2013 June 16 Sunday
The Middle East Foreign Policy Burlesque Goes On
I juxtapose a David Goldman (Spengler) article: The Russians Think We’re Wrecking the World on Purpose with an Elliot Abrams article: Neoconservatism: A Good Idea That Won't Go Away. Abrams is obviously not at all embarrassed by the failure of US policy in Iraq for example. After trillions of dollars costs, hundreds of thousands of US soldiers with brain damage from WMD blasts, and an Iraqi government much closer to Iran (supposedly our enemy) who has won? The New York Times reports: China Is Reaping Biggest Benefits of Iraq Oil Boom.
Tony Blair, who famously teamed up with George W. Bush to do the Iraq invasion (which was deeply harmful to US interests) thinks the West should intervene in Syria. By contrast, Sarah Palin makes more sense: "Let Allah sort it out.”
“We’re talking now more, new interventions, I say until we know what we’re doing, until we have a commander in chief who knows what he’s doing … well, in these radical Islamic countries aren’t even respecting basic human rights, when both sides are slaughtering each other as they scream over an arbitrary red line, Allahu Akbar, I say until we have someone who knows what they’re doing, I say: Let Allah sort it out.”
The Sarah wants us to think a competent President could competently intervene in the Middle East. I say such Presidents (Bush Sr comes to mind; ditto Tricky Dick Nixon) are so rare that we should stay out. Besides, we've got no crucial interests at stake.
By Randall Parker at 2013 June 16 07:36 PM
Things are generally juxtaposed to show contrast, but the main thrust of both of these articles is the same: to keep the central role of the Jewish lobby in these wars, and their power in general, from being talked about. Abrams apparently felt he had to say SOMETHING about the subject (though not the truth, heaven forbid), Goldman took the traditional route of stonewalling. That Abrams article is particularly nauseating: Neoconservatism (and their wars) are patriotism, loyalty to America, and mom's apple pie. Ugh.
Here's what I left at the site, I'm sure it will be censored:
Omit the negative value judgments in some of these definitions and one is left with patriotism, American exceptionalism . . . It should not be shocking that such views win wide popularity in the United States
No it isn't shocking. What is shocking is the cynical way the Republican party exploits these largely good sentiments to start wars overseas in order to cover up the fact that they don't have a coherent domestic program ("the vision thing" to quote one of them). In particular they have no answer to the demographic changes they foolishly helped to bring about and which will clearly destroy them. So they exploited the patriotism of people who are better than them in order to win one or two more elections before they shoot out the lights, grab the cash, and run. Johnson's remark about the last refuge of a scoundrel jumps to mind. But perpetual wars for perpetual election is a desperate last ditch effort that can't last because (for among many other reasons) the New People the Republicans helped elect aren't going to vote for the ruinous cost involved, they'd rather have the cash themselves. I guess that's at least one good thing about open borders.
The first time I voted was right after High School, I voted for Jimmy Carter. The next election I voted for Ronald Reagan and voted virtually the straight Republican ticket thereafter. I was patriotic and conservative. I quit voting when the "Compassionate Conservative" was nominated. There's just no point to it. Invade the world, invite the world, and tax breaks for billionaires, the Republican program in a nutshell. You can have it. The Republican implosion is going to be far worse and far sooner than the Party thinks when not just the New Americans vote against it, but when millions of their overwhelmingly white voters ("Kansas") realize that not only did they not do anything for us over the last 50 years, they never intended to, and now they're losing any ability to do so, those voters are simply going to drop out, as I have done. You saw the beginning of that trend in the last election. Let's end this one-and-a-half-party-state charade and go to the real thing. Thanks in large part to Republican corruption it's coming anyway, soon - whether you like it or not.
>>The first time I voted was right after High School, I voted for Jimmy Carter. The next election I voted for Ronald Reagan and voted virtually the straight Republican ticket thereafter. I was patriotic and conservative. I quit voting when the "Compassionate Conservative" was nominated.
Wow. Your voting experience tracks mine precisely. I voted for Republicans throughout the 80's and 90's because of the matter of Supreme Court appointees. When I realized that the Republicans had no real interest in countering judicial activism (the cause of 90% of what ails us as far as domestic policy goes) by countering the true political source of judicial activism I gave up on them. What really is the use of this party. They are cowed, crave and stupid. To break through to a better America we need to destroy the Republican party first. They are worst than useless. They give out deceptive hope to all those who believe them to be traditional, conservative or patriotic.
What really is the use of this party. They are cowed, crave and stupid. To break through to a better America we need to destroy the Republican party first. They are worst than useless.
Reagan was the only conservative president in my lifetime -- and the GOP establishment opposed him. They're not conservative and never have been. They only talk conservative to get the votes. That was the motivation behind the Tea Party and why the GOP leadership hates them. GOP leaders would rather see a Democrat elected than a Tea Party Republican because it interferes with their real agenda. As long as there aren't any real conservatives, the RINOs can talk the talk. But if a real conservative gets elected and starts pushing a conservative agenda they have to explain why they're opposing it.
"...Only once over the past two years has Israel fully condemned atrocities committed by the Assad regime, and while it has given medical help to wounded rebels on the Israeli-Syrian border, it fears an Islamist caliphate in Damascus far more than a continuation of Assad’s rule. One former Israel intelligence commander recently described Assad as “Israel’s man in Damascus”. Only days before President Mubarak was overthrown, both Netanyahu and King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia called Washington to ask Obama to save the Egyptian dictator. In vain..."
OH! Now it's all Obama's fault. Why the Israelis just wanted peace and stability and Obama just couldn't help but stir things up. Cry,cry. They've made a severe strategic error. Their Sunni patsies are losing. Now it's everyone else's fault. Why can't people just love them?
You want to understand the Israeli's? Read this.
Profile of the Sociopath
The problem is that the terms "liberal", "conservative", "republican", "democrat" no longer hold any of their true meaning anymore. Just like in Orwell's 1984 these words mean someting different each new administration and each new war, either overseas or domestic.
The United States should stay out of other people's countries. Sarah Palin said something that really makes sense: "Let Allah sort it out", just like the donkey who played the flute. She must've heard or read the phrase somewhere in a glamour cafe and now she's using it as hers in order to appear less dum. Even if she says something halfways interesting remember that it's not hers. She, like any other politican uses phrases like that as tools for getting into a bigger office.
One thing is clear though, the U.S.A. has been constantly messing up since 9/11 and yes, the rest of the world pretty much agrees that we're wrecking the world on purpose, not just the Russians and that could turn pretty dangerous for America. To make things worse many countries in the Western Hemisphere have already been so corrupted by or forced into the American way of life, that those countries could actually support America in messing up even more.
If our international policies are not backed by some brains we should be affraid of the Russians and the Chinese, specially when they decide to work together.
Spengler's article is pretty sneaky. Thee biggest disruptor of US politics is the influence of malign lobbies of various ethnies. That's why you see idiotic "stupid" policies, but if you look closer at the motivations of people in power, things make sense. If I was an architect and had to build a cathedral and then had to make sure every villager had a say in how it should look, would anybody be surprised to witness the rise of a monstrous unsightly building? If US policy would be formulated with just the interests of founding stock Americans in mind, it would no longer be stupid in any way or form.
The only stupid lemming people are the evangelical and progressive dupes who will blindly follow their leaders to hell(holes), even when they're told some of the most self -conflicting arguments and lies. But such easily led people are in every county. Some need to hear you want to protect Jews and Christians, others need to hear you want protect women and gays, but easily led they will be. It would be a ruling class's responsibility to guide them to sanity, not take advantage of them.
Spengler's framing implicates the Pauls and Russia in a bad light, but these people fulfill the role of good guys in international geopolicy these days -- crazy as that may sound. The neocons and bloodthirsty partisans like Spengler are the real bad guys; they have the blood of millions on their hands, have caused untold misery. They will never be held accountable for their many sins. Progressive internationalists, mostly rootless globalists, are somewhat better people, they actually mean well, but their sense of righteousness does more harm than good. They should accept that humankind is not universal and that their goals will not work for >60% humanity.
I sure hope God exists, then there would finally be some justice when unaccountable people die.
After constant attempts to whitewash the Syrian Government as an "evil regime" failed, along with constant attempts to pin the Government of President Assad (which has the support of around 70 per cent of the Syrian people, more than Obama and Cameron combined), here we have the USA lying, once again, producing images from April, stating that the Syrian Government used Sarin gas.
And what do they use as evidence? The "broad range" of evidence, including "multiple" incidents of the use of chemical weapons by the "Syrian regime", as Washington claims, is based upon some footage of anti-Assad terrorists lying in beds with shaving foam around their mouths, eyes blinking and alert, holding their heads and writhing around slowly.
Is that it? Apparently. Well, I could stage a better coup myself and a more realistic one. Chemical and biological weapons cover a broad array of weaponry but the symptoms I would show if I were trying to lie to the public would include people lying in their backs, motionless, eyes vacant, with foam but not shaving cream around the mouth, vomiting uncontrollably and generally looking like they were close to death. Certainly not blinking, holding their heads and moving around.
What Washington does not say is that the anti-Assad (30%) faction contains increasing numbers of al-Qaeda operatives, as was the case in Iraq and Libya, what Washington does not say is that arming the terrorists would escalate the conflict, what Washington does not say is that NATO is providing support for the terrorists to operate through Turkey.
How many more is Obama going to fund to murder? How many more Syrian families is he going to destroy? Remember NATO's cold-blooded murder of the Gaddafi grandchildren? Perhaps that makes him happy. Nobel peace prize indeed.... Shame on Obama.