The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 The Saker ArchiveBlogview
Trump Presidency --- First SNAFUs Already
shutterstock_569616472

It is a rare privilege to be able to criticize a politician for actually fulfilling his campaign promises but Donald Trump is a unique President and this week he offered us exactly this opportunity with not one, but three different SNAFUs to report.

First, there was the botched raid against an alledged al-Qaeda compound in Yakla, Yemen. Let me commit a crimethink here and remind everybody that for all the great Hollywood movies, Americans have a terrible record of doing special ops. The latest one was typical. First, it involved Navy SEALS, one of the most disaster-prone US special forces. Second, it involved special forces from the United Arab Emirates (don’t ask why, just don’t). I am pretty sure that using US Rangers alone would have yielded better results. Third, as always, they got detected early. And then they began taking casualties. This time from female al-Qaeda fighters. Finally, they botched the evacuation. They did kill some kids and, so they say, an al-Qaeda leader. More about this raid here and here. As I said, this is pretty much par for the course. But I am sure that some Hollywood movie will make it look very heroic and “tactical”. But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can’t do it right.

Second, there was the absolutely terrible press conference by General Flynn. See for yourself:

So not only did Flynn put Iran “on notice” like a high-school principal would do to a rowdy teenager, but FOX TV is already speaking about “lines in the sand”. Wait – were “lines in the sand” not one of the dumbest features of the Obama Presidency? And now, just one week in the White House, we see Trump doing exactly the same?

This also begs the question of whether a very intelligent man like Flynn seriously and sincerely believes that he can bully or otherwise scare Iran. If he does – then we are all in a lot of trouble.

There is also the troubling aspect of the language chosen. Instead of speaking about “international concern” or the will of the UN Security Council, Flynn decided to use the kind of language typical of a wannabe World Hegemon. Again, been there – done that. Do they really think that this kind of imperial hubris will work better for them than it did for the Neocons?

Lastly, the Ukronazis are apparently back on the warpath. For many months now they have been shelling the Novorussians, and they even have tried a few, rather pathetic, local attacks. This time around this is different: incoming artillery strikes are counted not by the tens, but by the thousands and the shelling is happening all along the line of contact. Of course, this is not directly Trump’s fault, but it does show that the Ukronazis in Kiev are taking their cues from the former power configuration – that is the Germans, the Neocons, and the East European cry-babies à la Poland and Lithuania. At the time of writing, there are no signs that Trump is taking the situation under control. The good news is that the Russians are still waiting, but with that level of violence there is only that much they can wait before having to give the Novorussians the green light for a counter-attack (the Novorussian forces are already engaging in strong counter-battery fire, but they have not yet push their forces forward).

I sure hope that this week is not a harbinger of what the rest of the Trump Presidency will look like.

Still, It is not too late to change course and return to reality-based politics.

First, the easy stuff. As I said, the Pentagon should give up on special ops. If, for political reasons and to feel good about “making American great again” the US must absolutely flex its muscle, I would recommend re-invading Grenada, provided only one of the Services is given that task. I recommend the Marines. For the rest, and especially in the Middle-East, the US should finally come to terms with the fact that they cannot and should not put any US boots on the ground. Ever.

A tad harder, but still quite manageable, Trump needs to reign in the Ukronazis. The way to do that is simple: to spend a special representative to Kiev and explain to the junta members that times have changed, that there is a new boss in the White House, and that from now on they better behave or else. The Ukronazis are used to that kind of language, they will get the message, and they will even meekly comply, provided they feel that the US means it. This, of course, is just a quick fix, a short-term solution to buy time and to work on a long-term solution to the Ukrainian debacle, but that will be a much more complex and costly exercise and will have to involve not only the US, but all of the EU and Russia as the sums of money needed to rebuilt the Ukraine will be astronomical.

The big problem right now is Iran. Well, not Iran itself, of course, but the stupid anti-Iranian rhetoric of the Trump campaign before the elections. My biggest fear is that while Trump and the people around him have apparently come to the (correct) conclusion that they cannot bully Russia into submission they have decided that they could do that with Iran. If that is really their plan, then they are headed for a major disaster.

ORDER IT NOW

For one thing, Iran has been living with the threat of a AngloZionst attack for 38 years, including 23 years of Neocon power in the USA. To think that right now they will be suddenly really be frightened and will meekly comply with Uncle Shmuel’s demands is very naïve. The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically. Oh sure, the US can most definitely strike at Iran with cruise missile and air-strikes, but at what cost and what would that exactly achieve? In terms of achievement, it would have a beneficial psychotherapeutic effect on those Americans who feel insecure about their military size and who want to feel big and powerful again. It will also kills plenty of Iranians and destroy some unknown amount of Iranian targets, including possibility missile technology or nuclear technology related ones. But it will not change Iranian policies by even a tiny amount, nor will it prevent Iran from further pursuing nuclear or missile technologies.

But this has never been about nuclear or missile technology, of course. That is all nonsense, “informational prolefeed” so to speak.

In reality this was always about only one thing: Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means. In other words, if an Islamic country is mismanaged and run by incompetent fanatics, this is great. But when an Islamic country is run by a wise and extremely capable leadership which cannot be overthrown due to the fact that it has popular support, then this Islamic country becomes an absolutely unacceptable precedent. And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model is an immense affront to the racist delusions of the Zionist regime in Palestine. Add to this that Iran dares to openly defy the United States and you immediately will see the real reasons for all the sabre-rattling and constant threats. The problem for Trump is exactly the same as the problem for Obama, Dubya or Clinton: the US cannot win a war against Iran. Why?

Because a war has to have some political objective, a definition of what “victory” means. In the case of Iran, there is no possible victory. Even of the US launches 1000-2000 missile strikes against Iran, and all of them are successful, this will not be a “victory”.

Many years ago I wrote an article entitled “Iran’s Asymmetrical Response Options”. It is dated now, a lot as happened since 2007, but the fundamental conclusions are still valid: the USA cannot win and Iran has plenty of asymmetrical options ranging from riding out the attack to attacking CENTCOM targets all over the Middle-East. But the biggest change since 2007 has been the civil war in Iraq and Syria and Trump’s promises to eradicate Daesh. This is crucial.

There is simply no way, none at all, to eradicate Daesh without putting boots on the ground. I think that we can all agree that these boots won’t be American. They won’t be Russian either. Obama’s approach was to use a mix of Iraqi, Kurdish and Turkish boots, with the threat of Saudi and other Gulf State’s boots thrown in for good measure. We all know how that worked: it didn’t. And it won’t. So here is the ugly secret that everybody knows or, at least, ought to know: the only boots on the ground to defeat Daesh have been, still are and will be, Iranian boots. That is a fact of life, sorry. The Turks are out, after the attempted coup against Erdogan and the subsequent purges the Turkish military is only a shadow of what it used to be. The Kurds have no desire whatsoever to be used as cannon fodder in a dangerous and difficult war against Daesh. The Saudis and the rest of them are a joke, barely capable of terrorizing civilians, but they will be instantly defeated by Daesh in the first skirmish. So unless the Canadians, the Brits, the Poles, the Lithuanians and, say, the Georgians want to lead the struggle against Daesh (just kidding!), the only country which can make Trump’s campaign promise happen is Iran (and Hezbollah, of course).

Furthermore, I submit that Iran is powerful enough to prevent any policy being successful in the Middle-East unless Iran at least passively okays it. In a way, Iran’s position in the Middle-East is similar to the Russian position in the “near abroad” (the former Soviet Union): while Iran/Russia cannot impose anything against everybody, Iran/Russia can veto/prevent any policy or outcome it does not want.

The main consequence of this is that even if Iran decided to completely renounce any kind of retaliatory counter-attack against the US or Israel, Iran could painfully retaliate against such a strike by simply telling Trump “we will make darn sure that you fail everywhere, in Iraq, in Syria, in Pakistan, and Yemen and everywhere else in the Middle-East”. And that won’t be an empty threat: the Iranians absolutely can deliver on it.

Furthermore, a US attack on Iran is also going to send the US-Russian relationship into a tailspin. How much of a disaster this will be will depend on how bad the attack on Iran is, but while Russia will not militarily intervene in a US-Iranian conflict, Russia will not allow the US to get away with it either and the main political cost will be that an attack on Iran will further reinforce the Russian-Iranian-Chinese triangle.

Do I need to spell out here how an attack on Iran will be perceived in Beijing?

If it happens, the US attack on Iran will look very much like the 2006 Israel war on Hezbollah, and it will achieve the same results, only on a bigger scale. To put it simply – it will be a total disaster and it will mark the failure of the Trump presidency.

Right now Trump still has an immense political capital. It’s not like the world truly trusts him, it is way too early for that, but there is a lot of hope out there that Trump’s America will be a different one, a civilized one which will act as a responsible and rational international actor. Not like an Obama 2.0. But listening to Flynn’s condescending and, worse, empty (not to mention wholly illegal) threats against Iran, I am left wondering whether the US can mends its ways and be meaningfully reformed or whether it will take a cataclysmic collapse (military or economic) to finally see the end of the wannabe World Hegemon.

 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. Trump’s presidency is so promising and gratifying in general that one almost hesitates to criticise, but there’s no doubt that the criticisms made in this piece are valid. Above all, the US is on a hiding to nothing with this approach, because there’s no conception of what success would look like.

    Read More
    • Replies: @pyrrhus
    Trump needs to get up to speed on foreign policy, or it will destroy his Presidency....Excellent piece by the Saker.
    , @Tommy
    Interesting that the author paints the Navy Seals to be incompetent, and somewhat amusing. From what I've read recently they are investigations all over the place for war crimes and civilian deaths resulting from raids.
    , @Rabbitnexus
    I'm seeing very little to celebrate so far.

    That "Muslim ban" which even as a Muslim I could support in principle, is complete BS!. It includes only enemies of "Israel" and Saudi Arabia, pointedly doesn't include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan which are the most likely countries to have terrorists headed for the USA. The list wouldn't have stopped any terrorist attack seen so far on US soil. That was a LOT of political capital he spent on what was nothing like what it was asserted to be.

    Of most concern to me was the way the MSM never mentioned this. Highlighting this glaring problem with it would have sunk Trump. But no. Seems the MSM and Trump's team have something they agree on after all. The Saudis should be protected. Right!

    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
    http://www.unz.com/tsaker/trump-presidency-first-snafus-already/#comment-1751889
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Trump is way too quiet on Ukraine. I think the sad truth is that Trump doesn’t know the first thing about Ukraine. I’m not falling into the “Trump is dumb” camp, because I don’t think he is, but he is only as smart as the bullshit he is being fed, and he is currently surrounded by snakes and neocons.

    If Trump is being fed the same kind of garbage that we hear coming out of the media and other members of his administration – that “aggressive” Russia is “invading” Ukraine for the 45th time in the past 3 years, and that “Putin is testing him” Trump may go into a fit of rage and think “I’ll show him.” Disaster will ensue.

    How Trump ends up dealing with Ukraine could end up defining his entire presidency. I hope he knows what the stakes are.

    Read More
    • Agree: Dan Hayes, Mao Cheng Ji
    • Replies: @Alfred1860
    I take it you missed Nikki Haley's address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine. As we say in Canada, Liberal/Tory, same old story!! I had been optimistic about a Trump administration, but that feeling is fading very quickly.
  3. […] Written by The Saker; Originally appeared at The Unz Review […]

    Read More
  4. { But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.}

    Which nationality or which country can?

    And I don’t know if TheSaker is ethnic Russian, but he is certainly a Russophile.
    US special ops record is not so good, but the Russian record of special ops is nothing to boast about either.

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
    (did I forget any?)
    All on Russian soil.

    Can TheSaker list _any_ successful ops by RF special ops?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    The Nord-Ost disaster.
     
    ???
    , @Felix Keverich
    What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a 'disaster'. It was not an accident. Those were well planned terrorist attacks. People tend to get killed in terrorist attacks, since the perpetrators arrive with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. Duh.

    In recent years more people got killed in the US and France, than Russia.

    But if you're looking for an example of a succesful Russian special operation, look no futher than what happened in Crimea, where 20000 Ukrainian troops were disarmed and evicted (in many cases recruited) by Russians without firing a shot.
    , @Jon0815

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
     
    Two of those three occurred during the 1990s, when the Russian military was in a state of collapse, and the third was in 2002, before much rebuilding had been done.
    , @Skeptikal
    The topic is US special ops, not Russian.
  5. The Big Magilla is the domestic economy and the promise to bring the good jobs back to flyover America, which is Trump’s only real basis for support. The problem is, the war economy and military have become a boot, stamping on the face of the American economy, so long now it seems forever. It is now an outsized contributor to the remaining good jobs and the balance of payments effort through exports. War has become what America makes.

    Reindustrialization and whatever else needs to take place to keep the promise must make serious inroads before the two year election cycle. There is not much time. Scaling back the wars and the profits that drive them, and the jobs they provide, will worsen the employment picture dramatically. High levels of illegal immigration, unsustainable legal immigration combined with demobilization into an economy like this guarantee there is no peace dividend for reasons of practical politics.

    Saker, your insights otherwise are good, but you need to consider how the domestic politics end up driving foreign policy that seems irrational to foreigners, but is a lot like why a Bill Clinton about to be impeached felt he had to bomb an African aspirin factory as an act against terrorism.

    It’s not practically possible to schedule a drawdown while creating enough new jobs.

    Read More
    • Replies: @War for Blair Mountain
    The good paying quality jobs were-are already here...they were given to Asian Legal Immigrants and their Greater-China-India-Pakistan-Korea US born Geneline..


    Who the fuck cares if Trump brings back blue collar jobs to the Greater China GENELINE in California?

    I don't...


    Bring back the 1882 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!...Deport The Chinese Fifth Column in California...
    , @Sarah Toga
    Stopping immigration - deporting illegals and repatriating legals back whence they came.

    80% of immigrants, when they become citizens and vote, vote democrat. No way around that except to stop the bleeding and try to assimilate, as the 1924 immigration pause did.

    That is what matters.

    All else is sideshow.

    Look at California. The 1986 amnesty and following demographic/democrat disaster. We have little time until that metastasizes. Texas' 38 electoral votes are on the brink.
  6. I wish Mr Unz would ditch the Faker and Israel Shamir, all the other writers here are top notch.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alfred1860
    Yeah, why get a Russian perspective of the world from Russians when we could be getting it from Brits or Americans!!
  7. I’m a card carrying deplorable. A staunch Trump supporter. The only thing that could turn me against him would be a new shooting war anywhere, especially with Iran. If that happens we might as well have elected Hillary. I still believe that Trump will pursue peace and prosperity instead of war and welfare. If not, if all that was a lie, I will be happy to feed him to his enemies. I don’t think I am alone.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JGarbo
    You're a card carrying Soon-to-be Disappointed supporter of Trump. He doesn't run the show, as the rejections of his "Executive Orders" reveal. He'll soon learn that he plays the Big Game or he is fired. The Deep State, not the voters, selected him. He will pursue prosperity - for his billionaire pals - by yet again cheating the gullible American people. He's already warned you, if you go back and read his speeches.
  8. >Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means.

    Economically and politically as well as militarily.

    Iran has a Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran treats its Jews well (they are guaranteed representation in Iranian Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has diverse natural resources and wishes to develop them for its own benefit.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran is striving mightily to become a modern country.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran produces its own refined petroleum products.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a domestic automobile industry.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a space program.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has some well regarded universities.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has produced at least one Nobel laureate.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has famously good ski resorts.
    Bad for Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @reuphen
    You forgot to list...

    Iran is a nation of Aryans albeit Muslims.
    Bad for Israel.
    , @Wally
    But Jews own the US Congress, bad for Iran, bad for gentile white Americans.
  9. This assumes that Russia cares more about Iran than it does the Ukraine and Estonia-or the NATO encirclement. Bet they don’t. Without Russia, Iran has a serious problem.

    Sounds like grounds for negotiation. It also sounds like the deal is done.

    I have a feeling that Trump is not dumb. At all. I’m not sure that’s a good thing. He says US interests first. US interests, for a few more years at least until we being using our own oil reserves-which dwarf the ME-exist in the ME, but not Eastern Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Prof. Woland
    Trump will figure out very quickly, if he already hasn't, that Ukraine gives him enormous leverage over Putin. Saker nonchalantly downplays this even though its obvious it bugs the shit out of him but why would the US ever give that up? I would love to be a fly on the wall to see how Putin approaches Trump with this when they meet. Hopefully it is not the same way Saker does.
    , @JackieL
    If Trump is not stupid, how can he think that a SHIITE country could sponsor SUNNI terror?
  10. @Marcus
    I wish Mr Unz would ditch the Faker and Israel Shamir, all the other writers here are top notch.

    Yeah, why get a Russian perspective of the world from Russians when we could be getting it from Brits or Americans!!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    The Faker is from Florida, if I want a Floridian perspective I'll ask my family there. Who knows what liar Shamir's real story is. I would go to Anatoly Karlin for a decent Russian (though experienced with US) POV.
  11. @Greg S.
    Trump is way too quiet on Ukraine. I think the sad truth is that Trump doesn't know the first thing about Ukraine. I'm not falling into the "Trump is dumb" camp, because I don't think he is, but he is only as smart as the bullshit he is being fed, and he is currently surrounded by snakes and neocons.

    If Trump is being fed the same kind of garbage that we hear coming out of the media and other members of his administration - that "aggressive" Russia is "invading" Ukraine for the 45th time in the past 3 years, and that "Putin is testing him" Trump may go into a fit of rage and think "I'll show him." Disaster will ensue.

    How Trump ends up dealing with Ukraine could end up defining his entire presidency. I hope he knows what the stakes are.

    I take it you missed Nikki Haley’s address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine. As we say in Canada, Liberal/Tory, same old story!! I had been optimistic about a Trump administration, but that feeling is fading very quickly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.
    , @Andrei Martyanov
    I take it you missed Nikki Haley’s address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine.

    I don't raise alarm over Hailey's words. At least not yet. In fact, I would have been really surprised if anything other than this statement would have been made in the institution (UN) which by now is nothing more than inconsequential chat room. In fact, against the background of the massive shitstorm Trump faces it is the only official (PR) position which can exist. Imagine hysteria in US media if US would "settle" Ukrainian issue from UN tribune.
  12. It didn’t take Trump very long when in office to create more trouble and turmoil. Americans have a long history of electing the worst of their kind into the Presidency but this time they really out did themselves electing Trump. [Granted H. Clinton was not a better option either.]

    This guy is a loose cannon, possessing the most psychopathic human defects imaginable, which were evident for everyone to see if took a serious look at all, and he was raised into power, with a hope and a prayer, that he will fix all that ails America.

    Well, America, “you ain’t seen nothing yet”; Trump is just warming up, you have no idea of the shit that is coming your way yet.

    I for one am cheering for Trump and his contemptible hirelings to do his/their worst, which he will because that is all he is capable of, and whatever he does to you, you unwittingly asked for and will deserve in every measure.

    When the shit hits the fan the whole world will be covered in it just because the Americans couldn’t get their shithouse in order.

    “Make America great Again”-indeed! I warned you stupid Fucks but you didn’t believe me. You will all get what you deserve and unfortunately so will I.

    ,

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chuck Orloski
    "Well, America, "you ain't seen nothing yet"; Trump is just warming up, you have no idea of the shit that is coming your way. "

    Diogenes,

    I have been thinking about the Saker's having used the word "Snafus" and I am unsure whether or not he's given any thought to the administration's unconventional Executive moves as not being "Snafus."

    I will give the following examples:

    1. "Place Iran on notice." W. Bush administration advertised the inevitable Baghdad attack
    more than I can ever recall in all my life. Therefore, I vote "Nay" on this being a "snafu."

    2. Smash mouth the already Zionist-controlled Corporate Media. In my lifetime, any other
    Executive who took such principled action would end up so low in the "polls" that he'd end
    up admiring J. Stalin and wishing to only have Pravda / Izvestia news outlets in the US.
    Therefore, I vote "Nay" on this being a mere "snafu."

    3. The President's 7-nation travel ban and American court's open defiance. Given another
    False Flag attack similar to 9-11, the court ruling will be utterly denounced and US
    Executive power could evolve into something Stalin would envy. Therefore, I vote "Nay"
    on this being a rookie regime "snafu."

    You are so correct, Diogenes, "when shit hits the fan, the whole world gets covered." Thanks for the warning! Good thing I still have a cartridge respirator coated-Tyvek suit from my emergency response employment which required occasional remediation of pigeon shit spills. thanks.
  13. I believe that Trump is being fed copious amounts of horseshit by the people around him that it’s next to impossible to make good decisions.

    Read More
  14. @Alfred1860
    Yeah, why get a Russian perspective of the world from Russians when we could be getting it from Brits or Americans!!

    The Faker is from Florida, if I want a Floridian perspective I’ll ask my family there. Who knows what liar Shamir’s real story is. I would go to Anatoly Karlin for a decent Russian (though experienced with US) POV.

    Read More
    • Replies: @WorkingClass
    Saker lives in Florida but he is not a Floridian. He is not a citizen of the United States.
    , @Jeff Davis
    Andrei Raevsky aka the Saker

    Biographical information from the link below. As always in the digital age, it's your responsibility to assess the truthfulness of the information.

    http://cirilizovano.blogspot.mx/2015/11/who-is-saker.html

    "...he was a Swiss citizen who had already some difficulties with the Russians with respect to Chechnya. By his own admission, he was sent there as an employee of the International Red Cross and subsequently fired for his pro-Chechen bias. He later went on record in several published works as being critical of the Russian Army’s “heavy-handed approach” towards the Chechen terrorists.

    He was then apparently hired on by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) out of Geneva, which sent him on several tours to ex-Yugoslavia, specifically, he claims to have been involved in "disarmament negotiations" (which can only have been detrimental to the local Serbs) in Croatia and Bosnia. Having thus cemented his friendship with the Serbs, he immigrated to the USA and underwent further grooming at the Paul H. Nitzke School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, the happy hunting ground of the likes of Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice. He now lives on the Atlantic coast of the state of Florida within a stone’s throw of some 30 military installations who have no problems with his primary activities: broadcasting war against the phantom “Anglo-Zionist empire”..."

  15. @turtle
    >Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means.

    Economically and politically as well as militarily.

    Iran has a Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran treats its Jews well (they are guaranteed representation in Iranian Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has diverse natural resources and wishes to develop them for its own benefit.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran is striving mightily to become a modern country.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran produces its own refined petroleum products.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a domestic automobile industry.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a space program.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has some well regarded universities.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has produced at least one Nobel laureate.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has famously good ski resorts.
    Bad for Israel.

    You forgot to list…

    Iran is a nation of Aryans albeit Muslims.
    Bad for Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonynous
    "Iran is a nation of Aryans ..."
    Oh, the lucky buggers!! ;)


    "... albeit Muslims."
    Barely! "Ya Ali Madad" pfft.
  16. @Marcus
    The Faker is from Florida, if I want a Floridian perspective I'll ask my family there. Who knows what liar Shamir's real story is. I would go to Anatoly Karlin for a decent Russian (though experienced with US) POV.

    Saker lives in Florida but he is not a Floridian. He is not a citizen of the United States.

    Read More
  17. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Avery
    { But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.}

    Which nationality or which country can?

    And I don't know if TheSaker is ethnic Russian, but he is certainly a Russophile.
    US special ops record is not so good, but the Russian record of special ops is nothing to boast about either.

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
    (did I forget any?)
    All on Russian soil.

    Can TheSaker list _any_ successful ops by RF special ops?

    The Nord-Ost disaster.

    ???

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {???}

    !!!

    from Wiki*:

    {All 40 of the attackers were killed, with no casualties among Spetsnaz; about 130 hostages died, including nine foreigners, due to adverse reactions to the gas. All but two of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants}

    What do you call it when 140 hostages are killed during a putative rescue operation? Success?

    Yes, I know Wiki is not necessarily a source of reliable information regarding contentious issues, but I am pretty sure the number of hostages who were killed due the botched rescue operation is pretty close to the actual number.


    Unless you have proof that the number of 130 hostages killed is false.
    What is your number of killed hostages?
    And for the moment we will ignore the incompetence of Moscow law enforcement that allowed 40 militants to take over a theater in the middle of Moscow in the first place.

    ----
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis
  18. @Alfred1860
    I take it you missed Nikki Haley's address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine. As we say in Canada, Liberal/Tory, same old story!! I had been optimistic about a Trump administration, but that feeling is fading very quickly.

    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    When Trump nominated Haley for UN ambassador, he knew she is a product of GOP establishment, and her head is full of neocon crap. I honesly don't understand this decision by Trump.
    , @Anonymous
    You are mistaken here.

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.
    , @SteveM

    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.
     
    You can be sure that every major address by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is vetted and approved by Washington, i.e. Tillerson and his crew.

    Haley was articulating the Trump position if we assume that Tillerson is aware of it. And it seems to me that that assumption should be the default.

    The Neocons and Goldman Sachs boys - Trump has some bad dude Cronies banging into his ears. The populist wheels may be falling off of this presidency real fast...
  19. And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.

    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it’s them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria’s (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there’s a good chance they’d do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely.

    Russia can not stay out of the way completely. Caspian Sea is a strategic "internal lake", and so is Azerbaijan. Iran has more Azeris living there than Azerbaijan proper. The whole host of issues for Russia appears if Iran is lit on fire, among them a complete reconfiguration of Russia's military structure (actually it is already ongoing) on the Southern direction and then, dealing with Caucasus dynamics. Also, there will be volunteers for Iran and not Russian Muslims only. Another matter, I simply can not conceive how "boots on the ground" will be taking Tehran--it is by far not Baghdad.
    , @Marcus
    Isn't the Iranian missile force fairly strong? Ofc there's no way of knowing if that's what Faker meant.

    The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything.
     
    Maybe, but Russia has spent about 250 years struggling for influence in Iran, its location is too strategically valuable to give up on.

    namely the Banderist entity.
     
    Oh come on, the plutocratic puppet gov in Kiev is many things, but they aren't Ukrainian ultranationalists.
    , @Felix Keverich
    Surely, Russia can send Iran some advanced missiles? No harm would come out of it.
    , @bluedog
    Think probably Russia will stick with them for they have a long history of sticking by their friends, and what could/would we expect to gain by attacking Iran steal their oil for the Brits like we did back in 1950, and of course you still have the mentality that those we the most toys win even after Korea Nam and the Mid-East turned into disaster some never learn it seems...
    , @Duglarri
    You completely miss the point. Assume the best (US) case from a military point of view. That the US would sink half the Iranian navy in an afternoon. Get the other half the next day. Wipe out what's left of the Iranian air force. Take out whatever remains of their air defence systems.

    Then what?

    The regime will still be in place. The population will rally around them. The dissidents will be permanently wiped out. And as the American planes will not be able to stay overhead forever, they would rebuild- this time with a crash program to become a nuclear power- out of sheer self-defence.

    So what will the US have achieved?
    , @Max Payne

    it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.
     
    I would believe you if I didn't see the incompetence of the Israeli Air Force against Hezbollah in 2006. In the real world this is called 'underestimating the enemy'. You know what they say about that...

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.

    This is 2017... not 1977. Nothing is "technology" anymore. Everything is mass produced and proliferated. EVERYTHING. Now quality control is a different matter (which is the reason no one takes Chinese technology as seriously as they should).

    I don't doubt that the US would seriously consider some sort of coastal operation (with boots on the ground) to keep the shipping lanes open but we won't see anything like we did in Iraq.

    All Iran needs to do is make the US understand its going to cost them if they should do anything serious (you know... what a REAL military is supposed to do; deter threats).

    Counting beans is above you. I know you're better than this.
    , @Really
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I always find the views 0f some post-Soviet Russians, whether westernised or Russian nationalists, rather amusing. Let us see why.

    "The Iranian military is possibly the most backward...". Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can't be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?

    "The Iranians have only been friends of convenience...". Well, that is a rare beauty coming from a person whose country back-stabbed Iran twice very recently. You do know about that don't you Anatoly?

    How many friends does Russia have in the world today? Counting: Zero, one, ..., no.. zero, one, ... sorry let us start from zero again!
    , @Randal

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything.
     
    The Russians certainly let Iran down badly over the S300 sales in 2010, and by their general collaboration with the US/Israeli nonsense about supposed Iranian nuclear weapons development in the UN.

    The relationship between Russia and Iran is much stronger now, and that between Russia and the US infinitely more openly confrontational, thanks to US interference in the Ukraine. I suspect Russia will at the least see a strong interest in preventing any US victory in Iran, even if it doesn't feel particularly warm towards the Iranians themselves. The Chinese are likely to have similar views, so there will be no diplomatic problems for Russia at the UN in supporting Iran, even if the US's European satellite states can be bullied into line.

    I think the Russians and Chinese will do all they can, short of extending a nuclear umbrella or joining the war themselves, to promote a US defeat in Iran. And rightly so, from their point of view. It would be criminally naïve and short-sighted, imo, for Russia or China to let the US regime have a big victory in Iran, when they know US hostility will be aimed directly back at them, suitably emboldened and strengthened, immediately afterwards.

    Can the Trump regime members seeking the destruction of Iran succeed in buying Russian forbearance, even if they can bring themselves to try? Is the Russian leadership really likely to believe US regime promises of future friendship if they just stand aside while Iran is destroyed? Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose anything's possible.
    , @L.K
    "The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis"

    Hmm... not that long ago you placed those 'completely useless Saudis' high in that ridiculous ranking list of military powers you drew up, remember?

    I guess since then, you must have watched a few vids showing the Houthis kicking the hell out of the Saudis, buhaha... and abruptly changed your mind. Vids like the following:
    Inside a deserted Saudi border town filled with destroyed Saudi army vehicles
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHXWjmi1QA

    Your comments re military matters are worthless.
  20. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Airstrikes, while definitely an element of a war, will do nothing for achieving anything unless boots are on the ground. Once and if boots are on the ground in Iran, well, you are correct–that pretty much will spell the end of the US as we know it. The world (dis)order will completely collapse. But I wouldn’t rank Iran’s real military power as high. In the end, Iran lacks modern and capable air force. F-14 Tomcats and F-4, which are Iranian AF main fighter jets, are long long ago pass their prime and life extension limits. In other words–there is no serious AF to speak of in Iran. This is consideration in Pentagon while developing contingency planning. But there is also another factor here, of course, Port of Anzali can not be easily closed and Iran may get means to make sure that it stays open ;-) Once (and if) US gets involved in Iran the main political objective becomes, by now traditional, regime change. After that there will be (in 20 or 30 years) yet another round of history and self-serving memoir literature which would blame a disaster on getting into the war without knowing anything about the enemy.

    Read More
  21. @WorkingClass
    Saker lives in Florida but he is not a Floridian. He is not a citizen of the United States.

    He is more Floridian than he is Russian

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    He is more Floridian than he is Russian
     
    It doesn't matter what he is; it only matters what his perspectives are, and how well he can express them. I often disagree with him, but so far he appears be well-versed and consistent.

    What's your problem? Don't like - don't read...
  22. Wiki defines:

    Special operations are usually conducted in a low-profile manner that aims to achieve the advantages of speed, surprise, and violence of action against an unsuspecting target. Special ops are typically carried out with limited numbers of highly trained personnel that are adaptable, self-reliant and able to operate in all environments, and able to use unconventional combat skills and equipment. Special operations are usually implemented through specific, tailored intelligence.

    Reuters describes the attack in Yemen:

    “The operation began at dawn when a drone bombed the home of Abdulraoof al-Dhahab and then helicopters flew up and unloaded paratroopers at his house and killed everyone inside,” said one resident, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

    U.S. raid in Yemen authorized by Trump – U.S. military official
    “Next, the gunmen opened fire at the U.S. soldiers who left the area, and the helicopters bombed the gunmen and a number of homes and led to a large number of casualties.”

    A Yemeni security officer and a local official corroborated that account. Fahd, a local resident who asked that only his first name be used, said several bodies remained under debris and that houses and the local mosque were damaged in the attack.

    Maybe our special ops just aren’t special enough. Drones? Helicoptering in paratroopers? Providing air support? This type of operation sounds like a miniaturized version of regular forces. I thought military thinking had become more advanced–I guess not. Very staid. Very boring. Nothing here denoting speed and surprise to me.

    Read More
  23. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Alfred1860
    I take it you missed Nikki Haley's address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine. As we say in Canada, Liberal/Tory, same old story!! I had been optimistic about a Trump administration, but that feeling is fading very quickly.

    I take it you missed Nikki Haley’s address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine.

    I don’t raise alarm over Hailey’s words. At least not yet. In fact, I would have been really surprised if anything other than this statement would have been made in the institution (UN) which by now is nothing more than inconsequential chat room. In fact, against the background of the massive shitstorm Trump faces it is the only official (PR) position which can exist. Imagine hysteria in US media if US would “settle” Ukrainian issue from UN tribune.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    Yeah I assumed he was putting that situation on hold waiting for other stuff to clear, his cabinet and other appointments to get thru the Senate, etc. As far as I know (and I wouldn't so that's not worth much) he's doing nothing in Russia vs. Ukraine at the moment.

    He knows Crimea speaks Russian and was always Russian historically etc. No amount of neocon bs will make him forget that, and if he does, Bannon will remind him, or even someone like Ivanka.
  24. @Avery
    { But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.}

    Which nationality or which country can?

    And I don't know if TheSaker is ethnic Russian, but he is certainly a Russophile.
    US special ops record is not so good, but the Russian record of special ops is nothing to boast about either.

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
    (did I forget any?)
    All on Russian soil.

    Can TheSaker list _any_ successful ops by RF special ops?

    What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’. It was not an accident. Those were well planned terrorist attacks. People tend to get killed in terrorist attacks, since the perpetrators arrive with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. Duh.

    In recent years more people got killed in the US and France, than Russia.

    But if you’re looking for an example of a succesful Russian special operation, look no futher than what happened in Crimea, where 20000 Ukrainian troops were disarmed and evicted (in many cases recruited) by Russians without firing a shot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’.}

    Really?

    The very best of Russia's special ops forces - Spetsnaz, FSB Alpha, etc - attempted rescue operations of hostages held by terrorists, and hundreds of hostages were killed.

    What do you call that: Success?

    Yes, I understand it's easy for me to be an armchair strategist.
    But my objections was to TheSaker's hyperbole about US special ops.
    These kinds of ops are fraught with danger and the 'Fog of War'.
    Unfortunately, hostage are killed more often than not.

    But the reason I brought up the incidents in Russia was to tone down TheSaker's crowing.
    Yeah, US spec ops don't have a stellar record.
    But the Besaln and Nord-Ost were on Russian territory.
    Russia SpecOps had all the time they needed.
    They were in their own element.
    All the advantages in the world.
    100% control of the theater of operations.
    All the manpower needed.
    Yet hundreds of hostages were killed.

    If you guys want to call that 'success', than I don't know what a failed op is.
  25. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely.

    Russia can not stay out of the way completely. Caspian Sea is a strategic “internal lake”, and so is Azerbaijan. Iran has more Azeris living there than Azerbaijan proper. The whole host of issues for Russia appears if Iran is lit on fire, among them a complete reconfiguration of Russia’s military structure (actually it is already ongoing) on the Southern direction and then, dealing with Caucasus dynamics. Also, there will be volunteers for Iran and not Russian Muslims only. Another matter, I simply can not conceive how “boots on the ground” will be taking Tehran–it is by far not Baghdad.

    Read More
  26. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    Isn’t the Iranian missile force fairly strong? Ofc there’s no way of knowing if that’s what Faker meant.

    The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything.

    Maybe, but Russia has spent about 250 years struggling for influence in Iran, its location is too strategically valuable to give up on.

    namely the Banderist entity.

    Oh come on, the plutocratic puppet gov in Kiev is many things, but they aren’t Ukrainian ultranationalists.

    Read More
  27. @Andrei Martyanov

    The Nord-Ost disaster.
     
    ???

    {???}

    !!!

    from Wiki*:

    {All 40 of the attackers were killed, with no casualties among Spetsnaz; about 130 hostages died, including nine foreigners, due to adverse reactions to the gas. All but two of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants}

    What do you call it when 140 hostages are killed during a putative rescue operation? Success?

    Yes, I know Wiki is not necessarily a source of reliable information regarding contentious issues, but I am pretty sure the number of hostages who were killed due the botched rescue operation is pretty close to the actual number.

    Unless you have proof that the number of 130 hostages killed is false.
    What is your number of killed hostages?
    And for the moment we will ignore the incompetence of Moscow law enforcement that allowed 40 militants to take over a theater in the middle of Moscow in the first place.

    —-
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    That was 14 years ago! And the problem of Islamic terrorism never existed in Russia prior to 1990s as the country was a totalitarian communist state, so a certain lack of experience on the part of law enforcement was undestandable.

    You got any recent examples?
  28. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.

    When Trump nominated Haley for UN ambassador, he knew she is a product of GOP establishment, and her head is full of neocon crap. I honesly don’t understand this decision by Trump.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    I honesly don’t understand this decision by Trump.

    Totally reasonable, get a neocon princess (or, rather, accountant) a meaningless job and give Churkin somebody to humiliate--I think it is a very good idea. No harm policy wise and Churkin is kept entertained until he becomes next Russia's Foreign Minister. A win-win really.
    , @Vendetta
    Gets her out of South Carolina.
  29. @Felix Keverich
    What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a 'disaster'. It was not an accident. Those were well planned terrorist attacks. People tend to get killed in terrorist attacks, since the perpetrators arrive with the intention of killing as many civilians as possible. Duh.

    In recent years more people got killed in the US and France, than Russia.

    But if you're looking for an example of a succesful Russian special operation, look no futher than what happened in Crimea, where 20000 Ukrainian troops were disarmed and evicted (in many cases recruited) by Russians without firing a shot.

    {What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’.}

    Really?

    The very best of Russia’s special ops forces – Spetsnaz, FSB Alpha, etc – attempted rescue operations of hostages held by terrorists, and hundreds of hostages were killed.

    What do you call that: Success?

    Yes, I understand it’s easy for me to be an armchair strategist.
    But my objections was to TheSaker’s hyperbole about US special ops.
    These kinds of ops are fraught with danger and the ‘Fog of War’.
    Unfortunately, hostage are killed more often than not.

    But the reason I brought up the incidents in Russia was to tone down TheSaker’s crowing.
    Yeah, US spec ops don’t have a stellar record.
    But the Besaln and Nord-Ost were on Russian territory.
    Russia SpecOps had all the time they needed.
    They were in their own element.
    All the advantages in the world.
    100% control of the theater of operations.
    All the manpower needed.
    Yet hundreds of hostages were killed.

    If you guys want to call that ‘success’, than I don’t know what a failed op is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.

    And like I said, Russia's anti-terror efforts impoved greatly over time, more people are dying in Western Europe these days.
    , @Dissenter
    Perhaps the better record by Russian SpecOps is that they limit themselves to defend its own territory, along with that of their allies with whom they have signed treaties of mutual defense, against terrorist attacks and intends of "colour revolutions"?

    If you go to stick your nose in places so far from your borders as Yemen or Syria, where anybody has invited you to come, then do not complain about your poor record in SpecOps.
    , @animalogic
    I suspect the Russians call it "success". Destroy the enemy, No 1, regardless of any "collateral" loss. Not saying I fully agree with it, but Russian people seem to, at least, understand it.
  30. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    Surely, Russia can send Iran some advanced missiles? No harm would come out of it.

    Read More
  31. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment

    What do you call it when 140 hostages are killed during a putative rescue operation? Success?

    Out of 900 people, 140 who were not saved by MChS and medical emergency services due to lack of coordination in addressing the effects of gas, it is 85% of hostages saved due to extraordinary operation of specifically Russia’s Special Forces. Considering tactical setup, with 40 armed to the teeth, combat tried terrorists, it is an extraordinary achievement. A masterpiece, really, of special forces operations. Even 50% saved hostages in such situation would have been considered a success, here, realistically, 100% of hostages have been shielded from terrorists with no KIA special forces. This operation is being studied and will continue to be studied globally as one of a kind.

    The rest you listed relates to services other than Russia’s Special Services. As per MVD: through 1990s and 2000s–the most corrupt organization in Russia’s power block. It is all true but is not related to actions of Alpha and Vympel, which were exemplary, to put it mildly.

    Read More
  32. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Felix Keverich
    When Trump nominated Haley for UN ambassador, he knew she is a product of GOP establishment, and her head is full of neocon crap. I honesly don't understand this decision by Trump.

    I honesly don’t understand this decision by Trump.

    Totally reasonable, get a neocon princess (or, rather, accountant) a meaningless job and give Churkin somebody to humiliate–I think it is a very good idea. No harm policy wise and Churkin is kept entertained until he becomes next Russia’s Foreign Minister. A win-win really.

    Read More
  33. @Avery
    {???}

    !!!

    from Wiki*:

    {All 40 of the attackers were killed, with no casualties among Spetsnaz; about 130 hostages died, including nine foreigners, due to adverse reactions to the gas. All but two of the hostages who died during the siege were killed by the toxic substance pumped into the theater to subdue the militants}

    What do you call it when 140 hostages are killed during a putative rescue operation? Success?

    Yes, I know Wiki is not necessarily a source of reliable information regarding contentious issues, but I am pretty sure the number of hostages who were killed due the botched rescue operation is pretty close to the actual number.


    Unless you have proof that the number of 130 hostages killed is false.
    What is your number of killed hostages?
    And for the moment we will ignore the incompetence of Moscow law enforcement that allowed 40 militants to take over a theater in the middle of Moscow in the first place.

    ----
    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisis

    That was 14 years ago! And the problem of Islamic terrorism never existed in Russia prior to 1990s as the country was a totalitarian communist state, so a certain lack of experience on the part of law enforcement was undestandable.

    You got any recent examples?

    Read More
  34. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    Think probably Russia will stick with them for they have a long history of sticking by their friends, and what could/would we expect to gain by attacking Iran steal their oil for the Brits like we did back in 1950, and of course you still have the mentality that those we the most toys win even after Korea Nam and the Mid-East turned into disaster some never learn it seems…

    Read More
  35. @Avery
    {What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’.}

    Really?

    The very best of Russia's special ops forces - Spetsnaz, FSB Alpha, etc - attempted rescue operations of hostages held by terrorists, and hundreds of hostages were killed.

    What do you call that: Success?

    Yes, I understand it's easy for me to be an armchair strategist.
    But my objections was to TheSaker's hyperbole about US special ops.
    These kinds of ops are fraught with danger and the 'Fog of War'.
    Unfortunately, hostage are killed more often than not.

    But the reason I brought up the incidents in Russia was to tone down TheSaker's crowing.
    Yeah, US spec ops don't have a stellar record.
    But the Besaln and Nord-Ost were on Russian territory.
    Russia SpecOps had all the time they needed.
    They were in their own element.
    All the advantages in the world.
    100% control of the theater of operations.
    All the manpower needed.
    Yet hundreds of hostages were killed.

    If you guys want to call that 'success', than I don't know what a failed op is.

    I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.

    And like I said, Russia’s anti-terror efforts impoved greatly over time, more people are dying in Western Europe these days.

    Read More
    • Agree: Andrei Martyanov
    • Replies: @Avery
    {I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.}

    Read my original post #4, which was in response to TheSaker's trash-talking US SpecOps guys. He being either a Russian or Russophile, I noted some examples of RF spec ops that were failures, in my opinion.
    You guys (Russian ancestry) think they were a success? Your call.

    To be sure, the Russian spec ops guys are tough and brave as any.
    More willing to sacrifice themselves than most other counties' guys.
    My beef is with Russian leadership who treat both their troops and their people like dirt.
    It is improving, but Russian leaders, starting with the Tsars, consider their troops and people highly expendable.

    As to the Crimea operation:

    It was a superb example of Маскировка: Russian military completely concealed the movement of very large number of troops and equipment from West/NATO.
    I was watching events unfold, and the talking heads, 'experts' and such on MSM were speculating endlessly what Putin was planning to do next.....
    Then they woke up to the game being over while they were debating when it will start.
    Well done.
    However, to compare it to a SpecOps operation against a hostile, determined foe is bogus.
    Most of the Ukrainian military in Crimea simply moved over to the Russian side or left.
    Very sensibly, they saw no need to fight and die for the neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.

    As to Islamic terror:

    I am originally from Armenia SSR.
    I am quite familiar with Islamic terror in general and Islamic terror in Caucasus in particular.
    My ancestors have been on the receiving end of it for centuries.

    Most recently(1988-1994), nomad invaders to Caucasus, Islamic terrorist Muslim Turks and their assorted allies (Afghan Muj, Turk Grey Wolves, Arabs, Paks, Chechen volunteers*, Ukrainian mercenaries,...) from the Islamic world attempted to wipe out indigenous (Christian) Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh/Artsakh.
    Fortunately the Islamic terrorists were soundly defeated.

    ----
    * infamous Shamil Basayev's battalion.

  36. It became clear there was no way for Trump to survive if he didn’t capitulate to the status quo policies.

    Sad!

    Read More
  37. For someone who pledged to “eradicate Islamic terrorism from the face of Earth” during his inaugural speech, leaving Saudi Arabia and other key terrorism sponsors off his “Muslim ban, might not be a SNAFU but merely a SUSFU.
    And what about Nikki Haley? Is she Samantha Power reincarnate? Will Trump fire her for not getting with the program, or his apparent détente with Russia was just hot air and didn’t mean it?

    Read More
  38. anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Why are there any Americans on the ground in Yemen in the first place? Supposedly it was a raid against AQ there even while we’re allies with them in Syria. The Saudis are also at war there against the Shia Houthis so what is the relationship between the two? Is it a war within another war? American special forces are just as capable as anybody’s but it’s a matter of what sort of jobs they are assigned. Difficult or nearly impossible assignments aren’t going to yield neat results. That sort of thing is usually just ancillary to any war effort. Otto Skorzeny had spectacular successes but the war was still lost. Insofar as Iran goes, it’s a large country of 80M and can’t be conquered. Damage could be inflicted by bombardment but Germany and N Vietnam continued their war effort even under intense and continual air bombing. It’s not clear what the Russians would do in such a case but just walking away would destroy their perceived value as an ally to anyone else hence that seems unlikely.
    Trump has only been in office for two weeks so getting a handle on what’s been taking place may take some time. Policies set in motion by previous administrations have a momentum all their own. The actual policies will become clearer in due time although recourse to the old saber-rattling is bound to be counterproductive. In six months we’ll have a better idea of what we’re in store for.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Well said.
    Indeed, Germany's peak armaments production year was 1944, the year of the most intense Allied bombing.

    It would be stupid to think the Iranians haven't dispersed and or hidden various defense production facilities a la WWII Germany.

    And as you said, Iran's a big country .... full of mountains.

    There's also the Persian Gulf, not exactly difficult to close down.

    Another critical point is that Iranians are not Arabs They are generally much smarter, much more capable in all regards.

    And lastly, does Iran have Russian surface to air missiles?

    , @Anonymous
    I like this valid observation:

    Otto Skorzeny had spectacular successes but the war was still lost.
     
  39. Saker, the Iranian regime as such is not that popular, BUT the Iranians will rally around it to defend their fatherland, and IF the regime is unable to do it there will be a nationalist revolution which will reinforce Iran with a revolutionary elan that will defeat any aggressor. The Iranian masses will not tolerate a Libyan result, nor a new puppet like the shah. Any imperialist attack is doomed, and yes, Iran as it showed against Saddam will reach incredible levels of resilience. Iran would turn a new Soviet Union against the Nazis. The Gulf puppet regimes may be thrown away, and the war could become cataclysmic with an Israeli participation. A war on Iran would be impossible to keep restricted to the Iranian borders. The Middle East, Central Asia, even beyond will burn. I hope Flynn’s bravado will be forgotten soon, because if they want to implement it, we ain’t seen nothing yet!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Old fogey
    Well said. We must remember how well the Iranians fought against the Iraqis. They are a proud people not afraid to fight fiercely to defend their ancient civilization.
  40. I don’t believe Trump will take us into war with Iran. In fact, I find that notion somewhat preposterous, and many of the comments here, quite hysterical. There will be no war with Iran. Good grief! Get a grip, gentlemen.

    Read More
  41. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    You completely miss the point. Assume the best (US) case from a military point of view. That the US would sink half the Iranian navy in an afternoon. Get the other half the next day. Wipe out what’s left of the Iranian air force. Take out whatever remains of their air defence systems.

    Then what?

    The regime will still be in place. The population will rally around them. The dissidents will be permanently wiped out. And as the American planes will not be able to stay overhead forever, they would rebuild- this time with a crash program to become a nuclear power- out of sheer self-defence.

    So what will the US have achieved?

    Read More
  42. The american special forces are so bad that the top russian alpha units do their best to turn their AK74 rifles into the rifles american special forces use with after market mounts, stocks, and optics, copied delta using glocks as sidearms, copied a lot of the delta tactics and training, etc. So they have copied american gear and tactics, as well as regularly reading training tips and advice from american special op vets on various internet sites/youtube, yet americans suck? Seals are indeed PR whores and by far the worst skilled of the various special forces units for actual combat, but units like delta and marsoc are at least as good as SAS or anyone else.

    Remember, most of the really good stuff never gets disclosed or released. And the screw ups become well known, but are usually the fault of idiot politicians like clinton in somalia putting them in terrible positions. The truth is the sas of britain/nz/australia, russian alpha, delta force, etc are all outstanding and pull off a lot of stuff that never sees the light of day. They also have moronic politicans who place them in terrible situations, and when bad stuff happens they get the blame.

    Besides the seals, if you want to talk about overrated, then the real discussion should be about israeli troops and special forces. Much like the seals, I am convinced it largely has to be all the hollywood garbage driving it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    "The truth is the sas of britain/nz/australia, russian alpha, delta force, etc are all outstanding and pull off a lot of stuff that never sees the light of day."

    Then how do you know?
  43. @Felix Keverich
    I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.

    And like I said, Russia's anti-terror efforts impoved greatly over time, more people are dying in Western Europe these days.

    {I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.}

    Read my original post #4, which was in response to TheSaker’s trash-talking US SpecOps guys. He being either a Russian or Russophile, I noted some examples of RF spec ops that were failures, in my opinion.
    You guys (Russian ancestry) think they were a success? Your call.

    To be sure, the Russian spec ops guys are tough and brave as any.
    More willing to sacrifice themselves than most other counties’ guys.
    My beef is with Russian leadership who treat both their troops and their people like dirt.
    It is improving, but Russian leaders, starting with the Tsars, consider their troops and people highly expendable.

    As to the Crimea operation:

    It was a superb example of Маскировка: Russian military completely concealed the movement of very large number of troops and equipment from West/NATO.
    I was watching events unfold, and the talking heads, ‘experts’ and such on MSM were speculating endlessly what Putin was planning to do next…..
    Then they woke up to the game being over while they were debating when it will start.
    Well done.
    However, to compare it to a SpecOps operation against a hostile, determined foe is bogus.
    Most of the Ukrainian military in Crimea simply moved over to the Russian side or left.
    Very sensibly, they saw no need to fight and die for the neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.

    As to Islamic terror:

    I am originally from Armenia SSR.
    I am quite familiar with Islamic terror in general and Islamic terror in Caucasus in particular.
    My ancestors have been on the receiving end of it for centuries.

    Most recently(1988-1994), nomad invaders to Caucasus, Islamic terrorist Muslim Turks and their assorted allies (Afghan Muj, Turk Grey Wolves, Arabs, Paks, Chechen volunteers*, Ukrainian mercenaries,…) from the Islamic world attempted to wipe out indigenous (Christian) Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh/Artsakh.
    Fortunately the Islamic terrorists were soundly defeated.

    —-
    * infamous Shamil Basayev’s battalion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    An example of a _successful_ SpecOps operation by French National Gendarmerie against armed, determined hostage takers. No loss of life of hostages in very challenging conditions of rescue operation - a passenger airplane.


    -3 passengers dead, but they were dead prior to the rescue operation.
    -all 4 hijackers killed.
    -of the original passenger load of 224 (including 4 terrorists), 217 survived.

    -----
    * [Air France Flight 8969] (1994)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969
  44. @Avery
    {I oppose the language that you used. It pins the blame on Russian security services intead of the terrorists who came to kill civilians. There is a tendency in the West to blame Russians for Muslim terrorism directed against them, which I find absolutely infuriating.}

    Read my original post #4, which was in response to TheSaker's trash-talking US SpecOps guys. He being either a Russian or Russophile, I noted some examples of RF spec ops that were failures, in my opinion.
    You guys (Russian ancestry) think they were a success? Your call.

    To be sure, the Russian spec ops guys are tough and brave as any.
    More willing to sacrifice themselves than most other counties' guys.
    My beef is with Russian leadership who treat both their troops and their people like dirt.
    It is improving, but Russian leaders, starting with the Tsars, consider their troops and people highly expendable.

    As to the Crimea operation:

    It was a superb example of Маскировка: Russian military completely concealed the movement of very large number of troops and equipment from West/NATO.
    I was watching events unfold, and the talking heads, 'experts' and such on MSM were speculating endlessly what Putin was planning to do next.....
    Then they woke up to the game being over while they were debating when it will start.
    Well done.
    However, to compare it to a SpecOps operation against a hostile, determined foe is bogus.
    Most of the Ukrainian military in Crimea simply moved over to the Russian side or left.
    Very sensibly, they saw no need to fight and die for the neo-Nazi junta in Kiev.

    As to Islamic terror:

    I am originally from Armenia SSR.
    I am quite familiar with Islamic terror in general and Islamic terror in Caucasus in particular.
    My ancestors have been on the receiving end of it for centuries.

    Most recently(1988-1994), nomad invaders to Caucasus, Islamic terrorist Muslim Turks and their assorted allies (Afghan Muj, Turk Grey Wolves, Arabs, Paks, Chechen volunteers*, Ukrainian mercenaries,...) from the Islamic world attempted to wipe out indigenous (Christian) Armenians of Nagorno-Karabagh/Artsakh.
    Fortunately the Islamic terrorists were soundly defeated.

    ----
    * infamous Shamil Basayev's battalion.

    An example of a _successful_ SpecOps operation by French National Gendarmerie against armed, determined hostage takers. No loss of life of hostages in very challenging conditions of rescue operation – a passenger airplane.

    -3 passengers dead, but they were dead prior to the rescue operation.
    -all 4 hijackers killed.
    -of the original passenger load of 224 (including 4 terrorists), 217 survived.

    —–
    * [Air France Flight 8969] (1994)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_8969

    Read More
  45. @Avery
    {What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’.}

    Really?

    The very best of Russia's special ops forces - Spetsnaz, FSB Alpha, etc - attempted rescue operations of hostages held by terrorists, and hundreds of hostages were killed.

    What do you call that: Success?

    Yes, I understand it's easy for me to be an armchair strategist.
    But my objections was to TheSaker's hyperbole about US special ops.
    These kinds of ops are fraught with danger and the 'Fog of War'.
    Unfortunately, hostage are killed more often than not.

    But the reason I brought up the incidents in Russia was to tone down TheSaker's crowing.
    Yeah, US spec ops don't have a stellar record.
    But the Besaln and Nord-Ost were on Russian territory.
    Russia SpecOps had all the time they needed.
    They were in their own element.
    All the advantages in the world.
    100% control of the theater of operations.
    All the manpower needed.
    Yet hundreds of hostages were killed.

    If you guys want to call that 'success', than I don't know what a failed op is.

    Perhaps the better record by Russian SpecOps is that they limit themselves to defend its own territory, along with that of their allies with whom they have signed treaties of mutual defense, against terrorist attacks and intends of “colour revolutions”?

    If you go to stick your nose in places so far from your borders as Yemen or Syria, where anybody has invited you to come, then do not complain about your poor record in SpecOps.

    Read More
  46. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.

    You are mistaken here.

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.
     
    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump's Ukraine policy - and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama's.

    Which shouldn't be surprising: With the possible exception of Flynn and maybe Tillerson, all of his foreign policy advisors are neocons and Russia haters. During the VP debate, Pence sounded like he couldn't wait to start bombing Russian forces in Syria.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    Yes, I'm aware of that.

    My point is that the mentality of the people who work in the State Department is highly anti-Russian and you can't change that overnight (and trying to do so would be a stupid idea doomed to failure).

    To date Trump has been about as pro-Russian (or rather, not anti-Russian) as is realistically possible within the US political context. Even so the internets are full of outraged spluttering about President Tramputin. Asking him to do any more in this context would be chutzpah.

    Even re-Haley, she was sent off to a meaningless UN position, where she will not be able to much (apart from perhaps being a sandbag for Churkin).
  47. @Felix Keverich
    When Trump nominated Haley for UN ambassador, he knew she is a product of GOP establishment, and her head is full of neocon crap. I honesly don't understand this decision by Trump.

    Gets her out of South Carolina.

    Read More
  48. @5371
    Trump's presidency is so promising and gratifying in general that one almost hesitates to criticise, but there's no doubt that the criticisms made in this piece are valid. Above all, the US is on a hiding to nothing with this approach, because there's no conception of what success would look like.

    Trump needs to get up to speed on foreign policy, or it will destroy his Presidency….Excellent piece by the Saker.

    Read More
  49. @Avery
    { But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.}

    Which nationality or which country can?

    And I don't know if TheSaker is ethnic Russian, but he is certainly a Russophile.
    US special ops record is not so good, but the Russian record of special ops is nothing to boast about either.

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
    (did I forget any?)
    All on Russian soil.

    Can TheSaker list _any_ successful ops by RF special ops?

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.

    Two of those three occurred during the 1990s, when the Russian military was in a state of collapse, and the third was in 2002, before much rebuilding had been done.

    Read More
  50. @Anonymous
    You are mistaken here.

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.

    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump’s Ukraine policy – and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama’s.

    Which shouldn’t be surprising: With the possible exception of Flynn and maybe Tillerson, all of his foreign policy advisors are neocons and Russia haters. During the VP debate, Pence sounded like he couldn’t wait to start bombing Russian forces in Syria.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Felix Keverich
    In that case what was his Russia friendly rhetoric during the campaign about? And why was Victoria Nuland fired?

    Clearly, Trump's instincts are not hostile, but he seems lazy/clueless with his personnel choices.
    , @Anatoly Karlin

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.
     
    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine's actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.
    , @Randal

    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump’s Ukraine policy – and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama’s.
     
    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy. The Trump regime is operating in the US establishment context, in which honesty on Russia is simply unviable. Appointees are still facing congressional approvals which are hostage to effective vetoes by establishment Republican types with neocon Russophobic attitudes. The establishment media is in full hue and cry mode waiting for every chance to build a "Putin stooge" image around Trump.

    And Trump is a negotiator - he's not going to give the Russians anything (on, for instance, Crimea or sanctions) without trying to make them buy it.

    The bottom line though, hopefully, is that Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. And furthermore many of them also have ulterior motivations towards other targets for US confrontation (Iran, China), and understand that a degree of Russian forbearance will be needed for those confrontations to have any chance of success.

    The forces trying to derail this and force continued confrontation of Russia are undoubtedly still politically very strong, well connected and massively funded, but there's still hope that this basic understanding will ultimately prevail, and all this early verbiage should probably be taken with appropriate levels of salt.
  51. @Jon0815

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.
     
    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump's Ukraine policy - and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama's.

    Which shouldn't be surprising: With the possible exception of Flynn and maybe Tillerson, all of his foreign policy advisors are neocons and Russia haters. During the VP debate, Pence sounded like he couldn't wait to start bombing Russian forces in Syria.

    In that case what was his Russia friendly rhetoric during the campaign about? And why was Victoria Nuland fired?

    Clearly, Trump’s instincts are not hostile, but he seems lazy/clueless with his personnel choices.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Felix Keverich:

    Victoria Nuland may have been fired but it has been reported that Elliott Abrams will be given a major post. So it appears to be six of one, half dozen of the other!

    I completely agree with you that Trump's personnel choices seem lazy/clueless.
    , @Anonymous
    Trump is likely playing good cop bad cop with Russia.

    If Russia behaves, they will be spared the whip. If they don't behave, Trump has options in house to deal with the Russians.
  52. @Felix Keverich
    In that case what was his Russia friendly rhetoric during the campaign about? And why was Victoria Nuland fired?

    Clearly, Trump's instincts are not hostile, but he seems lazy/clueless with his personnel choices.

    Felix Keverich:

    Victoria Nuland may have been fired but it has been reported that Elliott Abrams will be given a major post. So it appears to be six of one, half dozen of the other!

    I completely agree with you that Trump’s personnel choices seem lazy/clueless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    A more obvious explanation: maybe Trumpster has come out of the closet and really is a neocon Jooie butt Boy who can't flush the toilet without calling Tel Aviv for permission. The evidence is all there is you care to look at it: the cabinet looks like an AIPAC meeting, daddy's little shicksa is dinking a follower of Yahweh, the bloodthirsty neocon geezer ex-generals are blowhards even by pentagon standards . Looks like the electorate has been defrauded again. Who was it who observed: "the masses of asses will believe almost anything as long as it isn't true"? Schopenhauer? Feuerbach?
  53. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    It seems like Trump is going to wait until the very last minute before he reveals his Russia cards. He has been very evasive about Russia and Ukraine.

    Read More
  54. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    —- In that case what was his Russia friendly rhetoric during the campaign about?

    The only Russia friendly rhetoric was the compliments to Putin (that were mostly meant to put down Obama) and one insinuation that the people on the peninsula of Crimea might have wanted to join Russia. And “wouldn’t it be nice if we could get along?”. Fight terror together – very vague, what would that entail – asking Russians to send their ground troops to ME??

    Anything else anyone recalls?

    With regards to Eastern Ukraine, he implied that Russia was only able to become active there because of lack of strength by Obama. Trump said “he [Putin] is not going there” – assuming Putin is not going to invade Ukraine further under Trump. “He is there in a certain way already,” – namely, there is a hybrid war by Russia. But “he is not going there” (all the way) when I’m president. We will talk from the position of strength – that’s all he said.

    He hasn’t said a whole lot, in fact. I believe the reason he is so evasive about Russia is because he doesn’t want other players (EU, Russia) to know, so that he can keep his bargaining power. Also, he wants to keep the American hegemony without disrupting the potential for cooperation with Russia. When people are quiet like that, it means they don’t have any strong feelings, just pragmatism.

    Read More
  55. @Anonymous
    You are mistaken here.

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.

    Yes, I’m aware of that.

    My point is that the mentality of the people who work in the State Department is highly anti-Russian and you can’t change that overnight (and trying to do so would be a stupid idea doomed to failure).

    To date Trump has been about as pro-Russian (or rather, not anti-Russian) as is realistically possible within the US political context. Even so the internets are full of outraged spluttering about President Tramputin. Asking him to do any more in this context would be chutzpah.

    Even re-Haley, she was sent off to a meaningless UN position, where she will not be able to much (apart from perhaps being a sandbag for Churkin).

    Read More
  56. @Jon0815

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.
     
    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump's Ukraine policy - and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama's.

    Which shouldn't be surprising: With the possible exception of Flynn and maybe Tillerson, all of his foreign policy advisors are neocons and Russia haters. During the VP debate, Pence sounded like he couldn't wait to start bombing Russian forces in Syria.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine’s actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jon0815

    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine’s actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.
     
    It's an indication that he doesn't like Poroshenko personally, which is understandable given that Poroshenko's regime was trying to help Hillary! win. It doesn't necessarily indicate that he plans any major substantive departure from Obama's policy towards Ukraine.

    Trump will almost certainly be better on Russia than Hillary! would have been, but he lacks the knowledge necessary to fully overcome the pull of the Deep State.

    , @AP
    I don 't know what to make of Trump's relationship to Ukraine. I do know that many Ukrainian-American nationalists voted for Trump. One of them made the short-list for Deputy Secretary of State (though it looks like Abrams is the front-runner):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/25/trump-team-narrowing-search-for-state-departments-no-2-official/?utm_term=.ea5f2593a5b0

    Donald Trump Jr. also spoke at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Michigan, whose Ukrainians tended to vote for Trump.

    Either Russians or Ukrainians (or both) are engaging in wishful thinking about the Trump administration.
  57. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I would believe you if I didn’t see the incompetence of the Israeli Air Force against Hezbollah in 2006. In the real world this is called ‘underestimating the enemy’. You know what they say about that…

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.

    This is 2017… not 1977. Nothing is “technology” anymore. Everything is mass produced and proliferated. EVERYTHING. Now quality control is a different matter (which is the reason no one takes Chinese technology as seriously as they should).

    I don’t doubt that the US would seriously consider some sort of coastal operation (with boots on the ground) to keep the shipping lanes open but we won’t see anything like we did in Iraq.

    All Iran needs to do is make the US understand its going to cost them if they should do anything serious (you know… what a REAL military is supposed to do; deter threats).

    Counting beans is above you. I know you’re better than this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two).}

    Nonsense:

    The highly advanced Soviet SA missiles and other anti-aircraft systems supplied by USSR and China were what caused massive losses to USAF, not the black pajamas. You can't bring down a B-52 flying at 30,000 with an AK-47.
    Black pajamas won the war of attrition on the ground.
    Their ground.

    People mistake US ground troops' failure on foreign soil with some kind of incompetence in USAF.
    USAF has a lot, both in quality and quantity. Iraq had adequate anti-air defenses, but they were no match: USAF successfully suppressed all of it at the beginning.

    Iran is in the same situation, maybe worse.
    Iran has highly sophisticated and capable S-300, but not enough.
    USAF will overwhelm it with massive swarms: Iranians will run out of whatever inventory of S-300 missiles they have and then USAF will fly over Iran at will.


    {This is 2017… not 1977. Nothing is “technology” anymore}

    Again, nonsense:

    RuAF highly successful bombing campaign in Syria proves otherwise.
    RuAF lost one high flying bomber to.......NATO supplied Turk F-16.
    RuAF also lost 3 or 4 helicopters.

    The ISIS cannibals had/have manpads, but Russians have developed countermeasures to those for their helicopter gunships.
    , @L.K
    Anatoly Karlin does NOT know squat about military issues and every time the guy writes a post on military matters, his extreme ignorance shows.

    I mean, this guy prepared a long and silly "article" in which he set out to rank the most powerful militaries in the world.
    I'm going by memory here, but I distinctly remember this fool ranking Saudi Barbaria, I kid you not, as the 10th most powerful in the world.
    And yes, counting beans is all he does.

    Also, for what it is worth, unlike this Karlin guy, the Saker does have a military background.

    He was born in Europe, cannot remember which country -Switzerland maybe- to a Russian family.
    From what I remember he pursued a military career in his country of birth's army.
  58. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    Does any of this have anything to do with Iran’s wish to “ditch the dollar”?

    http://www.herald.co.zw/iran-to-ditch-dollar-over-trumps-ban/

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sloopyjoe
    Thank you Anon for being the only adult in the room. The other keyboard commandoes need to go back to playing Stratego on their Diet-Coke and Nacho stained couches in mommy's basement.

    The constant warmongering in the ME by the Empire of Tampons ( former Republic of the USSA ) on behalf of the imported non-semitic circumcised few needs to stop. If the Zionist occupiers of Palestine want war then let them fight and pay for it themselves. ALL Goyim lives matter.

    Thanks again Saker for another great article.
    , @jacques sheete

    Does any of this have anything to do with Iran’s wish to “ditch the dollar”?
     
    ;)
  59. @Anatoly Karlin

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.
     
    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine's actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.

    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine’s actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.

    It’s an indication that he doesn’t like Poroshenko personally, which is understandable given that Poroshenko’s regime was trying to help Hillary! win. It doesn’t necessarily indicate that he plans any major substantive departure from Obama’s policy towards Ukraine.

    Trump will almost certainly be better on Russia than Hillary! would have been, but he lacks the knowledge necessary to fully overcome the pull of the Deep State.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    It’s an indication that he doesn’t like Poroshenko personally, which is understandable given that Poroshenko’s regime was trying to help Hillary! win.
     
    Presidential elections are two years away in Ukraine, but Tymoshenko is leading Poroshenko by double digits in the polls. Her party is also leading in parliamentary polls.

    It doesn’t necessarily indicate that he plans any major substantive departure from Obama’s policy towards Ukraine.
     
    I won't make a prediction but I'll point out that a lot of Ukrainian-Americans voted for Trump, seeing him as the more anti-Russian candidate. One of them, a family friend, had served in US military intelligence (he thinks the idea of Flynn being a Russian stooge is laughable). Their argument against Clinton is articulated here:

    http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Needless to say, these people don't like Poroshenko much, either.
  60. @Anatoly Karlin

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.
     
    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine's actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.

    I don ‘t know what to make of Trump’s relationship to Ukraine. I do know that many Ukrainian-American nationalists voted for Trump. One of them made the short-list for Deputy Secretary of State (though it looks like Abrams is the front-runner):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/25/trump-team-narrowing-search-for-state-departments-no-2-official/?utm_term=.ea5f2593a5b0

    Donald Trump Jr. also spoke at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Michigan, whose Ukrainians tended to vote for Trump.

    Either Russians or Ukrainians (or both) are engaging in wishful thinking about the Trump administration.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The Ukrainians I met in Sacramento that I've mentioned a few time I am sure are 90% Trumpist. My impression is that they are more (ultra) religious than nationalist, though certainly they are no fans of Russia.

    Either way there will certainly be many zradas and peremogas in the months to come for both sides.
  61. @Jon0815

    The fact that Trump met up with Tymoshenko, a bitter rival of Poroshenko, on the same day that he took his first phone call from Ukraine’s actual President (which itself took place a week after his phone call with Putin) is a far stronger indication of real sentiment than anything he purportedly promised her.
     
    It's an indication that he doesn't like Poroshenko personally, which is understandable given that Poroshenko's regime was trying to help Hillary! win. It doesn't necessarily indicate that he plans any major substantive departure from Obama's policy towards Ukraine.

    Trump will almost certainly be better on Russia than Hillary! would have been, but he lacks the knowledge necessary to fully overcome the pull of the Deep State.

    It’s an indication that he doesn’t like Poroshenko personally, which is understandable given that Poroshenko’s regime was trying to help Hillary! win.

    Presidential elections are two years away in Ukraine, but Tymoshenko is leading Poroshenko by double digits in the polls. Her party is also leading in parliamentary polls.

    It doesn’t necessarily indicate that he plans any major substantive departure from Obama’s policy towards Ukraine.

    I won’t make a prediction but I’ll point out that a lot of Ukrainian-Americans voted for Trump, seeing him as the more anti-Russian candidate. One of them, a family friend, had served in US military intelligence (he thinks the idea of Flynn being a Russian stooge is laughable). Their argument against Clinton is articulated here:

    http://www.ukrweekly.com/uwwp/whos-truly-beholden-to-the-kremlin/

    Needless to say, these people don’t like Poroshenko much, either.

    Read More
  62. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Felix Keverich
    In that case what was his Russia friendly rhetoric during the campaign about? And why was Victoria Nuland fired?

    Clearly, Trump's instincts are not hostile, but he seems lazy/clueless with his personnel choices.

    Trump is likely playing good cop bad cop with Russia.

    If Russia behaves, they will be spared the whip. If they don’t behave, Trump has options in house to deal with the Russians.

    Read More
  63. @Dan Hayes
    Felix Keverich:

    Victoria Nuland may have been fired but it has been reported that Elliott Abrams will be given a major post. So it appears to be six of one, half dozen of the other!

    I completely agree with you that Trump's personnel choices seem lazy/clueless.

    A more obvious explanation: maybe Trumpster has come out of the closet and really is a neocon Jooie butt Boy who can’t flush the toilet without calling Tel Aviv for permission. The evidence is all there is you care to look at it: the cabinet looks like an AIPAC meeting, daddy’s little shicksa is dinking a follower of Yahweh, the bloodthirsty neocon geezer ex-generals are blowhards even by pentagon standards . Looks like the electorate has been defrauded again. Who was it who observed: “the masses of asses will believe almost anything as long as it isn’t true”? Schopenhauer? Feuerbach?

    Read More
  64. @anonymous
    Why are there any Americans on the ground in Yemen in the first place? Supposedly it was a raid against AQ there even while we're allies with them in Syria. The Saudis are also at war there against the Shia Houthis so what is the relationship between the two? Is it a war within another war? American special forces are just as capable as anybody's but it's a matter of what sort of jobs they are assigned. Difficult or nearly impossible assignments aren't going to yield neat results. That sort of thing is usually just ancillary to any war effort. Otto Skorzeny had spectacular successes but the war was still lost. Insofar as Iran goes, it's a large country of 80M and can't be conquered. Damage could be inflicted by bombardment but Germany and N Vietnam continued their war effort even under intense and continual air bombing. It's not clear what the Russians would do in such a case but just walking away would destroy their perceived value as an ally to anyone else hence that seems unlikely.
    Trump has only been in office for two weeks so getting a handle on what's been taking place may take some time. Policies set in motion by previous administrations have a momentum all their own. The actual policies will become clearer in due time although recourse to the old saber-rattling is bound to be counterproductive. In six months we'll have a better idea of what we're in store for.

    Well said.
    Indeed, Germany’s peak armaments production year was 1944, the year of the most intense Allied bombing.

    It would be stupid to think the Iranians haven’t dispersed and or hidden various defense production facilities a la WWII Germany.

    And as you said, Iran’s a big country …. full of mountains.

    There’s also the Persian Gulf, not exactly difficult to close down.

    Another critical point is that Iranians are not Arabs They are generally much smarter, much more capable in all regards.

    And lastly, does Iran have Russian surface to air missiles?

    Read More
  65. > Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East

    look at how tirelessly the Saudis are working to prevent that.

    Read More
  66. @WorkingClass
    I'm a card carrying deplorable. A staunch Trump supporter. The only thing that could turn me against him would be a new shooting war anywhere, especially with Iran. If that happens we might as well have elected Hillary. I still believe that Trump will pursue peace and prosperity instead of war and welfare. If not, if all that was a lie, I will be happy to feed him to his enemies. I don't think I am alone.

    You’re a card carrying Soon-to-be Disappointed supporter of Trump. He doesn’t run the show, as the rejections of his “Executive Orders” reveal. He’ll soon learn that he plays the Big Game or he is fired. The Deep State, not the voters, selected him. He will pursue prosperity – for his billionaire pals – by yet again cheating the gullible American people. He’s already warned you, if you go back and read his speeches.

    Read More
  67. If, for political reasons and to feel good about “making American great again” the US must absolutely flex its muscle, I would recommend re-invading Grenada, provided only one of the Services is given that task.

    Or it can always re-invade California, which after all was once snatched from Mexico, and which at this point is openly hostile to the current administration. They can storm Santa Monica Pier like it were the beach at Normandy.

    Read More
  68. @Anonymous
    Does any of this have anything to do with Iran's wish to "ditch the dollar"?

    http://www.herald.co.zw/iran-to-ditch-dollar-over-trumps-ban/

    Thank you Anon for being the only adult in the room. The other keyboard commandoes need to go back to playing Stratego on their Diet-Coke and Nacho stained couches in mommy’s basement.

    The constant warmongering in the ME by the Empire of Tampons ( former Republic of the USSA ) on behalf of the imported non-semitic circumcised few needs to stop. If the Zionist occupiers of Palestine want war then let them fight and pay for it themselves. ALL Goyim lives matter.

    Thanks again Saker for another great article.

    Read More
  69. Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.

    I love your commentary, the Saker, but do you not mean cannot or can’t rather than can?

    I’d offer to proof-read for you, gratis, but time-zone diffs. and my non-availability due to work at times make that impractical.

    There are a few other howling errors of spelling in the post, but they don’t reverse your meaning, as the one I cite does.

    US special forces, you are probably right, they assassinated bin Laden, but managed to destroy a very expensive helicopter in the process through poor planning and not listening to warnings that it would likely fall over and become useless where they planned to land it, too much backwash.

    For bonus points on ineptitude, we have braggarts claiming having been in on the kill, in contradictory ways, and against their orders.

    … and violating their promises of secrecy, with no discipline in return.

    All very entertaining.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe....knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters......followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better....valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2' arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe......undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2' arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2' arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can't swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after........
  70. I don’t think Putin will allow the US to bomb Iran or China. This would mean the Russian alliance is meaningless. Iran is Russia’s national interest in the region. If Iran becomes ISIS, Russia ‘s got it’s next Stalingrad.

    Iran has the upgraded s300 system now, and can provide defense and counterstrikes.

    Trump ‘s team is über-zionism from criminal Sheldon Adelson.

    Did nobody notice?

    Read More
  71. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    I don’t believe it’s correct to say that the US special forces types are invariably so incompetent. This is just Russophile chauvinism on the part of the Saker. Take 911 for example, a masterpiece of planning and execution, an absolutely perfect job. The only thing that went wrong with it was beyond their control but was defly handled on the fly with class and brilliance. Flight 93 was delayed on takeoff so could not be flown into WTC7 during the attack as planned. But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn’t happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There’s no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat. It’s just sad that the country has such a bad case of terminal cancer.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn’t happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There’s no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat.
     
    ridiculous

    the drone (or whatever it was that crashed into Shanksville was obviously not preselected, but they winged it on the fly. Even the coroner wasn't briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can't even c0unt them.

    No, the ONLY reason that the whole 9/11 narrative has stuck as long as it has is because it's simply impossible for most people to comprehend that the U.S. government and media (the very people paid and trusted to keep us protected and informed) really are that stone-cold evil, that'd they have done such a thing. Most people simply have marinated in the mantra of the US as "good" - (Jimmy Stewart, Jonny Carson, Jimmy Carter, apple pie, baseball), that it is simply and literally beyond their comprehension that elements in our government and media are capable of such a thing. And that is the only thing they have going for them, because the planning and execution of the crime was pathetic and full of holes.

    What they had going for them was audacity, (in a word, chutzpah) and the solid knowledge that there simply were very few people capable of comprehending that level of evil. This is the same phenomena that allows them to get away with all their sordid crimes and moral atrocities world wide. Most people simply can't comprehend that our State Dept would foist a violent, deadly putsch like they did in Ukraine. Or that our government and media would cynically destroy Libya because it was inconvenient to Israel, and was a strategic domino in the destruction of Syria and then Iran. Most people believe that if our government is arming "rebels" in Syria, that they must be "good" rebels, or we wouldn't be doing it. You see?

    that mantra of America as 'good'' and exceptional, is what they've got going for them. (because most Americans in their hearts are good, if duped) And that's exactly the very thing that Donald Trump brought into question with his question: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’
  72. O’Reilly told Trump that Putin is a killer. Trump’s reply: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-repeats-his-respect-for-killer-vladimir-putin

    this is a revolutionary thing to say!

    to date, following the end of the second world war, every single person that the US has killed – prima facie deserved to die. That is the whole point of being the “exceptional people”. If we killed you, then you had it coming. We don’t do self-reflection when it comes to our unilateral wars and drones and bombs and destroyed countries all over the planet and millions butchered or tortured or displaced.

    For Trump to have said that the US has blood on its hands too, is monumental. Transformational. Wow

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-repeats-his-respect-for-killer-vladimir-putin

    Guardian the latest mistress of the Fox news have exposed the truth about itself .Iraq war, Syrian war, Assange affair, Iran nukes were the dinners and dances marking the display of the covert affairs . This love is the long overdue admission .

    Never has a truer word been spoken by a President

  73. @Fran Macadam
    The Big Magilla is the domestic economy and the promise to bring the good jobs back to flyover America, which is Trump's only real basis for support. The problem is, the war economy and military have become a boot, stamping on the face of the American economy, so long now it seems forever. It is now an outsized contributor to the remaining good jobs and the balance of payments effort through exports. War has become what America makes.

    Reindustrialization and whatever else needs to take place to keep the promise must make serious inroads before the two year election cycle. There is not much time. Scaling back the wars and the profits that drive them, and the jobs they provide, will worsen the employment picture dramatically. High levels of illegal immigration, unsustainable legal immigration combined with demobilization into an economy like this guarantee there is no peace dividend for reasons of practical politics.

    Saker, your insights otherwise are good, but you need to consider how the domestic politics end up driving foreign policy that seems irrational to foreigners, but is a lot like why a Bill Clinton about to be impeached felt he had to bomb an African aspirin factory as an act against terrorism.

    It's not practically possible to schedule a drawdown while creating enough new jobs.

    The good paying quality jobs were-are already here…they were given to Asian Legal Immigrants and their Greater-China-India-Pakistan-Korea US born Geneline..

    Who the fuck cares if Trump brings back blue collar jobs to the Greater China GENELINE in California?

    I don’t…

    Bring back the 1882 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act!!!…Deport The Chinese Fifth Column in California…

    Read More
  74. Feb 3, 2017 How Trump Filled The Swamp

    With promises to “drain the swamp!” still ringing in our ears, we have watched Trump appoint nothing but Goldman banksters, Soros stooges, neocon war hawks and police state zealots to head his cabinet.

    Read More
  75. @Anon
    I don't believe it's correct to say that the US special forces types are invariably so incompetent. This is just Russophile chauvinism on the part of the Saker. Take 911 for example, a masterpiece of planning and execution, an absolutely perfect job. The only thing that went wrong with it was beyond their control but was defly handled on the fly with class and brilliance. Flight 93 was delayed on takeoff so could not be flown into WTC7 during the attack as planned. But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn't happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There's no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat. It's just sad that the country has such a bad case of terminal cancer.

    But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn’t happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There’s no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat.

    ridiculous

    the drone (or whatever it was that crashed into Shanksville was obviously not preselected, but they winged it on the fly. Even the coroner wasn’t briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can’t even c0unt them.

    No, the ONLY reason that the whole 9/11 narrative has stuck as long as it has is because it’s simply impossible for most people to comprehend that the U.S. government and media (the very people paid and trusted to keep us protected and informed) really are that stone-cold evil, that’d they have done such a thing. Most people simply have marinated in the mantra of the US as “good” – (Jimmy Stewart, Jonny Carson, Jimmy Carter, apple pie, baseball), that it is simply and literally beyond their comprehension that elements in our government and media are capable of such a thing. And that is the only thing they have going for them, because the planning and execution of the crime was pathetic and full of holes.

    What they had going for them was audacity, (in a word, chutzpah) and the solid knowledge that there simply were very few people capable of comprehending that level of evil. This is the same phenomena that allows them to get away with all their sordid crimes and moral atrocities world wide. Most people simply can’t comprehend that our State Dept would foist a violent, deadly putsch like they did in Ukraine. Or that our government and media would cynically destroy Libya because it was inconvenient to Israel, and was a strategic domino in the destruction of Syria and then Iran. Most people believe that if our government is arming “rebels” in Syria, that they must be “good” rebels, or we wouldn’t be doing it. You see?

    that mantra of America as ‘good” and exceptional, is what they’ve got going for them. (because most Americans in their hearts are good, if duped) And that’s exactly the very thing that Donald Trump brought into question with his question: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "because most Americans in their hearts are good"
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.
    , @Anon
    "Even the coroner wasn’t briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can’t even c0unt them. "

    Nope. Reports say that 600lb of bodily materials were eventually recovered at the Shanksville site. Also read "Hard Evidence: Case studies in Forensic Anthropology" ed. Dawnie Steadman, it has a short chapter on the FBI parts collection effort. The DNA testing I believe was done by the military as the County coroner's office was not considered able to accommodate the job. How the DNA evidence was faked at Shanksville I don't know and is a great mystery to me. Either the real plane crashed in which case no problem, or a drone crashed in which case some sort of switcheroo took place, or the military DNA report was faked.

    The recent release of the censored 28 pages shows that some of the 'hijackers' were paid via Prince Bandar, long time friend of the Bush family. This proves to anybody with more than one brain cell that the 'hijackers' were Saudi intelligence assets whose job it was to appear as the hijackers for purposes of the plot. They certainly did not get on the planes and commit suicide. Therefore I assume drones must have been used for the actual crashes.

    The convenience of the US-SA alliance in supplying Saudi assets for the job is the real reason why most of the 'hijackers' were Saudi.
  76. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @anonymous
    Why are there any Americans on the ground in Yemen in the first place? Supposedly it was a raid against AQ there even while we're allies with them in Syria. The Saudis are also at war there against the Shia Houthis so what is the relationship between the two? Is it a war within another war? American special forces are just as capable as anybody's but it's a matter of what sort of jobs they are assigned. Difficult or nearly impossible assignments aren't going to yield neat results. That sort of thing is usually just ancillary to any war effort. Otto Skorzeny had spectacular successes but the war was still lost. Insofar as Iran goes, it's a large country of 80M and can't be conquered. Damage could be inflicted by bombardment but Germany and N Vietnam continued their war effort even under intense and continual air bombing. It's not clear what the Russians would do in such a case but just walking away would destroy their perceived value as an ally to anyone else hence that seems unlikely.
    Trump has only been in office for two weeks so getting a handle on what's been taking place may take some time. Policies set in motion by previous administrations have a momentum all their own. The actual policies will become clearer in due time although recourse to the old saber-rattling is bound to be counterproductive. In six months we'll have a better idea of what we're in store for.

    I like this valid observation:

    Otto Skorzeny had spectacular successes but the war was still lost.

    Read More
  77. Since Bannon and Miller are very highly likely Unz Review readers….Unz Review readers should warn Bannon-Miller that if POTUS Trump bombs Iran…….POTUS Trump will very highly likely be indicted for major WAR CRIMES….several million Iranian Civilians will be exterminated…….Trump will be indicted for War Crimes…

    Pull all US Troops out of the ME…Europa…Ukraine…nothing less is acceptable…..

    Read More
  78. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    I always find the views 0f some post-Soviet Russians, whether westernised or Russian nationalists, rather amusing. Let us see why.

    “The Iranian military is possibly the most backward…”. Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can’t be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?

    “The Iranians have only been friends of convenience…”. Well, that is a rare beauty coming from a person whose country back-stabbed Iran twice very recently. You do know about that don’t you Anatoly?

    How many friends does Russia have in the world today? Counting: Zero, one, …, no.. zero, one, … sorry let us start from zero again!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    “The Iranian military is possibly the most backward…”. Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can’t be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?
     
    The "well we only sold them the crap stuff and they didn't use it properly" line can only take you so far, and in the end perceptions are formed from victories and defeats.

    If Russia still doesn't understand that they desperately need their S300s in Iran to at least shoot down a few US/Israeli jets if and when an attack comes, then frankly they deserve the sales failures they've got coming to them.
    , @Anatoly Karlin
    The vast bulk of the Iranian air defense system is antiquated.

    Deliveries of the S-300PMU-2 only began half a year ago. But they are not present in large numbers, crews have to be trained, etc.

    Iran does claim to have reverse engineered an earlier S-300 model, but given its well known tendency to exaggerate its technological achievements, especially in the military domain, they should should not be taken at face value.

    How exactly did Russia betray Iran? It wanted to sell it some military weapons, which became impractical after the introduction of sanctions, so it abandoned the deal. By the same (utterly insane) token we can say that France betrayed Russia when it stopped the Mistral sale after Crimea.

    Countries have no friends, only interests.
  79. @Rurik

    O’Reilly told Trump that Putin is a killer. Trump’s reply: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-repeats-his-respect-for-killer-vladimir-putin

    this is a revolutionary thing to say!

    to date, following the end of the second world war, every single person that the US has killed - prima facie deserved to die. That is the whole point of being the "exceptional people". If we killed you, then you had it coming. We don't do self-reflection when it comes to our unilateral wars and drones and bombs and destroyed countries all over the planet and millions butchered or tortured or displaced.

    For Trump to have said that the US has blood on its hands too, is monumental. Transformational. Wow

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/05/donald-trump-repeats-his-respect-for-killer-vladimir-putin

    Guardian the latest mistress of the Fox news have exposed the truth about itself .Iraq war, Syrian war, Assange affair, Iran nukes were the dinners and dances marking the display of the covert affairs . This love is the long overdue admission .

    Never has a truer word been spoken by a President

    Read More
  80. @Jon0815

    Haley was not an Obama appointment. She was a Trump appointment. So she will not be purged coming up at all.

    Likely a good cop bad cop moment.
     
    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump's Ukraine policy - and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama's.

    Which shouldn't be surprising: With the possible exception of Flynn and maybe Tillerson, all of his foreign policy advisors are neocons and Russia haters. During the VP debate, Pence sounded like he couldn't wait to start bombing Russian forces in Syria.

    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump’s Ukraine policy – and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama’s.

    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy. The Trump regime is operating in the US establishment context, in which honesty on Russia is simply unviable. Appointees are still facing congressional approvals which are hostage to effective vetoes by establishment Republican types with neocon Russophobic attitudes. The establishment media is in full hue and cry mode waiting for every chance to build a “Putin stooge” image around Trump.

    And Trump is a negotiator – he’s not going to give the Russians anything (on, for instance, Crimea or sanctions) without trying to make them buy it.

    The bottom line though, hopefully, is that Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. And furthermore many of them also have ulterior motivations towards other targets for US confrontation (Iran, China), and understand that a degree of Russian forbearance will be needed for those confrontations to have any chance of success.

    The forces trying to derail this and force continued confrontation of Russia are undoubtedly still politically very strong, well connected and massively funded, but there’s still hope that this basic understanding will ultimately prevail, and all this early verbiage should probably be taken with appropriate levels of salt.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy.
     
    She didn't have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn't just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can't be excused.
    , @animalogic
    "Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. "
    Makes you think. Are ALL US enemies "because the US has chosen to make it so. " ?
    Sure, the US has competitors economically, & also a few countries, such as Nth Korea which are clearly not to be trusted. But enemies in the sense of Rome/Carthage ? Britain/ France (1300--1800)?
    Perhaps US/China does fit, say, a Rome/Carthage regional competitors schema. Yet, in 2017, neither competitor has the freedom from consequences which Rome or Carthage had. Neither possessed nuclear weapons to begin with, nor did a globalised world of over 7 billion souls exist ....
    Neither the US nor China (or the world) can afford great "enemies" in the traditional sense....so let's all try to avoid facilitating our governments' insatiable desire to turn competitors into enemies...
  81. @Max Payne

    it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.
     
    I would believe you if I didn't see the incompetence of the Israeli Air Force against Hezbollah in 2006. In the real world this is called 'underestimating the enemy'. You know what they say about that...

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.

    This is 2017... not 1977. Nothing is "technology" anymore. Everything is mass produced and proliferated. EVERYTHING. Now quality control is a different matter (which is the reason no one takes Chinese technology as seriously as they should).

    I don't doubt that the US would seriously consider some sort of coastal operation (with boots on the ground) to keep the shipping lanes open but we won't see anything like we did in Iraq.

    All Iran needs to do is make the US understand its going to cost them if they should do anything serious (you know... what a REAL military is supposed to do; deter threats).

    Counting beans is above you. I know you're better than this.

    {Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two).}

    Nonsense:

    The highly advanced Soviet SA missiles and other anti-aircraft systems supplied by USSR and China were what caused massive losses to USAF, not the black pajamas. You can’t bring down a B-52 flying at 30,000 with an AK-47.
    Black pajamas won the war of attrition on the ground.
    Their ground.

    People mistake US ground troops’ failure on foreign soil with some kind of incompetence in USAF.
    USAF has a lot, both in quality and quantity. Iraq had adequate anti-air defenses, but they were no match: USAF successfully suppressed all of it at the beginning.

    Iran is in the same situation, maybe worse.
    Iran has highly sophisticated and capable S-300, but not enough.
    USAF will overwhelm it with massive swarms: Iranians will run out of whatever inventory of S-300 missiles they have and then USAF will fly over Iran at will.

    {This is 2017… not 1977. Nothing is “technology” anymore}

    Again, nonsense:

    RuAF highly successful bombing campaign in Syria proves otherwise.
    RuAF lost one high flying bomber to…….NATO supplied Turk F-16.
    RuAF also lost 3 or 4 helicopters.

    The ISIS cannibals had/have manpads, but Russians have developed countermeasures to those for their helicopter gunships.

    Read More
    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Replies: @Max Payne
    While I understand this reply is more than a month old... all I can say about Karlin is that he reminds me of Robert McNamara. The numbers man. "We are winning in Vietnam because math says we are."

    Of course he missed the entire human component of warfare (on both sides) and was proven to have been short-sighted and arrogant. Not insulting Karlin, I find his posts to be very enlightening but his dependence on math to solve all issues is thunderous to say to least.


    Manpads? Are you ladies really comparing ISIL to Iran? I'm sorry... let me take me crazy pills so I can get on the same page as you guys.


    Look it at it this way. If you've thought about it... someone in Iranian planning already conceived and understood the shortcomings of the Iranian military and has come up with some sort of solution to the problem.

    You doubt this, of course, but rest assured just because some of these guys lived in a world without running water doesn't make them simple.

    As for Iraq... I hope you remember the fact that it was under such heavy embargo Iraq wasn't allowed to purchase PS2s abroad because it might assist their anti-air capabilities. Google it up if you don't believe me.

    Iran has been heavily embargoed but has incorporated this into their grand strategy (because critical thinking isn't a monopoly the West owns).

    Just put yourself in their shoes and ask yourself some tough questions. "I am facing a technologically superior enemy and my assets is as follows......." And you'll realize there are more solutions then issues at hand.

    If Iran was a cake walk I assure you the US would have 200,000 patrolling Tehran and the surrounding area already. While I loathe to insult the RuAF I'm going to say this: it's been nearly a year and a half of bombing runs and ISIL still stands. How much longer must I wait? Is this 1945 again? Are we going to bomb civilian cities to dust for victory?

    How dare you ladies make me read my comment history for rebuttals. God... that's a good 15 minutes of not-drinking that I had to endure.
  82. Gets her out of South Carolina.

    Amen to that. Too bad the new governor doesn’t have any balls. If he did, the Confederate flags would’ve gone right back up.

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.

    Vietnamese strategy was letting us punch them in the face until our arms got tired, and we went home. It worked, but I’m not sure I’d recommend it to anyone.

    A more obvious explanation: maybe Trumpster has come out of the closet and really is a neocon Jooie butt Boy who can’t flush the toilet without calling Tel Aviv for permission.

    Here’s where we separate the patriots from the Israel-haters. Patriots know the last thing Tel Aviv wants is for Trump to upset diaspora Jewry’s immigration apple cart. Tel Aviv would rather have had Hillary. Tel Aviv had nothing good to say about Trump until after Nov 8th.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    svigor:

    Vietnamese strategy was letting us punch them in the face until our arms got tired, and we went home.
     
    Bullshit. As a US supremacist, you just cannot admit that the very poor, backwards North Vietnam, won the war.
    It's also clear they did a hell of a lot more than just 'letting u punch them in the face', since ZUSAN troops suffered some 360,000 kia, wia. This does not include the much higher casualties suffered from the US backed South Viet. forces.
  83. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything.

    The Russians certainly let Iran down badly over the S300 sales in 2010, and by their general collaboration with the US/Israeli nonsense about supposed Iranian nuclear weapons development in the UN.

    The relationship between Russia and Iran is much stronger now, and that between Russia and the US infinitely more openly confrontational, thanks to US interference in the Ukraine. I suspect Russia will at the least see a strong interest in preventing any US victory in Iran, even if it doesn’t feel particularly warm towards the Iranians themselves. The Chinese are likely to have similar views, so there will be no diplomatic problems for Russia at the UN in supporting Iran, even if the US’s European satellite states can be bullied into line.

    I think the Russians and Chinese will do all they can, short of extending a nuclear umbrella or joining the war themselves, to promote a US defeat in Iran. And rightly so, from their point of view. It would be criminally naïve and short-sighted, imo, for Russia or China to let the US regime have a big victory in Iran, when they know US hostility will be aimed directly back at them, suitably emboldened and strengthened, immediately afterwards.

    Can the Trump regime members seeking the destruction of Iran succeed in buying Russian forbearance, even if they can bring themselves to try? Is the Russian leadership really likely to believe US regime promises of future friendship if they just stand aside while Iran is destroyed? Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose anything’s possible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @epnngg
    Since 9/11 our government has been systematically destroying and fomenting chaos and death through on ME country after another. Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven't stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade? The Empire is broke and it hasn't won a war since WW2. Time to bring the troops home.
  84. @Che Guava

    Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.
     
    I love your commentary, the Saker, but do you not mean cannot or can't rather than can?

    I'd offer to proof-read for you, gratis, but time-zone diffs. and my non-availability due to work at times make that impractical.

    There are a few other howling errors of spelling in the post, but they don't reverse your meaning, as the one I cite does.

    US special forces, you are probably right, they assassinated bin Laden, but managed to destroy a very expensive helicopter in the process through poor planning and not listening to warnings that it would likely fall over and become useless where they planned to land it, too much backwash.

    For bonus points on ineptitude, we have braggarts claiming having been in on the kill, in contradictory ways, and against their orders.

    ... and violating their promises of secrecy, with no discipline in return.

    All very entertaining.

    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2′ arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe….knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters……followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better….valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2′ arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe……undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2′ arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2′ arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after……..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    "tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe..."

    At least we muzzies aren't pagan polytheist spiritual loser whitrashes who fancy themselves as the master race.
    , @Che Guava
    You make a nice picture of ben Laden, entertaining, and to some point, it seems, true. As for the 'truther' parts, I think they have a case, on the other hand, like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time,

    I very much doubt that the narrative of how that part happened is untrue.

    His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe.
     
    I don't know if you intended to provoke laughter, but that line sure made me laugh involuntarily, the only true kind.

    Thx for that, nsa!
    , @Tommy
    UBL penned a letter just after 911 denying his involvement. Why would he deny it if he did it?
    That would be an event he would certainly be praised for, yet he denied it.

    The Seals who are tripping over each other in claiming responsibility for his death have very little credibility. It was also odd when a group of Seals connected with the raid all died on a helicopter somewhere in Afghanistan. It just screams incompetence from the top down.
    , @Saldin
    "who mostly can’t swim and never bathe"
    LOL! You are a funny guy, aren't you?

    Not sure if there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in all that, but let me say this to those al-right types (perhaps you included) who actually think along those lines;

    We muzzies may be too dark, too hairy, too ugly, and yes, too stinky for your "superior" sensibilities, but that would be nothing compared to the stink fest which is the foundation of western civilisation, namely the pagan Christian dogma. Your disparaging of Islam and its adherents cannot save you from the sinking ship you are on.

  85. @reuphen
    You forgot to list...

    Iran is a nation of Aryans albeit Muslims.
    Bad for Israel.

    “Iran is a nation of Aryans …”
    Oh, the lucky buggers!! ;)

    “… albeit Muslims.”
    Barely! “Ya Ali Madad” pfft.

    Read More
  86. The golden tip for Trump & Putin: USE A HEADPHONE instead of the medieval horn rinklers.

    They will bcome popular with the millenials and me, if they make peace!

    Read More
  87. @Anatoly Karlin
    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.

    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.

    You can be sure that every major address by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is vetted and approved by Washington, i.e. Tillerson and his crew.

    Haley was articulating the Trump position if we assume that Tillerson is aware of it. And it seems to me that that assumption should be the default.

    The Neocons and Goldman Sachs boys – Trump has some bad dude Cronies banging into his ears. The populist wheels may be falling off of this presidency real fast…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    You can be sure that every major address by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is vetted and approved by Washington, i.e. Tillerson and his crew.

    Haley was articulating the Trump position
     
    Haley was certainly articulating the position the Trump regime needs to be seen as their position right now, in the midst of appointment hearings and prior to negotiations with the Russians at which they will expect (whether realistically or otherwise is open to debate) the Russians to offer big concessions in return for things like sanctions reductions and US acceptance of reality in Crimea.

    More than that, I don't think we can say, as yet.
  88. @Really
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I always find the views 0f some post-Soviet Russians, whether westernised or Russian nationalists, rather amusing. Let us see why.

    "The Iranian military is possibly the most backward...". Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can't be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?

    "The Iranians have only been friends of convenience...". Well, that is a rare beauty coming from a person whose country back-stabbed Iran twice very recently. You do know about that don't you Anatoly?

    How many friends does Russia have in the world today? Counting: Zero, one, ..., no.. zero, one, ... sorry let us start from zero again!

    “The Iranian military is possibly the most backward…”. Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can’t be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?

    The “well we only sold them the crap stuff and they didn’t use it properly” line can only take you so far, and in the end perceptions are formed from victories and defeats.

    If Russia still doesn’t understand that they desperately need their S300s in Iran to at least shoot down a few US/Israeli jets if and when an attack comes, then frankly they deserve the sales failures they’ve got coming to them.

    Read More
  89. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rurik

    But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn’t happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There’s no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat.
     
    ridiculous

    the drone (or whatever it was that crashed into Shanksville was obviously not preselected, but they winged it on the fly. Even the coroner wasn't briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can't even c0unt them.

    No, the ONLY reason that the whole 9/11 narrative has stuck as long as it has is because it's simply impossible for most people to comprehend that the U.S. government and media (the very people paid and trusted to keep us protected and informed) really are that stone-cold evil, that'd they have done such a thing. Most people simply have marinated in the mantra of the US as "good" - (Jimmy Stewart, Jonny Carson, Jimmy Carter, apple pie, baseball), that it is simply and literally beyond their comprehension that elements in our government and media are capable of such a thing. And that is the only thing they have going for them, because the planning and execution of the crime was pathetic and full of holes.

    What they had going for them was audacity, (in a word, chutzpah) and the solid knowledge that there simply were very few people capable of comprehending that level of evil. This is the same phenomena that allows them to get away with all their sordid crimes and moral atrocities world wide. Most people simply can't comprehend that our State Dept would foist a violent, deadly putsch like they did in Ukraine. Or that our government and media would cynically destroy Libya because it was inconvenient to Israel, and was a strategic domino in the destruction of Syria and then Iran. Most people believe that if our government is arming "rebels" in Syria, that they must be "good" rebels, or we wouldn't be doing it. You see?

    that mantra of America as 'good'' and exceptional, is what they've got going for them. (because most Americans in their hearts are good, if duped) And that's exactly the very thing that Donald Trump brought into question with his question: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’

    “because most Americans in their hearts are good”
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik


    “because most Americans in their hearts are good”
     
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.
     

    did the Germans who died in Dresden deserve it?

    did the Japanese who died in Hiroshima deserve to?

    what about the Russian people under Stalin? They genocided tens of millions of people for no other reason than because they were good farmers (Holodomor), or were educated Poles (Katyn), or simply were females on the war march that needed raping (every young women and girl the Red Army encountered on its march towards Germany, and especially the German girls).

    there are a lot of times in history or currently when the people are duped by a fiendish leadership. Look at Europe. It was NATO that bombed Libya, led by France. Does that mean the French people are evil? Are the Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam? like when he acted as ZUSA's dupe and attacked Iran? Are the British pe0ple guilty for the crimes of Tony Blair?

    If you say yes to each and every case mentioned above, and including every case when a government goes full on Fiend and mass-murders innocent people, then OK, mea culpa. we're all guilty too. But that doesn't change the fact that we were lied to. The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a 'catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event', there's just no way in Hell that we're going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries. We can't just tell them there's oil there that we can steal or that those people are nothing but sand niggers, so we ought to slaughter them and steal their resources. Nope, that just wouldn't work. And why? Because the American people are not murderous psychopaths like their Zio-government and media are. So the very reason they had to come up with this false flag is because Americans are basically like everyone else; Russian, German, Iraqi and so forth, and don't want to slaughter other people and steal their land, like the Zionists do. So they had to be tricked.

    And it's true that we've marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the 'good guys', from the 'greatest generation' that "liberated" Germany in the "good wars"- to the light unto the nations' that destroyed the Soviet evil empire (actually, there's an argument for that one ; ). And so as our government today is a fully owed Zionist franchise in the service of Satan, it was the American people that held their noses and voted for the egotistical buffoon who's often an embarrassment, because we were not rotten to the core and willing to countenance the sadistic cackling war sow.

    Now, if it turns out we were duped yet again, and Trump turns out to be yet another minion of Satan, it won't be because we were complicit, but rather because we were lied to, as always.

    ' ya fool me ya can't get fooled again'

    , @RobinG
    Most Americans BELIEVE that they are good.

    Is that what "in their hearts" means?
  90. @SteveM

    Not even Trump can properly purge the State Department in all of two weeks.
     
    You can be sure that every major address by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is vetted and approved by Washington, i.e. Tillerson and his crew.

    Haley was articulating the Trump position if we assume that Tillerson is aware of it. And it seems to me that that assumption should be the default.

    The Neocons and Goldman Sachs boys - Trump has some bad dude Cronies banging into his ears. The populist wheels may be falling off of this presidency real fast...

    You can be sure that every major address by the U.S. Ambassador to the UN is vetted and approved by Washington, i.e. Tillerson and his crew.

    Haley was articulating the Trump position

    Haley was certainly articulating the position the Trump regime needs to be seen as their position right now, in the midst of appointment hearings and prior to negotiations with the Russians at which they will expect (whether realistically or otherwise is open to debate) the Russians to offer big concessions in return for things like sanctions reductions and US acceptance of reality in Crimea.

    More than that, I don’t think we can say, as yet.

    Read More
  91. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @nsa
    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe....knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters......followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better....valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2' arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe......undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2' arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2' arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can't swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after........

    “tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe…”

    At least we muzzies aren’t pagan polytheist spiritual loser whitrashes who fancy themselves as the master race.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    So, you agree that most never bathe. Having been unfortunate to ride on public transport and elevators with Muslims, the 'never bathe' seems applicable to all but Persians and south-east Asian Muslims. The former will make the same comment in conversation, that is from direct lived experience, and seems accurate.
  92. @Anonymous
    "because most Americans in their hearts are good"
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.

    “because most Americans in their hearts are good”

    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.

    did the Germans who died in Dresden deserve it?

    did the Japanese who died in Hiroshima deserve to?

    what about the Russian people under Stalin? They genocided tens of millions of people for no other reason than because they were good farmers (Holodomor), or were educated Poles (Katyn), or simply were females on the war march that needed raping (every young women and girl the Red Army encountered on its march towards Germany, and especially the German girls).

    there are a lot of times in history or currently when the people are duped by a fiendish leadership. Look at Europe. It was NATO that bombed Libya, led by France. Does that mean the French people are evil? Are the Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam? like when he acted as ZUSA’s dupe and attacked Iran? Are the British pe0ple guilty for the crimes of Tony Blair?

    If you say yes to each and every case mentioned above, and including every case when a government goes full on Fiend and mass-murders innocent people, then OK, mea culpa. we’re all guilty too. But that doesn’t change the fact that we were lied to. The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a ‘catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event’, there’s just no way in Hell that we’re going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries. We can’t just tell them there’s oil there that we can steal or that those people are nothing but sand niggers, so we ought to slaughter them and steal their resources. Nope, that just wouldn’t work. And why? Because the American people are not murderous psychopaths like their Zio-government and media are. So the very reason they had to come up with this false flag is because Americans are basically like everyone else; Russian, German, Iraqi and so forth, and don’t want to slaughter other people and steal their land, like the Zionists do. So they had to be tricked.

    And it’s true that we’ve marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the ‘good guys’, from the ‘greatest generation’ that “liberated” Germany in the “good wars”- to the light unto the nations’ that destroyed the Soviet evil empire (actually, there’s an argument for that one ; ). And so as our government today is a fully owed Zionist franchise in the service of Satan, it was the American people that held their noses and voted for the egotistical buffoon who’s often an embarrassment, because we were not rotten to the core and willing to countenance the sadistic cackling war sow.

    Now, if it turns out we were duped yet again, and Trump turns out to be yet another minion of Satan, it won’t be because we were complicit, but rather because we were lied to, as always.

    ‘ ya fool me ya can’t get fooled again’

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    And it’s true that we’ve marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the ‘good guys’, from the ‘greatest generation’ that “liberated” Germany in the “good wars”- to the light unto the nations’ that destroyed the Soviet evil empire
     
    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a "regime" like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand....

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods, but claimed to be the victims of a dictatorship when arguments justifying waging war against them are needed. If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.

    The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a ‘catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event’, there’s just no way in Hell that we’re going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries.
     
    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War.

    Just saying.....
  93. @Anonymous
    "tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe..."

    At least we muzzies aren't pagan polytheist spiritual loser whitrashes who fancy themselves as the master race.

    So, you agree that most never bathe. Having been unfortunate to ride on public transport and elevators with Muslims, the ‘never bathe’ seems applicable to all but Persians and south-east Asian Muslims. The former will make the same comment in conversation, that is from direct lived experience, and seems accurate.

    Read More
  94. @Anonymous
    Does any of this have anything to do with Iran's wish to "ditch the dollar"?

    http://www.herald.co.zw/iran-to-ditch-dollar-over-trumps-ban/

    Does any of this have anything to do with Iran’s wish to “ditch the dollar”?

    ;)

    Read More
  95. @nsa
    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe....knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters......followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better....valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2' arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe......undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2' arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2' arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can't swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after........

    You make a nice picture of ben Laden, entertaining, and to some point, it seems, true. As for the ‘truther’ parts, I think they have a case, on the other hand, like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time,

    I very much doubt that the narrative of how that part happened is untrue.

    His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe.

    I don’t know if you intended to provoke laughter, but that line sure made me laugh involuntarily, the only true kind.

    Thx for that, nsa!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    You wrote:

    like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time...
     
    Actually, there was only one "crash" shown live, or "real time" on TV on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Bush made the same mistake too.

    As well, It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the "real-time footage" was computer generated imagery, or CGI, which depicted the impossible feat of a largely aluminum airplane slicing through the dense array of 14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel plate on the facade of the WTC as if it were paper, leaving a vivid imprint of its passage on the exterior of the building, before disappearing into the structure through this hidey-hole.

    Simon Shack's September Clues will tell you just about all you need to know about the video fakery, while pilot John Lear's affidavit asserts the impossibility of flying and maneuvering a 767 at the high speeds, and low altitude claimed for the allegedly hijacked jetliners on 9/11.

    Shack thinks a smokescreen was used to mask the actual destruction of the WTC, with a 17 second delay in video transmission used to insert the fake CGI airplane into the video feed, and that a conventional controlled demolition was used to bring the buildings down.

    However, the debris pile is entirely too small by a wide margin to be consistent with a conventional controlled demolition, as Jim Fetzer now recognizes Dr. Judy Woods' point in that regard, but Fetzer thinks the towers were nuked.
  96. @Rurik


    “because most Americans in their hearts are good”
     
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.
     

    did the Germans who died in Dresden deserve it?

    did the Japanese who died in Hiroshima deserve to?

    what about the Russian people under Stalin? They genocided tens of millions of people for no other reason than because they were good farmers (Holodomor), or were educated Poles (Katyn), or simply were females on the war march that needed raping (every young women and girl the Red Army encountered on its march towards Germany, and especially the German girls).

    there are a lot of times in history or currently when the people are duped by a fiendish leadership. Look at Europe. It was NATO that bombed Libya, led by France. Does that mean the French people are evil? Are the Iraqi people guilty for the crimes of Saddam? like when he acted as ZUSA's dupe and attacked Iran? Are the British pe0ple guilty for the crimes of Tony Blair?

    If you say yes to each and every case mentioned above, and including every case when a government goes full on Fiend and mass-murders innocent people, then OK, mea culpa. we're all guilty too. But that doesn't change the fact that we were lied to. The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a 'catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event', there's just no way in Hell that we're going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries. We can't just tell them there's oil there that we can steal or that those people are nothing but sand niggers, so we ought to slaughter them and steal their resources. Nope, that just wouldn't work. And why? Because the American people are not murderous psychopaths like their Zio-government and media are. So the very reason they had to come up with this false flag is because Americans are basically like everyone else; Russian, German, Iraqi and so forth, and don't want to slaughter other people and steal their land, like the Zionists do. So they had to be tricked.

    And it's true that we've marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the 'good guys', from the 'greatest generation' that "liberated" Germany in the "good wars"- to the light unto the nations' that destroyed the Soviet evil empire (actually, there's an argument for that one ; ). And so as our government today is a fully owed Zionist franchise in the service of Satan, it was the American people that held their noses and voted for the egotistical buffoon who's often an embarrassment, because we were not rotten to the core and willing to countenance the sadistic cackling war sow.

    Now, if it turns out we were duped yet again, and Trump turns out to be yet another minion of Satan, it won't be because we were complicit, but rather because we were lied to, as always.

    ' ya fool me ya can't get fooled again'

    And it’s true that we’ve marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the ‘good guys’, from the ‘greatest generation’ that “liberated” Germany in the “good wars”- to the light unto the nations’ that destroyed the Soviet evil empire

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods, but claimed to be the victims of a dictatorship when arguments justifying waging war against them are needed. If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.

    The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a ‘catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event’, there’s just no way in Hell that we’re going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries.

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War.

    Just saying…..

    Read More
    • Agree: lavoisier
    • Replies: @Rurik

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….
     
    what's your point? Unless to be a parrot of mine. No one hates our Satanic Zio-government of treason and wanton wars of aggression (for Israel, going all the way back to the "good wars") more than me. And every other American who finally finds out the truth.

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?
     
    we are a young and naïve nation of simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    endlessly, relentlessly, from every corner of our lives. From the classroom to the churches and cathedrals to the movie houses and television screens to the magazines and radio, the mendacity pours out upon us, no less ubiquitous than Newsspeak was upon the denizens of Orwell's nightmares.

    There's a reason the Matrix movies were so popular with us, and that's because they show exactly what's been going on, and continues to go on with every tiny facet of our controlled existance. It's lies, more lies and then some more lies, and when it turns out that they were lying, they just tell so many more lies that are heads are spinning from all the lies. That's it. That's all we get. Lies upon lies. And the lies hit us from every direction. From the pulpit to the lecture hall to the White House Rose Garden, its zio-lies 24-7, 365 day a week for year after year, decade after decade.

    That is why the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are such a joke. A guy like Pat Tillman, who could snap you in half on a whim, gave up enormous fame and future as a football hero, to sacrifice his life to avenge the innocent Americans who died on 9/11. He's the best of the best, and you'd be hard pressed to find a man of a fraction of his mettle among the nations of this world. But then, as occasionally happened, he too discovered that is was all zio-lies and that he was slaughtering the wrong people, so they blew off his head with a 50 cal, and you guessed it.. lied about it all.

    Do I piss on his grave because he was duped, and too stupid to see though it all? No, I don't. I piss on the people who lied to him, and those who would besmirch his good name for being a thousand times more heroic than they could be a hundred lifetimes. Just because he was a (innocent) American, (like most) who are lied to.

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods,...
     
    hmm.. what country are you from Randal?

    who would use a name like 'Randal' anyways? A citizen of the British empire perhaps? That festering imperial colossus of rot and perfidy? That nations so imbued with cowardice and pedophilia that it makes Americas (and every other nation) feel a combination of contempt and
    pity?

    I see you left them off my list of nations of people who are EXACTLY as guilty as the American people. Why did you do that Randal? To hide and mask the rot in your own sniveling country of cowards and homos, as you cast aspersions upon your betters from a distance? How positively British of you, I must say.

    . If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.
     
    which of these nations that America has demonized that the British haven't been even more savage and rabid? Germany? Iraq? Somehow I recall the methods used by Churchill as he was treating the Iraqi people during his day to some good olde British tea and crumpets and mustard gas.

    the fact is that if the German people deserved what 'was coming to them' for waging aggressive wars, then no one on this planet has it coming to them in spades times a thousand than the effete and treacherous British people. Ain't that so, Randal? [ten to one 'lavoisier's a frog/coward with French ancestry who's even more guilty than Randal, if that's even possible]

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War
     
    "Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

    As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply resigned from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units".

    http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship

    there they are again, acting as cowardly little stooges to the big dog. Just like today, huh?

    Yes, America has been at war in form or anther its entire existence. I just watched a movie about the French and English in Canada using the Amerindian tribes to wage (savage) war against each other in the 16 and 17th centuries.

    We were born out of war, and continue to be mired in it. Much of it wars of a bully stomping on little guys and stealing their stuff.

    But all of it is waged and fomented by rich cocksuckers at the expense of the poor American slob who's expected to fight it. I'd love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that "turnabout really is fair play."

    But I wouldn't advise it.

    The solution to the Zio-wars and serial atrocities that the NATO countries commit on behalf of Israel, is not to blame the poor slobs that believe all their lies (having no opportunity to know the truth). No. The solution is to expose the lies Randal, and get the ire of our American blood up against the cocksuckers to foist these wars for fun and profit, that get poor Iraqis killed just as they get poor Americans killed. *Such a deal!*

    but it takes a nuanced brain to see beyond cartoon versions of history and current events, and for that, I'm not going to look to the British public, you can be certain. Or any other fools who get off (in their obvious envy) by blaming the working poor Americans for the monumental crimes of our government and media.
  97. @Anonymous
    "because most Americans in their hearts are good"
    *COUGH**COUGH**COUGH**COUGH*!!!!!

    You were going on well enough, until you wrote that.

    Most Americans BELIEVE that they are good.

    Is that what “in their hearts” means?

    Read More
  98. @nsa
    A more obvious explanation: maybe Trumpster has come out of the closet and really is a neocon Jooie butt Boy who can't flush the toilet without calling Tel Aviv for permission. The evidence is all there is you care to look at it: the cabinet looks like an AIPAC meeting, daddy's little shicksa is dinking a follower of Yahweh, the bloodthirsty neocon geezer ex-generals are blowhards even by pentagon standards . Looks like the electorate has been defrauded again. Who was it who observed: "the masses of asses will believe almost anything as long as it isn't true"? Schopenhauer? Feuerbach?

    Stupid comment.

    Read More
  99. @Marcus
    He is more Floridian than he is Russian

    He is more Floridian than he is Russian

    It doesn’t matter what he is; it only matters what his perspectives are, and how well he can express them. I often disagree with him, but so far he appears be well-versed and consistent.

    What’s your problem? Don’t like – don’t read…

    Read More
  100. @Randal

    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump’s Ukraine policy – and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama’s.
     
    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy. The Trump regime is operating in the US establishment context, in which honesty on Russia is simply unviable. Appointees are still facing congressional approvals which are hostage to effective vetoes by establishment Republican types with neocon Russophobic attitudes. The establishment media is in full hue and cry mode waiting for every chance to build a "Putin stooge" image around Trump.

    And Trump is a negotiator - he's not going to give the Russians anything (on, for instance, Crimea or sanctions) without trying to make them buy it.

    The bottom line though, hopefully, is that Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. And furthermore many of them also have ulterior motivations towards other targets for US confrontation (Iran, China), and understand that a degree of Russian forbearance will be needed for those confrontations to have any chance of success.

    The forces trying to derail this and force continued confrontation of Russia are undoubtedly still politically very strong, well connected and massively funded, but there's still hope that this basic understanding will ultimately prevail, and all this early verbiage should probably be taken with appropriate levels of salt.

    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy.

    She didn’t have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn’t just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can’t be excused.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik, utu
    • Replies: @Randal

    She didn’t have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn’t just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can’t be excused.
     
    I would count that as both - as a lie and as rhetoric.

    I see no reason to regard that as anything other than exactly what I described earlier - the Trump regime making sure its political positioning on the Russia issue is what it needs to be right now. Once appointment hearings are out of the way and talks between Trump and Putin begin, we might get some useful indications of how Trump will address Russia, but not yet, I think.

    I'm not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it's too early to judge.
  101. I agree with the content of this piece and was enormously distressed when I read what Flynn had to say.

    Trump is making a big mistake by picking a fight with Iran the moment he takes office.

    Whoever is steering him in this direction needs to be removed–and fast.

    I thought he was keeping the neocon’s away from his administration??

    I have no doubt that the leadership in Iran is largely composed of pragmatic psychopaths. However, the fight with Iran is Israel’s fight. It is not our fight and it would be wise to stay out of that fight.

    I am deeply troubled by this development and I am worried that Trump is “throwing a bone” to the neocons to keep them happy for a time so they don’t immediately turn on him. But they have already declared war on Trump and he would be wise to see them as enemies now and forever.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    "I have no doubt that the leadership in Iran is largely composed of pragmatic psychopaths."

    Let me correct that for you; "I have no doubt that the leadership in Zamerica is largely composed of NON-pragmatic psychopaths."

    Now it is correct.
  102. @Marcus
    The Faker is from Florida, if I want a Floridian perspective I'll ask my family there. Who knows what liar Shamir's real story is. I would go to Anatoly Karlin for a decent Russian (though experienced with US) POV.

    Andrei Raevsky aka the Saker

    Biographical information from the link below. As always in the digital age, it’s your responsibility to assess the truthfulness of the information.

    http://cirilizovano.blogspot.mx/2015/11/who-is-saker.html

    “…he was a Swiss citizen who had already some difficulties with the Russians with respect to Chechnya. By his own admission, he was sent there as an employee of the International Red Cross and subsequently fired for his pro-Chechen bias. He later went on record in several published works as being critical of the Russian Army’s “heavy-handed approach” towards the Chechen terrorists.

    He was then apparently hired on by the United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR) out of Geneva, which sent him on several tours to ex-Yugoslavia, specifically, he claims to have been involved in “disarmament negotiations” (which can only have been detrimental to the local Serbs) in Croatia and Bosnia. Having thus cemented his friendship with the Serbs, he immigrated to the USA and underwent further grooming at the Paul H. Nitzke School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University, the happy hunting ground of the likes of Madeleine Albright, Condoleeza Rice. He now lives on the Atlantic coast of the state of Florida within a stone’s throw of some 30 military installations who have no problems with his primary activities: broadcasting war against the phantom “Anglo-Zionist empire”…”

    Read More
  103. including 23 years of Neocon power in the USA.

    The NeoCons took control during the last years of the regime of Bush the First. So they have held power for at least 25 years.

    Read More
  104. @Svigor

    Gets her out of South Carolina.
     
    Amen to that. Too bad the new governor doesn't have any balls. If he did, the Confederate flags would've gone right back up.

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.
     
    Vietnamese strategy was letting us punch them in the face until our arms got tired, and we went home. It worked, but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone.

    A more obvious explanation: maybe Trumpster has come out of the closet and really is a neocon Jooie butt Boy who can’t flush the toilet without calling Tel Aviv for permission.
     
    Here's where we separate the patriots from the Israel-haters. Patriots know the last thing Tel Aviv wants is for Trump to upset diaspora Jewry's immigration apple cart. Tel Aviv would rather have had Hillary. Tel Aviv had nothing good to say about Trump until after Nov 8th.

    svigor:

    Vietnamese strategy was letting us punch them in the face until our arms got tired, and we went home.

    Bullshit. As a US supremacist, you just cannot admit that the very poor, backwards North Vietnam, won the war.
    It’s also clear they did a hell of a lot more than just ‘letting u punch them in the face’, since ZUSAN troops suffered some 360,000 kia, wia. This does not include the much higher casualties suffered from the US backed South Viet. forces.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tommy
    They didn't win, weak policy and poor execution lost the war for us.
  105. @Max Payne

    it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.
     
    I would believe you if I didn't see the incompetence of the Israeli Air Force against Hezbollah in 2006. In the real world this is called 'underestimating the enemy'. You know what they say about that...

    Karlin forgets guys in black pajamas in Vietnam did alright against the godly retarded air power of the US (which, by all definitions, should have been a cake walk considering the technological gap between the two). Iran has its own black pajama peasants. Fear the black pajamas my friends.

    This is 2017... not 1977. Nothing is "technology" anymore. Everything is mass produced and proliferated. EVERYTHING. Now quality control is a different matter (which is the reason no one takes Chinese technology as seriously as they should).

    I don't doubt that the US would seriously consider some sort of coastal operation (with boots on the ground) to keep the shipping lanes open but we won't see anything like we did in Iraq.

    All Iran needs to do is make the US understand its going to cost them if they should do anything serious (you know... what a REAL military is supposed to do; deter threats).

    Counting beans is above you. I know you're better than this.

    Anatoly Karlin does NOT know squat about military issues and every time the guy writes a post on military matters, his extreme ignorance shows.

    I mean, this guy prepared a long and silly “article” in which he set out to rank the most powerful militaries in the world.
    I’m going by memory here, but I distinctly remember this fool ranking Saudi Barbaria, I kid you not, as the 10th most powerful in the world.
    And yes, counting beans is all he does.

    Also, for what it is worth, unlike this Karlin guy, the Saker does have a military background.

    He was born in Europe, cannot remember which country -Switzerland maybe- to a Russian family.
    From what I remember he pursued a military career in his country of birth’s army.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    See #105 above by Jeff Davis. Also, Andrei (Saker) wrote a long auto-bio at his own site last year.
  106. @Avery
    { But the real world bottom line remains unchanged: Americans should give up on special ops, they just can do it right.}

    Which nationality or which country can?

    And I don't know if TheSaker is ethnic Russian, but he is certainly a Russophile.
    US special ops record is not so good, but the Russian record of special ops is nothing to boast about either.

    The Beslan disaster.
    The Nord-Ost disaster.
    The Budyonnovsk hospital fiasco.
    (did I forget any?)
    All on Russian soil.

    Can TheSaker list _any_ successful ops by RF special ops?

    The topic is US special ops, not Russian.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    The topic is whatever UNZ moderators and the author of the thread allow.
  107. @lavoisier
    I agree with the content of this piece and was enormously distressed when I read what Flynn had to say.

    Trump is making a big mistake by picking a fight with Iran the moment he takes office.

    Whoever is steering him in this direction needs to be removed--and fast.

    I thought he was keeping the neocon's away from his administration??

    I have no doubt that the leadership in Iran is largely composed of pragmatic psychopaths. However, the fight with Iran is Israel's fight. It is not our fight and it would be wise to stay out of that fight.

    I am deeply troubled by this development and I am worried that Trump is "throwing a bone" to the neocons to keep them happy for a time so they don't immediately turn on him. But they have already declared war on Trump and he would be wise to see them as enemies now and forever.

    “I have no doubt that the leadership in Iran is largely composed of pragmatic psychopaths.”

    Let me correct that for you; “I have no doubt that the leadership in Zamerica is largely composed of NON-pragmatic psychopaths.”

    Now it is correct.

    Read More
  108. @5371
    Trump's presidency is so promising and gratifying in general that one almost hesitates to criticise, but there's no doubt that the criticisms made in this piece are valid. Above all, the US is on a hiding to nothing with this approach, because there's no conception of what success would look like.

    Interesting that the author paints the Navy Seals to be incompetent, and somewhat amusing. From what I’ve read recently they are investigations all over the place for war crimes and civilian deaths resulting from raids.

    Read More
  109. @L.K
    svigor:

    Vietnamese strategy was letting us punch them in the face until our arms got tired, and we went home.
     
    Bullshit. As a US supremacist, you just cannot admit that the very poor, backwards North Vietnam, won the war.
    It's also clear they did a hell of a lot more than just 'letting u punch them in the face', since ZUSAN troops suffered some 360,000 kia, wia. This does not include the much higher casualties suffered from the US backed South Viet. forces.

    They didn’t win, weak policy and poor execution lost the war for us.

    Read More
  110. @Anatoly Karlin

    And Iran, with its advanced technologies, powerful military, strong economy and generally successful political and social model.
     
    LOL. The Iranian military is possibly the most technologically backwards major military on the planet (it's them or North Korea). The bulk of the air force consists of F-4s bought under the Shah that have been starved of spare parts and the air defense system is less dense and even less modernized than pre-war Syria's (which Israel could penetrate at will). The almost half a century old HAWK SAM system is still a mainstay of its air defense!

    The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis so there's a good chance they'd do well against them despite their fancy new toys, but everything is relative, and it will will be a total cakewalk for US air power.

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything. Russia should use that window of opportunity to solve more germane matters, namely the Banderist entity.

    “The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis”

    Hmm… not that long ago you placed those ‘completely useless Saudis’ high in that ridiculous ranking list of military powers you drew up, remember?

    I guess since then, you must have watched a few vids showing the Houthis kicking the hell out of the Saudis, buhaha… and abruptly changed your mind. Vids like the following:
    Inside a deserted Saudi border town filled with destroyed Saudi army vehicles

    Your comments re military matters are worthless.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    The CMP is not very good for asymmetric warfare (e.g. that between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis) because the stronger side cannot bring its massive advantage in military capital to bear. I emphasized that many times.

    I have absolutely never said or implied that Saudi Arabia has a competent military.
  111. @turtle
    >Israel wanted to be THE regional superpower in the Middle-East and Iran was to be prevented from threatening this monopoly status by any means.

    Economically and politically as well as militarily.

    Iran has a Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran treats its Jews well (they are guaranteed representation in Iranian Parliament.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has diverse natural resources and wishes to develop them for its own benefit.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran is striving mightily to become a modern country.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran produces its own refined petroleum products.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a domestic automobile industry.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has a space program.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has some well regarded universities.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has produced at least one Nobel laureate.
    Bad for Israel.

    Iran has famously good ski resorts.
    Bad for Israel.

    But Jews own the US Congress, bad for Iran, bad for gentile white Americans.

    Read More
  112. @nsa
    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe....knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters......followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better....valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2' arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe......undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2' arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2' arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can't swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after........

    UBL penned a letter just after 911 denying his involvement. Why would he deny it if he did it?
    That would be an event he would certainly be praised for, yet he denied it.

    The Seals who are tripping over each other in claiming responsibility for his death have very little credibility. It was also odd when a group of Seals connected with the raid all died on a helicopter somewhere in Afghanistan. It just screams incompetence from the top down.

    Read More
  113. @trumped
    The american special forces are so bad that the top russian alpha units do their best to turn their AK74 rifles into the rifles american special forces use with after market mounts, stocks, and optics, copied delta using glocks as sidearms, copied a lot of the delta tactics and training, etc. So they have copied american gear and tactics, as well as regularly reading training tips and advice from american special op vets on various internet sites/youtube, yet americans suck? Seals are indeed PR whores and by far the worst skilled of the various special forces units for actual combat, but units like delta and marsoc are at least as good as SAS or anyone else.

    Remember, most of the really good stuff never gets disclosed or released. And the screw ups become well known, but are usually the fault of idiot politicians like clinton in somalia putting them in terrible positions. The truth is the sas of britain/nz/australia, russian alpha, delta force, etc are all outstanding and pull off a lot of stuff that never sees the light of day. They also have moronic politicans who place them in terrible situations, and when bad stuff happens they get the blame.

    Besides the seals, if you want to talk about overrated, then the real discussion should be about israeli troops and special forces. Much like the seals, I am convinced it largely has to be all the hollywood garbage driving it.

    “The truth is the sas of britain/nz/australia, russian alpha, delta force, etc are all outstanding and pull off a lot of stuff that never sees the light of day.

    Then how do you know?

    Read More
  114. @Randal

    And it’s true that we’ve marinated in a narrative that has Americans as the ‘good guys’, from the ‘greatest generation’ that “liberated” Germany in the “good wars”- to the light unto the nations’ that destroyed the Soviet evil empire
     
    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a "regime" like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand....

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods, but claimed to be the victims of a dictatorship when arguments justifying waging war against them are needed. If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.

    The only reason they did 9/11 was because they looked at it from every single angle, and always came back to the same frustrating problem, that without a ‘catalyzing, Pearl Harbor-like event’, there’s just no way in Hell that we’re going to get the American people on board with bombing and destroying all these countries.
     
    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War.

    Just saying.....

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….

    what’s your point? Unless to be a parrot of mine. No one hates our Satanic Zio-government of treason and wanton wars of aggression (for Israel, going all the way back to the “good wars”) more than me. And every other American who finally finds out the truth.

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?

    we are a young and naïve nation of simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    endlessly, relentlessly, from every corner of our lives. From the classroom to the churches and cathedrals to the movie houses and television screens to the magazines and radio, the mendacity pours out upon us, no less ubiquitous than Newsspeak was upon the denizens of Orwell’s nightmares.

    There’s a reason the Matrix movies were so popular with us, and that’s because they show exactly what’s been going on, and continues to go on with every tiny facet of our controlled existance. It’s lies, more lies and then some more lies, and when it turns out that they were lying, they just tell so many more lies that are heads are spinning from all the lies. That’s it. That’s all we get. Lies upon lies. And the lies hit us from every direction. From the pulpit to the lecture hall to the White House Rose Garden, its zio-lies 24-7, 365 day a week for year after year, decade after decade.

    That is why the “land of the free and the home of the brave” are such a joke. A guy like Pat Tillman, who could snap you in half on a whim, gave up enormous fame and future as a football hero, to sacrifice his life to avenge the innocent Americans who died on 9/11. He’s the best of the best, and you’d be hard pressed to find a man of a fraction of his mettle among the nations of this world. But then, as occasionally happened, he too discovered that is was all zio-lies and that he was slaughtering the wrong people, so they blew off his head with a 50 cal, and you guessed it.. lied about it all.

    Do I piss on his grave because he was duped, and too stupid to see though it all? No, I don’t. I piss on the people who lied to him, and those who would besmirch his good name for being a thousand times more heroic than they could be a hundred lifetimes. Just because he was a (innocent) American, (like most) who are lied to.

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods,…

    hmm.. what country are you from Randal?

    who would use a name like ‘Randal’ anyways? A citizen of the British empire perhaps? That festering imperial colossus of rot and perfidy? That nations so imbued with cowardice and pedophilia that it makes Americas (and every other nation) feel a combination of contempt and
    pity?

    I see you left them off my list of nations of people who are EXACTLY as guilty as the American people. Why did you do that Randal? To hide and mask the rot in your own sniveling country of cowards and homos, as you cast aspersions upon your betters from a distance? How positively British of you, I must say.

    . If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.

    which of these nations that America has demonized that the British haven’t been even more savage and rabid? Germany? Iraq? Somehow I recall the methods used by Churchill as he was treating the Iraqi people during his day to some good olde British tea and crumpets and mustard gas.

    the fact is that if the German people deserved what ‘was coming to them’ for waging aggressive wars, then no one on this planet has it coming to them in spades times a thousand than the effete and treacherous British people. Ain’t that so, Randal? [ten to one 'lavoisier's a frog/coward with French ancestry who's even more guilty than Randal, if that's even possible]

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War

    “Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

    As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply resigned from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units”.

    http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship

    there they are again, acting as cowardly little stooges to the big dog. Just like today, huh?

    Yes, America has been at war in form or anther its entire existence. I just watched a movie about the French and English in Canada using the Amerindian tribes to wage (savage) war against each other in the 16 and 17th centuries.

    We were born out of war, and continue to be mired in it. Much of it wars of a bully stomping on little guys and stealing their stuff.

    But all of it is waged and fomented by rich cocksuckers at the expense of the poor American slob who’s expected to fight it. I’d love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that “turnabout really is fair play.”

    But I wouldn’t advise it.

    The solution to the Zio-wars and serial atrocities that the NATO countries commit on behalf of Israel, is not to blame the poor slobs that believe all their lies (having no opportunity to know the truth). No. The solution is to expose the lies Randal, and get the ire of our American blood up against the cocksuckers to foist these wars for fun and profit, that get poor Iraqis killed just as they get poor Americans killed. *Such a deal!*

    but it takes a nuanced brain to see beyond cartoon versions of history and current events, and for that, I’m not going to look to the British public, you can be certain. Or any other fools who get off (in their obvious envy) by blaming the working poor Americans for the monumental crimes of our government and media.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    "we are.....simple people that have been *LIED TO*"

    You know, Rurik, most everyone, everywhere, is being lied to, one way or another.

    Americans may be more gullible than some, but since they're being told that they're (we're) the BEST, they really, really want to Believe.
    , @Randal
    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind. It's not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies. And by and large Americans have supported the wars their leaders have manipulated them into, at least until the costs came home to them rather than being mostly inflicted on foreigners. I was lied to, but I recognised that Blair and Bush were lying about the case for war on Iraq. What excuse did the up to two thirds of Americans (depending what polls you consider and what preconditions you apply) who supported the war initially have for their gross ignorance and stupidity? Heck, plenty of Americans still believe that the war was justified and recount WMD fairy tales, or nonsense about "Obama turned victory into defeat" - there are one or two here who do it.

    I was lied to about the Clinton regime's Kosovo war, but I saw through those lies. What excuse is there for the nearly two thirds of Americans who supported that war of aggression (and indeed still view it as having been a noble and successful operation)?

    Granted, they were lied to by professionals, and it's understandable that any individual American might have fallen for the lies - once. But Americans elect and re-elect open warmongers (such as the McCain and Graham pair currently trying to get up a war with Russia) time after time after time. If we are really to accept that Americans are too stupid to see through these lies, then what possible case is there for the American supposed ideal of democratic government at all, republican or otherwise?

    The real issue with your apologias for the supposedly noble American people is that there's a real case to be made that Americans, of all the peoples in the world, had a real opportunity to live differently. They had a modern constitution that tried to limit the ability of their ruling elites to manipulate them into wars, set up by men who in many cases were very explicitly aware of the dangers of things like standing armies, entangling alliances and going abroad to seek dragons to slay. And yet over the course of a mere few decades, that was all given up in favour of ra ras over their great military prowess, and the evils in foreign lands that it was somehow their duty to destroy.

    But in truth, we probably agree about more than we disagree on. Yes, we are all lied to, to manipulate us into war. We even agree about many of the groups doing the lying. But the American people are not mere innocent victims as you seek to portray them - that's far too simplistic, and indeed absolves Americans of their own responsibility to live up to their own supposed ideals and take responsibility for their government.


    I’d love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that “turnabout really is fair play.”
     
    That's a genuinely childish point, albeit commonly made. If you were to walk into a group of Islamic State fighters and tell them they are terrorists who deserve what they are going to get, you'd get beaten to death, of course, but that wouldn't make what you said wrong, would it?

    If you attack people in their own country, and slaughter their relatives and their military men with industrialised military technology, don't whinge about them fighting back, is all.

    , @lavoisier
    Of course I am French.
  115. @Skeptikal
    The topic is US special ops, not Russian.

    The topic is whatever UNZ moderators and the author of the thread allow.

    Read More
  116. @Randal

    I do think fighting Iran would be a very unfortunate not to mention retarded decision but if the US wants to do that I do hope Russia stays out of the way completely. The Iranians have only ever been friends of convenience, so its not as if Iran has grounds to expect anything.
     
    The Russians certainly let Iran down badly over the S300 sales in 2010, and by their general collaboration with the US/Israeli nonsense about supposed Iranian nuclear weapons development in the UN.

    The relationship between Russia and Iran is much stronger now, and that between Russia and the US infinitely more openly confrontational, thanks to US interference in the Ukraine. I suspect Russia will at the least see a strong interest in preventing any US victory in Iran, even if it doesn't feel particularly warm towards the Iranians themselves. The Chinese are likely to have similar views, so there will be no diplomatic problems for Russia at the UN in supporting Iran, even if the US's European satellite states can be bullied into line.

    I think the Russians and Chinese will do all they can, short of extending a nuclear umbrella or joining the war themselves, to promote a US defeat in Iran. And rightly so, from their point of view. It would be criminally naïve and short-sighted, imo, for Russia or China to let the US regime have a big victory in Iran, when they know US hostility will be aimed directly back at them, suitably emboldened and strengthened, immediately afterwards.

    Can the Trump regime members seeking the destruction of Iran succeed in buying Russian forbearance, even if they can bring themselves to try? Is the Russian leadership really likely to believe US regime promises of future friendship if they just stand aside while Iran is destroyed? Seems unlikely to me, but I suppose anything's possible.

    Since 9/11 our government has been systematically destroying and fomenting chaos and death through on ME country after another. Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven’t stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade? The Empire is broke and it hasn’t won a war since WW2. Time to bring the troops home.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven’t stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade?
     
    Iran's military can be defeated by the US's military in the sense that the US military can strike at Iran's military and at Iranian targets pretty much at will with little or no fear of any substantive response, and could probably physically occupy almost any particular location in the country, albeit at a high price in some cases - very little in the case of coastal areas, very high in the case of major cities or remote locations. Though in practice it's unlikely the US would even try to occupy the whole country, rather going for limited occupations of key points and prolonged standoff bombardment, while trying to stand up whatever collaboration groups they could find.

    The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory.

    The real issues, on which I suspect we agree, are over whether that would result in anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US - most likely not.
  117. @L.K
    Anatoly Karlin does NOT know squat about military issues and every time the guy writes a post on military matters, his extreme ignorance shows.

    I mean, this guy prepared a long and silly "article" in which he set out to rank the most powerful militaries in the world.
    I'm going by memory here, but I distinctly remember this fool ranking Saudi Barbaria, I kid you not, as the 10th most powerful in the world.
    And yes, counting beans is all he does.

    Also, for what it is worth, unlike this Karlin guy, the Saker does have a military background.

    He was born in Europe, cannot remember which country -Switzerland maybe- to a Russian family.
    From what I remember he pursued a military career in his country of birth's army.

    See #105 above by Jeff Davis. Also, Andrei (Saker) wrote a long auto-bio at his own site last year.

    Read More
  118. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    even if the US’s European satellite states can be bullied into line.

    I wouldn’t count on it… this is not George W’s 2003.. but post Trump’s anti NATO comments 2017.

    Read More
  119. @Rurik

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….
     
    what's your point? Unless to be a parrot of mine. No one hates our Satanic Zio-government of treason and wanton wars of aggression (for Israel, going all the way back to the "good wars") more than me. And every other American who finally finds out the truth.

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?
     
    we are a young and naïve nation of simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    endlessly, relentlessly, from every corner of our lives. From the classroom to the churches and cathedrals to the movie houses and television screens to the magazines and radio, the mendacity pours out upon us, no less ubiquitous than Newsspeak was upon the denizens of Orwell's nightmares.

    There's a reason the Matrix movies were so popular with us, and that's because they show exactly what's been going on, and continues to go on with every tiny facet of our controlled existance. It's lies, more lies and then some more lies, and when it turns out that they were lying, they just tell so many more lies that are heads are spinning from all the lies. That's it. That's all we get. Lies upon lies. And the lies hit us from every direction. From the pulpit to the lecture hall to the White House Rose Garden, its zio-lies 24-7, 365 day a week for year after year, decade after decade.

    That is why the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are such a joke. A guy like Pat Tillman, who could snap you in half on a whim, gave up enormous fame and future as a football hero, to sacrifice his life to avenge the innocent Americans who died on 9/11. He's the best of the best, and you'd be hard pressed to find a man of a fraction of his mettle among the nations of this world. But then, as occasionally happened, he too discovered that is was all zio-lies and that he was slaughtering the wrong people, so they blew off his head with a 50 cal, and you guessed it.. lied about it all.

    Do I piss on his grave because he was duped, and too stupid to see though it all? No, I don't. I piss on the people who lied to him, and those who would besmirch his good name for being a thousand times more heroic than they could be a hundred lifetimes. Just because he was a (innocent) American, (like most) who are lied to.

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods,...
     
    hmm.. what country are you from Randal?

    who would use a name like 'Randal' anyways? A citizen of the British empire perhaps? That festering imperial colossus of rot and perfidy? That nations so imbued with cowardice and pedophilia that it makes Americas (and every other nation) feel a combination of contempt and
    pity?

    I see you left them off my list of nations of people who are EXACTLY as guilty as the American people. Why did you do that Randal? To hide and mask the rot in your own sniveling country of cowards and homos, as you cast aspersions upon your betters from a distance? How positively British of you, I must say.

    . If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.
     
    which of these nations that America has demonized that the British haven't been even more savage and rabid? Germany? Iraq? Somehow I recall the methods used by Churchill as he was treating the Iraqi people during his day to some good olde British tea and crumpets and mustard gas.

    the fact is that if the German people deserved what 'was coming to them' for waging aggressive wars, then no one on this planet has it coming to them in spades times a thousand than the effete and treacherous British people. Ain't that so, Randal? [ten to one 'lavoisier's a frog/coward with French ancestry who's even more guilty than Randal, if that's even possible]

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War
     
    "Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

    As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply resigned from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units".

    http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship

    there they are again, acting as cowardly little stooges to the big dog. Just like today, huh?

    Yes, America has been at war in form or anther its entire existence. I just watched a movie about the French and English in Canada using the Amerindian tribes to wage (savage) war against each other in the 16 and 17th centuries.

    We were born out of war, and continue to be mired in it. Much of it wars of a bully stomping on little guys and stealing their stuff.

    But all of it is waged and fomented by rich cocksuckers at the expense of the poor American slob who's expected to fight it. I'd love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that "turnabout really is fair play."

    But I wouldn't advise it.

    The solution to the Zio-wars and serial atrocities that the NATO countries commit on behalf of Israel, is not to blame the poor slobs that believe all their lies (having no opportunity to know the truth). No. The solution is to expose the lies Randal, and get the ire of our American blood up against the cocksuckers to foist these wars for fun and profit, that get poor Iraqis killed just as they get poor Americans killed. *Such a deal!*

    but it takes a nuanced brain to see beyond cartoon versions of history and current events, and for that, I'm not going to look to the British public, you can be certain. Or any other fools who get off (in their obvious envy) by blaming the working poor Americans for the monumental crimes of our government and media.

    “we are…..simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    You know, Rurik, most everyone, everywhere, is being lied to, one way or another.

    Americans may be more gullible than some, but since they’re being told that they’re (we’re) the BEST, they really, really want to Believe.

    Read More
    • Agree: Randal
    • Replies: @Rurik

    You know, Rurik, most everyone, everywhere, is being lied to, one way or another.
     
    sure, but not everyone is a superpower

    a hundred years ago it was the Russians that were lied to and told of a great workers paradise, and they were the imperial scumfucks genociding Ukrainians wholesale and telling themselves how great they are (many of these ultra-nationalist Russian believe it to this day. That's what the May Day parades are all about. Chest-thumping nationalism by testosterone poisoned fools demonstrating their moral brotherhood with the USA! chanting morons on the other side of the planet)

    I consider myself a man of principle, and on principle, every single nation that is involved with the wars in the Middle East on behalf of Zionism to destroy perfectly good countries, are all exactly as guilty as your typical American. But do I blame the Brits and French (in spite of pointing out their equal status as dogs of Zion, that Americans are also forced to be), ? No, of course I don't blame them. They are being lied to and their governments are the ones doing all the evil. Not the people, who if they had a choice would probably put Tony Blair and Holonde in prison right alongside Bush and Obama. (actually I suspect the French and Brits would give the numinous Negro a pass, because he's black and he's articulate)

    anyways, yes, we're all lied to, but it happens to be my country that is doing the most harm, simply because it is the sole superpower.

    But consider, when it comes to the American people, we always vote for the anti-war candidate, and then we always get betrayed by the Zionist scum who run things from behind the scenes. Wilson was the anti-war candidate. FDR too. Same for Nixon and JFK and Johnson and I even voted for Bush II because after Serbia, I was angry, and Bush said he wasn't a "nation builder" like Bill Clinton, but then all of us that voted for him we're all (horribly) betrayed. Same with Obama, and now we have our hopes in Trump, who was also elected as an opposition to the war hag Clinton. And then if Trump turns out to be a Zio-stooge and war pig as well, then I can come here and listen to all these people from NATO countries lecturing me on how Americans are the war mongers. It's dishonest and hypocritical.


    but since they’re being told that they’re (we’re) the BEST, they really, really want to Believe.
     
    ethnocentrism / nationalism lingers beneath the surface in all humans, Robin. It's a human-nature thing. We like to win the Olympic medals and World Cup soccer games, and why not. But that doesn't mean we want to commit mass-murder on behalf of war pigs and bankers.

    I look at Americans today as being exactly the same as the Russians a hundred years ago. Then, the tribe was in control over there, and was committing atrocities and genocide faster than you can say Romanov girls. Today they're over here, and have us by the 'hair of the head'. My agenda for posting here is simply to try to wake as many people us as I can that this state of affairs will not end well. What more can I do? Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a hero of mine, just like Ron Paul. No to tyranny, no to imperialism and no to the bankers who foist these devil's wars!

  120. @Mao Cheng Ji

    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy.
     
    She didn't have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn't just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can't be excused.

    She didn’t have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn’t just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can’t be excused.

    I would count that as both – as a lie and as rhetoric.

    I see no reason to regard that as anything other than exactly what I described earlier – the Trump regime making sure its political positioning on the Russia issue is what it needs to be right now. Once appointment hearings are out of the way and talks between Trump and Putin begin, we might get some useful indications of how Trump will address Russia, but not yet, I think.

    I’m not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it’s too early to judge.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji

    I’m not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it’s too early to judge.
     
    I hope you're right. It's just that usually he's not afraid to rattle the cage, in fact he goes out of his way to do so...
  121. @RobinG
    "we are.....simple people that have been *LIED TO*"

    You know, Rurik, most everyone, everywhere, is being lied to, one way or another.

    Americans may be more gullible than some, but since they're being told that they're (we're) the BEST, they really, really want to Believe.

    You know, Rurik, most everyone, everywhere, is being lied to, one way or another.

    sure, but not everyone is a superpower

    a hundred years ago it was the Russians that were lied to and told of a great workers paradise, and they were the imperial scumfucks genociding Ukrainians wholesale and telling themselves how great they are (many of these ultra-nationalist Russian believe it to this day. That’s what the May Day parades are all about. Chest-thumping nationalism by testosterone poisoned fools demonstrating their moral brotherhood with the USA! chanting morons on the other side of the planet)

    I consider myself a man of principle, and on principle, every single nation that is involved with the wars in the Middle East on behalf of Zionism to destroy perfectly good countries, are all exactly as guilty as your typical American. But do I blame the Brits and French (in spite of pointing out their equal status as dogs of Zion, that Americans are also forced to be), ? No, of course I don’t blame them. They are being lied to and their governments are the ones doing all the evil. Not the people, who if they had a choice would probably put Tony Blair and Holonde in prison right alongside Bush and Obama. (actually I suspect the French and Brits would give the numinous Negro a pass, because he’s black and he’s articulate)

    anyways, yes, we’re all lied to, but it happens to be my country that is doing the most harm, simply because it is the sole superpower.

    But consider, when it comes to the American people, we always vote for the anti-war candidate, and then we always get betrayed by the Zionist scum who run things from behind the scenes. Wilson was the anti-war candidate. FDR too. Same for Nixon and JFK and Johnson and I even voted for Bush II because after Serbia, I was angry, and Bush said he wasn’t a “nation builder” like Bill Clinton, but then all of us that voted for him we’re all (horribly) betrayed. Same with Obama, and now we have our hopes in Trump, who was also elected as an opposition to the war hag Clinton. And then if Trump turns out to be a Zio-stooge and war pig as well, then I can come here and listen to all these people from NATO countries lecturing me on how Americans are the war mongers. It’s dishonest and hypocritical.

    but since they’re being told that they’re (we’re) the BEST, they really, really want to Believe.

    ethnocentrism / nationalism lingers beneath the surface in all humans, Robin. It’s a human-nature thing. We like to win the Olympic medals and World Cup soccer games, and why not. But that doesn’t mean we want to commit mass-murder on behalf of war pigs and bankers.

    I look at Americans today as being exactly the same as the Russians a hundred years ago. Then, the tribe was in control over there, and was committing atrocities and genocide faster than you can say Romanov girls. Today they’re over here, and have us by the ‘hair of the head’. My agenda for posting here is simply to try to wake as many people us as I can that this state of affairs will not end well. What more can I do? Alexander Solzhenitsyn is a hero of mine, just like Ron Paul. No to tyranny, no to imperialism and no to the bankers who foist these devil’s wars!

    Read More
  122. @epnngg
    Since 9/11 our government has been systematically destroying and fomenting chaos and death through on ME country after another. Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven't stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade? The Empire is broke and it hasn't won a war since WW2. Time to bring the troops home.

    Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven’t stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade?

    Iran’s military can be defeated by the US’s military in the sense that the US military can strike at Iran’s military and at Iranian targets pretty much at will with little or no fear of any substantive response, and could probably physically occupy almost any particular location in the country, albeit at a high price in some cases – very little in the case of coastal areas, very high in the case of major cities or remote locations. Though in practice it’s unlikely the US would even try to occupy the whole country, rather going for limited occupations of key points and prolonged standoff bombardment, while trying to stand up whatever collaboration groups they could find.

    The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory.

    The real issues, on which I suspect we agree, are over whether that would result in anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US – most likely not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US – most likely not.
     
    the only strategic victory the ZUSA is looking for would be to do what they've done in Iraq and Libya and are tying to do to Syria. Reduce the nation to smoking ruins and a dystopian hell on earth that Israel can lord over like she lorded over it during the reign of the Shah.

    period

    they're not trying to create a nice Western type democracy, they're agenda is destruction so they can put their OT zio-boot on Iran's neck
    , @L.K
    "The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory."

    It does no good to win at the lower levels(tactical, operational) if you lose at the higher level(strategic), so no.
    I'll say it again; you seem to greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
    ZUSA had air supremacy in Korea and Vietnam, 2 third world countries with a fraction of Iran's area and population. They bombed the hell out of those places but could NOT prevail.
    Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money. The Talibs have been controlling large parts of the country for years, since what, 2007, even the fraudulent Brit media admitted as much.
    As the Saker wrote: "The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically."

    If you think Iran would fight a ground war on ZUSA's terms, you just have no idea.

    You might wanna take a look at what Colonel David Hackworth(who passed in 2005) had to say on the subject of the modern day US army, in his 'The March of the Porcelain Soldiers'. Hack was an American Korean War and Vietnam War veteran who received many combat decorations for heroism in both these wars and is known for his role in the creation and command of the Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerrilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietcong guerrilla fighters. It had me LOL.
    Or listen to what William Lind, author of 'the Maneuver Warfare Handbook' had to say on ZUSA's ground forces;

    In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, "we are lost."  So why do we keep doing airstrikes?
    The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad.  They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire.  The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes.  So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically[...] It is the price of bad tactics.[...]
    There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand.  The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps and infantry officers in particular.  Most read nothing about their profession. [...]This ignorance is buttressed by hubris, false pride.  The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is...
    The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training.  [...]
    The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system.[...] 
     
  123. @Rurik

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….
     
    what's your point? Unless to be a parrot of mine. No one hates our Satanic Zio-government of treason and wanton wars of aggression (for Israel, going all the way back to the "good wars") more than me. And every other American who finally finds out the truth.

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?
     
    we are a young and naïve nation of simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    endlessly, relentlessly, from every corner of our lives. From the classroom to the churches and cathedrals to the movie houses and television screens to the magazines and radio, the mendacity pours out upon us, no less ubiquitous than Newsspeak was upon the denizens of Orwell's nightmares.

    There's a reason the Matrix movies were so popular with us, and that's because they show exactly what's been going on, and continues to go on with every tiny facet of our controlled existance. It's lies, more lies and then some more lies, and when it turns out that they were lying, they just tell so many more lies that are heads are spinning from all the lies. That's it. That's all we get. Lies upon lies. And the lies hit us from every direction. From the pulpit to the lecture hall to the White House Rose Garden, its zio-lies 24-7, 365 day a week for year after year, decade after decade.

    That is why the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are such a joke. A guy like Pat Tillman, who could snap you in half on a whim, gave up enormous fame and future as a football hero, to sacrifice his life to avenge the innocent Americans who died on 9/11. He's the best of the best, and you'd be hard pressed to find a man of a fraction of his mettle among the nations of this world. But then, as occasionally happened, he too discovered that is was all zio-lies and that he was slaughtering the wrong people, so they blew off his head with a 50 cal, and you guessed it.. lied about it all.

    Do I piss on his grave because he was duped, and too stupid to see though it all? No, I don't. I piss on the people who lied to him, and those who would besmirch his good name for being a thousand times more heroic than they could be a hundred lifetimes. Just because he was a (innocent) American, (like most) who are lied to.

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods,...
     
    hmm.. what country are you from Randal?

    who would use a name like 'Randal' anyways? A citizen of the British empire perhaps? That festering imperial colossus of rot and perfidy? That nations so imbued with cowardice and pedophilia that it makes Americas (and every other nation) feel a combination of contempt and
    pity?

    I see you left them off my list of nations of people who are EXACTLY as guilty as the American people. Why did you do that Randal? To hide and mask the rot in your own sniveling country of cowards and homos, as you cast aspersions upon your betters from a distance? How positively British of you, I must say.

    . If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.
     
    which of these nations that America has demonized that the British haven't been even more savage and rabid? Germany? Iraq? Somehow I recall the methods used by Churchill as he was treating the Iraqi people during his day to some good olde British tea and crumpets and mustard gas.

    the fact is that if the German people deserved what 'was coming to them' for waging aggressive wars, then no one on this planet has it coming to them in spades times a thousand than the effete and treacherous British people. Ain't that so, Randal? [ten to one 'lavoisier's a frog/coward with French ancestry who's even more guilty than Randal, if that's even possible]

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War
     
    "Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

    As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply resigned from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units".

    http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship

    there they are again, acting as cowardly little stooges to the big dog. Just like today, huh?

    Yes, America has been at war in form or anther its entire existence. I just watched a movie about the French and English in Canada using the Amerindian tribes to wage (savage) war against each other in the 16 and 17th centuries.

    We were born out of war, and continue to be mired in it. Much of it wars of a bully stomping on little guys and stealing their stuff.

    But all of it is waged and fomented by rich cocksuckers at the expense of the poor American slob who's expected to fight it. I'd love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that "turnabout really is fair play."

    But I wouldn't advise it.

    The solution to the Zio-wars and serial atrocities that the NATO countries commit on behalf of Israel, is not to blame the poor slobs that believe all their lies (having no opportunity to know the truth). No. The solution is to expose the lies Randal, and get the ire of our American blood up against the cocksuckers to foist these wars for fun and profit, that get poor Iraqis killed just as they get poor Americans killed. *Such a deal!*

    but it takes a nuanced brain to see beyond cartoon versions of history and current events, and for that, I'm not going to look to the British public, you can be certain. Or any other fools who get off (in their obvious envy) by blaming the working poor Americans for the monumental crimes of our government and media.

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind. It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies. And by and large Americans have supported the wars their leaders have manipulated them into, at least until the costs came home to them rather than being mostly inflicted on foreigners. I was lied to, but I recognised that Blair and Bush were lying about the case for war on Iraq. What excuse did the up to two thirds of Americans (depending what polls you consider and what preconditions you apply) who supported the war initially have for their gross ignorance and stupidity? Heck, plenty of Americans still believe that the war was justified and recount WMD fairy tales, or nonsense about “Obama turned victory into defeat” – there are one or two here who do it.

    I was lied to about the Clinton regime’s Kosovo war, but I saw through those lies. What excuse is there for the nearly two thirds of Americans who supported that war of aggression (and indeed still view it as having been a noble and successful operation)?

    Granted, they were lied to by professionals, and it’s understandable that any individual American might have fallen for the lies – once. But Americans elect and re-elect open warmongers (such as the McCain and Graham pair currently trying to get up a war with Russia) time after time after time. If we are really to accept that Americans are too stupid to see through these lies, then what possible case is there for the American supposed ideal of democratic government at all, republican or otherwise?

    The real issue with your apologias for the supposedly noble American people is that there’s a real case to be made that Americans, of all the peoples in the world, had a real opportunity to live differently. They had a modern constitution that tried to limit the ability of their ruling elites to manipulate them into wars, set up by men who in many cases were very explicitly aware of the dangers of things like standing armies, entangling alliances and going abroad to seek dragons to slay. And yet over the course of a mere few decades, that was all given up in favour of ra ras over their great military prowess, and the evils in foreign lands that it was somehow their duty to destroy.

    But in truth, we probably agree about more than we disagree on. Yes, we are all lied to, to manipulate us into war. We even agree about many of the groups doing the lying. But the American people are not mere innocent victims as you seek to portray them – that’s far too simplistic, and indeed absolves Americans of their own responsibility to live up to their own supposed ideals and take responsibility for their government.

    I’d love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that “turnabout really is fair play.”

    That’s a genuinely childish point, albeit commonly made. If you were to walk into a group of Islamic State fighters and tell them they are terrorists who deserve what they are going to get, you’d get beaten to death, of course, but that wouldn’t make what you said wrong, would it?

    If you attack people in their own country, and slaughter their relatives and their military men with industrialised military technology, don’t whinge about them fighting back, is all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind.
     
    I disagree. It's a pathology and the consequence of a rot in the soul of a society's leadership. Do you routinely lie to your children, your spouse. One of my favorite authors is Rudyard Kipling..

    If any ask why we died

    Tell them, because our fathers lied


    if lying to your people was the order of the day, we wouldn't even notice it. We'd expect it. Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    The only reason they're able to get away with the lies is because it isn't the natural state of mankind. It's an aberration, and they use that to maximum effect.

    It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies.
     
    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn't be believed!

    The only way the lie works is if people believe it. Or do you suppose that the people of England are perfectly sanguine to slaughter people based on lies, even tho they know they're lies?

    It doesn't work that way. If Pat Tillman, (and untold millions of others) knew the lies we were being told about 9/11 were lies, then do you think he would have gone to war over transparent lies?!

    Do you think the American people actually understand that we were lied to on 9/11? And that the lies are transparent and that we all really know we were lied to, and yet we still suit up our children to go and kill based on lies? Really?

    Well, you're wrong about that sir. If the British people would have known that Blair was lying about the WMD, they would not have allowed their children to be marched off to kill and die. Anymore than the French or American people would have allowed it. You must have a very cynical, jaundiced view of people, (or perhaps the American people in particular) if you think we know we were lied to but then are willing to send our young people to die based on transparent lies.

    I have to go. I'll bet back to this later...

    I'll just add that even now, most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as 'transparent lies', if most people still believe them?
  124. @Really
    @Anatoly Karlin

    I always find the views 0f some post-Soviet Russians, whether westernised or Russian nationalists, rather amusing. Let us see why.

    "The Iranian military is possibly the most backward...". Well, if the Russian S-300 system does not help Iran even a little bit then I think Russia has produced a massive con on the world. And if the S-300 is piece of junk, then the S-400 can't be much better. Something for Russia to think about, no?

    "The Iranians have only been friends of convenience...". Well, that is a rare beauty coming from a person whose country back-stabbed Iran twice very recently. You do know about that don't you Anatoly?

    How many friends does Russia have in the world today? Counting: Zero, one, ..., no.. zero, one, ... sorry let us start from zero again!

    The vast bulk of the Iranian air defense system is antiquated.

    Deliveries of the S-300PMU-2 only began half a year ago. But they are not present in large numbers, crews have to be trained, etc.

    Iran does claim to have reverse engineered an earlier S-300 model, but given its well known tendency to exaggerate its technological achievements, especially in the military domain, they should should not be taken at face value.

    How exactly did Russia betray Iran? It wanted to sell it some military weapons, which became impractical after the introduction of sanctions, so it abandoned the deal. By the same (utterly insane) token we can say that France betrayed Russia when it stopped the Mistral sale after Crimea.

    Countries have no friends, only interests.

    Read More
  125. @Randal

    Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven’t stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade?
     
    Iran's military can be defeated by the US's military in the sense that the US military can strike at Iran's military and at Iranian targets pretty much at will with little or no fear of any substantive response, and could probably physically occupy almost any particular location in the country, albeit at a high price in some cases - very little in the case of coastal areas, very high in the case of major cities or remote locations. Though in practice it's unlikely the US would even try to occupy the whole country, rather going for limited occupations of key points and prolonged standoff bombardment, while trying to stand up whatever collaboration groups they could find.

    The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory.

    The real issues, on which I suspect we agree, are over whether that would result in anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US - most likely not.

    anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US – most likely not.

    the only strategic victory the ZUSA is looking for would be to do what they’ve done in Iraq and Libya and are tying to do to Syria. Reduce the nation to smoking ruins and a dystopian hell on earth that Israel can lord over like she lorded over it during the reign of the Shah.

    period

    they’re not trying to create a nice Western type democracy, they’re agenda is destruction so they can put their OT zio-boot on Iran’s neck

    Read More
  126. Trump has totally surrounded himself with noted anglo-zionist of the supreme order. Hence I think his administration will be totaly hamstrung with regard to ME geopolitics. The shackels of these zionist is totaly taken over all aspects of US society ,social,economical,and financially. It would have been wise if FRUMP/TRUMP would have surrounded himself with good old fashion WASP”s but he didnt much to his demise and the US demise. Oh well as we say in Italian Si muroe un Papa séne fa un altro. When one Pope dies we re -elect another. Who will be the next emperor with no clothes for Pax -American /the anglo-zionist empire.

    Read More
  127. @L.K
    "The Iranians are of course more competent than their main potential adversaries aka the completely useless Saudis"

    Hmm... not that long ago you placed those 'completely useless Saudis' high in that ridiculous ranking list of military powers you drew up, remember?

    I guess since then, you must have watched a few vids showing the Houthis kicking the hell out of the Saudis, buhaha... and abruptly changed your mind. Vids like the following:
    Inside a deserted Saudi border town filled with destroyed Saudi army vehicles
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYHXWjmi1QA

    Your comments re military matters are worthless.

    The CMP is not very good for asymmetric warfare (e.g. that between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis) because the stronger side cannot bring its massive advantage in military capital to bear. I emphasized that many times.

    I have absolutely never said or implied that Saudi Arabia has a competent military.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    Saudis have a mercenary military. Their aircraft are flown by foreign pilots since the princes pay others to do their flying lessons in order to become airmen and wear the uniform but they can't fly a cessna. The army and navy are manned by Pakistanis in large numbers and they are often very good troops. Competant and trained in Pakistan usually. However the problem goes back to the first point. They are only doing it for pay and you can't pay most men enough to die for you so they rarely put up much of a fight and they hightail it out of there when things look iffy. Leaving their expensive toys behind. The Yemenis appear to be simply picking up Saudi equipment from one base after another like Saudi bases are weapons bazaars or something.

    Everyone especially their troops know the Saudis don't care less about them. Result, no loyalty.

    , @L.K
    What a sad sorry excuse.

    In fact, you placed the Saudis ahead of a LOT of States that have much more competent military forces. The entire list was pretty much ludicrous/useless and several other people ridiculed it and rightly so.
  128. @Randal
    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind. It's not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies. And by and large Americans have supported the wars their leaders have manipulated them into, at least until the costs came home to them rather than being mostly inflicted on foreigners. I was lied to, but I recognised that Blair and Bush were lying about the case for war on Iraq. What excuse did the up to two thirds of Americans (depending what polls you consider and what preconditions you apply) who supported the war initially have for their gross ignorance and stupidity? Heck, plenty of Americans still believe that the war was justified and recount WMD fairy tales, or nonsense about "Obama turned victory into defeat" - there are one or two here who do it.

    I was lied to about the Clinton regime's Kosovo war, but I saw through those lies. What excuse is there for the nearly two thirds of Americans who supported that war of aggression (and indeed still view it as having been a noble and successful operation)?

    Granted, they were lied to by professionals, and it's understandable that any individual American might have fallen for the lies - once. But Americans elect and re-elect open warmongers (such as the McCain and Graham pair currently trying to get up a war with Russia) time after time after time. If we are really to accept that Americans are too stupid to see through these lies, then what possible case is there for the American supposed ideal of democratic government at all, republican or otherwise?

    The real issue with your apologias for the supposedly noble American people is that there's a real case to be made that Americans, of all the peoples in the world, had a real opportunity to live differently. They had a modern constitution that tried to limit the ability of their ruling elites to manipulate them into wars, set up by men who in many cases were very explicitly aware of the dangers of things like standing armies, entangling alliances and going abroad to seek dragons to slay. And yet over the course of a mere few decades, that was all given up in favour of ra ras over their great military prowess, and the evils in foreign lands that it was somehow their duty to destroy.

    But in truth, we probably agree about more than we disagree on. Yes, we are all lied to, to manipulate us into war. We even agree about many of the groups doing the lying. But the American people are not mere innocent victims as you seek to portray them - that's far too simplistic, and indeed absolves Americans of their own responsibility to live up to their own supposed ideals and take responsibility for their government.


    I’d love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that “turnabout really is fair play.”
     
    That's a genuinely childish point, albeit commonly made. If you were to walk into a group of Islamic State fighters and tell them they are terrorists who deserve what they are going to get, you'd get beaten to death, of course, but that wouldn't make what you said wrong, would it?

    If you attack people in their own country, and slaughter their relatives and their military men with industrialised military technology, don't whinge about them fighting back, is all.

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind.

    I disagree. It’s a pathology and the consequence of a rot in the soul of a society’s leadership. Do you routinely lie to your children, your spouse. One of my favorite authors is Rudyard Kipling..

    If any ask why we died

    Tell them, because our fathers lied

    if lying to your people was the order of the day, we wouldn’t even notice it. We’d expect it. Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    The only reason they’re able to get away with the lies is because it isn’t the natural state of mankind. It’s an aberration, and they use that to maximum effect.

    It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies.

    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn’t be believed!

    The only way the lie works is if people believe it. Or do you suppose that the people of England are perfectly sanguine to slaughter people based on lies, even tho they know they’re lies?

    It doesn’t work that way. If Pat Tillman, (and untold millions of others) knew the lies we were being told about 9/11 were lies, then do you think he would have gone to war over transparent lies?!

    Do you think the American people actually understand that we were lied to on 9/11? And that the lies are transparent and that we all really know we were lied to, and yet we still suit up our children to go and kill based on lies? Really?

    Well, you’re wrong about that sir. If the British people would have known that Blair was lying about the WMD, they would not have allowed their children to be marched off to kill and die. Anymore than the French or American people would have allowed it. You must have a very cynical, jaundiced view of people, (or perhaps the American people in particular) if you think we know we were lied to but then are willing to send our young people to die based on transparent lies.

    I have to go. I’ll bet back to this later…

    I’ll just add that even now, most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as ‘transparent lies’, if most people still believe them?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    Your response is considered and correct up to a point. However it ignores human psychology, which is a large part of the deception process. We have seen a great deal of practical examples of cognitive dissonance in society, most markedly since and specifically related to 9/11. There the lies are indeed so transparent and often contradictory or even utterly preposterous in light of simple everyday scientific understanding, that some other mechanism than a convincing lie must be at work. Cognitive Dissonance is the result of the mind's need to maintain a belief which underpins the person's whole life paradigm. Subconsciously recognising the threat to one's belief system that acknowledging something might entail the human mind has adapted to allow a sort of segregation of information to ensure the one idea does not slip over and contaminate the rest.

    The response that "Most people believe it" is rarely true. That is what those who do believe it, believe. The cherished delusion which needs protecting from challenging information, is rarely an outlier. It works much better if it is seen to be or believed to be the default truth for everybody. Long after those who still believe the official 9/11 fairy tale have been reduced to a minority, there is one thing those who do believe also include in their delusional world view. The idea that they are among the majority still. Having been protected from reason and gravity, they have also been blissfully unaware that most others have adjusted their understanding over time, even if only passively.
    , @Randal

    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn’t be believed!
     
    I didn't believe them Nor did many, many other people. I went on the biggest demonstration in UK history in London in February 2003, with hundreds of thousands of people who also saw through the lies.

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war (ie mass killing), not with those who saw through them. And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.

    Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?
     
    Undoubtedly. What on earth makes you think they might not? As a simple example, look at European countries' government and media gyrations over immigration and the EU.
    , @Stonehands

    most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as ‘transparent lies’, if most people still believe them?
     
    Americans are willfully ignorant, I see it in my own family- I see it among the customers I serve.

    They are the most wicked, vile, intellectually lazy mob to walk God's green earth.

    Normalcy bias- so they can share in power and control and live a thoroughly material life of gadgets and stuff- without any regard for the future- and their inevitable confrontation with their Maker.
  129. @5371
    Trump's presidency is so promising and gratifying in general that one almost hesitates to criticise, but there's no doubt that the criticisms made in this piece are valid. Above all, the US is on a hiding to nothing with this approach, because there's no conception of what success would look like.

    I’m seeing very little to celebrate so far.

    That “Muslim ban” which even as a Muslim I could support in principle, is complete BS!. It includes only enemies of “Israel” and Saudi Arabia, pointedly doesn’t include Saudi Arabia, Egypt or Pakistan which are the most likely countries to have terrorists headed for the USA. The list wouldn’t have stopped any terrorist attack seen so far on US soil. That was a LOT of political capital he spent on what was nothing like what it was asserted to be.

    Of most concern to me was the way the MSM never mentioned this. Highlighting this glaring problem with it would have sunk Trump. But no. Seems the MSM and Trump’s team have something they agree on after all. The Saudis should be protected. Right!

    Read More
  130. @Rurik

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind.
     
    I disagree. It's a pathology and the consequence of a rot in the soul of a society's leadership. Do you routinely lie to your children, your spouse. One of my favorite authors is Rudyard Kipling..

    If any ask why we died

    Tell them, because our fathers lied


    if lying to your people was the order of the day, we wouldn't even notice it. We'd expect it. Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    The only reason they're able to get away with the lies is because it isn't the natural state of mankind. It's an aberration, and they use that to maximum effect.

    It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies.
     
    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn't be believed!

    The only way the lie works is if people believe it. Or do you suppose that the people of England are perfectly sanguine to slaughter people based on lies, even tho they know they're lies?

    It doesn't work that way. If Pat Tillman, (and untold millions of others) knew the lies we were being told about 9/11 were lies, then do you think he would have gone to war over transparent lies?!

    Do you think the American people actually understand that we were lied to on 9/11? And that the lies are transparent and that we all really know we were lied to, and yet we still suit up our children to go and kill based on lies? Really?

    Well, you're wrong about that sir. If the British people would have known that Blair was lying about the WMD, they would not have allowed their children to be marched off to kill and die. Anymore than the French or American people would have allowed it. You must have a very cynical, jaundiced view of people, (or perhaps the American people in particular) if you think we know we were lied to but then are willing to send our young people to die based on transparent lies.

    I have to go. I'll bet back to this later...

    I'll just add that even now, most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as 'transparent lies', if most people still believe them?

    Your response is considered and correct up to a point. However it ignores human psychology, which is a large part of the deception process. We have seen a great deal of practical examples of cognitive dissonance in society, most markedly since and specifically related to 9/11. There the lies are indeed so transparent and often contradictory or even utterly preposterous in light of simple everyday scientific understanding, that some other mechanism than a convincing lie must be at work. Cognitive Dissonance is the result of the mind’s need to maintain a belief which underpins the person’s whole life paradigm. Subconsciously recognising the threat to one’s belief system that acknowledging something might entail the human mind has adapted to allow a sort of segregation of information to ensure the one idea does not slip over and contaminate the rest.

    The response that “Most people believe it” is rarely true. That is what those who do believe it, believe. The cherished delusion which needs protecting from challenging information, is rarely an outlier. It works much better if it is seen to be or believed to be the default truth for everybody. Long after those who still believe the official 9/11 fairy tale have been reduced to a minority, there is one thing those who do believe also include in their delusional world view. The idea that they are among the majority still. Having been protected from reason and gravity, they have also been blissfully unaware that most others have adjusted their understanding over time, even if only passively.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    There the lies are indeed so transparent and often contradictory or even utterly preposterous in light of simple everyday scientific understanding, that some other mechanism than a convincing lie must be at work.
     
    well I did specifically spell that out rather exhaustively. The mechanism at work is the fundamental goodness of the average Joe or Jane. They can not comprehend a government (elements there of) and media that would be evil enough to slaughter 3000 of their own citizens in a cynical attempt to use that atrocity to foment more wars and more atrocities.

    The people at the top of the fecal government have been psychopaths (many still are). There's a reason the word 'fiend' exists in the English language, so as to describe a human so beyond the pale of evil that it stops even being human. (even if it is, alas, all too human)

    Nevertheless, people can't comprehend such diabolical betrayal and stone-cold evil, and that's the main thing the Zionists (and their Shabbos goy stooges) have going for them.

    Cognitive Dissonance is the result of the mind’s need to maintain a belief which underpins the person’s whole life paradigm.
     
    thank you. Well said, that's my whole point.

    The response that “Most people believe it” is rarely true. That is what those who do believe it, believe. The cherished delusion which needs protecting from challenging information, is rarely an outlier.
     
    aren't you being contradictive here?

    The idea that they are among the majority still. Having been protected from reason and gravity, they have also been blissfully unaware that most others have adjusted their understanding over time, even if only passively.
     
    I don't think so. I suspect that these people are not knowingly operating under a self-imposed delusion, but that they haven't really given it all that much thought.

    Was Hitler the most evil man that ever lived?

    most people on the planet would answer in the affirmative, because that is the narrative/paradigm/mantra of our global deeply held belief system. Even more so than belief in religious 'truths', we all knee-jerk use Hitler as the corporal incarnation of evil itself. Whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, and all the rest, including atheists and agnostics the world over. How many people know what Stalin was like? Or Mao?

    almost none. So this elusive, ethereal, ephemeral 'truth' that you seem to think pervades human reason, and it's just a few deluded fools who cling to bygone popular delusions, is simply not what I observe in the world today.

    If the pundits speak of 9/11 as having happened as the PTB said it did, then most people will go along with it (indeed, believe it). How many Westerners today believe that Putin attacked the Ukraine? Or that he shot down the plane? Or that he persecutes gays? Or that he's a bully and a threat?

    answer: most people in the West. And even tho these notions are absurd and preposterous, nevertheless, just like with the "transparent lie" of 9/11, most people believe it.
  131. @Fran Macadam
    The Big Magilla is the domestic economy and the promise to bring the good jobs back to flyover America, which is Trump's only real basis for support. The problem is, the war economy and military have become a boot, stamping on the face of the American economy, so long now it seems forever. It is now an outsized contributor to the remaining good jobs and the balance of payments effort through exports. War has become what America makes.

    Reindustrialization and whatever else needs to take place to keep the promise must make serious inroads before the two year election cycle. There is not much time. Scaling back the wars and the profits that drive them, and the jobs they provide, will worsen the employment picture dramatically. High levels of illegal immigration, unsustainable legal immigration combined with demobilization into an economy like this guarantee there is no peace dividend for reasons of practical politics.

    Saker, your insights otherwise are good, but you need to consider how the domestic politics end up driving foreign policy that seems irrational to foreigners, but is a lot like why a Bill Clinton about to be impeached felt he had to bomb an African aspirin factory as an act against terrorism.

    It's not practically possible to schedule a drawdown while creating enough new jobs.

    Stopping immigration – deporting illegals and repatriating legals back whence they came.

    80% of immigrants, when they become citizens and vote, vote democrat. No way around that except to stop the bleeding and try to assimilate, as the 1924 immigration pause did.

    That is what matters.

    All else is sideshow.

    Look at California. The 1986 amnesty and following demographic/democrat disaster. We have little time until that metastasizes. Texas’ 38 electoral votes are on the brink.

    Read More
  132. I am seeing some screwups for sure, which given the bombast and all was expected. Indeed I looked forward to some funny stuff along the way. Trump promises above all to be top notch American entertainment for all. Bush the lesser can move over, a new clown star of the world stage has arrived. It isnt them which worry me though, more the tendency towards “business as usual” on pretty much all fronts. Also the level of deceit involved in mis-representing the much touted and currently suspended “Muslim Ban” both by Trump and the MSM who as deftly avoided telling the truth about it. That truth being that it was only a list of Israel’s enemies and did not include a single country from which actual terrorists have struck on US soil.

    The threats against Iran are as insane as they are pathetic. FFS can’t these idiots realise that Iran (and the world for whom the show is) has already had threats of every stripe and terrorist actions ongoing now for so long that they couldn’t care less? You think you can bellow louder than Obama you orange clown? So what if you can? Nobody cares. They don’t believe you and they’re ready for you if you’re serious. They know even if you do not that you will not walk away from this one if you start it.

    Read More
  133. @Anatoly Karlin
    The CMP is not very good for asymmetric warfare (e.g. that between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis) because the stronger side cannot bring its massive advantage in military capital to bear. I emphasized that many times.

    I have absolutely never said or implied that Saudi Arabia has a competent military.

    Saudis have a mercenary military. Their aircraft are flown by foreign pilots since the princes pay others to do their flying lessons in order to become airmen and wear the uniform but they can’t fly a cessna. The army and navy are manned by Pakistanis in large numbers and they are often very good troops. Competant and trained in Pakistan usually. However the problem goes back to the first point. They are only doing it for pay and you can’t pay most men enough to die for you so they rarely put up much of a fight and they hightail it out of there when things look iffy. Leaving their expensive toys behind. The Yemenis appear to be simply picking up Saudi equipment from one base after another like Saudi bases are weapons bazaars or something.

    Everyone especially their troops know the Saudis don’t care less about them. Result, no loyalty.

    Read More
  134. @Rurik

    And that you are a free country (the land of the free and the home of the brave, no less) with a representative government (not a “regime” like all those nasty foreign countries that are legitimate targets for US and US-backed wars) that you are supposedly free to change by force if it ever gets out of hand….
     
    what's your point? Unless to be a parrot of mine. No one hates our Satanic Zio-government of treason and wanton wars of aggression (for Israel, going all the way back to the "good wars") more than me. And every other American who finally finds out the truth.

    So are you a free country whose citizens have collective responsibility for the actions of their government, or a dictatorship whose subjects cannot be held responsible for the acts of their slave-masters?
     
    we are a young and naïve nation of simple people that have been *LIED TO*

    endlessly, relentlessly, from every corner of our lives. From the classroom to the churches and cathedrals to the movie houses and television screens to the magazines and radio, the mendacity pours out upon us, no less ubiquitous than Newsspeak was upon the denizens of Orwell's nightmares.

    There's a reason the Matrix movies were so popular with us, and that's because they show exactly what's been going on, and continues to go on with every tiny facet of our controlled existance. It's lies, more lies and then some more lies, and when it turns out that they were lying, they just tell so many more lies that are heads are spinning from all the lies. That's it. That's all we get. Lies upon lies. And the lies hit us from every direction. From the pulpit to the lecture hall to the White House Rose Garden, its zio-lies 24-7, 365 day a week for year after year, decade after decade.

    That is why the "land of the free and the home of the brave" are such a joke. A guy like Pat Tillman, who could snap you in half on a whim, gave up enormous fame and future as a football hero, to sacrifice his life to avenge the innocent Americans who died on 9/11. He's the best of the best, and you'd be hard pressed to find a man of a fraction of his mettle among the nations of this world. But then, as occasionally happened, he too discovered that is was all zio-lies and that he was slaughtering the wrong people, so they blew off his head with a 50 cal, and you guessed it.. lied about it all.

    Do I piss on his grave because he was duped, and too stupid to see though it all? No, I don't. I piss on the people who lied to him, and those who would besmirch his good name for being a thousand times more heroic than they could be a hundred lifetimes. Just because he was a (innocent) American, (like most) who are lied to.

    Of course, you could be a country of people who, like the Germans or Japanese, are held responsible for their government when it suits the needs of the moment, to extort guilt and reparations from them or to justify slaughter-bombing warfare methods,...
     
    hmm.. what country are you from Randal?

    who would use a name like 'Randal' anyways? A citizen of the British empire perhaps? That festering imperial colossus of rot and perfidy? That nations so imbued with cowardice and pedophilia that it makes Americas (and every other nation) feel a combination of contempt and
    pity?

    I see you left them off my list of nations of people who are EXACTLY as guilty as the American people. Why did you do that Randal? To hide and mask the rot in your own sniveling country of cowards and homos, as you cast aspersions upon your betters from a distance? How positively British of you, I must say.

    . If so, welcome to the situation of all the nations of the world the US has demonised over the years.

    Perhaps turnabout really is fair play.
     
    which of these nations that America has demonized that the British haven't been even more savage and rabid? Germany? Iraq? Somehow I recall the methods used by Churchill as he was treating the Iraqi people during his day to some good olde British tea and crumpets and mustard gas.

    the fact is that if the German people deserved what 'was coming to them' for waging aggressive wars, then no one on this planet has it coming to them in spades times a thousand than the effete and treacherous British people. Ain't that so, Randal? [ten to one 'lavoisier's a frog/coward with French ancestry who's even more guilty than Randal, if that's even possible]

    There was no need for a 9/11 to get the American people mostly happily on board with the destruction of Vietnam (until too many actual Americans started to get killed). Nor with the attack on Yugoslavia. Nor with the brutalisation by subversion or military dictatorship of numerous South and Central American, African and Asian countries that threatened to choose the wrong side in the Cold War
     
    "Wilson may not have sent a bagpipe band (a reference to the Scottish Black Watch regiment), but there was significant indirect practical support from Britain for the US in Vietnam, much of which went under the radar.

    As well as providing regional intelligence, Britain supplied military hardware through back channels and offered paid training in jungle warfare to US special forces. British soldiers also signed up in their hundreds to fight. It is estimated that as many as 2,000 Britons were on the ground in Vietnam; individuals simply resigned from the army and re-enlisted in Australian or New Zealand fighting units".

    http://www.historytoday.com/marc-tiley/britain-vietnam-and-special-relationship

    there they are again, acting as cowardly little stooges to the big dog. Just like today, huh?

    Yes, America has been at war in form or anther its entire existence. I just watched a movie about the French and English in Canada using the Amerindian tribes to wage (savage) war against each other in the 16 and 17th centuries.

    We were born out of war, and continue to be mired in it. Much of it wars of a bully stomping on little guys and stealing their stuff.

    But all of it is waged and fomented by rich cocksuckers at the expense of the poor American slob who's expected to fight it. I'd love to see you walk into a group of veterans of the Vietnam war, where tens of thousands of poor young men watched their buddies get slaughtered or maimed or worse, left behind, and walk in and say of their lost friends and loved one that "turnabout really is fair play."

    But I wouldn't advise it.

    The solution to the Zio-wars and serial atrocities that the NATO countries commit on behalf of Israel, is not to blame the poor slobs that believe all their lies (having no opportunity to know the truth). No. The solution is to expose the lies Randal, and get the ire of our American blood up against the cocksuckers to foist these wars for fun and profit, that get poor Iraqis killed just as they get poor Americans killed. *Such a deal!*

    but it takes a nuanced brain to see beyond cartoon versions of history and current events, and for that, I'm not going to look to the British public, you can be certain. Or any other fools who get off (in their obvious envy) by blaming the working poor Americans for the monumental crimes of our government and media.

    Of course I am French.

    Read More
  135. After approving a military budget that is bigger that the military budgets of the next 9 major countries, the US Govt and the Military Industrial Complex have to position an enemy or two ‘On Notice’ on the cross-hairs.

    As if bullying Iran is not enough, now Mad Dog Mattis is warning China over the disputed islands (Japan stole from China in 1894) in the East China Sea and Steve Bannon, Emperor Trump’s chief strategist, is predicting a war with China over the South China Sea.

    Watch “The coming war on China” below:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a-SVY59UTo

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mad Dog2
    America tested 67 nuclear bombs in the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the 1950s and 60s and that caused a surge in cancer in thousands of natives living nearby. Here are the secrets of the Marshall Islands.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXvoRv-v9fg
  136. @Anatoly Karlin
    The CMP is not very good for asymmetric warfare (e.g. that between Saudi Arabia and the Houthis) because the stronger side cannot bring its massive advantage in military capital to bear. I emphasized that many times.

    I have absolutely never said or implied that Saudi Arabia has a competent military.

    What a sad sorry excuse.

    In fact, you placed the Saudis ahead of a LOT of States that have much more competent military forces. The entire list was pretty much ludicrous/useless and several other people ridiculed it and rightly so.

    Read More
  137. @Randal

    Our military remains in Afghanistan fifteen years after the invasion of that country. How does one conjecture that Iran could possibly be defeated by our military when they haven’t stopped a group of goat herders for over a decade?
     
    Iran's military can be defeated by the US's military in the sense that the US military can strike at Iran's military and at Iranian targets pretty much at will with little or no fear of any substantive response, and could probably physically occupy almost any particular location in the country, albeit at a high price in some cases - very little in the case of coastal areas, very high in the case of major cities or remote locations. Though in practice it's unlikely the US would even try to occupy the whole country, rather going for limited occupations of key points and prolonged standoff bombardment, while trying to stand up whatever collaboration groups they could find.

    The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory.

    The real issues, on which I suspect we agree, are over whether that would result in anything that could be described as a strategic victory for the US - most likely not.

    “The issue here is largely semantic, over what is meant by defeat and whether you can have a military victory without requiring a strategic victory.”

    It does no good to win at the lower levels(tactical, operational) if you lose at the higher level(strategic), so no.
    I’ll say it again; you seem to greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
    ZUSA had air supremacy in Korea and Vietnam, 2 third world countries with a fraction of Iran’s area and population. They bombed the hell out of those places but could NOT prevail.
    Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money. The Talibs have been controlling large parts of the country for years, since what, 2007, even the fraudulent Brit media admitted as much.
    As the Saker wrote: “The Iranians have been preparing for a war against the US and Israel for almost a quarter of a century – they are fine ready, both militarily and psychologically.”

    If you think Iran would fight a ground war on ZUSA’s terms, you just have no idea.

    You might wanna take a look at what Colonel David Hackworth(who passed in 2005) had to say on the subject of the modern day US army, in his ‘The March of the Porcelain Soldiers‘. Hack was an American Korean War and Vietnam War veteran who received many combat decorations for heroism in both these wars and is known for his role in the creation and command of the Tiger Force, a military unit formed during the Vietnam War to apply guerrilla warfare tactics to the fight against Vietcong guerrilla fighters. It had me LOL.
    Or listen to what William Lind, author of ‘the Maneuver Warfare Handbook’ had to say on ZUSA’s ground forces;

    In Congressional testimony, Secretary of Defense Gates said that unless we stop killing Afghan civilians in airstrikes, “we are lost.”  So why do we keep doing airstrikes?
    The answer is, because American infantry tactics are bad.  They amount to little more than bumping into the enemy and calling for fire.  The easiest way to provide the overwhelming firepower our bad infantry tactics depend on is with airstrikes.  So to win tactically, we have to lose strategically[...] It is the price of bad tactics.[...]
    There are three basic reasons why the U.S. military continues to employ bad infantry tactics when superior alternatives lie ready to hand.  The first is the unfortunate combination of hubris and intellectual sloth which characterizes most of the American officer corps and infantry officers in particular.  Most read nothing about their profession. [...]This ignorance is buttressed by hubris, false pride.  The American military spends a great deal of time and effort telling itself how wonderful it is…
    The second reason we persist with bad infantry tactics is bad training.  [...]
    The third reason American tactics are bad is a bad personnel system.[...] 

    Read More
  138. Just to weigh in on the debates on American military effectiveness, there are a bunch of things going on that it helps to think about separately:

    1) No one has figured out how to fight and take or hold ground when their opponent has air superiority, and this problem first emerged in 1918 (!).

    2) No one has figured out how to stop the USAF from gaining air superiority or bombing them.

    The USAF was the 20th century version of the 19th century Royal Navy, but even the Royal Navy was a lot less effective once you got far enough inland.

    Both 1) and 2) will change at some point, as these things always do, so I find debates like this interesting. But I don’t see any reason to expect a change in the near future.

    3) The US government government sent the US army and marines into a lot of countries to pursue objectives that were less than clear, or connected very obscurely to American national security interests. This actually goes back to Woodrow Wilson sending American forces into Mexico twice, during its civil war, for reasons historians are still trying to figure out.

    Because of 3), the American military is often very busy without getting much done. But it can still bomb pretty much everyone it wants.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    "1) No one has figured out how to fight and take or hold ground when their opponent has air superiority, and this problem first emerged in 1918 (!)."

    Sorry, this is just simply NOT true. Particularly the hold ground part of it.

    "2) No one has figured out how to stop the USAF from gaining air superiority or bombing them."

    There is some truth to that, but on the other hand, this is largely due to ZUSA's air force attacking weak countries and no state actors.
    If confronting a strong opponent, such as Russia, I think the results would be very, very different.
  139. when flogs like the saker start writing about the “useless seals” you can be assured the b 52,s are being dusted off.the skipping stones are headed for the coast.haifa will be paid back in full.

    Read More
  140. @Randal

    She didn’t have to blame Russia for the escalation in (former) eastern Ukraine. That wasn’t just rhetoric, that was simply a lie. That was uncalled for, and it can’t be excused.
     
    I would count that as both - as a lie and as rhetoric.

    I see no reason to regard that as anything other than exactly what I described earlier - the Trump regime making sure its political positioning on the Russia issue is what it needs to be right now. Once appointment hearings are out of the way and talks between Trump and Putin begin, we might get some useful indications of how Trump will address Russia, but not yet, I think.

    I'm not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it's too early to judge.

    I’m not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it’s too early to judge.

    I hope you’re right. It’s just that usually he’s not afraid to rattle the cage, in fact he goes out of his way to do so…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    I hope you’re right.
     
    So do I! And I certainly wouldn't stake my life upon it....

    It’s just that usually he’s not afraid to rattle the cage, in fact he goes out of his way to do so…
     
    When it suits him to do so, for sure.
  141. It does no good to win at the lower levels(tactical, operational) if you lose at the higher level(strategic), so no.
    I’ll say it again; you seem to greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.

    We agree that no overall “victory” (by any plausible definition) is likely in Iran for the US.

    But imo as I stated the US military, if it wants to, can destroy any target it wants to in Iran and can take any objective it decides to, and Iran’s military cannot effectively strike back. Fairy stories about “swarm tactics” are just that. It’s fine to talk about the very real deficiencies in aspects of the US military (I’ve done so myself on many occasions), but if you allow those to blind you to its equally real strengths then you are just making the same mistake as the America-Uber-Alles types, only in reverse.

    The reality is that the US would likely have total and virtually uncontested air superiority in Iran, from day one (I don’t put much faith in speculations that the S300s will last long, in practice – they will be overloaded and destroyed as soon as they light up). The reality is that the US military wields the most powerful stand off attack armoury in the world, by far. If they can find it, they can destroy it, and the only issue is whether there will be politically unacceptable collateral civilian casualties – a matter of political will as much as anything. The reality is that the US military wields incomparable aerial recon capabilities, so that while you can certainly hide things, as Yugoslavia and Iraq showed, it’s a hard task and even harder if you ever try to use them.

    If the US regime chooses not to launch any major ground occupation, but instead to go the Kosovo/Libya route, the Kosovo war showed that a determined nation can refuse to surrender to ongoing aerial bombardment, but the US can and will simply keep bombing, suffering negligible losses and escalating the targets. It’s a matter of political will, not military capability, how much damage the target state is going to take. Given the political will, the US can just keep bombing indefinitely, hitting any target that presents itself. Iran can only respond by escalating conflicts elsewhere, but those responses can themselves be dealt with and terrorist-style pinpricks ignored.

    The fact is that Iraq was militarily defeated by the US military (the army actually surrendered) and in Afghanistan the issue was a simple refusal by the Taliban to accept defeat politically, not a conventional military threat. The Tora Bora and (despite its black comedic aspects) Anaconda operations proved that the US military could go anywhere it wanted in Afghanistan. Even today, if the US military were to be told by the President that point x in Afghanistan needed to be taken, anywhere in Afghanistan regardless of whether or not it is in territory “controlled by the Taliban”, the US military could fight its way there at what by any reasonable standards would be a perfectly acceptable military cost. The issue is only that the US political leadership would (rightly) probably regard the political and diplomatic costs as unjustified by any strategic gain.

    I’m not blind to the fact that the Iranians will likely be a determined and ingenious enemy (though they have not been, in modern times, a particularly martial or militarily effective nation, though politically and culturally very strong), who will maximise their strengths and minimise their weaknesses, nor (as I said above) to the very real deficiencies in the US military. But the simple fact is that Iran is not a superpower and they cannot hope to even begin to match the forces that the US can field (though as I have repeatedly pointed out, that does not mean the US can achieve anything worthwhile by invading them).

    You can argue that this is a worthless distinction, and that only final victory counts, but the fact is that because of the US military victory over Afghan forces, the US’s collaborator and not Mullah Omar or his successors has been lording it in Kabul as ruler of the country (or of all the cities that matter, anyway) and it is their cronies who have held the profitable positions of power in the country for nearly two decades now, not the Taliban’s men. It is the Taliban’s men who have been hiding in remote locations and having to run and hide if they are targeted. These things do actually matter, even if they are not the end of the story.

    Once again, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have repeatedly stated that an attack on Iran would likely be a catastrophe for the US and for the Trump regime. But not because the Iranian military will defeat the US military head to head.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    I'm well aware of Zamerican military strengths and I do not understimate their firepower/air power. But I believe Iran could defeat a ZUSAn attempt at occupying them, i.e, the war on the ground. I notice you mention ZUSA'S "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignores its failures in Korea and Vietnam. To compare Iran to the sodding Taliban is ludicrous on so many levels I'll won't waste any time with that, and it is also nonsense to compare it to Saddam's Iraq.
    Completely different animals. In the Gulf war, the Iraqis, who were very war weary, were terribly led. They went into Kuwait never expecting to fight ZUSA and when it then happened they had no plan B, just sat there in the bloody flat open desert, getting bombed and watching the US build up. In 03, it was even worse. After all the disastrous wars starting with the one on Iran, and then the murdering sanctions, there was hardly any mood to fight for Saddam, particularly since some 80% of iraqis are Shia or Kurdish, people with little desire to fight and die for the regime. The rag tag Iraqi military then was basically a sort of police force for the government. The level of distrust was such, that even 'elite' units, such as the repub.guard had to be watched by a subset of it, which I think was called the special rep.guard or something. The Iraqis also never prepared for the invasion. Basically their forces just dissolved. Iraq's terrain is also mostly desert and largely flat, while Iran's is much more complex, not to mention much larger.
    When in Iraq, the guerrilla war phase began, it was largely done only by the arab speaking sunni minority.
    Winslow Wheeler, in the preface of Americas Defense Meltdown, wrote:

    America did quickly beat Iraq's armed forces in 1991, and in the early phases of the 2003 invasion, but those victories were both incomplete and against forces best characterized as grossly incompetent - perhaps even the 'most incompetent in the world'.1
    1."Morale was almost non-existent in the Iraqi army. The relentless bombing of Iraqi positions in 1991 convinced many troops to surrender and this time droves of soldiers deserted, realizing that the superior firepower and tactics of the coalition rendered any resistance as futile.
    Reports abound of discipline being enforced with an iron fist by Hussein's execution squads wandering around. Several Iraqi generals had achieved their positions not by a penchant for field craft, but by patronage and nepotism. Opportunities were wasted by the Iraqis. For example, bridges were left intact, allowing the coalition to cross the Euphrates River with ease. Luft notes that the Iraqis had "no trenches, no barricades, no sniper positions, no booby traps and no mines." The net result, according to Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, was that "they were the most incompetent army in the world."
     
    William Lind wrote in an article that :

    ' [a]phenomenon for which we should all give thanks, is a growing reluctance to commit the U.S. military to overseas conflicts. (This applies more to the Army and Marine Corps than the Navy and Air Force, but the latter are irrelevant to Fourth Generation war.) Reasons include cost and fear of casualties, but the biggest reason may be the one that is never spoken: the Establishment knows we will almost certainly lose.
     
    Let's hope we don't have to find out, Randal. I don't want to see Iranian civilians being murdered by ZUSA's forces or their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if it ends in a huge defeat for the zamericans.
  142. @Rurik

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind.
     
    I disagree. It's a pathology and the consequence of a rot in the soul of a society's leadership. Do you routinely lie to your children, your spouse. One of my favorite authors is Rudyard Kipling..

    If any ask why we died

    Tell them, because our fathers lied


    if lying to your people was the order of the day, we wouldn't even notice it. We'd expect it. Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    The only reason they're able to get away with the lies is because it isn't the natural state of mankind. It's an aberration, and they use that to maximum effect.

    It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies.
     
    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn't be believed!

    The only way the lie works is if people believe it. Or do you suppose that the people of England are perfectly sanguine to slaughter people based on lies, even tho they know they're lies?

    It doesn't work that way. If Pat Tillman, (and untold millions of others) knew the lies we were being told about 9/11 were lies, then do you think he would have gone to war over transparent lies?!

    Do you think the American people actually understand that we were lied to on 9/11? And that the lies are transparent and that we all really know we were lied to, and yet we still suit up our children to go and kill based on lies? Really?

    Well, you're wrong about that sir. If the British people would have known that Blair was lying about the WMD, they would not have allowed their children to be marched off to kill and die. Anymore than the French or American people would have allowed it. You must have a very cynical, jaundiced view of people, (or perhaps the American people in particular) if you think we know we were lied to but then are willing to send our young people to die based on transparent lies.

    I have to go. I'll bet back to this later...

    I'll just add that even now, most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as 'transparent lies', if most people still believe them?

    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn’t be believed!

    I didn’t believe them Nor did many, many other people. I went on the biggest demonstration in UK history in London in February 2003, with hundreds of thousands of people who also saw through the lies.

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war (ie mass killing), not with those who saw through them. And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.

    Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    Undoubtedly. What on earth makes you think they might not? As a simple example, look at European countries’ government and media gyrations over immigration and the EU.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war
     
    and if you asked 99% of the British public; 'did the Nazis wage an unilateral aggressive war that England heroically came to the aid to protect the world from?' What would they say? Or, more to the point, what would they believe?

    As I just mentioned to another poster, how many Brits, if you asked them, 'is Vladimir Putin a threat to his neighbors, and a potential threat to England? would answer in the affirmative?


    And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.
     
    so I suppose you're still trying to malign the character of the average American, because even after he votes in every election for the anti-war candidate, you'd have the nads to try to pass judgment on him, huh?

    Isn't England a parliamentary democracy of sorts, with a symbolic monarchy? Don't you guys have elections over there? Eh?

    Because I'll tell you something, my English friend, when I look back at the last hundred years or so of human history, and the West in particular, there is one glaring, nefarious snake pit of mendacity and treachery and genocidal, wanton rapine like no other on the world's stage.

    It seems to me that there is simply no evil too heinous, no perfidy too beyond the pale that the British government isn't capable of mortifying the collective spine of humanity with the sheer monstrosity of it all.

    Just go back to the Boer war if you like. Ushering in the twentieth century with its newest invention, the genocidal concentration camp! Isn't that fun? What better way to kill off the women and children of the Dutch farmers that created that country? And why? Because Harry Oppenheimer and DeBeers corp. discovered that there was gold and diamonds on the Dutch farmers land. So they treated the Dutch to a scorched earth campaign of genocide, in order to steal their resources. Isn't that nice?

    And then let's remember the World Wars now shall we?, and whose treachery was behind them? Who signed the Balfour Declaration and extended the war needlessly so that Germany might be treated to betrayals and treachery and perfidy so nefarious that it staggers the human soul. Who put into motion the whole Zionist nightmare that the world is still reeling from? Eh Randal?

    Who promised to give the land of Palestine to the Zionist Jews?

    Who was bomber Harris and what charming act is he most known for?

    Who, Randal, are the Rothschilds? And where do they hang their hat?

    Where do the "Russian" oligarchs (Rothschild's agents) go to when they've been chased out of every law abiding land on the planet one step ahead of Interpol? Didn't Berrezovsky make London his home? How does the British government and press treat that other uber-criminal Khodorkovsky?

    There doesn't seem to be a lie or an underhanded act of moral outrage that isn't honed to a fine, stiff upper lip in the land of Merry olde, Randal. And it's only because I have so much affection for the British people, that I never mention, or at least hardly ever do- the mindboggling putrescence of the British aristocracy, with their well-known penchant for little boys. When they're not bombing and destroying countries on behalf of Rothschild and international Zionism on a daily basis.

    No citizen of any country on this planet has less reason for pointing a sanctimonious finger than the languid denizens of England, where if there were but a shred of the mettle of the men who once ruled that land, and earned names like "The Lion heart', surely the blood and vigor of such men have long since left that gloomy land of bankers and pedophilia long ago.

    They lament the proliferation of Poles in England, but abase themselves before Pakistani child gang-rapists and Jamaican sperm donors to cuck their women for them. Perhaps if the Poles were just given a little more of a free hand, they can inject some Eastern European vigor back into that sorry land that is such an embarrassment and revolting example of a people who're embracing their own replacement by their former colonies. They'd rather play with boys I guess, and so what are the British girls to do? At least the Pakistani Muslims show an interest in them.

  143. @nsa
    Anyone actually believe the fairy tales? A 6 1/2' arab living in a cave high in the hindu kush, hooked up to an artificial kidney machine, sharing the cave with many wives and a very large porn collection, smoking on a hookah pipe....knocked down two NY skyscrapers using amateur arab pilots with flight simulator experience only and box cutters......followed by building 7 caving in on its own. It gets better....valiant gringo special forces then assault the cave but the 6 1/2' arab escapes hooked up to his kidney machine, with his wives and porn collection and hookah pipe......undetected by drones, satellites, locals. After a stupendous effort, many years later the 6 1/2' arab is located in a seedy motel in Pakistan with his wives and kidney machine and porn collection and hookah pipe. Valiant gringos then assault the motel but meet fierce resistance, and are forced to execute the 6 1/2' arab instead of snatching him for interrogation and public trial. His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can't swim and never bathe. And everyone lived happily ever after........

    “who mostly can’t swim and never bathe”
    LOL! You are a funny guy, aren’t you?

    Not sure if there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in all that, but let me say this to those al-right types (perhaps you included) who actually think along those lines;

    We muzzies may be too dark, too hairy, too ugly, and yes, too stinky for your “superior” sensibilities, but that would be nothing compared to the stink fest which is the foundation of western civilisation, namely the pagan Christian dogma. Your disparaging of Islam and its adherents cannot save you from the sinking ship you are on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    My Iranian visa was set to expire 10 hours before I was scheduled to leave the country. In an excess of caution (what was worst-case scenario -- Iran would throw me out of the country!!), I was advised to apply to the Iranian government for an extension, which I did.

    Quite an experience.

    Relative to the comment about "Muslims stinking," the pertinent part is that I appeared at the designated Iranian office just before prayer time. We had to wait in the head guy's office for 20 minutes or so because all of the officials, clerks, etc. had left their desks and gone to wash their hands and faces in preparation for prayer. In many places facilities are set aside for just that purpose.

    Iran has vast deserts but it is not almost total desert, like Saudi Arabia; nevertheless, both know how precious water is, and also know its survival value. In many religious practices -- that inflect broader cultural norms -- water has sacramental value, and "cleanliness is next to godliness" -- not to mention survival. That seemed to apply to every Iranian I met in Iran.

    (otoh the scarcity of water therefore constrained plumbing systems makes toilet facilities, um, not up to Trump Tower standards. Bring your own TP.)

    If you want to investigate "stinking" people who don't bathe, ask yourself who uses "French perfume that rocks the room."

  144. @Mao Cheng Ji

    I’m not saying the approach is guaranteed to be sensible, just that it’s too early to judge.
     
    I hope you're right. It's just that usually he's not afraid to rattle the cage, in fact he goes out of his way to do so...

    I hope you’re right.

    So do I! And I certainly wouldn’t stake my life upon it….

    It’s just that usually he’s not afraid to rattle the cage, in fact he goes out of his way to do so…

    When it suits him to do so, for sure.

    Read More
  145. This is a TERRIBLE article! LOL! for one thing…military operations require combat. In combat people get hurt and sometimes killed–even the good guys. And US Spec Ops don’t always botch things. The mission to kill bin Laden worked like a charm. Beyond that, EVERY POTUS has successes and failures. Premature article. Slanted “evidence.” Poorly written.

    Read More
    • Replies: @L.K
    Actually, the article is pretty good.

    "The mission to kill bin Laden worked like a charm."

    Hahaha, and you believed that fairy tale, did you? Poor bastard.
    , @L.K
    "In combat people get hurt and sometimes killed–even the good guys."

    Oh, but You are not the 'good guys', you are the bad guys. ZUSA is a bandit/terrorist state that has been at war for 93% of its existence, probably an unmatched record.
    It does not care for the rule of law, which it and its stooges violate on a daily basis.
    Btw, ZUSA has long been responsible for these AL-CIADA gangs, starting with Afghanistan in the 80s, when your lying media portrayed them as 'freedom fighters'.
    ZUSA has been instrumental in creating the Nusra front - al-ciada in Syria - and ISIS.
    These people have been used as mercenaries in ZUSA's attempts to overthrow the Syrian government, which is an act of war.
    In Yemen, ZUSA supports the Zaudis, who support AQAP and are attacking the Houthis, who are enemies of AQAP... which makes a mockery of this botched raid against AQAP in Yemen.
    In order to be a member of the seals, one has to be totally brainfucked, or merely an amoral/psycho hitman for the deep state.
  146. @eD
    Just to weigh in on the debates on American military effectiveness, there are a bunch of things going on that it helps to think about separately:

    1) No one has figured out how to fight and take or hold ground when their opponent has air superiority, and this problem first emerged in 1918 (!).

    2) No one has figured out how to stop the USAF from gaining air superiority or bombing them.

    The USAF was the 20th century version of the 19th century Royal Navy, but even the Royal Navy was a lot less effective once you got far enough inland.

    Both 1) and 2) will change at some point, as these things always do, so I find debates like this interesting. But I don't see any reason to expect a change in the near future.

    3) The US government government sent the US army and marines into a lot of countries to pursue objectives that were less than clear, or connected very obscurely to American national security interests. This actually goes back to Woodrow Wilson sending American forces into Mexico twice, during its civil war, for reasons historians are still trying to figure out.

    Because of 3), the American military is often very busy without getting much done. But it can still bomb pretty much everyone it wants.

    “1) No one has figured out how to fight and take or hold ground when their opponent has air superiority, and this problem first emerged in 1918 (!).”

    Sorry, this is just simply NOT true. Particularly the hold ground part of it.

    “2) No one has figured out how to stop the USAF from gaining air superiority or bombing them.”

    There is some truth to that, but on the other hand, this is largely due to ZUSA’s air force attacking weak countries and no state actors.
    If confronting a strong opponent, such as Russia, I think the results would be very, very different.

    Read More
  147. @Saldin
    "who mostly can’t swim and never bathe"
    LOL! You are a funny guy, aren't you?

    Not sure if there is a heavy dose of sarcasm in all that, but let me say this to those al-right types (perhaps you included) who actually think along those lines;

    We muzzies may be too dark, too hairy, too ugly, and yes, too stinky for your "superior" sensibilities, but that would be nothing compared to the stink fest which is the foundation of western civilisation, namely the pagan Christian dogma. Your disparaging of Islam and its adherents cannot save you from the sinking ship you are on.

    My Iranian visa was set to expire 10 hours before I was scheduled to leave the country. In an excess of caution (what was worst-case scenario — Iran would throw me out of the country!!), I was advised to apply to the Iranian government for an extension, which I did.

    Quite an experience.

    Relative to the comment about “Muslims stinking,” the pertinent part is that I appeared at the designated Iranian office just before prayer time. We had to wait in the head guy’s office for 20 minutes or so because all of the officials, clerks, etc. had left their desks and gone to wash their hands and faces in preparation for prayer. In many places facilities are set aside for just that purpose.

    Iran has vast deserts but it is not almost total desert, like Saudi Arabia; nevertheless, both know how precious water is, and also know its survival value. In many religious practices — that inflect broader cultural norms — water has sacramental value, and “cleanliness is next to godliness” — not to mention survival. That seemed to apply to every Iranian I met in Iran.

    (otoh the scarcity of water therefore constrained plumbing systems makes toilet facilities, um, not up to Trump Tower standards. Bring your own TP.)

    If you want to investigate “stinking” people who don’t bathe, ask yourself who uses “French perfume that rocks the room.”

    Read More
  148. So the way the US handles and manages its military (not the same thing as its military) is deserving of some rather severe critique and rebuke.

    Most notably: the most dangerous thing to adversaries we can do with our military is – use it from time to time, but not that much.

    One should not provide the enemy with many opportunities to study one’s tactics and capabilities – because one is – stupid – if one doesn’t think that that’s not exactly what has been going on as we have prosecuted campaigns in Afghanistan and Iraq.
    Much, much information has been made available for study by our technologically sophisticated adversaries who must have been asymmetrically incentivized to exploit the opportunity and who we are foolish to think are anything but our adversaries.

    And so – certainly among the very worst things the US does with its copious allotment of special forces is: deploy them too much. Hundreds, if not thousands of deployments – worldwide, in the last 20 years.

    With that in mind – let’s assess “Americans have a terrible record of doing special ops” the Saker. Everyone with a modicum of knowledge and an IQ north of 85 should recognize that as either ignorance, or propaganda – but almost surely propaganda.

    Indeed: one thing is true – Americans have a … record.

    That’s the part we need to be worried about and taking steps to change.

    Speak softly and carry a big stick
    And ** use ** the big stick
    But only from time to time
    And make each use unpredictable

    That is valid criticism, the criticism of someone who wishes success on the subject of his criticism.

    The Saker is many things, many of them good, but the Saker isn’t wishing success on the agents of US military actions, as such his best attempts at critique will still sink to the level of propaganda, on a good day.

    Read More
  149. @Randal

    It does no good to win at the lower levels(tactical, operational) if you lose at the higher level(strategic), so no.
    I'll say it again; you seem to greatly overestimate the US armed forces real capabilities, even more so that of its ground forces. At the same time you underestimate the Iranians.
     
    We agree that no overall "victory" (by any plausible definition) is likely in Iran for the US.

    But imo as I stated the US military, if it wants to, can destroy any target it wants to in Iran and can take any objective it decides to, and Iran's military cannot effectively strike back. Fairy stories about "swarm tactics" are just that. It's fine to talk about the very real deficiencies in aspects of the US military (I've done so myself on many occasions), but if you allow those to blind you to its equally real strengths then you are just making the same mistake as the America-Uber-Alles types, only in reverse.

    The reality is that the US would likely have total and virtually uncontested air superiority in Iran, from day one (I don't put much faith in speculations that the S300s will last long, in practice - they will be overloaded and destroyed as soon as they light up). The reality is that the US military wields the most powerful stand off attack armoury in the world, by far. If they can find it, they can destroy it, and the only issue is whether there will be politically unacceptable collateral civilian casualties - a matter of political will as much as anything. The reality is that the US military wields incomparable aerial recon capabilities, so that while you can certainly hide things, as Yugoslavia and Iraq showed, it's a hard task and even harder if you ever try to use them.

    If the US regime chooses not to launch any major ground occupation, but instead to go the Kosovo/Libya route, the Kosovo war showed that a determined nation can refuse to surrender to ongoing aerial bombardment, but the US can and will simply keep bombing, suffering negligible losses and escalating the targets. It's a matter of political will, not military capability, how much damage the target state is going to take. Given the political will, the US can just keep bombing indefinitely, hitting any target that presents itself. Iran can only respond by escalating conflicts elsewhere, but those responses can themselves be dealt with and terrorist-style pinpricks ignored.

    The fact is that Iraq was militarily defeated by the US military (the army actually surrendered) and in Afghanistan the issue was a simple refusal by the Taliban to accept defeat politically, not a conventional military threat. The Tora Bora and (despite its black comedic aspects) Anaconda operations proved that the US military could go anywhere it wanted in Afghanistan. Even today, if the US military were to be told by the President that point x in Afghanistan needed to be taken, anywhere in Afghanistan regardless of whether or not it is in territory "controlled by the Taliban", the US military could fight its way there at what by any reasonable standards would be a perfectly acceptable military cost. The issue is only that the US political leadership would (rightly) probably regard the political and diplomatic costs as unjustified by any strategic gain.

    I'm not blind to the fact that the Iranians will likely be a determined and ingenious enemy (though they have not been, in modern times, a particularly martial or militarily effective nation, though politically and culturally very strong), who will maximise their strengths and minimise their weaknesses, nor (as I said above) to the very real deficiencies in the US military. But the simple fact is that Iran is not a superpower and they cannot hope to even begin to match the forces that the US can field (though as I have repeatedly pointed out, that does not mean the US can achieve anything worthwhile by invading them).

    You can argue that this is a worthless distinction, and that only final victory counts, but the fact is that because of the US military victory over Afghan forces, the US's collaborator and not Mullah Omar or his successors has been lording it in Kabul as ruler of the country (or of all the cities that matter, anyway) and it is their cronies who have held the profitable positions of power in the country for nearly two decades now, not the Taliban's men. It is the Taliban's men who have been hiding in remote locations and having to run and hide if they are targeted. These things do actually matter, even if they are not the end of the story.

    Once again, and for the avoidance of doubt, I have repeatedly stated that an attack on Iran would likely be a catastrophe for the US and for the Trump regime. But not because the Iranian military will defeat the US military head to head.

    I’m well aware of Zamerican military strengths and I do not understimate their firepower/air power. But I believe Iran could defeat a ZUSAn attempt at occupying them, i.e, the war on the ground. I notice you mention ZUSA’S “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignores its failures in Korea and Vietnam. To compare Iran to the sodding Taliban is ludicrous on so many levels I’ll won’t waste any time with that, and it is also nonsense to compare it to Saddam’s Iraq.
    Completely different animals. In the Gulf war, the Iraqis, who were very war weary, were terribly led. They went into Kuwait never expecting to fight ZUSA and when it then happened they had no plan B, just sat there in the bloody flat open desert, getting bombed and watching the US build up. In 03, it was even worse. After all the disastrous wars starting with the one on Iran, and then the murdering sanctions, there was hardly any mood to fight for Saddam, particularly since some 80% of iraqis are Shia or Kurdish, people with little desire to fight and die for the regime. The rag tag Iraqi military then was basically a sort of police force for the government. The level of distrust was such, that even ‘elite’ units, such as the repub.guard had to be watched by a subset of it, which I think was called the special rep.guard or something. The Iraqis also never prepared for the invasion. Basically their forces just dissolved. Iraq’s terrain is also mostly desert and largely flat, while Iran’s is much more complex, not to mention much larger.
    When in Iraq, the guerrilla war phase began, it was largely done only by the arab speaking sunni minority.
    Winslow Wheeler, in the preface of Americas Defense Meltdown, wrote:

    America did quickly beat Iraq’s armed forces in 1991, and in the early phases of the 2003 invasion, but those victories were both incomplete and against forces best characterized as grossly incompetent – perhaps even the ‘most incompetent in the world’.1
    1.”Morale was almost non-existent in the Iraqi army. The relentless bombing of Iraqi positions in 1991 convinced many troops to surrender and this time droves of soldiers deserted, realizing that the superior firepower and tactics of the coalition rendered any resistance as futile.
    Reports abound of discipline being enforced with an iron fist by Hussein’s execution squads wandering around. Several Iraqi generals had achieved their positions not by a penchant for field craft, but by patronage and nepotism. Opportunities were wasted by the Iraqis. For example, bridges were left intact, allowing the coalition to cross the Euphrates River with ease. Luft notes that the Iraqis had “no trenches, no barricades, no sniper positions, no booby traps and no mines.” The net result, according to Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane’s World Armies, was that “they were the most incompetent army in the world.”

    William Lind wrote in an article that :

    ‘ [a]phenomenon for which we should all give thanks, is a growing reluctance to commit the U.S. military to overseas conflicts. (This applies more to the Army and Marine Corps than the Navy and Air Force, but the latter are irrelevant to Fourth Generation war.) Reasons include cost and fear of casualties, but the biggest reason may be the one that is never spoken: the Establishment knows we will almost certainly lose.

    Let’s hope we don’t have to find out, Randal. I don’t want to see Iranian civilians being murdered by ZUSA’s forces or their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if it ends in a huge defeat for the zamericans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    To compare Iran to the sodding Taliban is ludicrous on so many levels I’ll won’t waste any time with that, and it is also nonsense to compare it to Saddam’s Iraq.
     
    Yes, I agree, and the only reason I mentioned them was that it was in direct response to your assertion that: "Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money."

    I notice you mention ZUSA’S “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignores its failures in Korea and Vietnam.
     
    The former are far more relevant to the modern US military than the latter, is the reason for that.

    Let’s hope we don’t have to find out, Randal. I don’t want to see Iranian civilians being murdered by ZUSA’s forces or their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if it ends in a huge defeat for the zamericans.
     
    Indeed, though there's also an arguable case that perhaps it would be better for the world and for the US to finally get it over with, with something so obvious and catastrophic that even the interventionist US spin machine can't pretend it didn't happen. Bad luck for the innocents who die in the process, but good fortune for the lives otherwise to be lost in future interventionist American wars.

    If a US bloody nose in Iran were to cause the US to withdraw relatively gracefully from its interventionist and supremacist ideologies, rather than starting a war with China to try to cling to their past dominance that goes nuclear, then that would certainly be a humanitarian win overall.

  150. @D3F1ANT
    This is a TERRIBLE article! LOL! for one thing...military operations require combat. In combat people get hurt and sometimes killed--even the good guys. And US Spec Ops don't always botch things. The mission to kill bin Laden worked like a charm. Beyond that, EVERY POTUS has successes and failures. Premature article. Slanted "evidence." Poorly written.

    Actually, the article is pretty good.

    “The mission to kill bin Laden worked like a charm.”

    Hahaha, and you believed that fairy tale, did you? Poor bastard.

    Read More
  151. @Rabbitnexus
    Your response is considered and correct up to a point. However it ignores human psychology, which is a large part of the deception process. We have seen a great deal of practical examples of cognitive dissonance in society, most markedly since and specifically related to 9/11. There the lies are indeed so transparent and often contradictory or even utterly preposterous in light of simple everyday scientific understanding, that some other mechanism than a convincing lie must be at work. Cognitive Dissonance is the result of the mind's need to maintain a belief which underpins the person's whole life paradigm. Subconsciously recognising the threat to one's belief system that acknowledging something might entail the human mind has adapted to allow a sort of segregation of information to ensure the one idea does not slip over and contaminate the rest.

    The response that "Most people believe it" is rarely true. That is what those who do believe it, believe. The cherished delusion which needs protecting from challenging information, is rarely an outlier. It works much better if it is seen to be or believed to be the default truth for everybody. Long after those who still believe the official 9/11 fairy tale have been reduced to a minority, there is one thing those who do believe also include in their delusional world view. The idea that they are among the majority still. Having been protected from reason and gravity, they have also been blissfully unaware that most others have adjusted their understanding over time, even if only passively.

    There the lies are indeed so transparent and often contradictory or even utterly preposterous in light of simple everyday scientific understanding, that some other mechanism than a convincing lie must be at work.

    well I did specifically spell that out rather exhaustively. The mechanism at work is the fundamental goodness of the average Joe or Jane. They can not comprehend a government (elements there of) and media that would be evil enough to slaughter 3000 of their own citizens in a cynical attempt to use that atrocity to foment more wars and more atrocities.

    The people at the top of the fecal government have been psychopaths (many still are). There’s a reason the word ‘fiend’ exists in the English language, so as to describe a human so beyond the pale of evil that it stops even being human. (even if it is, alas, all too human)

    Nevertheless, people can’t comprehend such diabolical betrayal and stone-cold evil, and that’s the main thing the Zionists (and their Shabbos goy stooges) have going for them.

    Cognitive Dissonance is the result of the mind’s need to maintain a belief which underpins the person’s whole life paradigm.

    thank you. Well said, that’s my whole point.

    The response that “Most people believe it” is rarely true. That is what those who do believe it, believe. The cherished delusion which needs protecting from challenging information, is rarely an outlier.

    aren’t you being contradictive here?

    The idea that they are among the majority still. Having been protected from reason and gravity, they have also been blissfully unaware that most others have adjusted their understanding over time, even if only passively.

    I don’t think so. I suspect that these people are not knowingly operating under a self-imposed delusion, but that they haven’t really given it all that much thought.

    Was Hitler the most evil man that ever lived?

    most people on the planet would answer in the affirmative, because that is the narrative/paradigm/mantra of our global deeply held belief system. Even more so than belief in religious ‘truths’, we all knee-jerk use Hitler as the corporal incarnation of evil itself. Whether Christian, Jew, Muslim, and all the rest, including atheists and agnostics the world over. How many people know what Stalin was like? Or Mao?

    almost none. So this elusive, ethereal, ephemeral ‘truth’ that you seem to think pervades human reason, and it’s just a few deluded fools who cling to bygone popular delusions, is simply not what I observe in the world today.

    If the pundits speak of 9/11 as having happened as the PTB said it did, then most people will go along with it (indeed, believe it). How many Westerners today believe that Putin attacked the Ukraine? Or that he shot down the plane? Or that he persecutes gays? Or that he’s a bully and a threat?

    answer: most people in the West. And even tho these notions are absurd and preposterous, nevertheless, just like with the “transparent lie” of 9/11, most people believe it.

    Read More
  152. @D3F1ANT
    This is a TERRIBLE article! LOL! for one thing...military operations require combat. In combat people get hurt and sometimes killed--even the good guys. And US Spec Ops don't always botch things. The mission to kill bin Laden worked like a charm. Beyond that, EVERY POTUS has successes and failures. Premature article. Slanted "evidence." Poorly written.

    “In combat people get hurt and sometimes killed–even the good guys.”

    Oh, but You are not the ‘good guys’, you are the bad guys. ZUSA is a bandit/terrorist state that has been at war for 93% of its existence, probably an unmatched record.
    It does not care for the rule of law, which it and its stooges violate on a daily basis.
    Btw, ZUSA has long been responsible for these AL-CIADA gangs, starting with Afghanistan in the 80s, when your lying media portrayed them as ‘freedom fighters’.
    ZUSA has been instrumental in creating the Nusra front – al-ciada in Syria – and ISIS.
    These people have been used as mercenaries in ZUSA’s attempts to overthrow the Syrian government, which is an act of war.
    In Yemen, ZUSA supports the Zaudis, who support AQAP and are attacking the Houthis, who are enemies of AQAP… which makes a mockery of this botched raid against AQAP in Yemen.
    In order to be a member of the seals, one has to be totally brainfucked, or merely an amoral/psycho hitman for the deep state.

    Read More
  153. CIA helped Iraq use chemical weapons on Iran
    Ex-CIA Ray McGovern discusses it on RT.

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/08/26/exclusive-cia-files-prove-america-helped-saddam-as-he-gassed-iran/

    This sort of info puts in perspective ZUSA’s hypocritical red lines on the Syrian gov. re chemical weapons, which of course the Syrian forces did NOT use at all. It was all a false-flag op to be used as an excuse by ZUSA to intervene directly in favor of their moderate beheaders.

    Read More
  154. @Randal

    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn’t be believed!
     
    I didn't believe them Nor did many, many other people. I went on the biggest demonstration in UK history in London in February 2003, with hundreds of thousands of people who also saw through the lies.

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war (ie mass killing), not with those who saw through them. And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.

    Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?
     
    Undoubtedly. What on earth makes you think they might not? As a simple example, look at European countries' government and media gyrations over immigration and the EU.

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war

    and if you asked 99% of the British public; ‘did the Nazis wage an unilateral aggressive war that England heroically came to the aid to protect the world from?’ What would they say? Or, more to the point, what would they believe?

    As I just mentioned to another poster, how many Brits, if you asked them, ‘is Vladimir Putin a threat to his neighbors, and a potential threat to England? would answer in the affirmative?

    And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.

    so I suppose you’re still trying to malign the character of the average American, because even after he votes in every election for the anti-war candidate, you’d have the nads to try to pass judgment on him, huh?

    Isn’t England a parliamentary democracy of sorts, with a symbolic monarchy? Don’t you guys have elections over there? Eh?

    Because I’ll tell you something, my English friend, when I look back at the last hundred years or so of human history, and the West in particular, there is one glaring, nefarious snake pit of mendacity and treachery and genocidal, wanton rapine like no other on the world’s stage.

    It seems to me that there is simply no evil too heinous, no perfidy too beyond the pale that the British government isn’t capable of mortifying the collective spine of humanity with the sheer monstrosity of it all.

    Just go back to the Boer war if you like. Ushering in the twentieth century with its newest invention, the genocidal concentration camp! Isn’t that fun? What better way to kill off the women and children of the Dutch farmers that created that country? And why? Because Harry Oppenheimer and DeBeers corp. discovered that there was gold and diamonds on the Dutch farmers land. So they treated the Dutch to a scorched earth campaign of genocide, in order to steal their resources. Isn’t that nice?

    And then let’s remember the World Wars now shall we?, and whose treachery was behind them? Who signed the Balfour Declaration and extended the war needlessly so that Germany might be treated to betrayals and treachery and perfidy so nefarious that it staggers the human soul. Who put into motion the whole Zionist nightmare that the world is still reeling from? Eh Randal?

    Who promised to give the land of Palestine to the Zionist Jews?

    Who was bomber Harris and what charming act is he most known for?

    Who, Randal, are the Rothschilds? And where do they hang their hat?

    Where do the “Russian” oligarchs (Rothschild’s agents) go to when they’ve been chased out of every law abiding land on the planet one step ahead of Interpol? Didn’t Berrezovsky make London his home? How does the British government and press treat that other uber-criminal Khodorkovsky?

    There doesn’t seem to be a lie or an underhanded act of moral outrage that isn’t honed to a fine, stiff upper lip in the land of Merry olde, Randal. And it’s only because I have so much affection for the British people, that I never mention, or at least hardly ever do- the mindboggling putrescence of the British aristocracy, with their well-known penchant for little boys. When they’re not bombing and destroying countries on behalf of Rothschild and international Zionism on a daily basis.

    No citizen of any country on this planet has less reason for pointing a sanctimonious finger than the languid denizens of England, where if there were but a shred of the mettle of the men who once ruled that land, and earned names like “The Lion heart’, surely the blood and vigor of such men have long since left that gloomy land of bankers and pedophilia long ago.

    They lament the proliferation of Poles in England, but abase themselves before Pakistani child gang-rapists and Jamaican sperm donors to cuck their women for them. Perhaps if the Poles were just given a little more of a free hand, they can inject some Eastern European vigor back into that sorry land that is such an embarrassment and revolting example of a people who’re embracing their own replacement by their former colonies. They’d rather play with boys I guess, and so what are the British girls to do? At least the Pakistani Muslims show an interest in them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Tu quoque is of limited benefit in such discussions, but hopefully you feel better for unloading. I'm not going to defend my country and my countrymen, partly because much of what you write is fair comment, but mainly because it's beside the point - it's Americans who are the problem because there is only one superpower and it's the US. It's been 70 years and more now since my country was relevant on the international stage as anything more than a satellite state of the US, regrettably.

    so I suppose you’re still trying to malign the character of the average American, because even after he votes in every election for the anti-war candidate, you’d have the nads to try to pass judgment on him, huh?
     
    Certainly, because your claim here is straightforwardly untrue.

    12 million more Americans voted for Bush II in 2004 than had voted for him in 2000, with the bleeding corpses of Afghanistan and Iraq still hanging there right before their eyes, still getting pummelled by the man they were voting for. If that's "voting for the anti-war candidate", then I'm a banana.

    Despite some early maverick wobbles, John McCain has certainly since his support for the Clinton regime's criminal war on Yugoslavia been a high profile and consistent interventionist warmonger. He's been repeatedly re-elected to the Senate throughout.

    Lindsey Graham is another outspoken warmongering interventionist who just keeps on being re-elected. Joe Lieberman was another, who was even re-elected by the "average Americans" of Connecticut after being rejected in his own party's primary.

    These are just a few particularly high profile (and hugely powerful) examples of the ordinary American's demonstrated willingness to elect open advocates of military aggression to run his country.
  155. @Rurik

    The issue is with the people who chose to believe the lies, or to give them the benefit of the doubt even when the issue was one of waging aggressive war
     
    and if you asked 99% of the British public; 'did the Nazis wage an unilateral aggressive war that England heroically came to the aid to protect the world from?' What would they say? Or, more to the point, what would they believe?

    As I just mentioned to another poster, how many Brits, if you asked them, 'is Vladimir Putin a threat to his neighbors, and a potential threat to England? would answer in the affirmative?


    And the issue is with those who re-elected the liars even after the true facts had become even more evident and even after the killings had started.
     
    so I suppose you're still trying to malign the character of the average American, because even after he votes in every election for the anti-war candidate, you'd have the nads to try to pass judgment on him, huh?

    Isn't England a parliamentary democracy of sorts, with a symbolic monarchy? Don't you guys have elections over there? Eh?

    Because I'll tell you something, my English friend, when I look back at the last hundred years or so of human history, and the West in particular, there is one glaring, nefarious snake pit of mendacity and treachery and genocidal, wanton rapine like no other on the world's stage.

    It seems to me that there is simply no evil too heinous, no perfidy too beyond the pale that the British government isn't capable of mortifying the collective spine of humanity with the sheer monstrosity of it all.

    Just go back to the Boer war if you like. Ushering in the twentieth century with its newest invention, the genocidal concentration camp! Isn't that fun? What better way to kill off the women and children of the Dutch farmers that created that country? And why? Because Harry Oppenheimer and DeBeers corp. discovered that there was gold and diamonds on the Dutch farmers land. So they treated the Dutch to a scorched earth campaign of genocide, in order to steal their resources. Isn't that nice?

    And then let's remember the World Wars now shall we?, and whose treachery was behind them? Who signed the Balfour Declaration and extended the war needlessly so that Germany might be treated to betrayals and treachery and perfidy so nefarious that it staggers the human soul. Who put into motion the whole Zionist nightmare that the world is still reeling from? Eh Randal?

    Who promised to give the land of Palestine to the Zionist Jews?

    Who was bomber Harris and what charming act is he most known for?

    Who, Randal, are the Rothschilds? And where do they hang their hat?

    Where do the "Russian" oligarchs (Rothschild's agents) go to when they've been chased out of every law abiding land on the planet one step ahead of Interpol? Didn't Berrezovsky make London his home? How does the British government and press treat that other uber-criminal Khodorkovsky?

    There doesn't seem to be a lie or an underhanded act of moral outrage that isn't honed to a fine, stiff upper lip in the land of Merry olde, Randal. And it's only because I have so much affection for the British people, that I never mention, or at least hardly ever do- the mindboggling putrescence of the British aristocracy, with their well-known penchant for little boys. When they're not bombing and destroying countries on behalf of Rothschild and international Zionism on a daily basis.

    No citizen of any country on this planet has less reason for pointing a sanctimonious finger than the languid denizens of England, where if there were but a shred of the mettle of the men who once ruled that land, and earned names like "The Lion heart', surely the blood and vigor of such men have long since left that gloomy land of bankers and pedophilia long ago.

    They lament the proliferation of Poles in England, but abase themselves before Pakistani child gang-rapists and Jamaican sperm donors to cuck their women for them. Perhaps if the Poles were just given a little more of a free hand, they can inject some Eastern European vigor back into that sorry land that is such an embarrassment and revolting example of a people who're embracing their own replacement by their former colonies. They'd rather play with boys I guess, and so what are the British girls to do? At least the Pakistani Muslims show an interest in them.

    Tu quoque is of limited benefit in such discussions, but hopefully you feel better for unloading. I’m not going to defend my country and my countrymen, partly because much of what you write is fair comment, but mainly because it’s beside the point – it’s Americans who are the problem because there is only one superpower and it’s the US. It’s been 70 years and more now since my country was relevant on the international stage as anything more than a satellite state of the US, regrettably.

    so I suppose you’re still trying to malign the character of the average American, because even after he votes in every election for the anti-war candidate, you’d have the nads to try to pass judgment on him, huh?

    Certainly, because your claim here is straightforwardly untrue.

    12 million more Americans voted for Bush II in 2004 than had voted for him in 2000, with the bleeding corpses of Afghanistan and Iraq still hanging there right before their eyes, still getting pummelled by the man they were voting for. If that’s “voting for the anti-war candidate”, then I’m a banana.

    Despite some early maverick wobbles, John McCain has certainly since his support for the Clinton regime’s criminal war on Yugoslavia been a high profile and consistent interventionist warmonger. He’s been repeatedly re-elected to the Senate throughout.

    Lindsey Graham is another outspoken warmongering interventionist who just keeps on being re-elected. Joe Lieberman was another, who was even re-elected by the “average Americans” of Connecticut after being rejected in his own party’s primary.

    These are just a few particularly high profile (and hugely powerful) examples of the ordinary American’s demonstrated willingness to elect open advocates of military aggression to run his country.

    Read More
  156. @L.K
    I'm well aware of Zamerican military strengths and I do not understimate their firepower/air power. But I believe Iran could defeat a ZUSAn attempt at occupying them, i.e, the war on the ground. I notice you mention ZUSA'S "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignores its failures in Korea and Vietnam. To compare Iran to the sodding Taliban is ludicrous on so many levels I'll won't waste any time with that, and it is also nonsense to compare it to Saddam's Iraq.
    Completely different animals. In the Gulf war, the Iraqis, who were very war weary, were terribly led. They went into Kuwait never expecting to fight ZUSA and when it then happened they had no plan B, just sat there in the bloody flat open desert, getting bombed and watching the US build up. In 03, it was even worse. After all the disastrous wars starting with the one on Iran, and then the murdering sanctions, there was hardly any mood to fight for Saddam, particularly since some 80% of iraqis are Shia or Kurdish, people with little desire to fight and die for the regime. The rag tag Iraqi military then was basically a sort of police force for the government. The level of distrust was such, that even 'elite' units, such as the repub.guard had to be watched by a subset of it, which I think was called the special rep.guard or something. The Iraqis also never prepared for the invasion. Basically their forces just dissolved. Iraq's terrain is also mostly desert and largely flat, while Iran's is much more complex, not to mention much larger.
    When in Iraq, the guerrilla war phase began, it was largely done only by the arab speaking sunni minority.
    Winslow Wheeler, in the preface of Americas Defense Meltdown, wrote:

    America did quickly beat Iraq's armed forces in 1991, and in the early phases of the 2003 invasion, but those victories were both incomplete and against forces best characterized as grossly incompetent - perhaps even the 'most incompetent in the world'.1
    1."Morale was almost non-existent in the Iraqi army. The relentless bombing of Iraqi positions in 1991 convinced many troops to surrender and this time droves of soldiers deserted, realizing that the superior firepower and tactics of the coalition rendered any resistance as futile.
    Reports abound of discipline being enforced with an iron fist by Hussein's execution squads wandering around. Several Iraqi generals had achieved their positions not by a penchant for field craft, but by patronage and nepotism. Opportunities were wasted by the Iraqis. For example, bridges were left intact, allowing the coalition to cross the Euphrates River with ease. Luft notes that the Iraqis had "no trenches, no barricades, no sniper positions, no booby traps and no mines." The net result, according to Maj. Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies, was that "they were the most incompetent army in the world."
     
    William Lind wrote in an article that :

    ' [a]phenomenon for which we should all give thanks, is a growing reluctance to commit the U.S. military to overseas conflicts. (This applies more to the Army and Marine Corps than the Navy and Air Force, but the latter are irrelevant to Fourth Generation war.) Reasons include cost and fear of casualties, but the biggest reason may be the one that is never spoken: the Establishment knows we will almost certainly lose.
     
    Let's hope we don't have to find out, Randal. I don't want to see Iranian civilians being murdered by ZUSA's forces or their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if it ends in a huge defeat for the zamericans.

    To compare Iran to the sodding Taliban is ludicrous on so many levels I’ll won’t waste any time with that, and it is also nonsense to compare it to Saddam’s Iraq.

    Yes, I agree, and the only reason I mentioned them was that it was in direct response to your assertion that: “Non state actors in Iraq and Afghanistan have given ZUSA and its lackeys a run for their money.”

    I notice you mention ZUSA’S “victories” in Afghanistan and Iraq and ignores its failures in Korea and Vietnam.

    The former are far more relevant to the modern US military than the latter, is the reason for that.

    Let’s hope we don’t have to find out, Randal. I don’t want to see Iranian civilians being murdered by ZUSA’s forces or their cities and infrastructure destroyed, even if it ends in a huge defeat for the zamericans.

    Indeed, though there’s also an arguable case that perhaps it would be better for the world and for the US to finally get it over with, with something so obvious and catastrophic that even the interventionist US spin machine can’t pretend it didn’t happen. Bad luck for the innocents who die in the process, but good fortune for the lives otherwise to be lost in future interventionist American wars.

    If a US bloody nose in Iran were to cause the US to withdraw relatively gracefully from its interventionist and supremacist ideologies, rather than starting a war with China to try to cling to their past dominance that goes nuclear, then that would certainly be a humanitarian win overall.

    Read More
  157. @AP
    I don 't know what to make of Trump's relationship to Ukraine. I do know that many Ukrainian-American nationalists voted for Trump. One of them made the short-list for Deputy Secretary of State (though it looks like Abrams is the front-runner):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/josh-rogin/wp/2017/01/25/trump-team-narrowing-search-for-state-departments-no-2-official/?utm_term=.ea5f2593a5b0

    Donald Trump Jr. also spoke at the Ukrainian Cultural Center in Michigan, whose Ukrainians tended to vote for Trump.

    Either Russians or Ukrainians (or both) are engaging in wishful thinking about the Trump administration.

    The Ukrainians I met in Sacramento that I’ve mentioned a few time I am sure are 90% Trumpist. My impression is that they are more (ultra) religious than nationalist, though certainly they are no fans of Russia.

    Either way there will certainly be many zradas and peremogas in the months to come for both sides.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anatoly Karlin
    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.

    Loud, tough, abrasive, white male Republicans have traditionally been much tougher on Russia than timid, limp-wristed, multi-cultural Democrats and leftists.

    But that pattern has essentially flipped in the past year.

    It is now the conservatives who like Russia more than liberals in the US (though to be fair, conservatives do not like it very much).

    And not everyone has noticed that! (especially Ukranians who do not have a hand on the pulse of American politics and don't make a habit of scouring the opinion polls).

    This is logical, a return to historical norm - European conservatives were much more favorably disposed to Tsarist Russia than liberals and socialists - which implies that the Soviet period was just a very big abberation in the ideological pattern of Western perceptions of Russia, and that the new reality is here to stay.

    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.
  158. @Anatoly Karlin
    The Ukrainians I met in Sacramento that I've mentioned a few time I am sure are 90% Trumpist. My impression is that they are more (ultra) religious than nationalist, though certainly they are no fans of Russia.

    Either way there will certainly be many zradas and peremogas in the months to come for both sides.

    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.

    Loud, tough, abrasive, white male Republicans have traditionally been much tougher on Russia than timid, limp-wristed, multi-cultural Democrats and leftists.

    But that pattern has essentially flipped in the past year.

    It is now the conservatives who like Russia more than liberals in the US (though to be fair, conservatives do not like it very much).

    And not everyone has noticed that! (especially Ukranians who do not have a hand on the pulse of American politics and don’t make a habit of scouring the opinion polls).

    This is logical, a return to historical norm – European conservatives were much more favorably disposed to Tsarist Russia than liberals and socialists – which implies that the Soviet period was just a very big abberation in the ideological pattern of Western perceptions of Russia, and that the new reality is here to stay.

    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.
     
    This was my strong assumption, until I spoke with a Ukrainian-American who was a retired officer in military intelligence, who was very much pro-Trump. He did not know Flynn personally, but knew those who did, and was quite certain that Flynn's appearances on RT did not indicate that he was actually pro-Russian (and he was adamant that Flynn was the opposite). Maybe he was just engaged n wishful thinking. But now I am much less sure about the issue. We'll see.

    Paula Dobriansky, a Ukrainian-American, who had met with Trump several times, almost became deputy secretary of state (it looks like Abrams will be the guy). Had she been chosen, there would have been a western Ukrainian secretary of the State in the USA and a western Ukrainian Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia (Valentina Matvienko).


    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.
     
    So far there has really been nothing but words, either way. The sanctions against the FSB were tweaked a little, but only so that some US companies would make a little money. I have no idea how things will go.
  159. it’s Americans who are the problem because there is only one superpower and it’s the US.

    in exactly the same way the “Russians” were the problem when the tribe had them ‘by the hair of the head’.

    or the Brits vis-a-vis the examples I provided

    it’s a matter of principle with me. Sure, today the ZUS is the superpower. But what about all the nations and people willing to go along with it all. Imagine if you will, what the reaction would have been had Tony Blair got up before the British and world’s people, and said:

    ‘Please make no mistake- what our cousins across the Atlantic are saying about WMD, we find no evidence for. Our intelligence services have found no evidence whatsoever of any so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’. Indeed, the only ones that Saddam is known to have had, were provided to him by the Americans themselves, to use in an aggressive proxy war that the Americans used Iraq for in its on going hostilities against that put upon and victimized nation’.

    ‘Our own scientists and experts in these fields, like the estimable Dr. David Kelly, have assured us that these wild and unfounded charges are absurd, and even a provocation. We will not let our American friends drag us all down into another contrived war of dubious justifications, and unless any proof of these spurious charges are provided to the international community, we are resolute and stalwart in our defense of, and solidarity with the legitimate and universally recognized government of Iraq.’

    Imagine if he would have done that, what that would have done to the “coalition of the willing”

    it wasn’t so much British arms that made the difference, even tho England provided troops and arms, but it was the moral authority of England, that made the difference. And if England (and all the other NATO countries) were willing to go on the record as supporting Bush’s (ZUSA’s) illegal and immoral wars, then I’m sorry if I just don’t feel too contrite at hearing all those citizens pointing their self-righteous finger just because the ZUSA is the biggest bully. All those little voices telling the big dumb bully to ‘go get em!’ are just as guilty to my mind. It’s a matter of principle.

    As for John McBloodstain and the bovine, cud-chewing nature of many Americans? Well, they’ve simply marinated in the mind-numbing sewage of decades of Hollywood and Madison Ave. intellectual and moral poison for so long, that yes, too many of them are now consumer zombies, as they’ve been programed to be. You’re right about that. But just because a large segment of American society is brain dead, and morally catatonic, doesn’t excuse all the other sheep like cowardice and craven moral onus of the rest of the NATO nations, and others as well.

    Right now it’s Putin’s Russia that they have in the cross hairs, and are using lingering resentment in Eastern Europe to create a rift. We need to see more maturity over in that part of the world, so that McBloodstain isn’t able to cause any more harm. If Putin can make amends with Poland and Ukraine and the rest, and come to an arrangement that mollifies their angst, then that would be a big step, yes?

    and then we can all concentrate on making sure Iran is safe from the Fiend, and repudiate these war pigs, as if with one voice. That’s the ticket! But it won’t get done by pointing at the deplorables and calling us names and blaming us for what Bush and Blair have wrought, and set in motion.

    btw, I was watching some of the antics of your parliament yesterday, and all the screeching over Trump coming to Westminster and giving a speech. Sad in way

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    But it won’t get done by pointing at the deplorables and calling us names and blaming us for what Bush and Blair have wrought, and set in motion.
     
    I've certainly nothing against US "deplorables" in particular. In many cases, they're the good guys. There just haven't been enough of them.


    btw, I was watching some of the antics of your parliament yesterday, and all the screeching over Trump coming to Westminster and giving a speech. Sad in way
     
    I try not to have any exposure to the pathetic performances of modern British establishment politicians. It's shaming, like having a family member who is an advocate of pedophilia or some such.
    , @JL
    Normally, it wouldn't even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn't it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama's and Cameron's plans to attack Syria? I'm not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing. My guess is that they remembered being burned in Iraq and had come to their senses. In any event, I am grateful that they finally grew a spine in this one case, even if it was a fleeting event or due to ulterior motives.
  160. @Che Guava
    You make a nice picture of ben Laden, entertaining, and to some point, it seems, true. As for the 'truther' parts, I think they have a case, on the other hand, like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time,

    I very much doubt that the narrative of how that part happened is untrue.

    His body is then disposed of at sea in the tradition of the muzzies, who mostly can’t swim and never bathe.
     
    I don't know if you intended to provoke laughter, but that line sure made me laugh involuntarily, the only true kind.

    Thx for that, nsa!

    You wrote:

    like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time…

    Actually, there was only one “crash” shown live, or “real time” on TV on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, but don’t feel like the Lone Ranger, Bush made the same mistake too.

    As well, It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the “real-time footage” was computer generated imagery, or CGI, which depicted the impossible feat of a largely aluminum airplane slicing through the dense array of 14″ box columns of 1/4″ thick steel plate on the facade of the WTC as if it were paper, leaving a vivid imprint of its passage on the exterior of the building, before disappearing into the structure through this hidey-hole.

    Simon Shack’s September Clues will tell you just about all you need to know about the video fakery, while pilot John Lear’s affidavit asserts the impossibility of flying and maneuvering a 767 at the high speeds, and low altitude claimed for the allegedly hijacked jetliners on 9/11.

    Shack thinks a smokescreen was used to mask the actual destruction of the WTC, with a 17 second delay in video transmission used to insert the fake CGI airplane into the video feed, and that a conventional controlled demolition was used to bring the buildings down.

    However, the debris pile is entirely too small by a wide margin to be consistent with a conventional controlled demolition, as Jim Fetzer now recognizes Dr. Judy Woods’ point in that regard, but Fetzer thinks the towers were nuked.

    Read More
  161. @Anatoly Karlin
    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.

    Loud, tough, abrasive, white male Republicans have traditionally been much tougher on Russia than timid, limp-wristed, multi-cultural Democrats and leftists.

    But that pattern has essentially flipped in the past year.

    It is now the conservatives who like Russia more than liberals in the US (though to be fair, conservatives do not like it very much).

    And not everyone has noticed that! (especially Ukranians who do not have a hand on the pulse of American politics and don't make a habit of scouring the opinion polls).

    This is logical, a return to historical norm - European conservatives were much more favorably disposed to Tsarist Russia than liberals and socialists - which implies that the Soviet period was just a very big abberation in the ideological pattern of Western perceptions of Russia, and that the new reality is here to stay.

    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.

    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.

    This was my strong assumption, until I spoke with a Ukrainian-American who was a retired officer in military intelligence, who was very much pro-Trump. He did not know Flynn personally, but knew those who did, and was quite certain that Flynn’s appearances on RT did not indicate that he was actually pro-Russian (and he was adamant that Flynn was the opposite). Maybe he was just engaged n wishful thinking. But now I am much less sure about the issue. We’ll see.

    Paula Dobriansky, a Ukrainian-American, who had met with Trump several times, almost became deputy secretary of state (it looks like Abrams will be the guy). Had she been chosen, there would have been a western Ukrainian secretary of the State in the USA and a western Ukrainian Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia (Valentina Matvienko).

    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.

    So far there has really been nothing but words, either way. The sanctions against the FSB were tweaked a little, but only so that some US companies would make a little money. I have no idea how things will go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @artichoke
    A western Ukrainian, as long as it isn't a Maidan type, is not a problem. Western Ukraine properly belongs to Ukraine. They're fine people (i.e. part of my ancestry.) But yeah things are kinda hard to decipher now.
  162. @Avery
    {What happened in Beslan and Nord-Ost was not a ‘disaster’.}

    Really?

    The very best of Russia's special ops forces - Spetsnaz, FSB Alpha, etc - attempted rescue operations of hostages held by terrorists, and hundreds of hostages were killed.

    What do you call that: Success?

    Yes, I understand it's easy for me to be an armchair strategist.
    But my objections was to TheSaker's hyperbole about US special ops.
    These kinds of ops are fraught with danger and the 'Fog of War'.
    Unfortunately, hostage are killed more often than not.

    But the reason I brought up the incidents in Russia was to tone down TheSaker's crowing.
    Yeah, US spec ops don't have a stellar record.
    But the Besaln and Nord-Ost were on Russian territory.
    Russia SpecOps had all the time they needed.
    They were in their own element.
    All the advantages in the world.
    100% control of the theater of operations.
    All the manpower needed.
    Yet hundreds of hostages were killed.

    If you guys want to call that 'success', than I don't know what a failed op is.

    I suspect the Russians call it “success”. Destroy the enemy, No 1, regardless of any “collateral” loss. Not saying I fully agree with it, but Russian people seem to, at least, understand it.

    Read More
  163. @Randal

    Haley specifically said no lifting of sanctions until Russia withdraws from Crimea, and CNN reported that was cleared with the White House.

    And yesterday Trump himself reportedly told Tymoshenko the same thing.

    Trump’s Ukraine policy – and probably his policy towards Russia in general- is going to be about the same as Obama’s.
     
    A lot of commenters here (not you) seem to be rather over-reacting to early rhetoric from Trump appointees which is unlikely to reflect long term actual policy. The Trump regime is operating in the US establishment context, in which honesty on Russia is simply unviable. Appointees are still facing congressional approvals which are hostage to effective vetoes by establishment Republican types with neocon Russophobic attitudes. The establishment media is in full hue and cry mode waiting for every chance to build a "Putin stooge" image around Trump.

    And Trump is a negotiator - he's not going to give the Russians anything (on, for instance, Crimea or sanctions) without trying to make them buy it.

    The bottom line though, hopefully, is that Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. And furthermore many of them also have ulterior motivations towards other targets for US confrontation (Iran, China), and understand that a degree of Russian forbearance will be needed for those confrontations to have any chance of success.

    The forces trying to derail this and force continued confrontation of Russia are undoubtedly still politically very strong, well connected and massively funded, but there's still hope that this basic understanding will ultimately prevail, and all this early verbiage should probably be taken with appropriate levels of salt.

    “Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. ”
    Makes you think. Are ALL US enemies “because the US has chosen to make it so. ” ?
    Sure, the US has competitors economically, & also a few countries, such as Nth Korea which are clearly not to be trusted. But enemies in the sense of Rome/Carthage ? Britain/ France (1300–1800)?
    Perhaps US/China does fit, say, a Rome/Carthage regional competitors schema. Yet, in 2017, neither competitor has the freedom from consequences which Rome or Carthage had. Neither possessed nuclear weapons to begin with, nor did a globalised world of over 7 billion souls exist ….
    Neither the US nor China (or the world) can afford great “enemies” in the traditional sense….so let’s all try to avoid facilitating our governments’ insatiable desire to turn competitors into enemies…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Makes you think. Are ALL US enemies “because the US has chosen to make it so. ” ?
     
    Well I'd say there are cases where aggressively universalist ideologies make enmity or surrender the only options. An example would be the communism of the Soviet Union in the C20th.

    But the only universalist ideology currently around of this kind (islam aside, which is a different kind of issue) is the US sphere's globalist socially liberal democracy ideology, which the US has a track record of trying to impose by force in other countries. In that sense, the US is a threat to all other countries, but it is not a two way street. The US seeks to impose its way of life on Russia and China, but Russia and China do not seek to achieve the reverse, since they nowadays have no such universalist dogmas to impose.

    US/China certainly fits the great power rivalry mould, but there's every reason to suppose that if the American people can bring their government to heel then seeking a handover settlement of the kind between Britain and the rising US in south and central America in the late C19th/early C20th would defuse any conflict for the time being at least, and in the long run the nuclear peace should continue to prevail. The problem is on the US side, not the Chinese side.
  164. It is Iran who will put the USA “on notice” as it can unleash violent events in the USA’s court of Gulf puppet allies.
    Saudi Arabia , Kuwait and Bahrein will be getting warning messages. They will rush to Trump to beg him to stop these useless provocations as they will the first to suffer.
    A Houthi missile fell in Ryadh the capital of KSA…. more to come.
    Trump will have to fire Flynn and Matis soon and replace them with more Russia sympathetic figures.

    Read More
  165. @Enrique Ferro
    Saker, the Iranian regime as such is not that popular, BUT the Iranians will rally around it to defend their fatherland, and IF the regime is unable to do it there will be a nationalist revolution which will reinforce Iran with a revolutionary elan that will defeat any aggressor. The Iranian masses will not tolerate a Libyan result, nor a new puppet like the shah. Any imperialist attack is doomed, and yes, Iran as it showed against Saddam will reach incredible levels of resilience. Iran would turn a new Soviet Union against the Nazis. The Gulf puppet regimes may be thrown away, and the war could become cataclysmic with an Israeli participation. A war on Iran would be impossible to keep restricted to the Iranian borders. The Middle East, Central Asia, even beyond will burn. I hope Flynn's bravado will be forgotten soon, because if they want to implement it, we ain't seen nothing yet!

    Well said. We must remember how well the Iranians fought against the Iraqis. They are a proud people not afraid to fight fiercely to defend their ancient civilization.

    Read More
  166. @Andrei Martyanov
    I take it you missed Nikki Haley’s address to the UN? She wants Russia to give Crimea back to Ukraine.

    I don't raise alarm over Hailey's words. At least not yet. In fact, I would have been really surprised if anything other than this statement would have been made in the institution (UN) which by now is nothing more than inconsequential chat room. In fact, against the background of the massive shitstorm Trump faces it is the only official (PR) position which can exist. Imagine hysteria in US media if US would "settle" Ukrainian issue from UN tribune.

    Yeah I assumed he was putting that situation on hold waiting for other stuff to clear, his cabinet and other appointments to get thru the Senate, etc. As far as I know (and I wouldn’t so that’s not worth much) he’s doing nothing in Russia vs. Ukraine at the moment.

    He knows Crimea speaks Russian and was always Russian historically etc. No amount of neocon bs will make him forget that, and if he does, Bannon will remind him, or even someone like Ivanka.

    Read More
  167. @AP

    To be honest I think the support of hardline Ukrainian nationalists for Trump, which is real and which I have observed myself, is a case of mistaken pattern matching.
     
    This was my strong assumption, until I spoke with a Ukrainian-American who was a retired officer in military intelligence, who was very much pro-Trump. He did not know Flynn personally, but knew those who did, and was quite certain that Flynn's appearances on RT did not indicate that he was actually pro-Russian (and he was adamant that Flynn was the opposite). Maybe he was just engaged n wishful thinking. But now I am much less sure about the issue. We'll see.

    Paula Dobriansky, a Ukrainian-American, who had met with Trump several times, almost became deputy secretary of state (it looks like Abrams will be the guy). Had she been chosen, there would have been a western Ukrainian secretary of the State in the USA and a western Ukrainian Chairman of the Federation Council of Russia (Valentina Matvienko).


    To be sure, there have been a few zradas for Russia (Nikki Haley is the biggest one), but otherwise I think its far to say that it has been scoring far more peremogas than Poroshenko.
     
    So far there has really been nothing but words, either way. The sanctions against the FSB were tweaked a little, but only so that some US companies would make a little money. I have no idea how things will go.

    A western Ukrainian, as long as it isn’t a Maidan type, is not a problem. Western Ukraine properly belongs to Ukraine. They’re fine people (i.e. part of my ancestry.) But yeah things are kinda hard to decipher now.

    Read More
  168. @Rurik

    Being lied to is the usual state of mankind.
     
    I disagree. It's a pathology and the consequence of a rot in the soul of a society's leadership. Do you routinely lie to your children, your spouse. One of my favorite authors is Rudyard Kipling..

    If any ask why we died

    Tell them, because our fathers lied


    if lying to your people was the order of the day, we wouldn't even notice it. We'd expect it. Do the leaders and media of Switzerland lie to their people routinely? Costa Rica? Estonia? Uruguay?

    The only reason they're able to get away with the lies is because it isn't the natural state of mankind. It's an aberration, and they use that to maximum effect.

    It’s not an excuse for adults repeatedly supporting wars based upon pretexts that are transparent lies.
     
    if they were transparent lies, then they wouldn't be believed!

    The only way the lie works is if people believe it. Or do you suppose that the people of England are perfectly sanguine to slaughter people based on lies, even tho they know they're lies?

    It doesn't work that way. If Pat Tillman, (and untold millions of others) knew the lies we were being told about 9/11 were lies, then do you think he would have gone to war over transparent lies?!

    Do you think the American people actually understand that we were lied to on 9/11? And that the lies are transparent and that we all really know we were lied to, and yet we still suit up our children to go and kill based on lies? Really?

    Well, you're wrong about that sir. If the British people would have known that Blair was lying about the WMD, they would not have allowed their children to be marched off to kill and die. Anymore than the French or American people would have allowed it. You must have a very cynical, jaundiced view of people, (or perhaps the American people in particular) if you think we know we were lied to but then are willing to send our young people to die based on transparent lies.

    I have to go. I'll bet back to this later...

    I'll just add that even now, most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as 'transparent lies', if most people still believe them?

    most people in the US (and England and France, and even here at the Unz Review) still believe the lies we were told about 9/11. So how can you characterize those lies as ‘transparent lies’, if most people still believe them?

    Americans are willfully ignorant, I see it in my own family- I see it among the customers I serve.

    They are the most wicked, vile, intellectually lazy mob to walk God’s green earth.

    Normalcy bias- so they can share in power and control and live a thoroughly material life of gadgets and stuff- without any regard for the future- and their inevitable confrontation with their Maker.

    Read More
  169. @Mad Dog2
    After approving a military budget that is bigger that the military budgets of the next 9 major countries, the US Govt and the Military Industrial Complex have to position an enemy or two 'On Notice' on the cross-hairs.

    As if bullying Iran is not enough, now Mad Dog Mattis is warning China over the disputed islands (Japan stole from China in 1894) in the East China Sea and Steve Bannon, Emperor Trump's chief strategist, is predicting a war with China over the South China Sea.

    Watch "The coming war on China" below:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1a-SVY59UTo

    America tested 67 nuclear bombs in the Bikini Atoll in the Marshall Islands in the 1950s and 60s and that caused a surge in cancer in thousands of natives living nearby. Here are the secrets of the Marshall Islands.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXvoRv-v9fg

    Read More
  170. Saker should stick to his usual pro Russian government anti Ukranian blathering
    Who is this immigrant who writes endless articles telling our Presidents, both Obama and Trump what to do? From what I can tell, he has no real inside sources in the state and defense departments. It seems as though he just reads the standard MSM articles about foreign affairs, cherry picks what agrees with his biases and opinions and then just blathers on.
    He also seems to totally despise America and Americans. He should go home to mother Russia.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Skeptikal
    You don't have to read the Saker's analyses if you think they are blather.
    His being Russian is neither here nor there.
    In Foggy Bottom they have Americans who are Russia experts.
    Nothing wrong with a Russian being an America expert. Especially since he can read in both languages. Some of the most apt political commentaries (and satires) I have heard come from Dmitri Orlov.
    Probably the Foggy Bottom Russia experts are more parochial than the Saker.
    Furthermore I don't see that the Saker is hemmed in by a particular belief system or dogma.
    He adjusts his diagnoses to accommodate new info.
  171. @animalogic
    "Trump and a few of his senior people and advisors genuinely seem to have grasped the reality that Russia is only an enemy of the US because the US has chosen to make it so. "
    Makes you think. Are ALL US enemies "because the US has chosen to make it so. " ?
    Sure, the US has competitors economically, & also a few countries, such as Nth Korea which are clearly not to be trusted. But enemies in the sense of Rome/Carthage ? Britain/ France (1300--1800)?
    Perhaps US/China does fit, say, a Rome/Carthage regional competitors schema. Yet, in 2017, neither competitor has the freedom from consequences which Rome or Carthage had. Neither possessed nuclear weapons to begin with, nor did a globalised world of over 7 billion souls exist ....
    Neither the US nor China (or the world) can afford great "enemies" in the traditional sense....so let's all try to avoid facilitating our governments' insatiable desire to turn competitors into enemies...

    Makes you think. Are ALL US enemies “because the US has chosen to make it so. ” ?

    Well I’d say there are cases where aggressively universalist ideologies make enmity or surrender the only options. An example would be the communism of the Soviet Union in the C20th.

    But the only universalist ideology currently around of this kind (islam aside, which is a different kind of issue) is the US sphere’s globalist socially liberal democracy ideology, which the US has a track record of trying to impose by force in other countries. In that sense, the US is a threat to all other countries, but it is not a two way street. The US seeks to impose its way of life on Russia and China, but Russia and China do not seek to achieve the reverse, since they nowadays have no such universalist dogmas to impose.

    US/China certainly fits the great power rivalry mould, but there’s every reason to suppose that if the American people can bring their government to heel then seeking a handover settlement of the kind between Britain and the rising US in south and central America in the late C19th/early C20th would defuse any conflict for the time being at least, and in the long run the nuclear peace should continue to prevail. The problem is on the US side, not the Chinese side.

    Read More
  172. @Rurik

    it’s Americans who are the problem because there is only one superpower and it’s the US.
     
    in exactly the same way the "Russians" were the problem when the tribe had them 'by the hair of the head'.

    or the Brits vis-a-vis the examples I provided

    it's a matter of principle with me. Sure, today the ZUS is the superpower. But what about all the nations and people willing to go along with it all. Imagine if you will, what the reaction would have been had Tony Blair got up before the British and world's people, and said:

    'Please make no mistake- what our cousins across the Atlantic are saying about WMD, we find no evidence for. Our intelligence services have found no evidence whatsoever of any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction'. Indeed, the only ones that Saddam is known to have had, were provided to him by the Americans themselves, to use in an aggressive proxy war that the Americans used Iraq for in its on going hostilities against that put upon and victimized nation'.

    'Our own scientists and experts in these fields, like the estimable Dr. David Kelly, have assured us that these wild and unfounded charges are absurd, and even a provocation. We will not let our American friends drag us all down into another contrived war of dubious justifications, and unless any proof of these spurious charges are provided to the international community, we are resolute and stalwart in our defense of, and solidarity with the legitimate and universally recognized government of Iraq.'

    Imagine if he would have done that, what that would have done to the "coalition of the willing"

    it wasn't so much British arms that made the difference, even tho England provided troops and arms, but it was the moral authority of England, that made the difference. And if England (and all the other NATO countries) were willing to go on the record as supporting Bush's (ZUSA's) illegal and immoral wars, then I'm sorry if I just don't feel too contrite at hearing all those citizens pointing their self-righteous finger just because the ZUSA is the biggest bully. All those little voices telling the big dumb bully to 'go get em!' are just as guilty to my mind. It's a matter of principle.

    As for John McBloodstain and the bovine, cud-chewing nature of many Americans? Well, they've simply marinated in the mind-numbing sewage of decades of Hollywood and Madison Ave. intellectual and moral poison for so long, that yes, too many of them are now consumer zombies, as they've been programed to be. You're right about that. But just because a large segment of American society is brain dead, and morally catatonic, doesn't excuse all the other sheep like cowardice and craven moral onus of the rest of the NATO nations, and others as well.

    Right now it's Putin's Russia that they have in the cross hairs, and are using lingering resentment in Eastern Europe to create a rift. We need to see more maturity over in that part of the world, so that McBloodstain isn't able to cause any more harm. If Putin can make amends with Poland and Ukraine and the rest, and come to an arrangement that mollifies their angst, then that would be a big step, yes?

    and then we can all concentrate on making sure Iran is safe from the Fiend, and repudiate these war pigs, as if with one voice. That's the ticket! But it won't get done by pointing at the deplorables and calling us names and blaming us for what Bush and Blair have wrought, and set in motion.

    btw, I was watching some of the antics of your parliament yesterday, and all the screeching over Trump coming to Westminster and giving a speech. Sad in way

    But it won’t get done by pointing at the deplorables and calling us names and blaming us for what Bush and Blair have wrought, and set in motion.

    I’ve certainly nothing against US “deplorables” in particular. In many cases, they’re the good guys. There just haven’t been enough of them.

    btw, I was watching some of the antics of your parliament yesterday, and all the screeching over Trump coming to Westminster and giving a speech. Sad in way

    I try not to have any exposure to the pathetic performances of modern British establishment politicians. It’s shaming, like having a family member who is an advocate of pedophilia or some such.

    Read More
  173. […] and about special forces and technology in particular. When last week I wrote my column about the first SNAFUs of the Trump Presidency I pretty much expected that some of the points I made would fall on deaf ears and that indeed did […]

    Read More
  174. @Alden
    Saker should stick to his usual pro Russian government anti Ukranian blathering
    Who is this immigrant who writes endless articles telling our Presidents, both Obama and Trump what to do? From what I can tell, he has no real inside sources in the state and defense departments. It seems as though he just reads the standard MSM articles about foreign affairs, cherry picks what agrees with his biases and opinions and then just blathers on.
    He also seems to totally despise America and Americans. He should go home to mother Russia.

    You don’t have to read the Saker’s analyses if you think they are blather.
    His being Russian is neither here nor there.
    In Foggy Bottom they have Americans who are Russia experts.
    Nothing wrong with a Russian being an America expert. Especially since he can read in both languages. Some of the most apt political commentaries (and satires) I have heard come from Dmitri Orlov.
    Probably the Foggy Bottom Russia experts are more parochial than the Saker.
    Furthermore I don’t see that the Saker is hemmed in by a particular belief system or dogma.
    He adjusts his diagnoses to accommodate new info.

    Read More
  175. @PseudonymicHandle
    This assumes that Russia cares more about Iran than it does the Ukraine and Estonia-or the NATO encirclement. Bet they don't. Without Russia, Iran has a serious problem.

    Sounds like grounds for negotiation. It also sounds like the deal is done.

    I have a feeling that Trump is not dumb. At all. I'm not sure that's a good thing. He says US interests first. US interests, for a few more years at least until we being using our own oil reserves-which dwarf the ME-exist in the ME, but not Eastern Europe.

    Trump will figure out very quickly, if he already hasn’t, that Ukraine gives him enormous leverage over Putin. Saker nonchalantly downplays this even though its obvious it bugs the shit out of him but why would the US ever give that up? I would love to be a fly on the wall to see how Putin approaches Trump with this when they meet. Hopefully it is not the same way Saker does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    why would the US ever give that up?
     
    because it's a pus-filled festering open wound that the US is responsible for, and makes us look like amoral criminals and assholes for doing it in the first place?

    No less than the strife and horrors that the U.S. has visited in other places like Iraq and Libya and Syria...

    And because all of it.. ALL of it is being done to bolster Israel, [at the direct expense of the U.S. in blood and treasure] who is an enemy of the U.S., - certainly if you consider the treacherous and cowardly acts like the attack on the USS Liberty or 9/11.

    So, the short answer is that we should give it up because what we've wrought over there is evil and wrong and a heinous crime that we should be ashamed of it.

    That's why.

    And also because we should be getting along with and cooperating with Putin's Russia, who is and has been acting like the lone adult on the global stage.

    Does that answer your question?

  176. @Rurik

    it’s Americans who are the problem because there is only one superpower and it’s the US.
     
    in exactly the same way the "Russians" were the problem when the tribe had them 'by the hair of the head'.

    or the Brits vis-a-vis the examples I provided

    it's a matter of principle with me. Sure, today the ZUS is the superpower. But what about all the nations and people willing to go along with it all. Imagine if you will, what the reaction would have been had Tony Blair got up before the British and world's people, and said:

    'Please make no mistake- what our cousins across the Atlantic are saying about WMD, we find no evidence for. Our intelligence services have found no evidence whatsoever of any so-called 'weapons of mass destruction'. Indeed, the only ones that Saddam is known to have had, were provided to him by the Americans themselves, to use in an aggressive proxy war that the Americans used Iraq for in its on going hostilities against that put upon and victimized nation'.

    'Our own scientists and experts in these fields, like the estimable Dr. David Kelly, have assured us that these wild and unfounded charges are absurd, and even a provocation. We will not let our American friends drag us all down into another contrived war of dubious justifications, and unless any proof of these spurious charges are provided to the international community, we are resolute and stalwart in our defense of, and solidarity with the legitimate and universally recognized government of Iraq.'

    Imagine if he would have done that, what that would have done to the "coalition of the willing"

    it wasn't so much British arms that made the difference, even tho England provided troops and arms, but it was the moral authority of England, that made the difference. And if England (and all the other NATO countries) were willing to go on the record as supporting Bush's (ZUSA's) illegal and immoral wars, then I'm sorry if I just don't feel too contrite at hearing all those citizens pointing their self-righteous finger just because the ZUSA is the biggest bully. All those little voices telling the big dumb bully to 'go get em!' are just as guilty to my mind. It's a matter of principle.

    As for John McBloodstain and the bovine, cud-chewing nature of many Americans? Well, they've simply marinated in the mind-numbing sewage of decades of Hollywood and Madison Ave. intellectual and moral poison for so long, that yes, too many of them are now consumer zombies, as they've been programed to be. You're right about that. But just because a large segment of American society is brain dead, and morally catatonic, doesn't excuse all the other sheep like cowardice and craven moral onus of the rest of the NATO nations, and others as well.

    Right now it's Putin's Russia that they have in the cross hairs, and are using lingering resentment in Eastern Europe to create a rift. We need to see more maturity over in that part of the world, so that McBloodstain isn't able to cause any more harm. If Putin can make amends with Poland and Ukraine and the rest, and come to an arrangement that mollifies their angst, then that would be a big step, yes?

    and then we can all concentrate on making sure Iran is safe from the Fiend, and repudiate these war pigs, as if with one voice. That's the ticket! But it won't get done by pointing at the deplorables and calling us names and blaming us for what Bush and Blair have wrought, and set in motion.

    btw, I was watching some of the antics of your parliament yesterday, and all the screeching over Trump coming to Westminster and giving a speech. Sad in way

    Normally, it wouldn’t even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama’s and Cameron’s plans to attack Syria? I’m not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing. My guess is that they remembered being burned in Iraq and had come to their senses. In any event, I am grateful that they finally grew a spine in this one case, even if it was a fleeting event or due to ulterior motives.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik
    I completely agree with you JL. But I don't put any of that down to any noble spirit inside the British political establishment, (HA!) but rather to the same phenomena that happened here in the states as well, when Obama went to congress for the same approval to commit atrocities in Syria in our name, and we rose up resoundingly with a loud and resolute "NO!"

    I suspect that at some point, both the pedophiles in the British Parliament and the assorted criminal scum in the US congress can be made to fear the pitchforks and ropes even more than they love their perk$ and arranged trysts

    here's to making them even more afraid on both sides of the pond ;)
    , @Randal

    Normally, it wouldn’t even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama’s and Cameron’s plans to attack Syria?
     
    It was, and the prevention of a US/UK attack on Syria in 2013 is the only occasion in my lifetime that I can recall when popular opposition actually succeeded in preventing a war of aggression desired by the US/UK establishments.

    I’m not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing.
     
    I watched it happen, and this was my interpretation, fwiw.

    The US/UK establishments wanted to attack Syria to achieve regime change there, because the expected overthrow by terrorists had failed and they thought the Libya option would be necessary after all. But the politicians knew, with the examples of Libya and Iraq in the public's mind, that they faced real risks to their own reputations and careers if they went ahead with it and it blew up in their faces, so they wanted the political cover of votes in the Commons and in Congress.

    In the Commons the leaderships of both the main political parties "Conservative" and Labour wanted war, and Cameron did not anticipate any difficulty getting the vote. However things were tighter than expected in the runup because the arguments had been comprehensively won on the internet by those opposed to the attack, and popular opinion was against it. However, this would normally present no obstacles because the party leaders would just manage the vote so that authorisation was given.

    On the day however, Cameron and Miliband (the party leaders) messed up the voting - Labour postured and rejected the first vote expecting it to be re-presented after negotiations and minor cosmetic amendments, while Cameron, who clearly had thought Labour would back the first vote, threw his toys out of the pram and didn't go back for the expected second bite. (Cameron made the same mistake with the Brexit referendum, which he proposed as a policy never dreaming his favoured pro-EU side could ever lose it).

    The vote stood, it emboldened US political opposition to the war, and history was made. Another disaster on the scale of Iraq was avoided in Syria, for the time being at least.

    What I'm personally still unsure about is whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the "red line" nonsense had threatened to force him into.
  177. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Rurik

    But, no problem for these maestros, they set up a passenger revolt timed almost perfectly for the drone to crash into the preselected alternative site at Shanksville. If that cockup hadn’t happened you would basically never know the whole thing was fake. There’s no question that Americans at the top of their game are hard to beat.
     
    ridiculous

    the drone (or whatever it was that crashed into Shanksville was obviously not preselected, but they winged it on the fly. Even the coroner wasn't briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can't even c0unt them.

    No, the ONLY reason that the whole 9/11 narrative has stuck as long as it has is because it's simply impossible for most people to comprehend that the U.S. government and media (the very people paid and trusted to keep us protected and informed) really are that stone-cold evil, that'd they have done such a thing. Most people simply have marinated in the mantra of the US as "good" - (Jimmy Stewart, Jonny Carson, Jimmy Carter, apple pie, baseball), that it is simply and literally beyond their comprehension that elements in our government and media are capable of such a thing. And that is the only thing they have going for them, because the planning and execution of the crime was pathetic and full of holes.

    What they had going for them was audacity, (in a word, chutzpah) and the solid knowledge that there simply were very few people capable of comprehending that level of evil. This is the same phenomena that allows them to get away with all their sordid crimes and moral atrocities world wide. Most people simply can't comprehend that our State Dept would foist a violent, deadly putsch like they did in Ukraine. Or that our government and media would cynically destroy Libya because it was inconvenient to Israel, and was a strategic domino in the destruction of Syria and then Iran. Most people believe that if our government is arming "rebels" in Syria, that they must be "good" rebels, or we wouldn't be doing it. You see?

    that mantra of America as 'good'' and exceptional, is what they've got going for them. (because most Americans in their hearts are good, if duped) And that's exactly the very thing that Donald Trump brought into question with his question: ‘You think our country is so innocent?’

    “Even the coroner wasn’t briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can’t even c0unt them. ”

    Nope. Reports say that 600lb of bodily materials were eventually recovered at the Shanksville site. Also read “Hard Evidence: Case studies in Forensic Anthropology” ed. Dawnie Steadman, it has a short chapter on the FBI parts collection effort. The DNA testing I believe was done by the military as the County coroner’s office was not considered able to accommodate the job. How the DNA evidence was faked at Shanksville I don’t know and is a great mystery to me. Either the real plane crashed in which case no problem, or a drone crashed in which case some sort of switcheroo took place, or the military DNA report was faked.

    The recent release of the censored 28 pages shows that some of the ‘hijackers’ were paid via Prince Bandar, long time friend of the Bush family. This proves to anybody with more than one brain cell that the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi intelligence assets whose job it was to appear as the hijackers for purposes of the plot. They certainly did not get on the planes and commit suicide. Therefore I assume drones must have been used for the actual crashes.

    The convenience of the US-SA alliance in supplying Saudi assets for the job is the real reason why most of the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    Nope. Reports say...
     
    you're kidding right?

    short chapter on the FBI parts collection effort. The DNA testing I believe was done by the military
     
    good lord

    How the DNA evidence was faked at Shanksville I don’t know and is a great mystery to me.
     
    well let's just ask the families of the dead, since obviously they all got their loved ones back for funerals and to do their own autopsies and so forth. We can just contact them all and ask them, huh?

    or the military DNA report was faked.
     
    are you for real?

    the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi intelligence assets
     
    lol

    The convenience of the US-SA alliance in supplying Saudi assets for the job is the real reason why most of the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi
     
    I honestly don't know if you're this impossibly deluded or just dishonest. More than likely the latter.

    The Saudi "terrorists" were the patsies, completely innocent of the crime. The "terrorist's" (magic) passport that survived the fireball and floated out of the "terrorists' pocket or luggage and through the conflagration- that turned hundreds of thousands of tones of steel and concrete and glass and everything else into a fine powder- but managed to survive all of that intact, and float down to the NYC street in fine shape for an FBI agent to get his hands on, so as to tell the world 'look, we have proof of who did this terrible crime!' is all such idiocy as to be laughable at this point. OK?

    Israel and the CIA and neocon elements at the highest levels of the fecal government (Cheney, Zakheim, so many others..) were responsible for that (beyond heinous) crime, not any so-called Saudi princes mentioned in the idiotic "28 pages" of disinfo.

    watch a video of building seven coming down, and then ask yourself who had the wherewithal to wire that building for its *(obvious!)* controlled demolition. And then go from there.
  178. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Sparkon
    You wrote:

    like many millions of others, I watched real-time footage of two airliners slamming into the WTC towers at the time...
     
    Actually, there was only one "crash" shown live, or "real time" on TV on Black Tuesday, September 11, 2001, but don't feel like the Lone Ranger, Bush made the same mistake too.

    As well, It has been shown beyond any reasonable doubt that the "real-time footage" was computer generated imagery, or CGI, which depicted the impossible feat of a largely aluminum airplane slicing through the dense array of 14" box columns of 1/4" thick steel plate on the facade of the WTC as if it were paper, leaving a vivid imprint of its passage on the exterior of the building, before disappearing into the structure through this hidey-hole.

    Simon Shack's September Clues will tell you just about all you need to know about the video fakery, while pilot John Lear's affidavit asserts the impossibility of flying and maneuvering a 767 at the high speeds, and low altitude claimed for the allegedly hijacked jetliners on 9/11.

    Shack thinks a smokescreen was used to mask the actual destruction of the WTC, with a 17 second delay in video transmission used to insert the fake CGI airplane into the video feed, and that a conventional controlled demolition was used to bring the buildings down.

    However, the debris pile is entirely too small by a wide margin to be consistent with a conventional controlled demolition, as Jim Fetzer now recognizes Dr. Judy Woods' point in that regard, but Fetzer thinks the towers were nuked.

    The residual CIA troll appears, on cue.

    Read More
  179. @Prof. Woland
    Trump will figure out very quickly, if he already hasn't, that Ukraine gives him enormous leverage over Putin. Saker nonchalantly downplays this even though its obvious it bugs the shit out of him but why would the US ever give that up? I would love to be a fly on the wall to see how Putin approaches Trump with this when they meet. Hopefully it is not the same way Saker does.

    why would the US ever give that up?

    because it’s a pus-filled festering open wound that the US is responsible for, and makes us look like amoral criminals and assholes for doing it in the first place?

    No less than the strife and horrors that the U.S. has visited in other places like Iraq and Libya and Syria…

    And because all of it.. ALL of it is being done to bolster Israel, [at the direct expense of the U.S. in blood and treasure] who is an enemy of the U.S., – certainly if you consider the treacherous and cowardly acts like the attack on the USS Liberty or 9/11.

    So, the short answer is that we should give it up because what we’ve wrought over there is evil and wrong and a heinous crime that we should be ashamed of it.

    That’s why.

    And also because we should be getting along with and cooperating with Putin’s Russia, who is and has been acting like the lone adult on the global stage.

    Does that answer your question?

    Read More
  180. @JL
    Normally, it wouldn't even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn't it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama's and Cameron's plans to attack Syria? I'm not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing. My guess is that they remembered being burned in Iraq and had come to their senses. In any event, I am grateful that they finally grew a spine in this one case, even if it was a fleeting event or due to ulterior motives.

    I completely agree with you JL. But I don’t put any of that down to any noble spirit inside the British political establishment, (HA!) but rather to the same phenomena that happened here in the states as well, when Obama went to congress for the same approval to commit atrocities in Syria in our name, and we rose up resoundingly with a loud and resolute “NO!”

    I suspect that at some point, both the pedophiles in the British Parliament and the assorted criminal scum in the US congress can be made to fear the pitchforks and ropes even more than they love their perk$ and arranged trysts

    here’s to making them even more afraid on both sides of the pond ;)

    Read More
  181. @Anon
    "Even the coroner wasn’t briefed, and blurted out that there were no bodies or no wreckage whatsoever. So many foul-ups you can’t even c0unt them. "

    Nope. Reports say that 600lb of bodily materials were eventually recovered at the Shanksville site. Also read "Hard Evidence: Case studies in Forensic Anthropology" ed. Dawnie Steadman, it has a short chapter on the FBI parts collection effort. The DNA testing I believe was done by the military as the County coroner's office was not considered able to accommodate the job. How the DNA evidence was faked at Shanksville I don't know and is a great mystery to me. Either the real plane crashed in which case no problem, or a drone crashed in which case some sort of switcheroo took place, or the military DNA report was faked.

    The recent release of the censored 28 pages shows that some of the 'hijackers' were paid via Prince Bandar, long time friend of the Bush family. This proves to anybody with more than one brain cell that the 'hijackers' were Saudi intelligence assets whose job it was to appear as the hijackers for purposes of the plot. They certainly did not get on the planes and commit suicide. Therefore I assume drones must have been used for the actual crashes.

    The convenience of the US-SA alliance in supplying Saudi assets for the job is the real reason why most of the 'hijackers' were Saudi.

    Nope. Reports say…

    you’re kidding right?

    short chapter on the FBI parts collection effort. The DNA testing I believe was done by the military

    good lord

    How the DNA evidence was faked at Shanksville I don’t know and is a great mystery to me.

    well let’s just ask the families of the dead, since obviously they all got their loved ones back for funerals and to do their own autopsies and so forth. We can just contact them all and ask them, huh?

    or the military DNA report was faked.

    are you for real?

    the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi intelligence assets

    lol

    The convenience of the US-SA alliance in supplying Saudi assets for the job is the real reason why most of the ‘hijackers’ were Saudi

    I honestly don’t know if you’re this impossibly deluded or just dishonest. More than likely the latter.

    The Saudi “terrorists” were the patsies, completely innocent of the crime. The “terrorist’s” (magic) passport that survived the fireball and floated out of the “terrorists’ pocket or luggage and through the conflagration- that turned hundreds of thousands of tones of steel and concrete and glass and everything else into a fine powder- but managed to survive all of that intact, and float down to the NYC street in fine shape for an FBI agent to get his hands on, so as to tell the world ‘look, we have proof of who did this terrible crime!’ is all such idiocy as to be laughable at this point. OK?

    Israel and the CIA and neocon elements at the highest levels of the fecal government (Cheney, Zakheim, so many others..) were responsible for that (beyond heinous) crime, not any so-called Saudi princes mentioned in the idiotic “28 pages” of disinfo.

    watch a video of building seven coming down, and then ask yourself who had the wherewithal to wire that building for its *(obvious!)* controlled demolition. And then go from there.

    Read More
  182. @JL
    Normally, it wouldn't even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn't it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama's and Cameron's plans to attack Syria? I'm not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing. My guess is that they remembered being burned in Iraq and had come to their senses. In any event, I am grateful that they finally grew a spine in this one case, even if it was a fleeting event or due to ulterior motives.

    Normally, it wouldn’t even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama’s and Cameron’s plans to attack Syria?

    It was, and the prevention of a US/UK attack on Syria in 2013 is the only occasion in my lifetime that I can recall when popular opposition actually succeeded in preventing a war of aggression desired by the US/UK establishments.

    I’m not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing.

    I watched it happen, and this was my interpretation, fwiw.

    The US/UK establishments wanted to attack Syria to achieve regime change there, because the expected overthrow by terrorists had failed and they thought the Libya option would be necessary after all. But the politicians knew, with the examples of Libya and Iraq in the public’s mind, that they faced real risks to their own reputations and careers if they went ahead with it and it blew up in their faces, so they wanted the political cover of votes in the Commons and in Congress.

    In the Commons the leaderships of both the main political parties “Conservative” and Labour wanted war, and Cameron did not anticipate any difficulty getting the vote. However things were tighter than expected in the runup because the arguments had been comprehensively won on the internet by those opposed to the attack, and popular opinion was against it. However, this would normally present no obstacles because the party leaders would just manage the vote so that authorisation was given.

    On the day however, Cameron and Miliband (the party leaders) messed up the voting – Labour postured and rejected the first vote expecting it to be re-presented after negotiations and minor cosmetic amendments, while Cameron, who clearly had thought Labour would back the first vote, threw his toys out of the pram and didn’t go back for the expected second bite. (Cameron made the same mistake with the Brexit referendum, which he proposed as a policy never dreaming his favoured pro-EU side could ever lose it).

    The vote stood, it emboldened US political opposition to the war, and history was made. Another disaster on the scale of Iraq was avoided in Syria, for the time being at least.

    What I’m personally still unsure about is whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the “red line” nonsense had threatened to force him into.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG
    "....whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the “red line” nonsense had threatened to force him into."

    That is the question, (one of them) isn't it? Obama was certainly an underwhelming disappointment on many fronts, but those disparaging him for breaking campaign promises, etc., are a little delusional. As Trump is finding, the POTUS can't just give commands like a CEO. The Deep State machinations against Syria had been in play for almost 2 decades when Obama arrived.
  183. stupidity with the “red line” nonsense

    it didn’t help that Assad’s “chemical weapon attack” was perpetrated within hours of a team of International Chemical Weapons Inspectors who were arriving in Syria immediately after the attack had occurred, and that no one with an IQ above room temperature actually believed that Assad was that stupid.

    It was obviously a false flag operation, poorly conceived and carried out (by monsters / “moderate rebels”) in the employ of ZUSA/NATO to use as a pretext for the “red line” idiocy. But everyone saw though it a five thousand miles away.

    that they would kill children like- that as a excuse to destroy Syria utterly, as they had already done to Iraq and Libya and elsewhere, is really all we need to know about the nature of the people we are up against.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSK8ZgkIcAE2ET2.jpg:large

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Indeed. I think it takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the Syrian government would deliberately have set out to provoke the intervention of a superpower air force against them, when they were already barely clinging on, for some trivial supposed battlefield tactical advantage.
  184. @Randal

    Normally, it wouldn’t even occur to me to defend the British political establishment, but, in fairness, and if recent memory serves me correctly, wasn’t it their parliament that effectively put the kibosh on Obama’s and Cameron’s plans to attack Syria?
     
    It was, and the prevention of a US/UK attack on Syria in 2013 is the only occasion in my lifetime that I can recall when popular opposition actually succeeded in preventing a war of aggression desired by the US/UK establishments.

    I’m not sure why or how that happened, and perhaps there is something else that I am missing.
     
    I watched it happen, and this was my interpretation, fwiw.

    The US/UK establishments wanted to attack Syria to achieve regime change there, because the expected overthrow by terrorists had failed and they thought the Libya option would be necessary after all. But the politicians knew, with the examples of Libya and Iraq in the public's mind, that they faced real risks to their own reputations and careers if they went ahead with it and it blew up in their faces, so they wanted the political cover of votes in the Commons and in Congress.

    In the Commons the leaderships of both the main political parties "Conservative" and Labour wanted war, and Cameron did not anticipate any difficulty getting the vote. However things were tighter than expected in the runup because the arguments had been comprehensively won on the internet by those opposed to the attack, and popular opinion was against it. However, this would normally present no obstacles because the party leaders would just manage the vote so that authorisation was given.

    On the day however, Cameron and Miliband (the party leaders) messed up the voting - Labour postured and rejected the first vote expecting it to be re-presented after negotiations and minor cosmetic amendments, while Cameron, who clearly had thought Labour would back the first vote, threw his toys out of the pram and didn't go back for the expected second bite. (Cameron made the same mistake with the Brexit referendum, which he proposed as a policy never dreaming his favoured pro-EU side could ever lose it).

    The vote stood, it emboldened US political opposition to the war, and history was made. Another disaster on the scale of Iraq was avoided in Syria, for the time being at least.

    What I'm personally still unsure about is whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the "red line" nonsense had threatened to force him into.

    “….whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the “red line” nonsense had threatened to force him into.”

    That is the question, (one of them) isn’t it? Obama was certainly an underwhelming disappointment on many fronts, but those disparaging him for breaking campaign promises, etc., are a little delusional. As Trump is finding, the POTUS can’t just give commands like a CEO. The Deep State machinations against Syria had been in play for almost 2 decades when Obama arrived.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal
    Yes.

    I was never a supporter of Obama. In fact it's fair to say I was a visceral opponent of Obama from his first appearance on the big political stage to campaign for the nomination, because I saw him as the American Blair - a liar who would claim to be different but change nothing for the better, only exacerbate the things that were already long gone in the wrong directions. Like Trump, but more so, the only things going for him were the absolute toxicity of the alternatives. But I honestly cannot be certain whether to read his woefully interventionist policies in office as things he did because he wanted to, or things he did reluctantly because he felt he had no choice, because of the structural biases of the US political and media establishment.

    I suppose opinions as to motivation are always inherently speculative, but it's usually possible to form reasonably confident assessments after a few years. But on this one I cannot decide which way to jump.
  185. @RobinG
    "....whether Obama ever genuinely wanted to attack Syria, and was foiled by the failure to get the political cover he needed to make it reasonably safe for him, or whether he understood how colossally stupid it would be and never wanted to at all, and used the political process as a means of getting an excuse for dropping a policy his own stupidity with the “red line” nonsense had threatened to force him into."

    That is the question, (one of them) isn't it? Obama was certainly an underwhelming disappointment on many fronts, but those disparaging him for breaking campaign promises, etc., are a little delusional. As Trump is finding, the POTUS can't just give commands like a CEO. The Deep State machinations against Syria had been in play for almost 2 decades when Obama arrived.

    Yes.

    I was never a supporter of Obama. In fact it’s fair to say I was a visceral opponent of Obama from his first appearance on the big political stage to campaign for the nomination, because I saw him as the American Blair – a liar who would claim to be different but change nothing for the better, only exacerbate the things that were already long gone in the wrong directions. Like Trump, but more so, the only things going for him were the absolute toxicity of the alternatives. But I honestly cannot be certain whether to read his woefully interventionist policies in office as things he did because he wanted to, or things he did reluctantly because he felt he had no choice, because of the structural biases of the US political and media establishment.

    I suppose opinions as to motivation are always inherently speculative, but it’s usually possible to form reasonably confident assessments after a few years. But on this one I cannot decide which way to jump.

    Read More
  186. @Rurik

    stupidity with the “red line” nonsense
     
    it didn't help that Assad's "chemical weapon attack" was perpetrated within hours of a team of International Chemical Weapons Inspectors who were arriving in Syria immediately after the attack had occurred, and that no one with an IQ above room temperature actually believed that Assad was that stupid.

    It was obviously a false flag operation, poorly conceived and carried out (by monsters / "moderate rebels") in the employ of ZUSA/NATO to use as a pretext for the "red line" idiocy. But everyone saw though it a five thousand miles away.

    that they would kill children like- that as a excuse to destroy Syria utterly, as they had already done to Iraq and Libya and elsewhere, is really all we need to know about the nature of the people we are up against.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BSK8ZgkIcAE2ET2.jpg:large

    Indeed. I think it takes a special kind of stupid to believe that the Syrian government would deliberately have set out to provoke the intervention of a superpower air force against them, when they were already barely clinging on, for some trivial supposed battlefield tactical advantage.

    Read More
  187. Anonymous says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    The question now is whether the American public could be mobilized, just like when they massively called their Congressmen to avoid the strike on Syria, to do the same for Iran. To go on street demos by millions against a potential war on Iran and in general to end all wars in ME.

    Can the public in the US, the UK and the West in general do this. Somebody posted a video above where the argument was made that all these current demos against the Trump administration are just a distraction.. to move on with the wars.

    Even though there are deep structural problems in the West now, social and racial issues, the public should be mobilized to at least try to avert more wars in ME. Also, something needs to be done about the drone attacks, too.

    Read More
  188. there are deep structural problems in the West now, social and racial issues, the public should be mobilized to at least try to avert more wars in ME

    I think that’s exactly what the public did when it voted to Brexit and elected Trump.

    the insanity is all coming from the top (Fed/ECB)Ⓤ down to its respective minions in the EU and Western governments.

    Brexit was a repudiation of Blair and Cameron and their masters in the EUⓊ, that demand constant wars (for Israel) and the genocidal replacement of the white British stock, with others who aren’t white (dormant Nazis)

    And Trump was as well. Just as Le Pen in France and others.

    No one knows what Trump will end up doing, (or Le Pen or others) but they say they want to have a rapprochement with Russia, and end the Endless WarsⓊ (for Israel)

    we’re trying at the grass roots to effect change, but we’re usually always thwarted and betrayed by the fact that the Fed can conjure a trillion (or ten) dollars out of thin air at a moments whim. So that’s a hard thing to fight against when politicians need money to get and stay elected.

    Read More
  189. @Rurik

    why would the US ever give that up?
     
    because it's a pus-filled festering open wound that the US is responsible for, and makes us look like amoral criminals and assholes for doing it in the first place?

    No less than the strife and horrors that the U.S. has visited in other places like Iraq and Libya and Syria...

    And because all of it.. ALL of it is being done to bolster Israel, [at the direct expense of the U.S. in blood and treasure] who is an enemy of the U.S., - certainly if you consider the treacherous and cowardly acts like the attack on the USS Liberty or 9/11.

    So, the short answer is that we should give it up because what we've wrought over there is evil and wrong and a heinous crime that we should be ashamed of it.

    That's why.

    And also because we should be getting along with and cooperating with Putin's Russia, who is and has been acting like the lone adult on the global stage.

    Does that answer your question?

    we should give it up

    Who’s “we” Troll?

    Read More
  190. Who’s “we” Troll?

    well I’m an American

    and my government perpetrated a violent putsch in Ukraine.

    Victoria Nuland (of the Kagan war pig family – check it out) admitted to spending five billion of my tax dollars in the Ukraine fomenting “democracy”, whereupon during the coup, she was recorded explaining to an Estonian diplomat who was going to be the president of Ukraine following the murderous overthrow of the democratically elected government of that formally stable (if corrupt) country. How’s that for democracy eh?

    I’m assuming that you don’t know any of this, and you’re as misinformed as 97% of the lied-to U.S. citizenry. Yes?

    But it’s all true nonetheless, and we’d better get ourselves informed if we’re ever going to stop the serial wars and atrocities that our government has been foisting in our name and on our dime.

    Putin has been going around the world putting out the fires that treasons scum like John McCain has been criminally responsible for.

    I’m surprised that someone who’s found his/her way to the Unz Review is still this wildly delusional about geopolitical goings on.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JL
    I don't mean to be pedantic here, but the lovely Mrs. Nuland was actually on the phone with the US ambassador to the Ukraine, Geoffrey Pyatt, when she was designing that county's new government. The Estonian diplomat was recorded on the phone with the head of the EU's foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, discussing how both the demonstrators and the police on the Maidan were killed from the same weapons, i.e. that it was a false flag operation carried out with the intention of exacerbating the situation.

    The lies are so thick, and so many, it can be difficult to keep track of them all. The crazy thing is that neither party denied the authenticity of the recordings, and it yet it seemed to have zero effect on Western public opinion. The Western press emphasized Nuland's "fuck the EU" comment, while the fact that she was engaging in illegal and unethical practices was simply swept under the rug.
    , @RobinG
    Plenty of Trolls find their way to Unz ;)
    even before WaPo spread libel that Unz is Russian propaganda :)
  191. @Rurik

    Who’s “we” Troll?
     
    well I'm an American

    and my government perpetrated a violent putsch in Ukraine.

    Victoria Nuland (of the Kagan war pig family - check it out) admitted to spending five billion of my tax dollars in the Ukraine fomenting "democracy", whereupon during the coup, she was recorded explaining to an Estonian diplomat who was going to be the president of Ukraine following the murderous overthrow of the democratically elected government of that formally stable (if corrupt) country. How's that for democracy eh?

    I'm assuming that you don't know any of this, and you're as misinformed as 97% of the lied-to U.S. citizenry. Yes?

    But it's all true nonetheless, and we'd better get ourselves informed if we're ever going to stop the serial wars and atrocities that our government has been foisting in our name and on our dime.

    Putin has been going around the world putting out the fires that treasons scum like John McCain has been criminally responsible for.

    I'm surprised that someone who's found his/her way to the Unz Review is still this wildly delusional about geopolitical goings on.