GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 Checking in with our most recent dive into regime change... Slave traders and slave markets are the new growth enterprise in Libya. Happy days! Next time someone tries to sell you on how regime change is about helping the people on the ground, re-read this article. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/10/libya-public-slave-auctions-un-migration ******************************** Still relevant, and still missed: Look who's concerned about the plight of suffering people. For the umpteenth time, this is not due to regime change, but due to leading from behind by the sole global superpower.
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 Look who's concerned about the plight of suffering people. We know it's not you. You've made that abundantly clear. You not only support a political doctrine that promotes the suffering of the masses, you cheer war crimes, root for the US to bomb Syrian soldiers, and claim you care about stopping the slaughter all the while you're supporting turning the country over to jihadist fighters who will make Assad's butchery look absolutely PG in comparison. Spare me your faux outrage. You care most about what's in the best interest of the United States, not the people on the ground in Syria. I know you struggle with honesty, but at least be honest about your true motivations.
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 Again you're more concerned about 70 Syrian soldiers than about hundreds of thousands innocent civilians. Bravo
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) For the umpteenth time, this is not due to regime change, but due to leading from behind by the sole global superpower. This is why you're backing a losing horse. And why someone as smart as you should know better. The American political system is not designed for regime change. Proper regime change, the kind you're claiming to support - the kind that would actually bring real, positive change to the people on the ground of these affected countries - requires decades if not centuries of occupation by American forces. The voting public does not, and never has, had the stamina necessary to support long term occupations. Instead, we get a half assed regime change agenda, which always leaves the country and the people worse off than before we got involved. But strangely makes a lot of money for the people who push the agenda... And yet, you continue to think "this time will be different. This time we can do it right if only we have the right congress/executive in power"... but that's a dream. It's not going to happen because the strategy you're advocating for is fundamentally incompatible with our system of government. Which is why Cheney and company worked so hard to change how our country actually functions with the Patriot Act, their revision of COG, and launching the endless and needless "war on terror". Again you're more concerned about 70 Syrian soldiers than about hundreds of thousands innocent civilians. Bravo I'm not. I'm just pointing out your own hypocrisy. You say you care for the people on the ground, but by continually supporting a war-mongering foreign policy that has no hope of being successful you are actively working against the interests of those people on the ground. Because you don't really care about them. Not really. You care about making people think that's what you care about. Edited April 12, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
grinreaper Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 people in glass houses what? Your forgetting the end of it your sentence yourself idiot. Shouldn't play with fire, you idiot. Furthermore, what does the bolded mean? Sometimes I think your posts are just like a monkey throwing words against the wall and praying that they might make a coherent sentence. I know, your excuse will be "auto correct" or that you're typing on your phone.
DC Tom Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 Shouldn't play with fire, you idiot. Furthermore, what does the bolded mean? Sometimes I think your posts are just like a monkey throwing words against the wall and praying that they might make a coherent sentence. I know, your excuse will be "auto correct" or that you're typing on your phone. Sometimes you wish he'd just be honest and say "Sorry. It's hard to type when you're stuck in a sheep."
boyst Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 Shouldn't play with fire, you idiot. Furthermore, what does the bolded mean? Sometimes I think your posts are just like a monkey throwing words against the wall and praying that they might make a coherent sentence. I know, your excuse will be "auto correct" or that you're typing on your phone.ga ga oh LA LA ga ga oh LA LA ra ra ra
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 This is why you're backing a losing horse. And why someone as smart as you should know better. The American political system is not designed for regime change. Proper regime change, the kind you're claiming to support - the kind that would actually bring real, positive change to the people on the ground of these affected countries - requires decades if not centuries of occupation by American forces. The voting public does not, and never has, had the stamina necessary to support long term occupations. Instead, we get a half assed regime change agenda, which always leaves the country and the people worse off than before we got involved. But strangely makes a lot of money for the people who push the agenda... And yet, you continue to think "this time will be different. This time we can do it right if only we have the right congress/executive in power"... but that's a dream. It's not going to happen because the strategy you're advocating for is fundamentally incompatible with our system of government. Which is why Cheney and company worked so hard to change how our country actually functions with the Patriot Act, their revision of COG, and launching the endless and needless "war on terror". I'm not. I'm just pointing out your own hypocrisy. You say you care for the people on the ground, but by continually supporting a war-mongering foreign policy that has no hope of being successful you are actively working against the interests of those people on the ground. Because you don't really care about them. Not really. You care about making people think that's what you care about. Speaking of someone who's jumping to conclusions, how many times does it need to be pointed out that fully pulling out of Iraq in 2012 was as big of a mistake as going in. But I'm sure your Russian news sources will never address that topic, just like they won't cover the behind the scenes maneuvering they did to position Chirac's & Schroeder's opposition to the Iraq invasion. BTW, maybe you can remind me where Schroeder ended up when his political career was toasted? And you need to be very specific about which war mongering foreign policy you're referring to. Personally, my favorite is Monroe's. But you can tell me better which one I prefer.
reddogblitz Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 fully pulling out of Iraq in 2012 was as big of a mistake as going in.Perhaps, but really you're just making Rhino's point. For a regime change to really work takes one with a rather large occupation for a long period of time. Our system of government wasn't built for that and the American people have no patience for it once it actually gets going. Since we gets new leader every 4 to 8 years, no president wants to be bogged down in someone else's occupation, so they kill it. Same thing happened with Viet Nam. Should we have stayed there too? How is the Afganistan occupation going?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) Speaking of someone who's jumping to conclusions, how many times does it need to be pointed out that fully pulling out of Iraq in 2012 was as big of a mistake as going in. But I'm sure your Russian news sources will never address that topic....And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that Iraq presents that I am right and about the central tenant of modern neoconservatism (i.e. Regime change) is impossible to do correctly in our current system, you continue to support and call for regime change and believe it's being done solely to "make people's lives better". There's zero evidence of people's lives being improved in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or any of the other regime wars we've fought and blundered. This shows yet again you don't care about helping the people on the ground. If you did you'd stop supporting a philosophy that has only made things worse for those people and this country by trying to force an incompatible foreign policy onto our democratic republic. All this while you continually try to misconstrue my sources, lie about my posts, and lie about the very topic of this thread. Someone is being ignorant and someone is showing how scared they are to have their flawed and dangerous world view questioned. And it ain't me Perhaps, but really you're just making Rhino's point. For a regime change to really work takes one with a rather large occupation for a long period of time. Our system of government wasn't built for that and the American people have no patience for it once it actually gets going. Since we gets new leader every 4 to 8 years, no president wants to be bogged down in someone else's occupation, so they kill it. Same thing happened with Viet Nam. Should we have stayed there too? How is the Afganistan occupation going? Of course he's making my point for me. The jingoism has blinded him to being honest about the team he loudly backs.*************** More food for thought: https://mobile.twitter.com/WebsterGTarpley/status/851781466874933248 Edited April 12, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 And yet, despite the overwhelming evidence that Iraq presents that I am right and about the central tenant of modern neoconservatism (i.e. Regime change) is impossible to do correctly in our current system, you continue to support and call for regime change and believe it's being done solely to "make people's lives better". There's zero evidence of people's lives being improved in Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Vietnam, or any of the other regime wars we've fought and blundered. This shows yet again you don't care about helping the people on the ground. If you did you'd stop supporting a philosophy that has only made things worse for those people and this country by trying to force an incompatible foreign policy onto our democratic republic. All this while you continually try to misconstrue my sources, lie about my posts, and lie about the very topic of this thread. Someone is being ignorant and someone is showing how scared they are to have their flawed and dangerous world view questioned. And it ain't me Of course he's making my point for me. The jingoism has blinded him to being honest about the team he loudly backs. *************** More food for thought: https://mobile.twitter.com/WebsterGTarpley/status/851781466874933248 And you keep hammering the square peg into the round hole despite zero evidence that the primary objectives of neocons is regime change, and continue to tie US actions during the Obama administration as directed by a neocon philosophy. Name one neocon who thought that leaving Iraq was a good idea. Name one who thought that the way Mubarak was deposed was a good idea. Name one who was cheering the way the Lybian coup went. Name one person who advocated a leading from behind and abdicating world leadership to a vacuum was a sound foreign policy idea. I'll be around for awhile while you dig these up. Meanwhile you can't even use consistent arguments in that you slam the gullible western media for buying the rationale of the Iraq invasion, but don't say a word when that media wasn't sceptical enough about the dangers of an early US exit from Iraq. You know who was screaming the loudest about an early exit? Neocons, because they understood that they broke it and needed to fix it. And the cost of staying in Iraq wasn't huge, because it was on its way to stabilization. And since that cowardly exit, hundreds of thousands died or were displaced. But your priority is with the lives of 70 executioners. I'm guessing that this guy's editorial is directed at people like you I left the U.S. a year ago out of disappointment and frustration. Even though I was a refugee who had made it to America, I was disgusted with myself for living a comfortable life while thousands of Syrians were still being slaughtered each day by Assad, Iran, Hezbollah, Russia and Islamic State. I now live in Germany among other Syrian refugees. As I watched footage of the nerve-gas attack last week that killed more than 100 people, including children—Assad’s worst chemical massacre since 2013—I could not help but cry and feel outraged at each and every person who could have saved them but didn’t. It's blindness to reality that conspiracy nuts like you can't separate strategic objectives from tactical ones. That's why the ignorant believe the line about Afghanistan being the "good war" even though that surgical strike shouldn't have lasted more than two months, and the involvement in Iraq was worth a much greater investment, especially once it started bearing positive results. And here were are six years later, and in your mind, it's the imperialist US that's the problem with the world and not the tyrannical despots who kill people for sport.
meazza Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 I'm guessing that this guy's editorial is directed at people like you It's blindness to reality that conspiracy nuts like you can't separate strategic objectives from tactical ones. That's why the ignorant believe the line about Afghanistan being the "good war" even though that surgical strike shouldn't have lasted more than two months, and the involvement in Iraq was worth a much greater investment, especially once it started bearing positive results. And here were are six years later, and in your mind, it's the imperialist US that's the problem with the world and not the tyrannical despots who kill people for sport. Why are you posting State Sponsored media? Haven't you learned anything?
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) And you keep hammering the square peg into the round hole despite zero evidence that the primary objectives of neocons is regime change... I go by people's actions, not what they say. And for 16 years the neocon philosophy and desire for regime change at all costs is abundant. From their actions, their words, and their agenda. Denying that regime change is one of the central planks of neoconservatism in the 21st century is to be willfully ignorant... ... As willfully ignorant as denying that HRC was the neocon's chosen candidate in 2016. http://www.salon.com/2007/10/12/wesley_clark/ http://www.salon.com/2011/11/26/wes_clark_and_the_neocon_dream/ https://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/11/neocons-revive-syria-regime-change-plan/ https://shadowproof.com/2016/06/09/hillary-clintons-project-for-a-new-american-century/ We'll make this simple: Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable. Name one neocon who thought that leaving Iraq was a good idea. This is why you're being dishonest. I've never said the neocons wanted to leave Iraq. I've said, and it's been proven, that the neocon desire to go INTO Iraq was foolish because there was never any possibility that the American public or political system would allow time for the required occupation to achieve their goals. Guess what, that remains true today and yet the neocon establishment wants to repeat their folly in not just Syria, but Moscow. We'll keep this simple: Knowing that the USA lacks the political stamina and willpower for long term occupation of foreign nations, do you think the notion that Regime Change actually helps people on the ground is still a noble policy to pursue despite the decades of history proving otherwise? Even more simple: If you know plan A is impossible, and history shows that plan A always makes things worse for not just the United States but for the people we're allegedly trying to help, is it wise to keep pursuing plan A and hoping for a different result? Or is that not the definition of insanity? Edited April 12, 2017 by Deranged Rhino
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 If anyone is doubting that you're off the rails, the suggestion that US is going to overthrow Putin as part of a neocon plot proves it. And the shocking Wesley Clark admission is nothing but posturing from a failed presidential candidate and nothing new to anyone who's been listening to Dick Cheney since 1992. And exactly how are the neocons wrong in saying that the remnants of the Soviet patronage are the main reason for the filth in the Mid East? As for the willingness to remain in Iraq, I certainly don't recall massive opposition to maintaining the 2012 troop levels
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 We'll make this simple: Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable. ************ We'll keep this simple: Knowing that the USA lacks the political stamina and willpower for long term occupation of foreign nations, do you think the notion that Regime Change actually helps people on the ground is still a noble policy to pursue despite the decades of history proving otherwise? Even more simple: If you know plan A is impossible, and history shows that plan A always makes things worse for not just the United States but for the people we're allegedly trying to help, is it wise to keep pursuing plan A and hoping for a different result? Or is that not the definition of insanity?
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 (edited) What is this history of failure are you referring to? Japan, Korea and Germany where US stayed, or Vietnam Cambodia and Iraq where the US left Edited April 12, 2017 by GG
Deranged Rhino Posted April 12, 2017 Author Posted April 12, 2017 What is this history of failure are you referring to? Japan, Korea and Germany where US stayed, or Vietnam Cambodia and Iraq where the US left We'll make this simple: Do you, GG (not the neocons), believe the United States is capable of successfully occupying a ME country for the necessary amount of time required to accomplish a lasting regime change that benefits the people of that ME country? If so, please explain why, despite history proving otherwise, you believe the US is capable.
GG Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 Are you saying that ME people are somehow inferior to Germans Japanese and Koreans?
Benjamin Franklin Posted April 12, 2017 Posted April 12, 2017 If anyone is doubting that you're off the rails, the suggestion that US is going to overthrow Putin as part of a neocon plot proves it. And the shocking Wesley Clark admission is nothing but posturing from a failed presidential candidate and nothing new to anyone who's been listening to Dick Cheney since 1992. And exactly how are the neocons wrong in saying that the remnants of the Soviet patronage are the main reason for the filth in the Mid East? As for the willingness to remain in Iraq, I certainly don't recall massive opposition to maintaining the 2012 troop levels It hurts to talk to someone who molds every headline to prove a constantly expanding conspiracy narrative. Stop pounding your head against the wall.
DC Tom Posted April 13, 2017 Posted April 13, 2017 Are you saying that ME people are somehow inferior to Germans Japanese and Koreans? Or superior...given that they, y'know, get rid of us.
Recommended Posts