|
Post by jdredd on Nov 3, 2013 3:12:32 GMT -5
Yes, America is the world's policeman: a dirty one, trigger happy and taking payoffs from the world's rich.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Mar 3, 2014 13:37:56 GMT -5
www.nytimes.com/2014/03/03/world/europe/pressure-rising-as-obama-works-to-rein-in-russia.html?_r=0"The Russian occupation of Crimea has challenged Mr. Obama as has no other international crisis, and at its heart, the advice seemed to pose the same question: Is Mr. Obama tough enough to take on the former K.G.B. colonel in the Kremlin? It is no easy task. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany told Mr. Obama by telephone on Sunday that after speaking with Mr. Putin she was not sure he was in touch with reality, people briefed on the call said. “In another world,” she said. That makes for a crisis significantly different from others on Mr. Obama’s watch. On Syria, Iran, Libya and Egypt, the political factions in Washington have been as torn as the president over the proper balance of firmness and flexibility. But as an old nuclear-armed adversary returns to Cold War form, the consequences seem greater, the challenges more daunting and the voices more unified." When "voices (are) more unified", you know you are in trouble. And if Obama was really "tough", he would be "tough" enough to tell those people who think he should be more "tough" on Putin to go f**k themselves.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 5, 2014 16:17:45 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/4/5/afghan-election.html"Afghans flocked to polling stations nationwide on Saturday, defying threats of violence by the Taliban, to cast ballots in what promises to be the nation's first democratic transfer of power. Despite scattered attacks across the country by Taliban fighters, turnout was so high that some polling centers ran out of ballots. With polls now closed, the excitement over choosing a new leader appeared to overwhelm the fear of bloodshed in many areas, as Afghans embarked on a major transition nearly 13 years after the U.S.-led invasion toppled the rule of the Taliban. Despite the Taliban threat, turnout was seven million out of 12 million eligible voters, or about 58 percent, according to preliminary estimates, election commission chief Ahmad Yousuf Nuristani said. That was well above the 4.5 million who voted at the last election in 2009, as voters refused to be cowed by the armed group." I'm happy for the Afghanis. The question is, was it worth thousands of dead GI's and hundreds of billions of American dollars? I guess every American has to decide for themselves. You certainly can't ask the dead Americans, can you? For myself, I'd rather have the dead Americans back and to hell with the Afghans.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Apr 7, 2014 0:23:12 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-26908587"At least one person has been reported killed and dozens hurt in a riot at Jordan's Zaatari camp, home to some 106,000 refugees from Syria's war. Jordanian forces used tear gas against stone-throwing refugees who had set fire to tents and vehicles. Both sides blame each other for provoking the violence. The dead person was a Syrian refugee, officials say. The sprawling camp has seen several protests since opening two years ago, mainly over poor living conditions." That's what I like about life. Everything is a tradeoff. Obama backed off from skewering Assad, and saved American lives and who knows how much money. Now we get to watch the fallout of Assad surviving. What can you say? It's another lose-lose situation. Oh well, to hell with the whole Middle East and their never-ending ethnic wars.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 12, 2014 14:13:03 GMT -5
america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/6/11/iraq-isil-takeover.html"The hard-bitten fighters of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIL) are marching towards Baghdad unabated, seizing cities, raiding U.S.-stocked government armories and leaving hundreds of freed prisoners in their wake. Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city, had already fallen to the Al-Qaeda-inspired insurgency when Tikrit — best known as the birthplace of Saddam Hussein — met the same fate on Wednesday. By sundown, ISIL was closing in on Bajii, site of the country’s largest oil refinery, and still no one seemed willing or able to stop them. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who many blame for fanning the sectarian flames that fueled ISIL’s precipitous rise, so far appears unable to stop the march. His security forces, better suited for keeping the peace than batting down a resilient, well-armed insurgency like ISIL, have cowered. In some cases, soldiers have abandoned their posts hours before ISIL rolled into town." It's amazing how much I DON'T GIVE A CRAP about anything that happens in Iraq.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 15, 2014 2:27:34 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/uk-27852832"The 2003 invasion of Iraq is not to blame for the violent insurgency now gripping the country, former UK prime minister Tony Blair has said. Speaking to the BBC's Andrew Marr, he said there would still be a "major problem" in the country even without the toppling of Saddam Hussein in 2003. Mr Blair said the current crisis was a "regional" issue that "affects us all". And he warned against believing that if we "wash our hands of it and walk away, then the problems will be solved". What else would he say? These egotists will never admit they were wrong. Can you imagine GW admitting he made a mistake? I doubt he is CAPABLE of remorse.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 16, 2014 22:25:36 GMT -5
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jun/16/obama-iraq-foreign-policy-world-policeman"That the Bush administration misled the American people about the reasons for invading Iraq is now all but common knowledge; what we talk about less is why Americans were moved so easily from concern about possible attacks from overseas into almost pornographic nationalism. Clearly, we were intoxicated by some heady perfume of testosterone and saddle leather that pulled along George W Bush by the nose. When the Iraq war began, nearly 80% of Americans thought it was a good idea. Almost as many approved of how the president was handling it. Irrational exuberance is not just for markets. How we have sobered since then! A record high number of people (53%) believe that America is "less powerful and less important than it was ten years ago"; the percentage of those who believe that America should "mind its own business internationally" (52%) is the highest it’s been in 50 years. And support for specific foreign interventions is as wobbly as the reasoning for undertaking them: only 25% of Americans supported air strikes on Syria; just 14% approved of a Nato-led military action in the Ukraine." I wonder how many people now claim they were in the 20% who opposed the Iraq invasion?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 17, 2014 14:55:41 GMT -5
So Obummer is reintroducing GI's to Iraq. Only 275 (that they admit). Seems to me the powers-that-be in Washington are just addicted to sticking there nose into things where there is no upside for American meddling. But hey, we can borrow the cash and we have new graduates of West Point etc. willing to go for the glory, so who cares? As I said before, every country needs a hobby.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Jun 28, 2014 14:33:19 GMT -5
www.bbc.com/news/business-28067872"US authorities will announce early next week that French banking giant BNP Paribas has agreed to pay an $8.9bn (£5.2bn) fine for allegedly violating sanctions rules, reports suggest. The bank will also, unusually, admit guilt, according to the Financial Times and The New York Times. BNP plans to slash its dividends and issue billions of euros of bonds to pay the fine, the Wall Street Journal said. The bank is accused of breaking sanctions against Iran, Sudan and Cuba." This is what modern Imperialism is all about- not so much armies, as control by banking. That's what brought down Communism. Not that I'm complaining, it's better the Cold War ended with a whimper and not a bang. Unfortunately it doesn't work so well in ethnic conflicts.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 14, 2014 23:33:35 GMT -5
www.economist.com/news/leaders/21612229-combining-military-force-political-brinkmanship-america-making-some-headway-back"AMERICA’S last two presidents have got things wrong in Iraq in opposite ways. George W. Bush went into the country in 2003 guns blazing, with 148,000 soldiers and too little thought of how to stabilise it after Saddam Hussein had been defeated. The consequences were disastrous. Barack Obama took a different approach. Americans, he reckoned, were not capable of bringing peace to this complex, violent and distant place. He allowed the troops’ mandate in the country to run out with insufficient attention to what might follow, and then applied the same logic in Syria where he did little to support moderate opponents of Bashar Assad. His policy aided the rise of the Islamic State (IS), a Sunni terrorist group, that has taken territory in Syria and Iraq. Now the prospect of a caliphate run by extremists bent on attacking the West has persuaded a reluctant Mr Obama that he cannot walk away from the Mesopotamian mess, and he is trying a new tack—combining modest military force with hard-nosed political brinkmanship (see article). Given conditions in the region, the chances of success are limited. But they are better than those offered by any other approach." Apparently the USA is addicted to meddling in Middle East affairs. A nice luxury when you have the bucks, I suppose. But we've been at this since 1991 in Iraq with no end in sight.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 6, 2014 18:32:22 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/articles/robert-kagan-why-the-u-s-wants-to-avoid-conflict-1409942201"For a time in the 1990s, while the generations of World War II and the early Cold War survived, the old lessons still guided policy. President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, sent half a million American troops to fight thousands of miles away for no other reason than to thwart aggression and restore a desert kingdom that had been invaded by its tyrant neighbor. Kuwait enjoyed no security guarantee with the U.S.; the oil wells on its lands would have been equally available to the West if operated by Iraq; and the 30-year-old emirate ruled by the al-Sabah family had less claim to sovereign nationhood than Ukraine has today. Nevertheless, as Mr. Bush later recalled, "I wanted no appeasement." A little more than a decade later, however, the U.S. is a changed country. Because of the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, to suggest sending even a few thousand troops to fight anywhere for any reason is almost unthinkable. The most hawkish members of Congress don't think it safe to argue for a ground attack on the Islamic State or for a NATO troop presence in Ukraine. There is no serious discussion of reversing the cuts in the defense budget, even though the strategic requirements of defending U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have rarely been more manifest while America's ability to do so has rarely been more in doubt." A leopard never changes his spots, and old neocon warmonger Robert Kagan is once more at it, spinning history to justify a more belligerent foreign policy by the US. But, as always with neocons, when you get to the bottom line, it is the bottom line of defense contractors that he seems most interested in.
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Sept 7, 2014 2:57:04 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/articles/robert-kagan-why-the-u-s-wants-to-avoid-conflict-1409942201"For a time in the 1990s, while the generations of World War II and the early Cold War survived, the old lessons still guided policy. President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, sent half a million American troops to fight thousands of miles away for no other reason than to thwart aggression and restore a desert kingdom that had been invaded by its tyrant neighbor. Kuwait enjoyed no security guarantee with the U.S.; the oil wells on its lands would have been equally available to the West if operated by Iraq; and the 30-year-old emirate ruled by the al-Sabah family had less claim to sovereign nationhood than Ukraine has today. Nevertheless, as Mr. Bush later recalled, "I wanted no appeasement." A little more than a decade later, however, the U.S. is a changed country. Because of the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, to suggest sending even a few thousand troops to fight anywhere for any reason is almost unthinkable. The most hawkish members of Congress don't think it safe to argue for a ground attack on the Islamic State or for a NATO troop presence in Ukraine. There is no serious discussion of reversing the cuts in the defense budget, even though the strategic requirements of defending U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have rarely been more manifest while America's ability to do so has rarely been more in doubt." A leopard never changes his spots, and old neocon warmonger Robert Kagan is once more at it, spinning history to justify a more belligerent foreign policy by the US. But, as always with neocons, when you get to the bottom line, it is the bottom line of defense contractors that he seems most interested in. Defense contractors or not, it is JOBS! But seriously, during this administration, trying to reverse some of the cuts in the military right now is futile. Better times are coming to do that and it will be done. Our forces have been decimated and lack proper equipment to do the current types of jobs that would be required of them. Almost every week a senior military officer, or two, are being fired or forced into retirement. This is also occurring to senior enlisted personnel as well. But the officer cuts are for the purpose to get rid of those who do not agree with the president. Does he have intentions of staying on beyond 2016? Some senior personnel have stated that the ammunition bought for NSA, FBI, Immigration, etc. is not in their possession! Where is it? Did it go to his "civilian army" that should be as well trained and equipped as the U.S. Army?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 7, 2014 14:30:37 GMT -5
online.wsj.com/articles/robert-kagan-why-the-u-s-wants-to-avoid-conflict-1409942201"For a time in the 1990s, while the generations of World War II and the early Cold War survived, the old lessons still guided policy. President George H.W. Bush and his national security adviser, Brent Scowcroft, sent half a million American troops to fight thousands of miles away for no other reason than to thwart aggression and restore a desert kingdom that had been invaded by its tyrant neighbor. Kuwait enjoyed no security guarantee with the U.S.; the oil wells on its lands would have been equally available to the West if operated by Iraq; and the 30-year-old emirate ruled by the al-Sabah family had less claim to sovereign nationhood than Ukraine has today. Nevertheless, as Mr. Bush later recalled, "I wanted no appeasement." A little more than a decade later, however, the U.S. is a changed country. Because of the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, to suggest sending even a few thousand troops to fight anywhere for any reason is almost unthinkable. The most hawkish members of Congress don't think it safe to argue for a ground attack on the Islamic State or for a NATO troop presence in Ukraine. There is no serious discussion of reversing the cuts in the defense budget, even though the strategic requirements of defending U.S. allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East have rarely been more manifest while America's ability to do so has rarely been more in doubt." A leopard never changes his spots, and old neocon warmonger Robert Kagan is once more at it, spinning history to justify a more belligerent foreign policy by the US. But, as always with neocons, when you get to the bottom line, it is the bottom line of defense contractors that he seems most interested in. Defense contractors or not, it is JOBS! But seriously, during this administration, trying to reverse some of the cuts in the military right now is futile. Better times are coming to do that and it will be done. Our forces have been decimated and lack proper equipment to do the current types of jobs that would be required of them. Almost every week a senior military officer, or two, are being fired or forced into retirement. This is also occurring to senior enlisted personnel as well. But the officer cuts are for the purpose to get rid of those who do not agree with the president. Does he have intentions of staying on beyond 2016? Some senior personnel have stated that the ammunition bought for NSA, FBI, Immigration, etc. is not in their possession! Where is it? Did it go to his "civilian army" that should be as well trained and equipped as the U.S. Army?
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 7, 2014 14:32:14 GMT -5
Defense contractors or not, it is JOBS! But seriously, during this administration, trying to reverse some of the cuts in the military right now is futile. Better times are coming to do that and it will be done. Our forces have been decimated and lack proper equipment to do the current types of jobs that would be required of them. Almost every week a senior military officer, or two, are being fired or forced into retirement. This is also occurring to senior enlisted personnel as well. But the officer cuts are for the purpose to get rid of those who do not agree with the president. Does he have intentions of staying on beyond 2016? Some senior personnel have stated that the ammunition bought for NSA, FBI, Immigration, etc. is not in their possession! Where is it? Did it go to his "civilian army" that should be as well trained and equipped as the U.S. Army? I sure miss you when you're not here, Tired. Otherwise I run amok and there is no balance in The Force. Yes, jobs are good, even jobs making used-one-time-only items like smart bombs. But I am skeptical of some big conspiracy of Obama even thinking of going on past 2016, I think he looks forward to living a life of ease on the golf courses of America as an ex-Prez. Plus, if he's golfing he won't be as annoying as that other ex-Prez, Jimmy Carter.
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 13, 2014 1:11:47 GMT -5
www.thenation.com/article/181601/whos-paying-pro-war-pundits"If you read enough news and watch enough cable television about the threat of the Islamic State, the radical Sunni Muslim militia group better known simply as ISIS, you will inevitably encounter a parade of retired generals demanding an increased US military presence in the region. They will say that our government should deploy, as retired General Anthony Zinni demanded, up to 10,000 American boots on the ground to battle ISIS. Or as in retired General Jack Keane’s case, they will make more vague demands, such as for “offensive” air strikes and the deployment of more military advisers to the region. But what you won’t learn from media coverage of ISIS is that many of these former Pentagon officials have skin in the game as paid directors and advisers to some of the largest military contractors in the world. Ramping up America’s military presence in Iraq and directly entering the war in Syria, along with greater military spending more broadly, is a debatable solution to a complex political and sectarian conflict. But those goals do unquestionably benefit one player in this saga: America’s defense industry." Who knew? But if neverending war in the Middle East paid for by borrowing money from China is what it takes to keep our economy going, who am I to disagree?
|
|