Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 21:10:11

Sixstrings wrote:Would it actually be better to give up on "good guy" foreign policy?

Let Russia keep peace in the world by selling weapons and supporting dictators, with no strings attached arms deals?
As previously pointed out, you are GIVING weapons to Sisi, and supporting plenty of nasty dictators. Very few people in the world believe your "good guy" thing - they are on the receiving end of it.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 21:17:08

Ibon wrote:Hmmm. let's consider a moment what a quagmire that region of the world is... a geopolitical mess as you say 6. Let Putin back in the region, he must have forgotten Afghanistan. For the US to pull completely out of the middle east and let China and Russia deal with it, since it is after all in their back yard, would be a great coup. Wash our hands of the whole region.


I just said the same thing :lol:, it's definitely a choice.

Russia does things differently, what they do are no strings attached arms deals and just back total dictators like Assad and General whatever in Egypt and I guess now Malaki. But Russia doesn't send troops in, or direct action with airpower or anything.

That's certainly a SIMPLER world, just backing strong man dictators. Saddam kept Iraq together with hard right wing brute tyranny. It works. Is it the world we want though? Would be a bit sad to see that happen, US has been the "gentle giant" more often than not, we really do give those good government and human rights lectures -- Russia does not.

You see the proof right here. It's fact. Obama is pressuring Malaki to include sunnis more and don't oppress them and piss them off so much in the first place, while Putin offers the weapons without trying to make them democratic. Russia will just back any dictator, from North Korea to Egypt, whereas we won't -- we have values and principles that aren't just money and power.


We could direct our imperialism to Venezuela, oust the leadership there, and back a pro US government there and put billions into developing their vast oil reserves.
Venezuelans, believe me, are alot easier to manage than middle eastern cultures.


For some reason I just can't get interested in Venezuela. :lol: Ukraine is *interesting*, Venezuela just isn't.

These east euros are more like us Americans. They're a better fit. It's ironic how that works, we really did get Poland on a right track, and we will with Ukraine, but we can't ever fix a Mexico or Venezuela.

Geopolitically -- the middle east is just a big prize, all that oil, it always has been, it was always the #1 must have first move in every Soviet war plan. They have to grab the middle east first. Seems risky to ever let this region go over to Russia or Chinese domination.

What about Israel? What about our century-long influence in Saudi Arabia? Just let it all go?

And what about the peace we've kept, muslims and jews? Can we trust the security of Israel to a Russian middle east?

WE need a new geopolitical orientation that thinks out of the box.

Let's go for it.


:lol: I see what you did there Ibon, funny.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Plantagenet » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 21:55:04

Sixstrings wrote: Saddam kept Iraq together with hard right wing brute tyranny.


Actually, Saddam was a leftist. The Baath Socialist Party was a member in good standing of the Socialist International.

Sixstrings wrote: Geopolitically -- the middle east is just a big prize, all that oil, it always has been... What about our century-long influence in Saudi Arabia? Just let it all go?


Don't worry so much. Get some popcorn and watch the show---its like a big WWF cage wrestling match now---Iraq vs. the Caliphate vs. al Qaeda vs. Kurds vs. iran vs. KSA vs. Syria vs. free Syrian Army vs. USA vs. Russia.

I can' wait to see how this all turns out. 8)

Image
WTF!
User avatar
Plantagenet
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 26616
Joined: Mon 09 Apr 2007, 03:00:00
Location: Alaska (its much bigger than Texas).

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 22:18:36

Sixstrings wrote:US has been the "gentle giant" more often than not, we really do give those good government and human rights lectures
...
What about our century-long influence in Saudi Arabia?

:lol:
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 22:23:00

Given the new Russia developments with Iraq, here would be a President Sixtrings' policy:

First of all, I'd have a ranch. Every good president needs a ranch.

I'd have Putin over to visit, we can pose for photos wearing cowboy hats and have a barbecue.

And just like W looked Putin in the eyes and "saw his soul" :roll:, I'd look ole Vladimir square in the eyes and flat out ask him:

"Are we in cold war or not?"

Then Putin would say a bunch of obtuse roundabout things and various long gripes, as he does with Merkel and everyone.

And then I'd say "If we're in cold war then I'm going to start acting that way and you're not going to like it. But I think the truth is you really don't want that, you want more influence abroad and to sell weapons and regain some old glory back, and position yourself as an alternative to American leadership. But you don't really want to tangle with us, not seriously.

If that's the case -- if we're not in a real cold war -- then I need you to start proving that by working with me on some things, and then the US will help YOU on some things -- truth is, we cowboys are tired, American Atlas needs a rest and to shrug a bit -- if you're not a threat to us, we'll give you the reigns in some places. Like Iraq."

Long story short: it all comes down to how much Russia is really screwing with us. Putin needs to tack back more into "frenemy" territory, actually work with us on some things, and THEN okay fine we can let him have Iraq. Because Iraq's a mess anyway, there's no solving that place, maybe they do need a dictator and maybe we're okay with that if at least Christians aren't getting crucified and there's not a ISIS Saladin running around like atilla the hun chopping hands off and making a pan-muslim jihad caliphate.

It may in fact be best to let Russia support a brutal dictator over there and keep law and order and just handle it, Chechnya style. (but no nerve gas, Vladimir! and leave the kurds alone, we like the kurds!)

This is *assuming* Russia is still our frenemy, and not enemy. If it really is cold war, if they really are out to take us down, then more Russian influence in the ME is risky because they've already got Iran.

Secondly, a Dear Leader Sixtrings would not start another war in the middle east lightly -- smart thing to do is just hang back for a while. See what happens. If ISIS grows, and gets legs, and starts stoking and getting support from radicals over neighbors' borders, if it looks like that "caliphate" is becoming a realtiy, *then of course we have to go in and stop it*.

It could actually work out, US could let Putin have Iraq *if* Russia is still our frenemy and working with us on some other things and we don't have a situation where we've got to whack-a-mole both ISIS and growing Russian control over the middle east.

There are other concerns here too, which I'm not aware of, as in how much in contracts are US companies getting out of Iraq. Are we really losing anything if we cede it over to the Russians, etc.

(the other alternative is to do as Russia does, and accept Malaki as a dictator and just back him. But that's not our style. We can't morally justify that. That's only acceptable in all out cold war, that's the only excuse for backing dictators, if we HAVE TO as part of an overall struggle against a dangerous competing bloc.

We can't keep Russia out anyway, so, this could be an alternative: we don't have to back a dictator in Iraq, let Russia do it.)
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Sixstrings » Sun 06 Jul 2014, 23:16:58

Plantagenet wrote:Actually, Saddam was a leftist. The Baath Socialist Party was a member in good standing of the Socialist International.


Well, socialist how, like national socialism? That's hard right. That's where the right wing goes at the extreme end of populism and "for the working man," it's national socialism (nazi).

Whereas the extreme far left is "communism."

P.S. I'm not really worried about it or worked up about it. I do root for those Ukrainians though, I just got emotionally invested with that because I watched it from the start. And it's a OWS thing, and the maidan, all that.

Having said that, I don't like seeing this Christians crucified thing and all that. SeaGypsy used to post about these guys a long time ago and how horrible they are, and he turned out right.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 07 Jul 2014, 01:12:26

Sixstrings wrote:P.S. I'm not really worried about it or worked up about it. I do root for those Ukrainians though, I just got emotionally invested with that because I watched it from the start. And it's a OWS thing, and the maidan, all that.
How about if OWS had actually occupied gubmint buildings, kicked out Obama, and installed a new regime. Would you be OK with all that?
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Sixstrings » Mon 07 Jul 2014, 20:58:15

Keith_McClary wrote:How about if OWS had actually occupied gubmint buildings, kicked out Obama, and installed a new regime. Would you be OK with all that?


False equivalency.

Ukraine had two rebellions. In the first one, Yanukovich would have liked to use the military / Berkut to squash it. He tried that a bit. But the masses staying at home watching TV did not support him using that power. It made even more people angry, and more take to the streets.

Ultimately, he fled in a helicopter that took off from his Disneyland dacha. No Maidan person or right sector or anybody stepped foot on those grounds to force him. There was no military coup. But he had lost support of everyone -- the people, many in his own party went over to the opposition, and the rest weren't showing up to parliament anymore, and finally his military. A president can't exercise authority if he has lost everyone's support. Example: Richard Nixon, and he left in a helicopter too. :lol:

Then Ukraine had a second rebellion, in the east. In the midst of that elections were held and every region in the country voted Poroshenko. He campaigned on tackling corruption (THE thing most Ukrainians are up in arms about to start with, and secondarily it's EU ties and improving the economy).

In this case, the people *supported* the president when he moved to squash the rebellion.

So there's the differences -- two constitutional presidents, one had the support of the people and one did not.

In the US: we've had times like this. Like the Vietnam protests in the 60s. National Guard got called out at Kent State and students were shot. As in Ukraine, the American people sitting at home watching TV were appalled at the government crackdown. So that wasn't done again. And eventually the anti-war movement won.

Same with the civil riots protests and riots in the 60s. Government tried to crack down at first, with water hoses and dogs and throwing people in jail. But the broad mass of American people were appalled, government had no popular support to do that, and so it stopped and federal gov stepped in and eventually it culminated in the Civil Rights Act, etc.

That's the difference with America, just that government listens when the people get seriously up in arms and upset. Happened in the Great Depression, too -- gov never really listened then, but veterans marched and camped out on the mall "ows" style. And the people voted FDR in.

We don't have revolutions because either gov listens when the people are getting really upset, or, voters clean house in the next election. In Ukraine, the parliament tried doing some measures to appease the people. Yanu did some halfhearted things but mostly told them "just vote me out next election if you don't want me." (pretty much verbatim quote)

So I don't know why exactly, but in Ukraine the people just couldn't wait for that next election. Probably a lesson for all governments everywhere -- pay attention if there's a movement in the streets that also has majority support of the folks watching TV at home.

EDIT: legally, the end of Yanukovych was the same as the end of Nixon: impeachment. Nixon resigned to avoid it, while Yanu fled and was removed from office by parliament in absentia.

So yes, Keith, if Congress impeached and removed the president then it would all be normal constiutitonal procedure and VP takes the oath. You can bet a US president would get impeached for sure, if he had as little support in Congress as Yanu had in his parliament, and among the people.

Yanu could have avoided it, maybe, if he'd listened to the people and not Putin and given them what they wanted -- the EU deal, that he promised, in his campaign. (I say maybe because by then the people were so pissed off at that point and wanted him gone no matter what, if he'd just signed the deal in the first place though then there never would have been a maidan)

Ukraine's constitutional vice (their pm or something?) took office, and the difference from the US system is that yeah Ukraine was a bit of a revolution so they just called new elections. But I think even that was constitutional, under their system.

So there was never a coup here anyhow. Not anymore than impending impeachment and senate conviction of Nixon was a coup.

Bottom line of it all: if a president in any country loses support of the people, and his parliament, and his military, then he can't govern and stay in office. You see it over and over with revolutions: same thing with Mubarak in Egypt, etc.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 07 Jul 2014, 21:38:34

Sixstrings wrote:
Keith_McClary wrote:How about if OWS had actually occupied gubmint buildings, kicked out Obama, and installed a new regime. Would you be OK with all that?


False equivalency.

Ukraine had two rebellions. In the first one, Yanukovich would have liked to use the military / Berkut to squash it. He tried that a bit. But the masses staying at home watching TV did not support him using that power. It made even more people angry, and more take to the streets.
Why didn't the "rebels" call a general strike to show wide popular support? Everybody just stay home and shut down the country for a day.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Tue 08 Jul 2014, 02:31:39

Iraq: Al-Baghadi Criticizes Wealthy Gulf Leaders, as Russia, Iran, Gun for Him
Baghdadi’s appearance in one of the most important mosques in the city of Mosul is a painful blow to the United States, its president, its security apparatus, and NATO. The US has designated Baghdadi a terrorist since May 2011 and offered a $10 million reward for whoever helps capture him. The US should know every inch of Iraq after occupying the country and building its army. Is it possible that Baghdadi’s security and hiding methods would go undetected by the most important intelligence agencies in the world? Or is there a kind of complicity for some reason that will become evident later? Some people are suspicious of the reasons behind Baghdadi’s release from US prisons in Iraq in the first place even though US intelligence agencies were aware of the danger he represents.
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby americandream » Tue 08 Jul 2014, 15:10:31

Just another feudal overlord feuding with capitalists and would be capitalists.
americandream
Permanently Banned
 
Posts: 8650
Joined: Mon 18 Oct 2004, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Sixstrings » Tue 08 Jul 2014, 15:43:48

Keith_McClary wrote:Why didn't the "rebels" call a general strike to show wide popular support? Everybody just stay home and shut down the country for a day.


They did call for mass general strikes, but the people didn't strike.

Keith -- if Yanu could have got away with it, he WOULD have crushed the maidan uprising. But he could not get away with that anymore than Nixon could have kept shooting hippies with the national guard, kent state style.

Ukrainians weren't okay with Yanu cracking down like that, yet they do support Poroshenko cracking down on rebellion. That's the bottom line on it all, one president has the people's support, the other didn't.

Need to get off Ukraine -- and capitalism arguments -- in the Iraq thread.

One last thing though: that Yanukovich was like a cartoon character, that was just embarassing. At least Ukraine now has a president that looks like an educated European president with some class and dignity.

Yanu? With his private label vodka, his Disneyland, his "sex and booze" bells, his Spanish galleon, his idiotic public statements.. that was just embarassing, Ukraine is so much better off with Poroshenko.
User avatar
Sixstrings
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 15160
Joined: Tue 08 Jul 2008, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 11 Jul 2014, 20:38:25

Obama is sending in spies and special forces to help out a separatist ethnic minority.
Expansion of ‘secret’ facility in Iraq suggests closer U.S.-Kurd ties
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby dissident » Fri 11 Jul 2014, 21:29:50

Keith_McClary wrote:Obama is sending in spies and special forces to help out a separatist ethnic minority.
Expansion of ‘secret’ facility in Iraq suggests closer U.S.-Kurd ties


Clearly the USA believes that there are good ethnic groups and bad ethnic groups. Eugenics never really died out in the USA and elsewhere.
dissident
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 6458
Joined: Sat 08 Apr 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Mon 14 Jul 2014, 01:26:59

Image
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: Obama says US ready to take military action in Iraq

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Fri 05 Dec 2014, 13:22:07

Sixstrings wrote:Watching shep smith on Foxnews.

He points out that the US built up a 600,000 man army for Iraq, and their whole darn army has just melted away facing off against 5,000 ISIS. Jesus.

Iraq uncovers 50,000 'ghost soldiers'
Prime minister reveals existence of 50,000 fictitious names crowding the payroll in major fraud for the country's army.

EDIT:
While googling for that, I ran across:
A former captain in the Texas National Guard was sentenced Friday to serve at least three years in prison for his role in a bribery and fraud scheme that caused at least $212,000 in losses to the U.S. National Guard Bureau, assistant attorney General Leslie R. Caldwell, of the Justice Department's Criminal Division, said.
...
According to court documents, former and current military recruiters and soldiers in the San Antonio and Houston areas engaged in a scheme to illegally obtain fraudulent recruiting bonuses from the Guard Recruiting Assistance Program, or G-RAP -- a recruiting program that offered monetary incentives to soldiers of the Army National Guard who referred others to join the National Guard.

To date, the investigation has led to charges against 26 people, 24 of whom have pleaded guilty, authorities said.
http://www.ksat.com/content/pns/ksat/ne ... cheme.html
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Previous

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 15 guests