Bush’s Disastrous Blunder (and let’s not let Dick “Dick” Cheney off the hook)

Bernie Sanders, my favorite Senator, says what I’ve been thinking, but didn’t know how to put into words.

Bush’s ‘disastrous blunder’ created Islamic State

Warning, link is to the RW Moonie Times. Most of the story is below if you don’t want to give them click-throughs.

“We are here today because of the disastrous blunder of the Bush-Cheney era, which got us into this war in Iraq in the first place, which then developed the can of worms that we’re trying to deal with right now.”

Mr. Sanders expressed his concern about the possibility of getting dragged into “perpetual warfare.”

“We have been at war for 12 years; we have spent trillions of dollars. I’m chairman of the Senate Committee on Veterans’ Affairs. We have 500,000 men and women who have come home with PTSD and TBI [traumatic brain injuries]. What I do not want, and what I fear very much, is the United States getting sucked into a quagmire and being involved in perpetual warfare year after year after year. That is my fear,” he said.”

VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Author: Timbuk3

Non-descript politically active male seeks like-minded for purposes of restoring democracy.

17 thoughts on “Bush’s Disastrous Blunder (and let’s not let Dick “Dick” Cheney off the hook)”

  1. Just out of curiosity, how does Obama’s air war in IS fit into this?

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Did you read the link? According to Sanders, “the war against Islamic State militants must be an international effort.”

    He goes on to say:

    “This is a regional crisis, and I think the people of America are getting sick and tired of the world and the region — Saudi Arabia and the other countries — saying, ‘Hey, we don’t have to do anything about it.’

    “This is a war for the soul of Islam, and the Muslim nations must be deeply involved,” Mr. Sanders said. “And to the degree the developed countries are involved, it should be the U.K., France, Germany, other countries as well.”

    His point, which I agree with, is that we shouldn’t “go it alone” like Bush and Cheney virtually did in Iraq, and be seen as “interlopers”, but rather we should support Arab countries in the REGIONAL battle against ISIS. By “support” I mean provide intelligence and air support, maybe help them organize their resistance, but not get directly involved (e.g. “boots on teh ground”). WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  3. “His point, which I agree with, is that we shouldn’t “go it alone” like Bush and Cheney virtually did in Iraq…we should support Arab countries in the REGIONAL battle against ISIS.”

    Well, where Sanders is wrong, IMO, is that what’s at stake isn’t fundamentalists vs….. what? Autocratic regimes like Egypt et al? What is really happening is a social upheavel, of which the “Arab Spring” was a part of.

    The regional Muslims are pissed off for many reasons. They’ve been under the heels of autocrats, usually supported by the US (Syria excluded). Their “brothers” in Palestine have been fucked over by Israel and the West for the better part of 3 generations. Their wealth has been drained from them by Western corporate interests, using the local autocrats as satraps. And the logical alternatives to neocolonialism, such as Nasserism and quasi-Western progressive alternatives, have been stamped down IN OUR “INTERESTS” for over half a century.

    The only alternative that Joe Blow Muslim has is… well, fundamentalism.

    So, what Sanders proposes is to do the same-ol thing of supporting autocratic governments in stamping on popular interests. Help the Saudis, Kuwaities, Jordanians (etc) and their like, all corrupt autocratic regimes, to maintain the status quo. So, it appears, proposes Obama, and apparently, you too.

    So, between Cheney/Bush and Obama, the difference is that Obama wants to do the same, but on the cheap (with regards to American blood, if not treasure).

    There are no “moderates” over there, things are beyond that. Most “moderates” have joined ISIS or have been absorbed by them. And ISIS is getting things done, in the sense that it is providing social services that the previous regimes wouldn’t provide.

    I might also add that their excesses aren’t fundamentally different from the excesses of the tyrants that they are trying to overthrow, the Iraqui government included. And they’re far better at manipulating Western public opinion than the tyrants were – note how they’ve manipulated the US and UK, for example, on the VERY cheap.

    So, it it a good idea to support tyrranical/corrupt governments in the face of popular protest? Can this battle be won? Is it right, is it expedient?

    From my POV, the pretext for our involvement in this stage of a long-standing conflict isn’t far removed from the pretexts for Iraq I and II. Government laches on an outrage (terrist attack, beheading, exaggerated claims or whatnot), the subservient press wallows in the mire, and an acceptable majority supports the unsupportable.

    Empathy is blown out the ass like a foul wind.

    What can we gain from this continuation of a permanent war against a popular movement? Any violent reaction only fans the flames.

    9/11 and our reaction to it made Al Qaida a popular brand for assorted groups to immitate. Now ISIS has replaced Al Qaida as the “movement” that stands up against the West, and now that we’ve been played like fiddles yet again, now groups from Algeria to Afghanistan are identifying with ISIS.

    Which means – what’s changed? In this sense Sanders is right – we’re committed to a permanent war, which (for the sake of the MIC is just fine) is basically the Cheney/Bush doctrine.

    What’s curious is how the party followers have changed their spots. GOPers will always tow the line, but Dems seem to put on blinders when one of their own is pulling the warfare strings.

    …………

    “we shouldn’t “go it alone”

    So who are we to align with? The Sauds? A couple of years ago you were willing to toss them to the wolves. What’s changed your mind, outside media hysteria?

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  4. Look, Alvy, we’re friends, but I’m gonna forgo my usual “fuck you, you’re being stupid” in lieu of giving our “resident historian” a lesson in history…

    George W. Bush and Dick “Dick” Cheny removed a brutal dictator in Sadaam Hussein from control over Iraq. Fact is, Iraq NEEDS a brutal dicator to avoid degenerating into the mess that it currently is. BUSH AND DICK “DICK” CHENEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ISIS, just like they were responsibe for the rise of Al Queada in Iraq. Not to mention the US” reputation for being torturers, “bad actors” in the middle east, and ANYTHING negative you want to add. Need links? I can find them for you. Read your own Salon link.

    There IS a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats don’t GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to be assholes to the rest of the world.

    ISIS are assholes. They rape, commit genocide, and force their religion on anyone who’s territory they conquer. They’re mongols united behind an Atilla the Hun who is fucking insane. If this was happening to me and my family, I would WELCOME Canada intervening with air support. Or, just about fucking anyone. Even Russia. I mean, really, my choice is “watch my wife be raped and killed before I’m beheaded” and “I have a fighting chance”, I don’t think I’d be pissed off at Canada for helping me.

    Dude, “no war” doesn’t work when you live in a world where people other than yourself want to go to war. ISIS THRIVES on war. They FUNDRAISE on it!

    So who are we to align with?

    I’ve never seen a more beautiful example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  5. “BUSH AND DICK “DICK” CHENEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ISIS”

    No argument here, and not too sure where the putative “fuck you” would enter into it.

    -My- point is that, far from repudiating similar tactics, the current admin is continuing them.

    “Democrats don’t GO OUT OF THEIR WAY to be assholes to the rest of the world.”

    Vietnam, Yemen, Cuba and a few more kinda belie your point.

    “ISIS are assholes. They rape, commit genocide, and force their religion on anyone who’s territory they conquer. ”

    To a certain extent, that’s propaganda talking. No, I don’t deny that they’re assholes that do everything that you state.

    But I remind you that the majority of Xtians in Iraq, for example, left Iraq in fear of their lives because of the excesses of our puppet government thereabouts. I remind you of the mass killings by the Iraqi government and its assorted Shiite militias. I remind you that the Sunnis, once the perpetrators of outrages, became the victims of the same, UNDER OUR AEGIS.

    So, all things being relative, why and how are ISIS worse than the Iraqi government, whose own troops won’t even support?

    BOTH sides are apeshit crazy. So why on earth would we support one against the other? Why would we support one side that is an ally of a supposed enemy (Iran) and an enemy of an enemy (Syria)?

    “Dude, “no war” doesn’t work when you live in a world where people other than yourself want to go to war. ISIS THRIVES on war. They FUNDRAISE on it!”

    So do the Shiite militia, so does the Military Industrial Complex that has manipulated the media (and apparently some of its consumers) so well.

    “I’ve never seen a more beautiful example of “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”

    Not at all. Judging from our current foreign policy, the enemy of my enemy is my enemy, the friend of my enemy is my enemy, and my friend is the enemy of my friend, etc..

    Wean yourself off the media machine, or at least look at what the “other sides” are doing before making moral judgements. Remember how the government and press are adept at playing the majority like fiddles. And remember that war is the last resort.

    ———

    I understood your OP as about the “perpetual warfare” begun by Dubya/Cheney, and asked how Obama’s newest campaign fits into that concept.

    Frankly, I have no idea of what your latest reply is all about, since I don’t disagree with any part of it – excepting the use of ISIS outrages to justify yet another war.

    But I’ll go to your penultimate riposte once again:

    “Dude, “no war” doesn’t work when you live in a world where people other than yourself want to go to war. ISIS THRIVES on war. They FUNDRAISE on it!”

    So why in the hell do we play into their hands and give them a war to thrive and fundaise on?

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  6. “BUSH AND DICK “DICK” CHENEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ISIS”

    In a shallow sense, yes.

    But going back to the roots, no.

    -WE- undermined every progressive movement in Muslim lands, from Mossadeq to Nasser, in order to further neocolonial interests (corps). this started in the 1950’s. But going back further, our (Western) buttfucking of Muslims started with Sykes-Picot and Lawrence of Arabia, if not Napoleon.

    Those people have very valid reasons to be pissed off at us (so let’s bomb them to make things right?).

    Face it – if it wasn’t for oil and Israel, the West would give a flying fuck about the ME, they’d take it like another Congo, Uganda, or any other post-Cold War clusterfuck that doesn’t affect us directly. IOW, deplore it and ignore it.

    We supported Anwar Saddat, suddenly supported Egypt’s “Arab Spring” until the Muslim Brotherhood was elected, and now support another military dictatorship. We supported an Iraqui president that shat upon the Sunnis and coddled up to the Iranians (a major inconsistency) until he successfully played the current admin as a fiddle in order to garner further military support (we dismissed him, but his objectives were obtained).

    What the hell are we doing over there?

    In a concilatory gesture, I’ll say what -I- would do if potus, which I’d wager isn’t far from what you would do:

    – Wean ourselves off oil.
    – Stop supporting dictatorships.
    – Support a 2 state solution in Israel, and stop cowtowing to Israel.
    – Limit our aid to humanitarian aid.
    – Welcome any government that arises in the ME, even if fundamentalist, and give aid only if fundamental human rights are available in such states.
    – Punish recalitrant states with ostracism, isolation and economic boycotts.
    – Live and let live, even if it fucks over Exxon or Monsanto or whatever corp has interests thereabouts.
    – Stop using countries as pawns in geopolitcal strategy, it only results in blowback.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: +1 (from 1 vote)
  7. the current admin is continuing them.

    Yeah, I get it. You don’t like Obama. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he’s WAY better than Bush was, McCain would have been, Romney would have been. Agree to disagree.

    Vietnam, Yemen, Cuba and a few more kinda belie your point.

    I’m not really sure what your point is, here, since I’ve admitted many times that DEMOCRATS ARE NOT PERFECT. I think, for example, that LBJs habit of making people watch him taking a crap is unecessary intimidation.

    But LBJ brought us the “great society”, medicaid, equal rights…

    He fucked up on Viet Nam, a war he was forced into. Otherwise, he was one of our greatest Presidents. Bush and Reagan gave us trickle down econeomics, a PERMANENTLY failed policy. Who “won”?

    “I remind you of the mass killings by the Iraqi government and its assorted Shiite militias. I remind you that the Sunnis, once the perpetrators of outrages, became the victims of the same, UNDER OUR AEGIS.”

    Yeah. THanks BUsh and Cheney.

    Either want to make things better, or worse. That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask.

    “So, all things being relative, why and how are ISIS worse than the Iraqi government, whose own troops won’t even support?”

    Um…

    Isis rapes, commits genocide, kills children…??? WTF???

    BOTH sides are apeshit crazy.

    I disagree. Sort of like Dems vs. Repubs. One side THRIVES on crazy!

    So why on earth would we support one against the other? Why would we support one side that is an ally of a supposed enemy (Iran) and an enemy of an enemy (Syria)?

    That would actually be a reasonable question, if it wern’t for the whole rape, genocide, “my way or the highway on religion” thing that’s so reminescent of GOP politics, these days.

    I’m not sure I understand your comment about Shi’a fundraising. My guess is, you don’t understand why I’d support fundraising on one side, but not the other. If true, the answer is, I suppport one side, but not the other.

    the enemy of my enemy is my enemyMem>

    I honestly believe that you coudn’t be more wrong. Saudi Arabia may not be our best friend, but they’re opposed to someone who has PUBLICALLY STATED THAT they way to kill ME, MY WIFE, MY DAUGHTER, MY SON, MY GRANDDAUGHTER, MY GRANDSON…

    I think fear-mongering sucks, especially when done by the US media, but can we keep this conversation it the real world?

    So why in the hell do we play into their hands and give them a war to thrive and fundaise on?

    Ummmmmm…

    We’re not “playing into their hands”.
    Their “fundraising” will will end when their movement ends, which we CAN do. C’mon, man, we have the greatest air force in the history of the world.
    We also have a corrupt media, which we can manimpulate to make these guys evil, which even YOU agree with.
    I don’t know what else to say. We CAN beat them. AND, they suck.

    “BUSH AND DICK “DICK” CHENEY ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF ISIS”

    In a shallow sense, yes.

    Yup.

    But going back to the roots, no.

    I understand. Our policy has sucked for DECADES. But blaming Obama for that is just plain wrong. Obamba is doing this right. We need to acknowledge it.

    Those people have very valid reasons to be pissed off at us (so let’s bomb them to make things right?).

    Face it – if it wasn’t for oil and Israel, the West would give a flying fuck about the ME, they’d take it like another Congo, Uganda, or any other post-Cold War clusterfuck that doesn’t affect us directly. IOW, deplore it and ignore it.

    I don’t disagree. Where you and I have a problem is the insane Obama hatred. HE didn’t do it. He’s doing things the way I WANT my POTUS to do it.

    In a concilatory gesture, I’ll say what -I- would do if potus, which I’d wager isn’t far from what you would do:

    – Wean ourselves off oil.
    – Stop supporting dictatorships.
    – Support a 2 state solution in Israel, and stop cowtowing to Israel.
    – Limit our aid to humanitarian aid.
    – Welcome any government that arises in the ME, even if fundamentalist, and give aid only if fundamental human rights are available in such states.
    – Punish recalitrant states with ostracism, isolation and economic boycotts.
    – Live and let live, even if it fucks over Exxon or Monsanto or whatever corp has interests thereabouts.
    – Stop using countries as pawns in geopolitcal strategy, it only results in blowback.< ?em>

    1. I belive we should wean ourselves off oil, for a GREAT number of reasons.
    2. Fuck Israel. What we SHOULD do is make them get along with their neighbors, and we have the power to do so.
    3. Wrong. We need to aid those who oppose our enemies. Sorry, but I just don’t want my grand-daughter to die because some religiously fundamentalist nutbag feels the need to explode his/herserlf.
    4. OK.
    5. OK.
    6. Not really. We ARE the most powerful country in the history of the earth. I don’t see any strong reasons why we should cede control.

    Operation Inherent Resolve

    Who is the spin meister that dreamed than one up?

    On the other hand: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/16/operation-inherent-resolve-isis-war-name-us-military

    lol

    “Operation Put Your Hands On Your Hips, Stand With Your Legs Apart, Look Mad And Flex Just A Little In Case Your Neighbor’s Wife Is Watching.

    Ya, know, we really ARE the most powerful nation in the history of the earth. As long as we’re benevolent, a condition found under Democrats that’s not found under Republicans, I think we’re entitled.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  8. “Yeah, I get it. You don’t like Obama. I don’t think he’s perfect, but I think he’s WAY better than Bush was, McCain would have been, Romney would have been. Agree to disagree.”

    Besides being arguable, you miss the point. Your OP talks about the permanent war, and Obama is continuing it. Deal with it.

    The others -might- be worse. But there’s a Spanish expresion – “Mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos”.

    “I’m not really sure what your point is, here, since I’ve admitted many times that DEMOCRATS ARE NOT PERFECT.”

    Undoubtedly so. But since, as far as foreign policy is concerned, the difference is minimum, the “perfection” argument is out of place, don’t you think?

    “He fucked up on Viet Nam, a war he was forced into. Otherwise, he was one of our greatest Presidents. Bush and Reagan gave us trickle down econeomics, a PERMANENTLY failed policy. Who “won”?”

    Thar’s a logical fallacy of epic proportions. LBJ was “forced” into Vietnam? Who is to say that subsequent potus’, including Obama, haven’t been forced into our many and various subsequent conflicts? And it is arguable that Obama isn’t also following trickle down economics.

    “Either want to make things better, or worse. That doesn’t seem to be too much to ask.”

    Well, here’s the crux of our discussion. Is Obama’s policy making things better or exascerbating them? I cannot see that the former is the case, but it is pretty obvious to me that the latter is true.

    “Isis rapes, commits genocide, kills children…??? WTF??”

    So do Shiite militia, and by proxy, the Iraqui goverment. So where’s the WTF?

    “I disagree. Sort of like Dems vs. Repubs. One side THRIVES on crazy!”

    That’s the influence of mainstream media. Sorry.

    “That would actually be a reasonable question, if it wern’t for the whole rape, genocide, “my way or the highway on religion” thing that’s so reminescent of GOP politics, these days.”

    And the crux rears its’ head once again. If one sees that “both” sides have committed similar outrages for similar reasons, our intervention becomes much more than a “reasonable question”, which is my point from the beginning.

    “We’re not “playing into their hands”.”

    Of course we are. By publicly killing a few westerners we’ve given ISIS the status of an “equal”, much as we did for Al Qaeda. That’s rock star status amongs the moitey of middle easterners.

    “Their “fundraising” will will end when their movement ends, which we CAN do. ”

    Hearts and minds? That’s a Vietnam War mindset, and far removed from reality.

    “But blaming Obama for that is just plain wrong. Obamba is doing this right. We need to acknowledge it.”

    Sorry, continuing a half-century of bad policy is not right.

    “Where you and I have a problem is the insane Obama hatred. HE didn’t do it. He’s doing things the way I WANT my POTUS to do it.”

    It has nothing to do with Obama. Jesus, Buddha, Ghandi, Marcus Aurelius or whomever, if they took this course, I would disagree with it.

    “3. Wrong. We need to aid those who oppose our enemies. Sorry, but I just don’t want my grand-daughter to die because some religiously fundamentalist nutbag feels the need to explode his/herserlf.”

    RIGHT. Are you at least familiar with the concept of blowback? The world isn’t black and white. If we support tyrants against assholes, that’s a no-win situation, and your grand-daughter might likely suffer from having done so.

    We’re not the “good guys” from the perspective of most of this planet. ISIS are certainly bad guys from the perspective of most of the planet – but not worse than our puppet regime in Iraq, for example. At the same time, they’re enemies of our enemies in Syria. And in the middle, millions of people who are in deep shit, looking for someone to give a hand.

    ISIS is there, providing social services, water, electricity, etc. And the US is there, providing bombs. In the battle of local hearts and minds, who wins?

    “We ARE the most powerful country in the history of the earth. I don’t see any strong reasons why we should cede control.”

    That’s neocon talk.

    “As long as we’re benevolent, a condition found under Democrats that’s not found under Republicans, I think we’re entitled.”

    See above regarding (Truman) & LBJ, and more recently, Bubba and Obama.

    The US is increasingly seen as a NON benevolent player in this world. Obama’s good start with his Cairo speech has been shown to be horseshit, at least in the Muslim world.

    I don’t care if Obama is Obama, if he’s a GOPer or a Dem, a socialist or a fascist. I outgrew my disappointment with regards to failed expectations years ago, and judge the current situation from the same POV as I viewed previous potus’, that’s all.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  9. I had to hit page down twice to read that whole thing, so I’m not going to respond point by point. We’re both entrenched so I’m not going to convince you of anything, anyway, nor will you change my mind.

    Just a few points…

    ISIS is, indeed, providing some comfort to the territories they occupy in their pursuit of the caliphate. Big caveat, though; you have to follow their interpretation of the Quran, or you’ll be raped and/or killed. Meanwhile, under President Obama’s order, we were air-dropping food and water to people who were forced to leave their homes due to the threat posed by ISIS. It’s not just bombs. I don’t see how dropping food and water is NOT benevolent, which you falsely characterize as “neocon talk”. At this point I’ll characterize your position, whether what I’m saying is true or not, is isolationist talk. I’m familiar with blowback, and dropping food and water isn’t causative, and Obama isn’t continuing perpetual war. Deal with it.

    One of Obama’s conditions for helping with air strikes, intelligence, and coordination is that the Arab countries, or as Senator Sanders put it, “the Muslim nations must be deeply involved”. I agree with this, and note that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and at least one other “Muslim nation” have joined in making air strikes on our common enemy. I vehemently DISAGRE that this is “bad policy”. And PLEASE don’t say ISIS isn’t a “common enemy”, or try to pull out the “we’re only doing it for Oil/Israel” card. ISIS HAS killed Americans, they HAVE said “We’re coming for you, Obama”, they DO pose a threat where I live (and notably, you don’t) through training terrorists with American passports. I’m probably leaving some things out, but the point is that “let’s ignore them” doesn’t seem like a smart thing to do, and trying to “replace” them as benefactors to the very people they’re terrorizing isn’t really an option we should be considering. THAT would be “boots on the ground”, leading to the “quagmire” we all agree we DON’T want to be in.

    I really want to address the “the difference is minimum” point. This is, to put it mildly, a complete fabrication that you cannot support. The first piece of evidence is; you didn’t support it. Obama is aiding a group of Muslim countries by providing air support, intelligence, and aid drops. McCain fanously sang “Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”. Romney’s position on Iran? “Well, it’s worth putting in place crippling sanctions. It’s worth working with the insurgents in the country to encourage regime change in the country. And if all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides mil — take military action, then of course you take military action.” This is not a “minimum” difference. Republicans SUCK at foreign policy. Always have, always will. BTW, Obama kept his promise to get us out of Iraq. I’m not so happy we’re not out of Afghanistan, too, but I do understand not wanting to leave a “power vacuum” there, and things seem to be relatively quiet in Afghanistan. I’m not really defending Obama, here, as much as just trying to live in reality. Put another way, pull out today, and the whole region devolves into chaos. Pull out 2, 4, 6, 12, 20 years from now and the whole region devolves into chaos. Afghanistan is the little corner of the world that destroys powerful nations and ignorance is the prize. Still, our initial action there was sanctioned by the UN, so…I don’t really know what to say about Afghanistan, any more. We went in without an exit plan. Thanks, Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld.

    One final thought; we don’t have ANY “allies” in Syria.

    BTW, I think you misused “moiety”.

    To be clear, I don’t want ANY American, pilot or grunt, sent somewhere where we’re protecting Oil and Israel (who can defend themselves just fine, thanks to BILLIONS of American taxpayer dollars per year, thank you very much), but (for example) I’m OK with Obama sending in the troops to help with the ebola epidemic IN AFRICA.

    If you’re wondering why I capitalized that, WE AGREE THAT THE AMERICAN NEWS MEDIA SUCKS. EVERY time I turn on one of the cable news channels, ANY of the cable news channels (not JUST CNN), and Press the Meet this morning, I get this bizarre “we’re under threat from ebola” message. It’s a fucking LIE. You practically have to eat the shit or drink the piss from a CONTAGIOUS ebola patient to get it. And yet we’re treated to day after day, hour by hour, shots of people in bunny suits rolling THREE (fucking THREE, more people are killed by ANYTHING YOU CARE TO NAME in America than ebola) ebola patients into “containment units”.

    The average American voter is incredibly stupid. I have no respect for them. And they’re the reason we may see a return, soon, to fucked up policies like “trickle down economics”, “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran”, and “let’s cut social security benefits and/or raise the retirement age”, soon. Honestly, if I could repress the vote the way the Republicans are trying to do, I’d institute an IQ test.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  10. “Mal de muchos, consuelo de tontos”.

    Paul Krugman:

    What I would say is that even if Obama is just an ordinary president on national security issues, that’s a huge improvement over what came before and what we would have had if John McCain or Mitt Romney had won. It’s hard to get excited about a policy of not going to war gratuitously, but it’s a big deal compared with the alternative.

    Takeaway: Spanish expressions do not equal intelligent advice in complex situations.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  11. ” and note that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and at least one other “Muslim nation” have joined in making air strikes on our common enemy. ”

    So 2 or 3 autocratic regimes, whose population have been funding ISIS, are with us against them? Those are allies? That’s good policy?

    There’s a couple of core problems that you and Obama are ignoring:

    1. ISIS is satisfying a need, and thus gets support in Syria, Iraq, S. Arabia, the UAE, Kuwait and elsewhere.
    2. By supporting countries that are seen, by many, as the problem, we become part of the problem.

    That’s bad policy, any way you cut it, and guaramtees that we will continue to be seen as part of the problem for the forseeable future.

    “And PLEASE don’t say ISIS isn’t a “common enemy”, or try to pull out the “we’re only doing it for Oil/Israel” card.”

    Because it is difficult to respond to?

    “SIS HAS killed Americans, they HAVE said “We’re coming for you, Obama”, they DO pose a threat where I live (and notably, you don’t) through training terrorists with American passports. ”

    And they’ve played on American fears to their benefit. And most REAL analysts are clear in stating that ISIS is no current threat to the US.

    “This is, to put it mildly, a complete fabrication that you cannot support.”

    Unless, of course, one sees beyond the propaganda and regards the truth.

    “The first piece of evidence is; you didn’t support it. Obama is aiding a group of Muslim countries by providing air support, intelligence, and aid drops.”

    WHICH countries? Countries that we should shun if it wasn’t for oil, that we should shun do to their policies.

    “Republicans SUCK at foreign policy. Always have, always will.”

    Nixon ended Vietnam, opened us up to China and initiated strategic arm treaties. Not too bad. The Dems can counter with… WWII, Korea, Vietnam… RHETORIC is another thing, GOPers are always hawks, but then again, Dems, fearful of seeming soft on defence, have been hawks as well.

    Sorry.

    “Obama kept his promise to get us out of Iraq. ”

    Alternatively, he subscribed to Dubya’s agreement with Iraq for American withdrawl.

    Moiety= one of two approximately equal parts

    ” I get this bizarre “we’re under threat from ebola” message. It’s a fucking LIE.”

    The spin on ISIS is similar.
    ———
    As for Krugman, and his relative support, what else is new? He’s a public persona, too well known for being against Obama on economic grounds. He had to give some honey.

    “Spanish expressions do not equal intelligent advice in complex situations.”

    Nor does cowtowing propaganda.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  12. Look, in the end, you think that yet another round of intervention is a good thing, I don’t.

    You are afraid of islamic fundamentalists invading the West, I’m not.

    Youthink that the ends justify the means, I believe that this usually ends with blowback and a worse situation that what’s being dealt with.

    Do you disagree?

    And mind you, I don’t care which puppet of the MIC is in the WH. He could be dem, repub, socialist, anarchist, jesus christ, Buddha or whatnot. History shows that G. Washington was right: “he who in a fight interpose, often ends with a bloody nose”.

    It’s none of our business. Humanitarian aid – hell yes. Diplomatic intervention – hell yes. Unfortunately, once you take sides, neither remain feasible.

    We become part of the problem for at least half of those involved.

    So, IMHO, it’s bad policy, and it’s not far removed from the Dubya/Cheney doctrine.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  13. you think that yet another round of intervention is a good thing, I don’t.

    If “intervention” includes everything from dropping water and food to villagers being hunted by ISIS to invading a country that did nothing to us and didn’t have WMDs, then yes. Otherwise, maybe we should avoid painting with broad brushes.

    You are afraid of islamic fundamentalists invading the West, I’m not.

    NO ONE, to my knowledge, is afraid of Islamic forces invading the west. NOT. ONE. FUCKING. PERSON. You didn’t distinguish yourself, here.

    Youthink that the ends justify the means

    I do. I’ve never understood the expression “the ends don’t justify the means”. I mean, on a basic level I do. Don’t murder someone for their life insurance, for example. But, “let him die from what he got himself into so that millions of others can live”? Maybe not the best example, but hopefully you catch my drift. Example, letting ONE guy die in quarantine from Ebola so he can’t go around contaminating people who want to drink his piss and eat his shit. Oh, wait a minute…

    OK, I don’t have a good example springing to mind, but if I can keep a speeding car driven by a drunk from hitting a group of 500 people by throwing a brick at the windshield, I’m throwing the brick. I don’t know if the brick will kill the driver, knock them out, or just make it so hard to see that the drunk drives off the road and stops, safely.

    Maybe I’m a sociopath?

    I believe that this usually ends with blowback and a worse situation that what’s being dealt with.

    Yeah, yeah, the Iraqi village of Qaraqosh begs to disagree.

    We broke it. It’s up to us to fix it. IIRC, we AGREED to this, years ago, when those fuckers Bush and Cheney decided to invade Iraq based on lies.

    Maybe I’m wrong about this. Maybe the ends (complete chaos in the region) justifies the means (invading on false pretenses).

    Fuck, maybe I AM a sociopath?

    Oh, wait, in my favor, I was probably the loudest voice protesting going to war in Iraq in the first place FOR THIS REASON, among others. Maybe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld are the sociopaths, and I was a voice for moral reason, back then.

    I’m so confused.

    What would I do if I inherited these wars?

    EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.

    That’s what.

    I don’t care which puppet of the MIC is in the WH. He could be dem, repub, socialist, anarchist, jesus christ, Buddha or whatnot. History shows that G. Washington was right: “he who in a fight interpose, often ends with a bloody nose”.

    Hokay, Mr. historian. Question. Who had the most powerful navy in the history of the world at the time Washington was POTUS? Not wanting to take on the British navy, around 1800, was a pretty wise decision, IMO.

    It’s none of our business.

    More isolationism. Do I need to make a detailed post about why Ron/Rand Paul-style isolationism is a bad thing, our are you willing to stipulate to this?

    Humanitarian aid – hell yes.

    Check the link, above.

    Diplomatic intervention – hell yes. Unfortunately, once you take sides, neither remain feasible.

    You want to enter into “dipolmatic negotiations” with ISIS. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIUOS?

    We become part of the problem for at least half of those involved.So, IMHO, it’s bad policy, and it’s not far removed from the Dubya/Cheney doctrine.

    NOT being confrontational, here, but you know the saying; “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.”

    I’m GRATEFUL that we have a POTUS who’s not advocating “boots on the ground” to “defeat ISIS”. I acknowledge that Mexican drug cartels pose a greater threat to Americans than ISIS. They’ve killed almost 300 Americans in the past 4 or 5 years. The threat of ISIS to the average American (especially the ones who live in Idaho) is lower than the risk of, well, almost anything; car accidents, lightening strikes, CANCER, HEART DISEASE….

    My support is limited to humanitarian reasons. First, we broke it. We need to fix it. Second, we broke it, we need to fix it entire towns are being raped and pillaged, not to mention murdered. I don’t see the downside to helping them. Ah, fuck, there’s more, but I’ve argued with you for years. You’re NOT going to agree that America can use its military for good, ever. I await your reply.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  14. “If “intervention” includes everything from dropping water and food to villagers being hunted by ISIS to invading a country that did nothing to us and didn’t have WMDs, then yes.”

    I’m with you there, 100%. It’s the bombs I’m against, and mostly because they’re inexpedient, probably useless, and prone to occassion blowback.

    “NO ONE, to my knowledge, is afraid of Islamic forces invading the west. NOT. ONE. FUCKING. PERSON. You didn’t distinguish yourself, here.”

    I guess I misread: “… but they’re opposed to someone who has PUBLICALLY STATED THAT they way to kill ME, MY WIFE, MY DAUGHTER, MY SON, MY GRANDDAUGHTER, MY GRANDSON…”

    “I do. I’ve never understood the expression “the ends don’t justify the means”.”

    That’s painfully obvious. So let me spell out a couple of examples…

    Eugenics… a praiseworthy end, to improve the genetic pool of mankind. A horrible means – starting from forced sterilization to even murder.

    Supporting fascist dictators in order to counterbalance communism in L. America. Perhaps the end was OK, but the means have caused major blowback against the US.

    Etc.

    “Yeah, yeah, the Iraqi village of Qaraqosh begs to disagree.”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iraq – scroll down and you’ll see that the Shiites and the Iraqui government have been scewing over, murdering, etc. the Xtian community thereabouts. So between 2 evils we choose one yet again? ISIS at least gives xtians the choice of paying a tax (vintage Islamic law) while the Shiites just kill period. Then again, evil old Saddam PROTECTED xtians… go figure.

    “What would I do if I inherited these wars?
    EXACTLY WHAT OBAMA IS DOING.”

    So follow the Cheney/Dubya lead? You are indeed confused.

    “Hokay, Mr. historian. Question. Who had the most powerful navy in the history of the world at the time Washington was POTUS? Not wanting to take on the British navy, around 1800, was a pretty wise decision, IMO.”

    Non sequitor. The quote was about INTERPOSING in a fight that one isn’t directly involved with.

    “More isolationism. Do I need to make a detailed post about why Ron/Rand Paul-style isolationism is a bad thing, our are you willing to stipulate to this?”

    No, and that’s a false dilemma. I don’t propound isolationaism, I just am against getting into another fight with no clear goal (outside defeating yet another evil villain, who is just as villainous as his opponents).

    “You want to enter into “dipolmatic negotiations” with ISIS. ARE YOU FUCKING SERIUOS?”

    Diplomatic intervention is not “negotiation with the enemy”. It means approaching the problem through diplomacy, with the regional powers, and perhaps with a proxy representation of ISIS.

    One part of the core problem thereabouts is that after the fall of the Baathists, the Sunni got screwed. THAT problem could be approached diplomatically, undercutting the extremists.

    “NOT being confrontational, here, but you know the saying; “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.””

    Not at all. And not much of a riposte, quite frankly.

    “My support is limited to humanitarian reasons. First, we broke it. We need to fix it.”

    I’m all for the humanitarian aid. As for “fixing it”, can you envision any possible scenario where the US would have the credibility to achieve any aim in the region?

    “entire towns are being raped and pillaged, not to mention murdered.”

    Something we did little about when it was the Iraqui government doing it, or indeed the US armed forces (Faluja). So I reiterate, can arming one group of apeshit crazy extremists against another, choosing sides in a thousand-year old Sunni-Shiite conflict, supporting repressive governments against the popular will of one of those sides, achieve anything positive? Isn’t it far more likely that the results will blow back in our faces?

    “Ah, fuck, there’s more, but I’ve argued with you for years. You’re NOT going to agree that America can use its military for good, ever. I await your reply.”

    Militatry for good? Self defense, or in the context of a UN-approved humanitarian intervention in accordance to international law.

    Remember? Just like you used to think when it was Dubya in the WH.

    VN:R_U [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply