Obama's Foreign Policy

[B-Man]

ISN’T EVERYONE USED TO THAT FIRST PART BY NOW?

 

Barack Obama’s Wrong: The New Cold War’s Only Just Begun.

 

Michael Weiss:

 

“Vladimir Putin,” [Mikhail] Zygar writes, “did not like the new American president from the start. For him, Barack Obama was both soft and intractable… Paradoxically, Obama, the most idealistic and peace-loving U.S. president in living memory, became a symbol of war in Russia, a target for Russian state propaganda and racist jokes, and a hate figure for millions of patriotic Russians. He was caricatured as an ill-fated enemy doomed to be defeated by Vladimir Putin.”

 

Surveying some much-buried news over the last seven days, one begins to appreciate the weight of this grim appraisal.

 

 

[B-Man]

NOBEL PEACE PRIZE UPDATE:

 

Russia orders all officials to fly home any relatives living abroad, as tensions mount over the prospect of a global war.

 

 

 

On the other hand.................

 

WELL, GOOD: White House Sending THAAD to ROK As “Soon As Feasible”

The US military is to deploy a Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) counter missile battery to the Republic of Korea (RoK) as quick as possible, the White House said on 10 October in response to an official protest.

“The United States is working with the RoK to deploy this system as soon as feasible in order to more safely defend our RoK ally and US military personnel deployed to the region from the North Korea nuclear and ballistic missile threat,” read the statement. A written petition decrying the deployment, created in July, garnered enough signatures (more than 100,000) to warrant a response.

The petition called the looming THAAD deployment “a controversial move that will likely … escalate tension in the region, by provoking North Korea, China, and Russia into a spiralling arms race in the region that is already heavily militarised”.

 

 

THAAD is a purely defensive weapon which can only shoot down hostile missiles after they’ve been fired. Its presence in South Korea might be politically uncomfortable for Pyongyang and Beijing, but THAAD makes a North Korean first strike less inviting and ought to reduce military tensions in the region.

 

Kudos to the Obama Administration for making the right call.

Edited October 12, 2016 by B-Man

[Deranged Rhino]

4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >>

Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >>

air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >>

believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >>

Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to >>

provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will >>

allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against >>

the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, >>

avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best >>

temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving >>

forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >>

assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >>

which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >>

other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by >>

the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put >>

in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to >>

dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By >>

the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve >>

to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where >>

insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774%20

 

But it's not a proxy war....

*******************

 

Egypt and Russia to start joint military training in mid-October

 

Russia and Egypt will start joint military training in Egypt for the first time, Russia’s defence ministry said on Tuesday. This training is considered a milestone in Egyptian-Russian bilateral relations.

The Russian ministry announced this in a statement on its official website; however, no official response has yet been made by the Egyptian side.

The Russian statement said the trainings will take place during mid-October, as part of an international counter-terrorism exercise dubbed Defenders of Friendship 2016.

http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2016/10/12/egypt-russia-start-joint-military-training-mid-october/?

******************************************

 

In the Democratic Echo Chamber, Inconvenient Truths Are Recast as Putin Plots

 

But come January, Democrats will continue to be the dominant political faction in the U.S. — more so than ever — and the tactics they are now embracing will endure past the election, making them worthy of scrutiny. Those tactics now most prominently include dismissing away any facts or documents that reflect negatively on their leaders as fake, and strongly insinuating that anyone who questions or opposes those leaders is a stooge or agent of the Kremlin, tasked with a subversive and dangerously un-American mission on behalf of hostile actors in Moscow.

To see how extreme and damaging this behavior has become, let’s just quickly examine two utterly false claims that Democrats over the past four days — led by party-loyal journalists — have disseminated and induced thousands of people, if not more, to believe. On Friday, WikiLeaks published its first installment of emails obtained from the account of Clinton campaign chair John Podesta. Despite WikiLeaks’ perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents, MSNBC’s favorite ex-intelligence official, Malcolm Nance, within hours of the archive’s release, posted a tweet claiming — with zero evidence and without citation to a single document in the WikiLeaks archive — that it was compromised with fakes:

(snip)

As you can see, more than 4,000 people have re-tweeted this “Official Warning.” That includes not only random Clinton fans but also high-profileClinton-supporting journalists, who by spreading it around gave this claim their stamp of approval, intentionally leading huge numbers of people to assume the WikiLeaks archive must be full of fakes, and its contents should therefore simply be ignored. Clinton’s campaign officials spent the dayfueling these insinuations, strongly implying that the documents were unreliable and should thus be ignored. Poof: Just like that, unpleasant facts about Hillary Clinton disappeared, like a fairy protecting frightened children by waving her magic wand and sprinkling her dust over a demon, causing it to scatter away.

Except the only fraud here was Nance’s claim, not any of the documents published by WikiLeaks. Those were all real. Indeed, at Sunday night’s debate, when asked directly about the excerpts of her Wall Street speeches found in the release, Clinton herself confirmed their authenticity. And news outlets such as the New York Times and AP reported — and continue to report — on their contents without any caveat that they may be frauds. No real print journalists or actual newsrooms (as opposed to campaign operatives masquerading as journalists) fell for this scam, so this tactic did not prevent reporting from being done.

But it did signal to Clinton’s most devoted followers to simply ignore the contents of the release. Anyone writing articles about what these documents revealed was instantly barraged with claims from Democrats that they were fakes, by people often pointing to “articles” like this one.

(snip)

Literally none of that happened. Or at least there is zero evidence that it did. These are smart, rational people falling for a scam. Why? It’s in part because Twitter fosters this group-think and lack of critical thought — you just click a button and, with little effort, you’ve spread whatever you want people to believe — but it’s also because they’re so convinced of the righteousness of their cause (electing Clinton/defeating Trump) that they have cast all limits and constraints to the side, believing that any narrative or accusation or smear, no matter how false or conspiratorial, is justified in pursuit of it.

But while Donald Trump’s candidacy poses grave dangers, so does group-think righteousness, particularly when it engulfs those with the greatest influence. The problem is that none of this is going to vanish after the election. This election-year machine that has been constructed based on elite unity in support of Clinton — casually dismissing inconvenient facts as fraudulent to make them disappear, branding critics and adversaries as tools or agents of an Enemy Power bent on destroying America — is a powerful one. As is seen here, it is capable of implanting any narrative, no matter how false; demonizing any critic, no matter how baseless; and riling up people to believe they’re under attack.

For a long time, liberals heralded themselves as part of the “reality-based community” and derided conservatives as faith-based victims of “epistemic closure.” The dynamics seen here are anything but byproducts of reason.

[GG]

 

Nope. You just completely twisted what I said to fit your narrative. It's the only trick you've got besides whataboutisms and out right lies.

 

I said Google has way more to do with the intelligence apparatus than the writers of the world do -- which was said in response to your asinine statement that I'm a hypocrite because I work for an industry that's done more to invade people's privacy than any act of government known to man.

 

That was a stupid comment. And you know it. But instead of saying, "I'm wrong", you doubled down on it by using Google as your example of "my" industry which is just plain ol' false.

 

Of course all of this was your way of avoiding the question you've been running from for going on two weeks now.

 

That's GG these days... dishonest and completely lacking a backbone.

 

 

 

I wish the Internet had a feature where a poster's past words were recorded forever.

 

Oh, wait, it does.

 

Who said this?

 

Google was not started by the entertainment industry nor is it a part of the entertainment industry. As a start up it was funded by DoD and continues to play an active role in the intelligence apparatus we're operating under, which of course undercuts your entire argument and supports my argument.

 

And when did I ever bring up the comparison between what writers do and what Google does? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You did.

 

Sounds like guilty conscience of being associated with privacy invaders.

 

BTW, any progress on letting us know how US involvement in Syria benefits Chevron & Exxon?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

I wish the Internet had a feature where a poster's past words were recorded forever.

 

Oh, wait, it does.

 

Who said this?

 

It looks like my quote is exactly what I said it was an not what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for proving my point. My quote is nothing like what your twisted account says.

 

 

And when did I ever bring up the comparison between what writers do and what Google does? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You did.

 

 

Sure you did. It was one of the more stupid things ever written in PPP, which is saying a lot.

 

Honesty isn't your thing...

 

 

 

While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

 

But I'm the jingoistic one.

 

 

 

What?!

 

I'm can't wait to hear how Hollywood's done something more pervasive than setting up the massive and illegal surveillance state that we're currently all living under.

Please, tell me more.

 

 

I can tell you with a 100% certainty that Google knows far more about my activities, interests and whereabouts than any government entity.

 

Bob & weave.

So... you're full of ****. And still running away from the questions about the bombing of Syrian troops.

Stop lying. Try a real conversation.

 

For reference:

 

Nope. You just completely twisted what I said to fit your narrative. It's the only trick you've got besides whataboutisms and out right lies.

 

I said Google has way more to do with the intelligence apparatus than the writers of the world do -- which was said in response to your asinine statement that I'm a hypocrite because I work for an industry that's done more to invade people's privacy than any act of government known to man.

 

That was a stupid comment. And you know it. But instead of saying, "I'm wrong", you doubled down on it by using Google as your example of "my" industry which is just plain ol' false.

 

Of course all of this was your way of avoiding the question you've been running from for going on two weeks now.

 

That's GG these days... dishonest and completely lacking a backbone.

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Deranged Rhino]

********************************

 

Debate Moderator Distorted Syrian Reality

 

The framing of the question assured a response from former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton about her determination to expand the U.S. military intervention in Syria to include a “no-fly zone,” which U.S. military commanders say would require a massive operation that would kill many Syrians, both soldiers and civilians, to eliminate Syria’s sophisticated air-defense systems and its air force.

But Raddatz’s loaded question was also a way of influencing – or misleading – U.S. public opinion. Consider for a moment how a more honest and balanced question could have elicited a very different response and a more thoughtful discussion:

“The situation in Aleppo presents a heartrending and nettlesome concern. Al Qaeda fighters and their rebel allies, including some who have been armed by the United States, are holed up in some neighborhoods of eastern Aleppo. They’ve been firing rockets into the center and western sections of Aleppo and they have shot civilians seeking to leave east Aleppo through humanitarian corridors.

“These terrorists and their ‘moderate’ rebel allies seem to be using the tens of thousands of civilians still in east Aleppo as ‘human shields’ in order to create sympathy from Western audiences when the Syrian government seeks to root the terrorists and other insurgents from these neighborhoods with airstrikes that have killed both armed fighters and civilians. In such a circumstance, what should the U.S. role be and was it a terrible mistake to supply these fighters with sophisticated rockets and other weapons, given that these weapons have helped Al Qaeda in seizing and holding territory?”

Siding with Al Qaeda

Raddatz also could have noted that a key reason why the recent limited cease-fire failed was that the U.S.-backed “moderate” rebels in east Aleppo had rebuffed Secretary of State John Kerry’s demand that they separate themselves from Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which now calls itself the Syria Conquest Front.

Instead of breaking ties with Al Qaeda, some of these “moderate” rebel groups reaffirmed or expanded their alliances with Al Qaeda. In other words, Official Washington’s distinction between Al Qaeda’s terrorists and the “moderate” rebels was publicly revealed to be largely a myth. But the reality of U.S.-aided rebels collaborating with the terror group that carried out the 9/11 attacks complicates the preferred mainstream narrative of Bashar al-Assad and Vladimir Putin “the bad guys” versus the rebels “the good guys.”

If Raddatz had posed her question with the more complex reality (rather than the simplistic, biased form that she chose) and if Clinton still responded with her recipe of a “no-fly zone,” the obvious follow-up would be: “Wouldn’t such a military intervention constitute aggressive war against Syria in violation of the United Nations Charter and the Nuremberg principles?

“And wouldn’t such a strategy risk tipping the military balance inside Syria in favor of Al Qaeda and its jihadist allies, possibly even its spinoff terror group, the Islamic State? And what would the United States do then, if its destruction of the Syrian air force led to the black flag of jihadist terror flying over Damascus as well as all of Aleppo? Would a Clinton-45 administration send in U.S. troops to stop the likely massacre of Christians, Alawites, Shiites, secular Sunnis and other ‘heretics’?”

There would be other obvious and important questions that a more objective Martha Raddatz would ask: “Would your no-fly zone include shooting down Russian aircraft that are flying inside Syria at the invitation of the Syrian government? Might such a clash provoke a superpower escalation, possibly even invite nuclear war?”

But no such discussion is allowed inside the mainstream U.S. media’s frame. There is an unstated assumption that the United States has the unquestioned right to invade other countries at will, regardless of international law, and there is a studied silence about this hypocrisy even as the U.S. State Department touts the sanctity of international law.

https://consortiumnews.com/2016/10/11/debate-moderator-distorted-syrian-reality/

[GG]

 

It looks like my quote is exactly what I said it was an not what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for proving my point. My quote is nothing like what your twisted account says.

 

 

Sure you did. It was one of the more stupid things ever written in PPP, which is saying a lot.

 

Honesty isn't your thing...

 

 

 

Sounds like you need a lesson in what the term "industry" means as well. Your industry isn't only writing schlocky movie scripts. It also involves selling personal information about its consumers. And profiting from the industry means that your employers are ok with subsidizing money losing movie businesses, because they can cross-sell that product on multiple other platforms, including data about the viewers of those movies.

 

But I can see how a guilty mind can miss the nuance.

 

Still waiting on the Chevron & Exxon answers.

 

And for the folks keeping score at home, Greggy has progressively attributed the US involvement in the Syrian conflict in the last year as:

 

- First, as a way to prop up the military industrial complex,

- Then, as a way to instill a military regime back home,

- Then, as a bridge to Hillary's reinstatement of neocon influence in the White House

- Then, to directly support ISIS

- Then, to help out Chevron & Exxon

- Then, to start WW III.

 

Did I miss anything in between?

 

it clearly has nothing to do with a feckless Obama administration foreign policy that started SEVEN YEARS AGO? The foreign policy who's chief tenet was waving a Nobel Peace prize and the hope that everybody would listen to the newly crowned king of the world?

 

It has nothing to do with a belated realization that with America stepping back from a global leadership position, the ensuing vacuum would cause far more damage that the US would have to try to fix down the road?

 

Which is exactly what is happening in Syria, and the US and the rest of Western powers are left with deciding between the least of very bad options.

 

But, no. It can't be a simple explanation. It has to be a complex web fit for a movie script, not sheer incompetence by the President.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

Sounds like you need a lesson in what the term "industry" means as well. Your industry isn't only writing schlocky movie scripts. It also involves selling personal information about its consumers.

 

 

So, after I prove you're full of shite, your'e back to telling me what I do for a living and then spouting off a bunch of points I never said.

 

Stop lying. You're embarrassing yourself.

 

What are the odds GG doubles down on more lies as a way of not answering the question he's been dodging for WEEKS.

GG, on 12 Oct 2016 - 09:44 AM, said:

 

And when did I ever bring up the comparison between what writers do and what Google does? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You did.

 

Sure you did. It was one of the more stupid things ever written in PPP, which is saying a lot.

Honesty isn't your thing...

GG, on 03 Oct 2016 - 09:36 AM, said:

 

While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

 

But I'm the jingoistic one.

Deranged Rhino, on 03 Oct 2016 - 2:39 PM, said:

 

What?!

 

I'm can't wait to hear how Hollywood's done something more pervasive than setting up the massive and illegal surveillance state that we're currently all living under.

Please, tell me more.

GG, on 03 Oct 2016 - 3:27 PM, said:

I can tell you with a 100% certainty that Google knows far more about my activities, interests and whereabouts than any government entity.

 

Bob & weave.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Deranged Rhino

[Magox]

4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >>

Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >>

air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >>

believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >>

Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to >>

provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will >>

allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against >>

the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, >>

avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best >>

temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving >>

forward, we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >>

assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >>

which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >>

other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by >>

the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put >>

in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to >>

dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By >>

the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve >>

to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where >>

insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.

 

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3774%20

 

But it's not a proxy war....

 

 

You are either a complete imbecile or you have selective goggles on who has issues with basic comprehension.

 

Did you not read that wikileaks link? Did you read it or did you rush to the keyboard like a jizz spewing monkey and begin uncontrollably copying pasting what you believe helped make your case?

 

That entire wikileaks dump was on how they can defeat ISIL, the whole damn thing.

 

Since you are apparently helpless, I will copy and paste that entire Wikileaks, so that anyone who has just the least bit of curiosity can see that you are a certified tinfoil hat wearing dingbat. No where does it even come close to suggesting there is anything approaching a proxy war where the US is assisting ISIL via proxy.

 

I urge everyone to read it.

 

1. With all of its tragic aspects, the advance of ISIL >> through Iraq gives the U.S. Government an opportunity to change the way it >> deals with the chaotic security situation in North Africa and the Middle >> East. The most important factor in this matter is to make use of >> intelligence resources andSpecial Operations troops in an aggressive >> manner, while avoiding the old school solution, which calls for more >> traditional military operations. In Iraq it is important that we engage >> ISIL using the resources of the Peshmerga fighters of the Kurdish Regional >> Government (KRG), and what, if any, reliable units exist in the Iraqi >> Army. The Peshmerga commanders are aggressive hard fighting troops, who >> have long standing relationships with CIA officers and Special Forces >> operators. However, they will need the continued commitment of U.S. >> personnel to work with them as advisors and strategic planners, the new >> generation of Peshmerga commanders being largely untested in traditional >> combat. That said, with this U.S. aid the Kurdish troops can inflict a >> real defeat on ISIL.

 

 

 

2. It is important that once we engage ISIL, as we have now >> done in a limited manner, we and our allies should carry on until they are >> driven back suffering a tangible defeat. Anything short of this will be >> seen by other fighters in the region, Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, as >> an American defeat. However, if we provide advisors and planners, as well >> as increased close air support for the Peshmerga, these soldiers can defeat >> ISIL. They will give the new Iraqi Government a chance to organize itself, >> and restructure the Sunni resistance in Syria, moving the center of power >> toward moderate forces like the Free Syrian Army (FSA). In addition to air >> support, the Peshmerga also need artillery and armored vehicles to deal >> with the tanks and other heavy equipment captured from the Iraqi army by >> ISIL.

 

 

3. In the past the USG, in an agreement with the Turkish General Staff, >> did not provide such heavy weapons to the Peshmerga, out of a concern that >> they would end up in the hands of Kurdish rebels inside of Turkey. The >> current situation in Iraq, not to mention the political environment in >> Turkey, makes this policy obsolete. Also this equipment can now be >> airlifted directly into the KRG zone.

 

 

4. Armed with proper equipment, and working with U.S. advisors, the >> Peshmerga can attack the ISIL with a coordinated assault supported from the >> air. This effort will come as a surprise to the ISIL, whose leaders >> believe we will always stop with targeted bombing, and weaken them both in >> Iraq and inside of Syria. At the same time we should return to plans to >> provide the FSA, or some group of moderate forces, with equipment that will >> allow them to deal with a weakened ISIL, and stepped up operations against >> the Syrian regime. This entire effort should be done with a low profile, >> avoiding the massive traditional military operations that are at best >> temporary solutions. While this military/para-military operation is moving >> forward,

we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence >> assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, >> which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and >> other radical Sunni groups in the region. This effort will be enhanced by >> the stepped up commitment in the KRG. The Qataris and Saudis will be put >> in a position of balancing policy between their ongoing competition to >> dominate the Sunni world and the consequences of serious U.S. pressure. By >> the same token, the threat of similar, realistic U.S. operations will serve >> to assist moderate forces in Libya, Lebanon, and even Jordan, where >> insurgents are increasingly fascinated by the ISIL success in Iraq.

 

 

 

Are you seriously that dense that you could not comprehend what they were saying here? They are NOT saying that they are wanting to help Saudi Arabia or Qatar fund or assist ISIL, but RATHER to pressure them to STOP assisting ISIL.

 

What a serious fail on your part as usual.

 

6. In the end the situation in Iraq is merely the latest and most >> dangerous example of the regional restructuring that is taking place across >> North Africa, all the way to the Turkish border. These developments are >> important to the U.S. for reasons that often differ from country to >> country: energy and moral commitment to Iraq, energy issues in Libya, and >> strategic commitments in Jordan. At the same time, as Turkey moves toward >> a new, more serious Islamic reality, it will be important for them to >> realize that we are willing to take serious actions, which can be sustained >> to protect our national interests. This course of action offers the >> potential for success, as opposed to large scale, traditional military >> campaigns, that are too expensive and awkward to maintain over time. >>

 

 

 

7. (Note: A source in Tripoli stated in confidence that when the U.S. >> Embassy was evacuated, the presence of two U.S. Navy jet fighters over the >> city brought all fighting to a halt for several hours, as Islamist forces >> were not certain that these aircraft would not also provide close ground >> support for moderate government forces.) >> >> >> >> 8. If we do not take the changes needed to make our security >> policy in the region more realistic, there is a real danger of ISIL >> veterans moving on to other countries to facilitate operations by Islamist >> forces. This is already happening in Libya and Egypt, where fighters are >> returning from Syria to work with local forces. ISIL is only the latest and >> most violent example of this process. If we don’t act to defeat them in >> Iraq something even more violent and dangerous will develop. Successful >> military operations against these very irregular but determined forces can >> only be accomplished by making proper use of clandestine/special operations >> resources, in coordination with airpower, and established local allies. >> There is, unfortunately, a narrow window of opportunity on this issue, as >> we need to act before an ISIL state becomes better organized and reaches >> into Lebanon and Jordan. >> >> >> >>

9. (Note: It is important to keep in mind that as a result of >> this policy there probably will be concern in the Sunni regions of Iraq and >> the Central Government regarding the possible expansion of KRG controlled >> territory. With advisors in the Peshmerga command we can reassure the >> concerned parties that, in return for increase autonomy, the KRG will not >> exclude the Iraqi Government from participation in the management of the >> oil fields around Kirkuk, and the Mosel Dam hydroelectric facility. At the >> same time we will be able to work with the Peshmerga as they pursue ISIL >> into disputed areas of Eastern Syria, coordinating with FSA troops who can >> move against ISIL from the North. This will make certain Basher al Assad >> does not gain an advantage from these operations. Finally, as it now >> appears the U.S. is considering a plan to offer contractors as advisors to >> the Iraqi Ministry of Defense, we will be in a position to coordinate more >> effectively between the Peshmerga and the Iraqi Army.) >> >>

 

 

 

 

That's it. That's the entire wikileaks article you posted and it 100% makes the complete opposite tinfoiled hat point you attempted to make.

 

Everyone that wants to take 5-8 minutes of their time can read through it and see that you are not to be taken seriously.

Edited October 12, 2016 by Magox

[Deranged Rhino]

 

That's it. That's the entire wikileaks article you posted and it 100% makes the complete opposite tinfoiled hat point you attempted to make.

 

Everyone that wants to take 5-8 minutes of their time can read through it and see that you are not to be taken seriously.

 

It actually doesn't contradict the case I've been prosecuting at all. If you had any semblance of honesty or ability to analyze context, you'd understand that. But you don't, so you're flailing now. It's sad.

 

Of course, anyone who doesn't know the difference between a cut out and a journalist, let alone someone who's in denial that what's happening on the ground is indeed a proxy war has already disqualified themselves from this debate.

 

Thanks for proving that point once again.

 

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

 

 

Still running away from the real conversation...

[Magox]

 

It actually doesn't contradict the case I've been prosecuting at all. If you had any semblance of honesty or ability to analyze context, you'd understand that. But you don't, so you're flailing now. It's sad.

 

Of course, anyone who doesn't know the difference between a cut out and a journalist, let alone someone who's in denial that what's happening on the ground is indeed a proxy war has already disqualified themselves from this debate.

 

Thanks for proving that point once again.

 

 

Still running away from the real conversation...

 

 

You are a certified dingbat. There is a reason why numerous posters on this board believe you to be Mr. Pointy Tinfoil hat.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

 

You are a certified dingbat. There is a reason why numerous posters on this board believe you to be Mr. Pointy Tinfoil hat.

 

People can believe what they want but the truth is you've exposed yourself in this thread as a partisan hack incapable of thinking for yourself.

 

You compared Alex Jones and the Intercept as being the same proving you don't know the first thing about what's happening in this arena, you've been arguing it's not a proxy war when it is, and you've been arguing there's no evidence the west is supporting and working with terrorists in Syria to topple Assad when there's literally boatloads of evidence of this.

 

All this because you're a blind partisan hack who's clinging to a failed geopolitical philosophy that's done far more damage than good in the world. So keep on defending your erroneous and dangerous positions instead of addressing the actual issues.

 

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

 

And still crickets... shocking.

 

[Magox]

You are a legend in your own mind.

[Deranged Rhino]

You are a legend in your own mind.

 

And you're still running away because you know you've got nothing but lies to fall back on now...

 

 

I will get to that, I promise... But let's first tackle one thing at a time. I promise you we will get to the rest.

 

[GG]

 

It looks like my quote is exactly what I said it was an not what you want it to be.

 

Thanks for proving my point. My quote is nothing like what your twisted account says.

 

 

Sure you did. It was one of the more stupid things ever written in PPP, which is saying a lot.

 

Honesty isn't your thing...

 

 

 

 

 

 

So... you're full of ****. And still running away from the questions about the bombing of Syrian troops.

Stop lying. Try a real conversation.

 

For reference:

 

It's clear that you have a hard time with reading comprehension. You should try it one day.

 

For the last time, what question have I been dodging?

 

And speaking of questions:

 

What do Chevron & Exxon have to do with US involvement in Syria?

 

I believe this simple question has been asked several times. It shouldn't be a difficult one to answer. Try it.

[Deranged Rhino]

**********************************

 

US May Be Guilty Of War Crimes For Supporting And Enabling Saudi Mass Killings

 

Citing government documents and the accounts of current and former officials, Reuters reveals that while the Obama administration and the Pentagon rail against Russian bombing in Syria, State Department officials have been skeptical - in private of course - of the Saudi military's ability to target Houthi militants without killing civilians and destroying "critical infrastructure" needed for Yemen to recover.

However, and this may be where Saudi funding for Hillary's campaign - according to a recent report, Saudi Arabia funded 20% of Hillary's presidential campaign - and her election came into play, government lawyers ultimately did not reach a conclusion on whether U.S. support for the campaign would make the United States a "co-belligerent" in the war under international law, Reuters said citing four current and former officials. Such a finding would have obligated Washington to investigate allegations of war crimes in Yemen and would have raised a legal risk that U.S. military personnel could be subject to prosecution, at least in theory.

 

 

(snip)

 

Meanwhile, the sales go on. As we reported previously, despite demands to halt it, the Obama administration went ahead with a $1.3 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia last year. More than 60 U.S. House of Representatives members urged Obama not to do the deal, but the push to block that sale failed in the U.S. Senate on Sept. 21.

Some critics say the administration’s approach has failed.

"In the law of war, you can be guilty for aiding and abetting war crimes and at some point the ... evidence is going to continue to mount and I think the administration is now in an untenable situation," said Congressman Ted Lieu, a California Democrat and former military prosecutor.

Of course, if and when the evidence becomes too big to ignore, whoever is the prosecutor will simply be replaced, bought out or silenced by other more unconventional means, because if there is anything the past few months of Clinton scandals have shown us, it is that US foreign policy goes to the highest bidder, a list topped by - you guessed it- Saudi Arabia.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-10/us-may-be-guilty-war-crimes-enabling-saudi-mass-killings-civilians

****************************

(From 2010 -- important date)

Barack Obama to authorise record $60bn Saudi arms sale

 

 

Barack Obama is to go ahead with plans to sell Saudi Arabia advanced aircraft and other weapons worth up to $60bn (£39bn), the biggest arms deal in US history, in a strategy of shoring up Gulf Arab allies to face any military threat from Iran

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/sep/13/us-saudi-arabia-arms-deal

 

*******************************

 

The Obama Administration Has Brokered More Weapons Sales Than Any Other Administration Since World War II

 

The numbers should stagger anyone. According to the latest figures available from the Congressional Research Service, the United States was credited with more than half the value of all global arms transfer agreements in 2014, the most recent year for which full statistics are available. At 14 percent, the world’s second largest supplier, Russia, lagged far behind. Washington’s “leadership” in this field has never truly been challenged. The US share has fluctuated between one-third and one-half of the global market for the past two decades, peaking at an almost monopolistic 70 percent of all weapons sold in 2011. And the gold rush continues. Vice Admiral Joe Rixey, who heads the Pentagon’s arms sales agency, euphemistically known as the Defense Security Cooperation Agency, estimates that arms deals facilitated by the Pentagon topped $46 billion in 2015, and are on track to hit $40 billion in 2016.

To be completely accurate, there is one group of people who pay remarkably close attention to these trends—executives of the defense contractors that are cashing in on this growth market. With the Pentagon and related agencies taking in “only” about $600 billion a year—high by historical standards but tens of billions of dollars less than hoped for by the defense industry—companies like Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, and General Dynamics have been looking to global markets as their major source of new revenue.

In a January 2015 investor call, for example, Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn Hewson was asked whether the Iran nuclear deal brokered by the Obama administration and five other powers might reduce tensions in the Middle East, undermining the company’s strategy of increasing its arms exports to the region. She responded that continuing “volatility” in both the Middle East and Asia would make them “growth areas” for the foreseeable future. In other words, no worries. As long as the world stays at war or on the verge of it, Lockheed Martin’s profits won’t suffer—and, of course, its products will help ensure that any such “volatility” will prove lethal indeed.

https://www.thenation.com/article/the-obama-administration-has-sold-more-weapons-than-any-other-administration-since-world-war-ii/

************************************

Obama administration offered $115b​n in weapons to Saudi Arabia: report

According to a new report, offers over eight years totalled more than any previous administration and were intended to replenish arsenal after war in Yemen

 

The Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn worth of weapons to Saudi Arabia over its eight years in office, more than any previous US administration, according to a new report.

The surge in sales is in part to reassure the Saudi monarchy of US backing in the wake of last year’s nuclear deal with Tehran, which raised fears in the Gulf that Washington would tilt more towards Tehran in its foreign policy.

The report’s author, William Hartung of the Centre for International Policy, said another factor was a drive by US arms manufacturers to boost sales to compensate declining procurement by the Pentagon. However, the most recent deals – such asthe offer to sell more than 150 M1A2 Abrams battle tanks for an estimated $1.15bn – were principally intended to replenish the Saudi arsenal, depleted in the war in Yemen.

“I think that though the Obama administration is not thrilled about the Yemen episode; it feels it can’t stay out of it, because of the need to reassure the Saudis,” Hartung said.

His report found that since taking office in January 2009, the Obama administration has offered to sell $115bn in weapons to Saudi Arabia, half of which are accounted for by deals that are still in the pipeline.

“There are $57bn in sales in formal agreements so far, which is also head and shoulders above other administrations,” Hartung said.

(snip)

“I think the US is such a significant supplier of bombs, ammunition, artillery and tanks and playing such an important role in the prosecution of the war in Yemen that there is signficant leverage,” he said. “If the US were to signal that part of that assistance would be frozen or withdrawn if they don’t show they are implementing measures to limit civilian casualties, that would send an effective message. I haven’t seen evidence that they have really made a convincing threat or statement on the consequences for the Saudis if they don’t stop. And any such message would be more powerful if other suppliers like the UK made similar statements.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/08/obama-administration-offered-115-billion-weapons-saudi-arabia-report

[GG]

Goodie, more cut & paste violations of copyrighted material by a self-professed writer. Does being a member of the guild give you the privileges to lift articles wholesale and post them without permission?

 

How about offering your own answers for a change?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

It's clear that you have a hard time with reading comprehension. You should try it one day.

 

For the last time, what question have I been dodging?

 

You have done nothing but get every single thing I've said wrong (intentionally so) and lie about it for well over two weeks now and I'm the one with reading comprehension issues?

 

That's not how it works.

 

Here are your lies from just today:

 

 

And when did I ever bring up the comparison between what writers do and what Google does? Oh, that's right, I didn't. You did.

 

 

While you're profiting from an industry that's done more privacy intrusions into people's lives than any government action known to man.

 

But I'm the jingoistic one.

 

 

What?!

 

I'm can't wait to hear how Hollywood's done something more pervasive than setting up the massive and illegal surveillance state that we're currently all living under.

Please, tell me more.

 

 

I can tell you with a 100% certainty that Google knows far more about my activities, interests and whereabouts than any government entity.

 

Bob & weave.

 

GG: full of shite. Can't admit he's wrong, would rather tell other people what they do for a living and what they said rather than have an actual conversation... lovely way to approach difficult topics.

 

Then, when called out for being wrong and lying, rather than admitting you were wrong you doubled down on it by once again inventing points I never said and trying to tell me what I do for a living...

 

 

Sounds like you need a lesson in what the term "industry" means as well. Your industry isn't only writing schlocky movie scripts....

 

And for the folks keeping score at home, Greggy has progressively attributed the US involvement in the Syrian conflict in the last year as:

 

- First, as a way to prop up the military industrial complex, (Not what I said of course)

- Then, as a way to instill a military regime back home, (Never said this. Ever)

- Then, as a bridge to Hillary's reinstatement of neocon influence in the White House (Never said this, ever.)

- Then, to directly support ISIS (Never said this, ever)

- Then, to help out Chevron & Exxon (Did say this, though not in the way you're taking it -- context is your friend)

- Then, to start WW III. (Never said this)

 

Did I miss anything in between?

 

 

Did you miss anything? Nah, you just invented your own narrative to argue against because you know you've got nothing to offer.

 

 

 

So... your own posts show you're full of shite and desperate to spin everything I saw as either pro-Putin/Assad because you're a blind jingoist who refuses to reflect on the shortcomings of his chosen geopolitical philosophy.

 

Oh, and you know the question you're avoiding, it's about the intentional US bombing of Syrian troops -- you know, the thing that started this whole conversation:

 

3) What is the logic behind committing a war crime and bombing Syrian troops other than to support ISIS fighters on the ground and shred the cease fire keeping Assad in power? Considering the potential ramifications to such brazen provocation, do you think it was in the US's best interest to launch said attack?

I'd say I'll wait for a response, but you've been running from it for weeks. I ain't holding my breath.

One day you'll wake up and see the truth. And it's going to hurt. I'll have drinks waiting for you though.

Goodie, more cut & paste violations of copyrighted material by a self-professed writer. Does being a member of the guild give you the privileges to lift articles wholesale and post them without permission?

 

How about offering your own answers for a change?

 

You seem to know more about what I do for a living than I do, so you tell me.

 

I've offered my own answers, plenty of them multiple times and will continue to do so. But people who have no qualms about lying and clearly want to make up their own narrative rather than have a substantive conversation with me on a topic just aren't worth the effort.

 

But keep running and lying. It's all you got in this area.

[GG]

Are you really pretending that you never said any of those things above?

[DC Tom]

You seem to know more about what I do for a living than I do, so you tell me.

 

He's not wrong, though. Stop posting entire articles.