futility.

    But enough of that. Who I really don’t get are the terrorists. They came by the thousands from the west – obviously unimpressed and disillusioned by it (I am also disillusioned by the west and I am not even a Muslim). So anyhow, they came from the western countries in droves to Syria to fight for what? Democracy? That’s the US version. And it’s a good cover, great actually.

    The terrorists are fighting for their religion and culture. And supposedly one of their biggest enemy is the great Satan – US. If I was one of them, as soon as I start receiving free gifts from US – like vehicles, arms, food drops and so on, I’ll ask myself – how can my biggest enemy approve of my actions so much that they are actually starting to help me?

    What’s wrong with these people? They have to know that as soon as the US starts to help them, the theory that US is trying to bring democracy to the middle east goes out the window and there is no way that US is on the same page with them about creating Islamic state.

    The bottom line is how do you continue to be used by your supposedly biggest enemy to wreck country after country with Muslim inhabitants? How do they not realize that as soon as US gets on their side – that shows that they (the terrorists) are on the wrong path and they need to stop doing whatever they are doing. How can any self-respecting terrorist with jihadi credentials be doing the bidding of the US?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Cyrano,

    Who I really don’t get are the terrorists.
     
    This is absolutely required reading on the subject by a man who is an expert on global jihadis, Islamist governments and the resurgence of Islam across the world. He did a case study of 100 of these men from France and Belgium and was able to discern patterns.
    "Biographies of ‘homegrown’ European terrorists show they are violent nihilists who adopt Islam, rather than religious fundamentalists who turn to violence...The systematic association with death is one of the keys to understanding today’s radicalisation: the nihilist dimension is central. What seduces and fascinates is the idea of pure revolt. Violence is not a means. It is an end in itself...And they are, in a way, because living in an Islamic society does not interest jihadis: they do not go to the Middle East to live, but to die. That is the paradox: these young radicals are not utopians, they are nihilists."
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/13/who-are-the-new-jihadis

    This accounts for their short-term thinking.

    These are the books he has written:
    https://www.amazon.com/Olivier-Roy/e/B001ILIBMO/

    These youth are a product of our post-modern age of emptiness.

    Peace.
  32. Talha says:
    @Sean
    As Mearsheimer says, a good state knows its limitations. The US is vastly more powerful than China, so the analogy may be morally apposite but falls down when the consequences are considered. Moreover, the US invasion freed the Iraq Shia from Sunni dominance so the Shia attacks on US forces were not simple resistance to an invasion of their country because although Shia are a majority in Iraq they had never held power untill the US toppled Saddam. Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.

    The US now understands that Iran was behind the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, so how did further alienating the most powerful country in the world by that campaign benefit Iran? They didn't think it through.

    My dad, an ordinary working man, once had a gun put to his head in a London pub by a gangster (it was over a girl). My dad left with his pal, who suggested going intermediately back in to take the gangster by surprise (assuming the gun was now put away) and giving him a beating. My dad said "No, don't start something you cannot finish".

    Hey Sean,

    Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.

    The majority of innocent people and children who died in Iraq because of the sanctions preceding the war were Shiah. I knew Shiah people in the US who had extended families in Iraq who suffered greatly because of this. The idea that the US was going to be hailed as liberators by the Shiah was a pipe dream that only the neocons could sell to a public that couldn’t find Iraq on a map. Anybody that knew the history would have known exactly what the Shiah reaction would have been to the US toppling Saddam; thanks – now leave.

    They didn’t think it through.

    They did, it’s called the Persian Gulf for a reason. That’s their turf, it’s been for centuries. the Persians have survived invasions by the Greek, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc. and they’re still there. We are the visitors.

    don’t start something you cannot finish

    The neocons should have been given that memo. How far do you want this mistake to go – do you want us to lose a field army over it before we wake up? Which US city do you want potentially going up in flames?

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Iranians had an overblown belief in the traction they might get from blowing a couple of hundred US soldiers up, and absolutly no comprehension of America's formidably.. powerful resources and , if need be , stamina... The US was not sent home by the Iranian proxy terror campaign, it was just made angry by the killings of US soldiers by Iranians tools in Iraq . The American possession of almost unlimited ability to punish Iran should have made the Iranians think twice before mounting a proxy bombing campaign against the US in Iraq. The Iranians think they're going to get offered a really good deal over nukes now?
  33. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    Trump being elected as president showed that you can vote any which way you want, but you can’t vote the deep state out of office. Those who voted for Trump believed that they can do this. As Henry Ford used to say – you can have any color Ford T as long as it’s black. Same thing in US elections – you can have any candidate you want as long as he is deep state. Trump at the beginning gave the impression that he might be a brand new model of car, until he was recalled by the manufacturer (deep state) for parts non-compliant with their standards. Now he is compliant. Elections only serve to give the illusion of a choice and if you want any change, elections are pretty much an exercise in futility.

    But enough of that. Who I really don’t get are the terrorists. They came by the thousands from the west – obviously unimpressed and disillusioned by it (I am also disillusioned by the west and I am not even a Muslim). So anyhow, they came from the western countries in droves to Syria to fight for what? Democracy? That’s the US version. And it’s a good cover, great actually.

    The terrorists are fighting for their religion and culture. And supposedly one of their biggest enemy is the great Satan – US. If I was one of them, as soon as I start receiving free gifts from US – like vehicles, arms, food drops and so on, I’ll ask myself – how can my biggest enemy approve of my actions so much that they are actually starting to help me?

    What’s wrong with these people? They have to know that as soon as the US starts to help them, the theory that US is trying to bring democracy to the middle east goes out the window and there is no way that US is on the same page with them about creating Islamic state.

    The bottom line is how do you continue to be used by your supposedly biggest enemy to wreck country after country with Muslim inhabitants? How do they not realize that as soon as US gets on their side - that shows that they (the terrorists) are on the wrong path and they need to stop doing whatever they are doing. How can any self-respecting terrorist with jihadi credentials be doing the bidding of the US?

    Hey Cyrano,

    Who I really don’t get are the terrorists.

    This is absolutely required reading on the subject by a man who is an expert on global jihadis, Islamist governments and the resurgence of Islam across the world. He did a case study of 100 of these men from France and Belgium and was able to discern patterns.
    “Biographies of ‘homegrown’ European terrorists show they are violent nihilists who adopt Islam, rather than religious fundamentalists who turn to violence…The systematic association with death is one of the keys to understanding today’s radicalisation: the nihilist dimension is central. What seduces and fascinates is the idea of pure revolt. Violence is not a means. It is an end in itself…And they are, in a way, because living in an Islamic society does not interest jihadis: they do not go to the Middle East to live, but to die. That is the paradox: these young radicals are not utopians, they are nihilists.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/13/who-are-the-new-jihadis

    This accounts for their short-term thinking.

    These are the books he has written:

    https://www.amazon.com/Olivier-Roy/e/B001ILIBMO/

    These youth are a product of our post-modern age of emptiness.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Thanks Talha, it's so nice to see that so many Islamic radicals find life in the west inspirational.
  34. Cyrano says:
    @Talha
    Hey Cyrano,

    Who I really don’t get are the terrorists.
     
    This is absolutely required reading on the subject by a man who is an expert on global jihadis, Islamist governments and the resurgence of Islam across the world. He did a case study of 100 of these men from France and Belgium and was able to discern patterns.
    "Biographies of ‘homegrown’ European terrorists show they are violent nihilists who adopt Islam, rather than religious fundamentalists who turn to violence...The systematic association with death is one of the keys to understanding today’s radicalisation: the nihilist dimension is central. What seduces and fascinates is the idea of pure revolt. Violence is not a means. It is an end in itself...And they are, in a way, because living in an Islamic society does not interest jihadis: they do not go to the Middle East to live, but to die. That is the paradox: these young radicals are not utopians, they are nihilists."
    https://www.theguardian.com/news/2017/apr/13/who-are-the-new-jihadis

    This accounts for their short-term thinking.

    These are the books he has written:
    https://www.amazon.com/Olivier-Roy/e/B001ILIBMO/

    These youth are a product of our post-modern age of emptiness.

    Peace.

    Thanks Talha, it’s so nice to see that so many Islamic radicals find life in the west inspirational.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Aaaaand...the women who love them:
    "FBI woman went to Syria to wed IS recruiter she investigated"
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39783511

    "He had dropped his stage name of Deso Dogg to call himself Abu Talha al-Almani."

    Crap! That's not going to do wonders for my airline security procedures.

    "But Greene apparently soon had second thoughts about her new husband."
    Ya think? Like he's a terrorist recruiter you were supposed to be investigating?

    Well I guess this tops the list for the women go for bad-boys theme.

    Peace.

  35. Sean says:
    @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.
     
    The majority of innocent people and children who died in Iraq because of the sanctions preceding the war were Shiah. I knew Shiah people in the US who had extended families in Iraq who suffered greatly because of this. The idea that the US was going to be hailed as liberators by the Shiah was a pipe dream that only the neocons could sell to a public that couldn't find Iraq on a map. Anybody that knew the history would have known exactly what the Shiah reaction would have been to the US toppling Saddam; thanks - now leave.

    They didn’t think it through.
     
    They did, it's called the Persian Gulf for a reason. That's their turf, it's been for centuries. the Persians have survived invasions by the Greek, Byzantines, Arabs, Mongols, Turks, etc. and they're still there. We are the visitors.

    don’t start something you cannot finish
     
    The neocons should have been given that memo. How far do you want this mistake to go - do you want us to lose a field army over it before we wake up? Which US city do you want potentially going up in flames?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtX2QrDIt9M

    Peace.

    The Iranians had an overblown belief in the traction they might get from blowing a couple of hundred US soldiers up, and absolutly no comprehension of America’s formidably.. powerful resources and , if need be , stamina… The US was not sent home by the Iranian proxy terror campaign, it was just made angry by the killings of US soldiers by Iranians tools in Iraq . The American possession of almost unlimited ability to punish Iran should have made the Iranians think twice before mounting a proxy bombing campaign against the US in Iraq. The Iranians think they’re going to get offered a really good deal over nukes now?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    I really don't buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I've seen no evidence for it - that's right off the bat.

    it was just made angry
     
    The US is a country, full of a heck of a lot of people. Maybe you are angered by that and you can continue to speak for people like yourself. People like me who marched against the war in 2003 are far more pissed off that our government sent soldiers into a war based on lies. If our government had not done that we wouldn't have dead soldiers to be angry over.

    stamina
     
    Honestly man, I'm tired of this crap and so are a whole bunch of other people. You want to make the Persians pay - go for it. I will never support a military action that I myself would never participate in or at least send my son into. Do it on your own dime; charter a flight with a bunch of other like-minded Americans and fly down to the Persian Gulf and do us proud - show us the meaning of stamina. Show us how you can whip those goat-herding Iranians.

    made the Iranians think twice
     
    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions - but us? We're special - consequences don't apply to us. We don't have to learn from our mistakes.

    Peace.
  36. Talha says:
    @Cyrano
    Thanks Talha, it's so nice to see that so many Islamic radicals find life in the west inspirational.

    Aaaaand…the women who love them:
    “FBI woman went to Syria to wed IS recruiter she investigated”

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-39783511

    “He had dropped his stage name of Deso Dogg to call himself Abu Talha al-Almani.”

    Crap! That’s not going to do wonders for my airline security procedures.

    “But Greene apparently soon had second thoughts about her new husband.”
    Ya think? Like he’s a terrorist recruiter you were supposed to be investigating?

    Well I guess this tops the list for the women go for bad-boys theme.

    Peace.

    Read More
  37. Talha says:
    @Sean
    The Iranians had an overblown belief in the traction they might get from blowing a couple of hundred US soldiers up, and absolutly no comprehension of America's formidably.. powerful resources and , if need be , stamina... The US was not sent home by the Iranian proxy terror campaign, it was just made angry by the killings of US soldiers by Iranians tools in Iraq . The American possession of almost unlimited ability to punish Iran should have made the Iranians think twice before mounting a proxy bombing campaign against the US in Iraq. The Iranians think they're going to get offered a really good deal over nukes now?

    Hey Sean,

    I really don’t buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I’ve seen no evidence for it – that’s right off the bat.

    it was just made angry

    The US is a country, full of a heck of a lot of people. Maybe you are angered by that and you can continue to speak for people like yourself. People like me who marched against the war in 2003 are far more pissed off that our government sent soldiers into a war based on lies. If our government had not done that we wouldn’t have dead soldiers to be angry over.

    stamina

    Honestly man, I’m tired of this crap and so are a whole bunch of other people. You want to make the Persians pay – go for it. I will never support a military action that I myself would never participate in or at least send my son into. Do it on your own dime; charter a flight with a bunch of other like-minded Americans and fly down to the Persian Gulf and do us proud – show us the meaning of stamina. Show us how you can whip those goat-herding Iranians.

    made the Iranians think twice

    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions – but us? We’re special – consequences don’t apply to us. We don’t have to learn from our mistakes.

    Peace.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean

    I really don’t buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I’ve seen no evidence for it – that’s right off the bat.
     
    Quite possibly they aren't, but the killing of American soldiers has got Iran into an impossible position with the US, whereby nothing they say is going to be believed.\Moreover, you talk as if it is only the US who want to smash Iran, but Iran has never been flavour of the month with Arab countries. They hate it

    Iran has one ally: Assad who is in no position to help. Russia is using Iranian infantry but isn't going to stick its neck out for Iran . it was simply foolhardy of Iran to involve itself in terrorism against the most powerful state in the world, the US has Iran under the gun, and the US is a close ally of Saudi Arabia too .


    https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/05/01/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-highlights-tremendous-opportunity-to-confront-irans-destructive-behavior/

    A visible shift in American policy towards Iran is taking place under President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster said during a wide-ranging interview on Fox News over the weekend.

    Speaking to Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster was clear that the US had developed the political will to back up any warnings directed at the Tehran regime.

    “I think all we have to do is pull the curtain back on Iranian behavior,” McMaster said. “This is a regime that is supporting the murderous regime in Syria, that’s committing mass murder of its own people. This is a regime that is really applying what you might call a Hezbollah model to the greater Middle East, in which they have weak governments, that they want to depend on Iran for support, while they grow militias and other illegal armed groups outside.” Wallace questioned whether America’s allies would even be “interested” in enforcing sanctions against Tehran.

    “Our allies will be interested in doing that, and I think what you’ve seen, what has happened in the last eight years, is US policy has unwittingly maybe empowered Iran across the greater Middle East and beyond. Now, we are seeing the effect of that with this humanitarian political catastrophe in the greater Middle East that Iran has helped to foment,” McMaster said.

    The national security adviser pointed to Trump’s “really strong relationships across the Arab world” as a positive sign that Iran’s regional ambitions will not go unopposed. “I think that there’s going to be a tremendous opportunity to confront Iran’s destructive behavior in the region and beyond the region,” he said.
     


    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions – but us? We’re special – consequences don’t apply to us. We don’t have to learn from our mistakes.
     
    If a lightweight, outraged at some slight gets into an argument with a heavyweight, and the lightweight escalates the confrontation the consequences are self evident. Lightweights need to use their common sense, heavyweights not so much. The lightweight that thinks it is going to be treated as a heavyweight by actual heavyweights will be rudely disabused. You're talking moral outrage, but I think it is a poor substitute for self preservation.
  38. Sean says:
    @Talha
    Hey Sean,

    I really don't buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I've seen no evidence for it - that's right off the bat.

    it was just made angry
     
    The US is a country, full of a heck of a lot of people. Maybe you are angered by that and you can continue to speak for people like yourself. People like me who marched against the war in 2003 are far more pissed off that our government sent soldiers into a war based on lies. If our government had not done that we wouldn't have dead soldiers to be angry over.

    stamina
     
    Honestly man, I'm tired of this crap and so are a whole bunch of other people. You want to make the Persians pay - go for it. I will never support a military action that I myself would never participate in or at least send my son into. Do it on your own dime; charter a flight with a bunch of other like-minded Americans and fly down to the Persian Gulf and do us proud - show us the meaning of stamina. Show us how you can whip those goat-herding Iranians.

    made the Iranians think twice
     
    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions - but us? We're special - consequences don't apply to us. We don't have to learn from our mistakes.

    Peace.

    I really don’t buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I’ve seen no evidence for it – that’s right off the bat.

    Quite possibly they aren’t, but the killing of American soldiers has got Iran into an impossible position with the US, whereby nothing they say is going to be believed.\Moreover, you talk as if it is only the US who want to smash Iran, but Iran has never been flavour of the month with Arab countries. They hate it

    Iran has one ally: Assad who is in no position to help. Russia is using Iranian infantry but isn’t going to stick its neck out for Iran . it was simply foolhardy of Iran to involve itself in terrorism against the most powerful state in the world, the US has Iran under the gun, and the US is a close ally of Saudi Arabia too .

    https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/05/01/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-highlights-tremendous-opportunity-to-confront-irans-destructive-behavior/

    A visible shift in American policy towards Iran is taking place under President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster said during a wide-ranging interview on Fox News over the weekend.

    Speaking to Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster was clear that the US had developed the political will to back up any warnings directed at the Tehran regime.

    “I think all we have to do is pull the curtain back on Iranian behavior,” McMaster said. “This is a regime that is supporting the murderous regime in Syria, that’s committing mass murder of its own people. This is a regime that is really applying what you might call a Hezbollah model to the greater Middle East, in which they have weak governments, that they want to depend on Iran for support, while they grow militias and other illegal armed groups outside.” Wallace questioned whether America’s allies would even be “interested” in enforcing sanctions against Tehran.

    “Our allies will be interested in doing that, and I think what you’ve seen, what has happened in the last eight years, is US policy has unwittingly maybe empowered Iran across the greater Middle East and beyond. Now, we are seeing the effect of that with this humanitarian political catastrophe in the greater Middle East that Iran has helped to foment,” McMaster said.

    The national security adviser pointed to Trump’s “really strong relationships across the Arab world” as a positive sign that Iran’s regional ambitions will not go unopposed. “I think that there’s going to be a tremendous opportunity to confront Iran’s destructive behavior in the region and beyond the region,” he said.

    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions – but us? We’re special – consequences don’t apply to us. We don’t have to learn from our mistakes.

    If a lightweight, outraged at some slight gets into an argument with a heavyweight, and the lightweight escalates the confrontation the consequences are self evident. Lightweights need to use their common sense, heavyweights not so much. The lightweight that thinks it is going to be treated as a heavyweight by actual heavyweights will be rudely disabused. You’re talking moral outrage, but I think it is a poor substitute for self preservation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bluedog
    Probably we ought to stay home for we aren't really very good at the war games, where they can't even give the troops what they needed leading to far to many needless deaths.In Korea it was no winter clothes, troops fighting at 40 below, in summer uniforms and little training and their bodies littered the ground all the way back from the Yalu River even tho they had been warned that the Chinese would enter the fray if they went down thru North Korea.

    In Nam the troops(marines) were short of everything water equitment rest rifles prone to jam when they were needed most no gun oil no nothing the marines took more casualties then in WW2 or Korea with some 103,324 of whom 14,691 were killed, and we have fared no better in the Mid-East, and we still have idiots who think we are exceptional, but the facts speak otherwise, in my book the sooner the war machine is put out of its misery the better, for I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are sick of endless war...
  39. Yevardian says:

    I’m surprised nobody ever got the unfortunate Napoleon reference “100 Days” should conjure up.

    Read More
  40. bluedog says:
    @Sean

    I really don’t buy the premise that Iran is seeking nukes, I’ve seen no evidence for it – that’s right off the bat.
     
    Quite possibly they aren't, but the killing of American soldiers has got Iran into an impossible position with the US, whereby nothing they say is going to be believed.\Moreover, you talk as if it is only the US who want to smash Iran, but Iran has never been flavour of the month with Arab countries. They hate it

    Iran has one ally: Assad who is in no position to help. Russia is using Iranian infantry but isn't going to stick its neck out for Iran . it was simply foolhardy of Iran to involve itself in terrorism against the most powerful state in the world, the US has Iran under the gun, and the US is a close ally of Saudi Arabia too .


    https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/05/01/national-security-adviser-mcmaster-highlights-tremendous-opportunity-to-confront-irans-destructive-behavior/

    A visible shift in American policy towards Iran is taking place under President Donald Trump, his national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster said during a wide-ranging interview on Fox News over the weekend.

    Speaking to Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, McMaster was clear that the US had developed the political will to back up any warnings directed at the Tehran regime.

    “I think all we have to do is pull the curtain back on Iranian behavior,” McMaster said. “This is a regime that is supporting the murderous regime in Syria, that’s committing mass murder of its own people. This is a regime that is really applying what you might call a Hezbollah model to the greater Middle East, in which they have weak governments, that they want to depend on Iran for support, while they grow militias and other illegal armed groups outside.” Wallace questioned whether America’s allies would even be “interested” in enforcing sanctions against Tehran.

    “Our allies will be interested in doing that, and I think what you’ve seen, what has happened in the last eight years, is US policy has unwittingly maybe empowered Iran across the greater Middle East and beyond. Now, we are seeing the effect of that with this humanitarian political catastrophe in the greater Middle East that Iran has helped to foment,” McMaster said.

    The national security adviser pointed to Trump’s “really strong relationships across the Arab world” as a positive sign that Iran’s regional ambitions will not go unopposed. “I think that there’s going to be a tremendous opportunity to confront Iran’s destructive behavior in the region and beyond the region,” he said.
     


    Everyone else has to deliberate over the consequences of their actions – but us? We’re special – consequences don’t apply to us. We don’t have to learn from our mistakes.
     
    If a lightweight, outraged at some slight gets into an argument with a heavyweight, and the lightweight escalates the confrontation the consequences are self evident. Lightweights need to use their common sense, heavyweights not so much. The lightweight that thinks it is going to be treated as a heavyweight by actual heavyweights will be rudely disabused. You're talking moral outrage, but I think it is a poor substitute for self preservation.

    Probably we ought to stay home for we aren’t really very good at the war games, where they can’t even give the troops what they needed leading to far to many needless deaths.In Korea it was no winter clothes, troops fighting at 40 below, in summer uniforms and little training and their bodies littered the ground all the way back from the Yalu River even tho they had been warned that the Chinese would enter the fray if they went down thru North Korea.

    In Nam the troops(marines) were short of everything water equitment rest rifles prone to jam when they were needed most no gun oil no nothing the marines took more casualties then in WW2 or Korea with some 103,324 of whom 14,691 were killed, and we have fared no better in the Mid-East, and we still have idiots who think we are exceptional, but the facts speak otherwise, in my book the sooner the war machine is put out of its misery the better, for I’m sure the vast majority of Americans are sick of endless war…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sean
    The Marines have been short of good leaders like McMaster, that is why they lost 1800 in the WW1 Battle of Belleau Wood and an astounding 6,800 killed at Iwo Jima.

    In the above post Cockburn says:-


    This point is understood better in the Middle East than in it is in the US and Europe. In Baghdad, for instance, people are worried because they see the US building towards a renewed confrontation with Iran, possibly reneging on the nuclear agreement with Tehran and trying to curtail or eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq. Jim Mattis, the Secretary for Defence and former Marine general, and HR McMaster, the National Security Adviser and a general with combat experience in Iraq, are both volubly anti-Iranian. For soldiers like McMaster, the US failure in Iraq was unnecessary and self-inflicted and they intend to reverse it.
     
    Actually HR McMaster is quite realistic about the tremendous effort and sacrifices required to achieve anything with military force, see

    HERE: Concepts with catchy titles such as ‘Shock and Awe’ and ‘Rapid, Decisive Operations’ promised fast, cheap and efficient victories in future war. Those who argued that these ideas were inconsistent with the nature of war were dismissed as being wedded to old thinking. Technology would make the next war fundamentally different from all that had come before it, because information and communication technologies had shifted war from the realm of uncertainty to that of certainty. Western armed forces would possess ‘Dominant Battlespace Knowledge’. Under the ‘Quality of Firsts’, forces would ‘see first, decide first, act first and finish decisively’.
     
    So I think McMaster understands that there are no quick fixes, but as he made clear the other day, he also understands that Arab countries do not like Assad or the Iranians killing so many Syrians. The US has allies in the Middle East who want the slaughtering of Arabs by Assad's minority based family dictatorship and their Persian foreign legion to cease. Saudi Arabia complains vociferously about the Iranian treatment of the Arab minority in Iran,even though that minority is Shia . The Iranians are putting nails in their coffin by assisting the mass killing off and refugee-ation of a majority rebellion by Arabs , and that will be brought home to them in the near future, going by McMaster's recent remarks .
  41. Sean says:
    @bluedog
    Probably we ought to stay home for we aren't really very good at the war games, where they can't even give the troops what they needed leading to far to many needless deaths.In Korea it was no winter clothes, troops fighting at 40 below, in summer uniforms and little training and their bodies littered the ground all the way back from the Yalu River even tho they had been warned that the Chinese would enter the fray if they went down thru North Korea.

    In Nam the troops(marines) were short of everything water equitment rest rifles prone to jam when they were needed most no gun oil no nothing the marines took more casualties then in WW2 or Korea with some 103,324 of whom 14,691 were killed, and we have fared no better in the Mid-East, and we still have idiots who think we are exceptional, but the facts speak otherwise, in my book the sooner the war machine is put out of its misery the better, for I'm sure the vast majority of Americans are sick of endless war...

    The Marines have been short of good leaders like McMaster, that is why they lost 1800 in the WW1 Battle of Belleau Wood and an astounding 6,800 killed at Iwo Jima.

    In the above post Cockburn says:-

    This point is understood better in the Middle East than in it is in the US and Europe. In Baghdad, for instance, people are worried because they see the US building towards a renewed confrontation with Iran, possibly reneging on the nuclear agreement with Tehran and trying to curtail or eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq. Jim Mattis, the Secretary for Defence and former Marine general, and HR McMaster, the National Security Adviser and a general with combat experience in Iraq, are both volubly anti-Iranian. For soldiers like McMaster, the US failure in Iraq was unnecessary and self-inflicted and they intend to reverse it.

    Actually HR McMaster is quite realistic about the tremendous effort and sacrifices required to achieve anything with military force, see

    HERE: Concepts with catchy titles such as ‘Shock and Awe’ and ‘Rapid, Decisive Operations’ promised fast, cheap and efficient victories in future war. Those who argued that these ideas were inconsistent with the nature of war were dismissed as being wedded to old thinking. Technology would make the next war fundamentally different from all that had come before it, because information and communication technologies had shifted war from the realm of uncertainty to that of certainty. Western armed forces would possess ‘Dominant Battlespace Knowledge’. Under the ‘Quality of Firsts’, forces would ‘see first, decide first, act first and finish decisively’.

    So I think McMaster understands that there are no quick fixes, but as he made clear the other day, he also understands that Arab countries do not like Assad or the Iranians killing so many Syrians. The US has allies in the Middle East who want the slaughtering of Arabs by Assad’s minority based family dictatorship and their Persian foreign legion to cease. Saudi Arabia complains vociferously about the Iranian treatment of the Arab minority in Iran,even though that minority is Shia . The Iranians are putting nails in their coffin by assisting the mass killing off and refugee-ation of a majority rebellion by Arabs , and that will be brought home to them in the near future, going by McMaster’s recent remarks .

    Read More
  42. Svigor says:

    It seems obvious to me that Trump is far less feared than the previous president. There’s been infinitely more criticism of this president, since the last. There’s no comparison in terms of the mockery and crudeness leveled at the two, either. There’s been far more resistance to this president. There are open calls for his impeachment, cause TBD.

    The list goes on and on. No one seems to agree with you, Pat.

    Read More
  43. Svigor says:

    And why should I bother choosing between Zionists and Islamists?

    When the choice offers you some advantage. When one side or the other is giving you more trouble. Etc.

    I think the main reason there is so much hostility to Iran among the military- intel appointees of Trump — both the faddist Snake-eater Flynn and olde school Clausewitzian McMaster (McM on his ideas here)– is the Iranians supplied Shia terrorists in Iraq with Explosively formed penetrator for IEDs to kill American soldiers. Hundreds of American troops were killed (others no doubt survived without arms legs and testicles) by Iranian-supplied armor-penetrating weapons during the Iraq. People think Flynn was brainwashed into anti Iranian mania by his co author Michael Ledeen, but McMaster is hardly less hostile. The nuke-less Iranians used 1940′s technology to kill Americans in Iraq, and of course US policymakers are now worried what Iran-packing-a nuke might do. The Iranians have brought it on themselves.

    To be fair, the US would have done that and worse to Iran, if Iran was operating in Mexico the way the US was operating in Iraq and SW Asia. And if Iran is bringing something upon herself by developing nuclear weapons, then the US has brought something on herself by having designed, developed, and deployed the world’s most powerful and advanced nuclear arsenal.

    The author of this tripe is obviously still in intense pain because HRC lost, as things would have been so much better with her and her crew of SJWs in charge.

    I think this obviously has a lot to do with Trump Derangement Syndrome in general. A lot of it is just sour grapes, but a lot of it is simple exercise of power, too. Leftists can never just exercise power, they always need a hot air campaign to go along with their ground campaigns (“free the slaves,” “free the segregated negroes,” “free the Vietnamese,” “free Europe,” “free the Afghan women and homos,” “free the Palestinians” etc.). Now media hysteria itself is being used to “justify” an open and brewing coup d’etat.

    You are clearly in possession of a MENSA level IQ, as you still firmly believe in Rush Limbaugh style playground insults and a blood simple Dems vs Repubs partisan divide. Or is that your Airborne training coming through?

    Nothing stirs Americans up quite like someone who doesn’t observe the niceties of formal IQ humility. Mensa would seem to be the little bride and groom figurine atop that cake. No dog in that hunt, but I do find it a bit funny.

    As Mearsheimer says, a good state knows its limitations. The US is vastly more powerful than China, so the analogy may be morally apposite but falls down when the consequences are considered. Moreover, the US invasion freed the Iraq Shia from Sunni dominance so the Shia attacks on US forces were not simple resistance to an invasion of their country because although Shia are a majority in Iraq they had never held power untill the US toppled Saddam. Shia militias in the west of Iraq identified the US as an enemy, basically because the Iranians encouraged it.

    Yeah here’s the thing though, US doesn’t get to invade Iran’s neighbor, then dictate how Iran sees that invasion. That’s Iran’s business. Put another way, I’m not seeing any kind of invasion of Mexico by Iran that US would perceive benignly.

    The US now understands that Iran was behind the killing of hundreds of US soldiers, so how did further alienating the most powerful country in the world by that campaign benefit Iran? They didn’t think it through.

    1) If being the 2nd hand origin of arms makes someone responsible for the people killed with them, the US is as guilty as they come. 2) Saudi Arabia is behind the killing of thousands of Americans, why is Washington AWOL? 3) Your diction is gradually easing toward honesty here: “they didn’t think it through.” I’m fine with the whole “we want what we want, and we’re going to push the world around until we get it” line of argument.

    Trump being elected as president showed that you can vote any which way you want, but you can’t vote the deep state out of office.

    Actually, insofar as “Deep State” means spooks, Trump’s presidency shows that all you need to do to extirpate the State Security Apparatus is to elect the right president. Trump could fire them all, every last one of them, and there’s nothing they could do about it. They have none of the civil service protections afforded to less important personnel. There are a great many serious problems facing Trump, but I don’t think this is one of them. He hasn’t fired the lot of them because for whatever (to me, inexplicable) reason, he doesn’t want to.

    Well I guess this tops the list for the women go for bad-boys theme.

    It tops the list of the “some people are crazy” list, anyway. Anyone who thinks breezily drawing conclusions about women in general based on that loopy cunt’s behavior is a good idea should have his head examined.

    If a lightweight, outraged at some slight gets into an argument with a heavyweight, and the lightweight escalates the confrontation the consequences are self evident. Lightweights need to use their common sense, heavyweights not so much. The lightweight that thinks it is going to be treated as a heavyweight by actual heavyweights will be rudely disabused. You’re talking moral outrage, but I think it is a poor substitute for self preservation.

    See, might makes right, now this is honest advocacy! Seriously, I’m not being sarcastic. It’s nice to see an American interventionist drop the usual Yankee moralizing for once.

    Read More
  44. @The White Muslim Traditionalist
    That doesn't make sense, because a Muslim woman isn't a slave.

    It's funny how it always comes back to "muh feminism" with so called conservative Islamophobes. Muslim women have all the rights that women need.

    Are you just one of those people who feels that he has an innate entitlement to see the body of the wife of another man?

    If by the word ‘wife’ you mean ownership of a body then no, one doesn’t have a right to look at the body of another man’s wife, just as you would not have the right to view the Shroud of Turin as a non-Catholic…

    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 Patrick Cockburn Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
Full Story of the Taliban's Amazing Jailbreak
"They Can't Even Protect Themselves, So What Can They Do For Me?"
"All Hell is Breaking Loose with Muqtada" Warlord: the Rise of Muqtada al-Sadr