War Criminal

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/will-there-be-vote-isis-strikes

of course more defense spending ! Why not ? The cops could use some more equipment.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/specialfeatures/2013/08/07/how-the-college-debt-is-c...

Fricken moron !

FWIW you get what you pay for. The political desire of American politicians and a large % of the population wanting to be a dominant world power led to militarization. We pour money into the Pentagon and a large % of that money is outsourced to suppliers and contractors--not just the military. It doesn't go to education. It doesn't go to infrastructure. Other places that may be more the case than here--maybe a lot more the case. What kind of value the population gets from knowing their nation is a major world power? It's like bragging rights. It's not something that is really that tangible. It's stupid but the politicians know they can play that card and get re-elected or land in a cushy job that doesn't take up too much of their own valuable time if they don't. It's not so stupid for them--because in all likelihood they will get something tangible for the shit they do. Between the two party system we have it's like being caught between the proverbial hammer and anvil. Between thinking mostly wrongly that they'll have a place at the table, or being dumbed down, or just not knowing and/or not wanting to know or any combination of all that--that's the American population.They do for the most part know that nothing good will ever come out of Washington DC. That's something. Still on the other hand fixing roads or educating someone else's kids was not nearly as exciting as going to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I believe the domestic spending is a top priority agenda in any government.

The 2014 budget on defense is US$0.8 trillion.

www.usgovernmentspending.com

I believe the three basics - National Development (infrastructure:bridges, transit lines,airports) , Education and Health are the most important spending for any nation.

www.oecd.org/unitedstates/40001319.pdf

#3--FWIW the United States has military bases in most of the countries of the world. In some places they have a lot of military bases. Lots of them are not necessary. Our Pacific fleet--pretty much floats about without a real compelling counter force in the entire area. Now you might say China but China and the United States are so dependent on each other economically that I wouldn't consider them a real threat--maybe others would though but push comes to shove both sides will find a way to back away without losing face IMO--so what is our Pacific navy needed for?--North Korea?--which despite quite a lot of animosity over the years is pretty much isolated on their own in the world and not a big threat--more a nuisance. Any case the Iraq and Afghan wars were launched on future borrowed money--the monies for those were largely off budget if I remember correctly. There are ways to hide things.

>4 lriley:

If we recalled out Pacific fleet, every country in the region that isn't China would FREAK OUT. And our alliances with many countries would rapidly decline through Finlandization.

I think there's truth in the above...

>5 timspalding: If that's even remotely true i think the people of the US have accepted a bizarre role in the world, though of course they have never actually had a say in such 'strategic' decisions. Nor have they been told the truth by government/business/military about the motive for that situation, which of course is scarcely shared grotesque profit.

Finlandization? Better for you, better for the world.

I used to think so but I'm not so sure now...

which of course is scarcely shared grotesque profit

Someone explain to me the great profit we're making in Iraq again?

Most Asian countries welcome the presence of United States to assure stability and
securing in Asia Pacific Region. The North Korea's military is an "imminent" threat to the nearby nations such as South Korea,Japan,Taiwan, or maybe China.

USA is being widely received as having "international leadership" in the Asian continent. It does not mean to have any occupying,active military forces - armed forces-military soldiers, air force personnel. USA provide a "deterrent" to the outbreak of major xonflicts in Asia.

To me, there is war profiteering in any war by these arms dealers.
See:

www.usatoday.com

Search: 10 companies profiting most from war

Pope Francis remarks:

www.religionnews.com/2014/02/25/pope-francis-blasts-arms-dealers-decries-indifference-war/

www.globalresearch.ca/the-worldwide-network-of-us-military-bases/5564

USA is being widely received as having "international leadership" in the Asian continent. It does not mean to have any occupying, active military forces - armed forces-military soldiers, air force personnel. USA provide a "deterrent" to the outbreak of major conflicts in Asia.

How does this work? The US will lead and deter without having forces in the region? So if North Korea invades South Korea we… what? Last time we kept South Korea from falling and eventually beat them back. Should we have lead and deterred with strong language?

Regarding the conflict or civil war in Iraq , the Iraq invasion was about oil.Saddam's WMD( Weapon of mass destruction) was not really the issue and neither was the deceased Saddam's presence.I believe the ongoing sectarian violence will still continue forever unless the people have to solve their indifferences politically and socially. Do America cares about this sectarian violence or be able to solve this problem? This is Iraq's domestic problem.The sects have to focus their attention to stop the common enemy. ISIS.

The invasion was about averting a global energy crisis, US personnel involvement to protect the Iraq's oilfields, as US dependence of oil for her industry establishments and domestic uses.This is to protect the interests of America's oil giants or the scarcity of "black oil' will tumbled the US economy by having "sky rocketing" prices of crude oil.

The Korea and Vietnam wars were two examples when the presence of US military presence to avert the conflicts does not worked but to be actively involved in the battles there when thousand of American young lives were perished for a sake of peace keeping by involvement.

The meaning of "deterrent" is to be have military presence at the military and air bases as a "backing" of "ammunition" power when required by the countries where bases are situated. I have to change the word, "lead" to "protect".

The ISIS threat will be a global problem not only in Syria and Iraq.

The recent withdrawal of "active" fighting troops from Iraq will not be repeated by the present US administration. No ground troops but only strategic air strikes with the coalitions forces including the Middle East countries now feeling the "heat" of ISIS threat is the most appropriate military plans.

>5 timspalding:

An an Australian, I can confirm we would indeed FREAK OUT, and the whole region would immediately enter an arms race of epic size.

And given North Asia already has more than sufficient flash points, that could end badly.

A militant group released an American after ISIS beheaded the first reporter: "Not us--we're not like that. No, sir!"

And 45 Fijian (sp?) UN peacekeepers were just released.

Maybe some militant groups don't want to be focus of US attention?

Read this commentary:

www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/09/10/obama-isis-plan-america-third-iraq-war/

" .......the latest incarnation of Middle East is between Shites and Sunnis.The
radical Sunnis of ISIS want to establish a world Caliphate under their direction."

".......why do we care what happens in Syria and Iraq? What interests do we have in a region halfway around the world."

( Quoted from the commentary, three hours ago)

K T McFarland, the commentary writer do have a valid point of view.

>9 timspalding: Someone explain to me the great profit we're making in Iraq again?

Depends entirely on how you define "we".

The costs are not equally borne; and - more importantly - the quite measurable benefits are not distributed equally either.

(Start with the fact the Pentagon "lost" a pallet of a billion dollars in cash in Iraq: somebody has derived great profit in Iraq: just not most of the chumps.)

American oil companies are hardly active in Iraq at all. Other countries, especially China, have been far more active. There are some US service companies, but the overall amount of money simply isn't that large. I'm sorry if you believe otherwise, but facts are real things—in this case real and easily available—and must be confronted despite what one believes from prior ideological commitments.

Now, if your argument was that the US has generally acted to prevent the possibility of instability or hegemony in oil, that would be a much easier case to make. That was certainly a major factor behind the First Gulf War.

Now, the situation is changing in Iraq, oil is not the motive now for US involvement , and the only people who benefit from the American's part to stamp out ISIS terrorists now in Iraq is the Kurdish's population. The Kurdish has their own agenda.

The Kurdish leadership is playing a very important part to weaken the Iraqi state
with the help of America supplying weapons and ammunitions to them.

www.presstv.com

search: us interference in Iraq maintains Israel, KSA interest

#18--don't kid yourself. Oil = wealth. Great wealth = great power. Oil is always going to be a motive. Those who covet Iraq's oil haven't all of a sudden turned into angels.

And it's not just the Kurds. The Shia of Iraq and Iran will certainly benefit if IS are destroyed. That group places all those who don't believe the same as they do under a collective death sentence and the Shia are probably hated more than anyone else.

The natives of Iraq will protect the oilfields of their homeland,Iraq,

Do the America has the same motive for oil as in 1 st and 2 nd Gulf Wars. Now, the main objective is to help Iraq to regain their own status as an a sovereign state with separate autonomous entities.I may be wrong.

>19 lriley:

These are credal statements. Credal statements need to be periodically critically examined against evidence. In the case of Iraq's oil wealth, it's clear the US did not benefit significantly. In the case of Afghanistan's aspiration to gas and mineral wealth, the same times two.

Turns out that Amy Goodman was as wrong about Iraq and Afghanistan as Bush was.

21

Hardly. Amy Goodman was against intervention, which was the obviously correct humanitarian and political position.

Dick Cheney had the general idea right in 1994: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YENbElb5-xY, but he is a war criminal and a sociopath. Or a sociopoliticopath, to coin a term.

But I have made this point before and the credal Spalding ignores it, for it is not a quantifiable fact. It is just obvious, plain to see on youtube, and plain to understand the implications thereof.

As for Iraqi oil, it is not separable from Middle Eastern oil - that is, OPEC - and it was on behalf of OPEC and US relations that the US acted in Iraq on both occasions.

'which of course is scarcely shared grotesque profit'

If Spalding has a believable motive for the use of US force, displays of force, military presence, the bizarre overkill, pun accepted, of the global US military presences, the bizarre total of US expenditure other than for profit, meaning support of US business endeavors globally, I would certainly like to hear what it is. And I would like to see him credalize the easy to find statistics regarding the maldistribution of income not only in the US, but globally.

By the way, I myself find the term 'credal statement' cretinous. For they (CSs) are also general truisms (referring as Spalding did to Iriley's). Oil does equal wealth--just watch the Beverly Hillbillies if world history is too antagonistic to your credos. Great wealth indeed equals great power. Destruction in Iraq did equal great wealth for private US concerns in terms of rebuilding. The effect on OPEC was to remove once and for all an antagonistic member.

I believe that Spalding knows the circumstances in Iraq are more complex than who has which oil contract today, but his credalism prevents him from addressing the issue honestly--a problem with the crypto-credals like Spalding who believe that their willingness to look up a fact of their liking elevates their arguments from the poverty in which they scum about.

So, Spalding. What is the interest of the United States of America in doing what Dick Cheney was so determined not to do in the first Iraq war, knowing the results would be disastrous?

What will the US, who did so much to invigorate Al Qaeda by toying about in the Middle East, and did so much in Iraq again to invigorate IS, do next?

Can you answer these questions? Are they credal? Is an interview with Cheney factual in that it occurred, or credal in that I refer to it to, easily, expose the paucity of reason in your arguments?

>19 lriley: The Shia of Iraq and Iran will certainly benefit if IS are destroyed. That group places all those who don't believe the same as they do under a collective death sentence and the Shia are probably hated more than anyone else.

That's certainly as bigoted a statement as anything Nathen ever said.

We need to know and understand the origin of the conflict between Sunni (minority) and Shites (Shia) - majority in Iraq. It happened after the death of Prophet Mohammed.

The Shia are in power of Iraq's government.

www.news.yahoo.com/katie-couric-sunni-vs-shia-now-i-get-155748192.html

They have the same motive to control the oilfields, I supposed that to be their objective.

They have to resolve their own internal disputes.

That's certainly as bigoted a statement as anything Nathen ever said.

Uh, what? IS are doctrinal Takfiris, who consider Shiites to be apostates, who need to either reprint or die. They enforce this systematically in cities and towns they control, with special mosques set aside for "repentance" and massacres of Shiites.

This isn't interpretation. It's fact. It's not even a rare, difficult fact. It's common knowledge.

What are we got say of attacking someone for bigotry when the claim is utterly unfounded and ignorant?

Maybe I misread it. Isn't the antecedent of "That group", "The Shia of Iraq and Iran"?

Ah, I see. No, you got the grammar wrong.

How do I set up a vote? I would like to have readers vote on whether or not Spalding will attempt a comprehensive answer to 22, and as well acknowledge the clear hypocrisy of Cheney (intended here as a mere representative of the Bush cabals).

ETA a to cknowledge.

In the world, the Muslim population ,10-13% are Shia Muslim, and 87-90% are Sunni Muslims. Most Shia are in four countries, Iran, Pakistan, Tndia,Iraq

www.pewforum.org/2009/10/07/mapping-the-global-muslim-population/

The Middle East reminds me of a deck of cards, precariously balanced. It starts to totter, and the U.S. rushes in to rebalance it. Then it's declared 'stable' and the U.S. slowly tiptoes away... oh no! It's collapsing again!

Newsflash folks: it will never be stable, or 'fixed'. And the more you mess with it, the more bleeped up it gets. Walk away. No: run.

As for North Korea: I never did understand how South Korea, with twice the population, universal (male) conscription, state of the art tech firms, and an economy about 10x North Korea's, couldn't defend itself. "Oh, it's because Seoul is so close to the border" is the usual explanation. Smells like BS to me.

But, yeah, if the U.S. backs out of East Asia, China is coming for Taiwan. And claiming all the seas around it. I don't think they'll go beyond that, though. China has never tried to conquer the world (unlike certain other countries). It is not an expansionist power: it's always been too self-absorbed for that.

>30 madpoet: It is not an expansionist power: it's always been too self-absorbed for that.

Tibet?

>Tibet is on the border and was considered part of China. Besides it is one example. Throughout history there are innumerable examples that support #30.

If I understand correctly, Madpoet lives in China, so when he speaks of China I give his posts some extra weight. I hope he is wrong about China ever going for Taiwan, but even if he is not, I believe that a US guarantee of Taiwanese sovereignty would be enough. I don't think fleets are necessary or even viable in the long run.

Korea has been brought up several times. Bruce Cumings is the best I know of on Korean history. I read him so long ago I don't want to appear speak with authority, but I believe his rather more nuanced view of the Korean war speaks a lot about the agrarian and Confucian nature of the peninsula, and concludes that both north and south, unnaturally divided by perverse overlords both, forced unviably systems on each. I may be wrong, but I think that as soon as a division of the peninsula appeared it might be longlasting each side feared attack by the other, so that even an attack had a defensive aspect to it. I also believe that the Chinese did not want the attack, given that they 'had' their part and did not want to risk losing it. But such artificial cuttings of regions causes much suffering and much paranoia, much loss to what had been if not organic, accepted as, treated as, organic.
I see the same loss in the Balkans, and practically on a daily basis the theme is played out in one way or another. Slovenia, for instance, lost, besides its labor pool and much of its export desitnation--in fact unstrung its own economy--half the Adriatic almost, Sarajevo, Beograd, Zagreb, Lake Ochrid, Monstir (Bitola), the great rivers south of here and the souther parts of the two mightier ones here, and...well, so on...

31 "Tibet?"

Beijing claims it was always part of China. Of course, that's debatable...

I don't think China is bent on world conquest, and is likely to be less of a bully in its neighbourhood than the U.S. has been in theirs (see: U.S. relations with Latin America).

The one caveat to my previous agreement with Madpoet is that Chinese spies have long been crawling all over Africa. But I believe their supreme interest is economic ties, a very different 'threat' than that the US poses. China is not known for invading those who behave against their economic interests outside their territory.

#33

Vietnam? Now, I can agree that China has, historically, been less expansionist than many other states; but that's hardly a guarentee that it's immune to the virus of imperialism. Certainly Taiwan has been, and will continue to be, in their eyes, part of China.

And I doubt Japan would be too happy if the U.S. withdrew, given their long history with China...

>32 RickHarsch: I don't think that China would immediately try to occupy Taiwan, in the event of a U.S. withdrawal from the region. Taiwan has quite an impressive military of its own, and Beijing wouldn't want to start a war which would result in tens of thousands of casualties on both sides. But they would most certainly do their best to intimidate Taiwan into agreeing to 'reunification'. And if it did come to war, there is little doubt who would win.

The most dangerous thing about the current standoff over Taiwan is that both sides misread the other. The Chinese I've talked to don't believe the U.S. would 'really do anything' if China tried to occupy Taiwan. While Americans don't seem to realize how intent the Chinese are on getting Taiwan back-- sooner or later, peacefully if possible, but by force if necessary. They will not back down-- especially to what they feel are empty threats.

#23--what I meant and how you read it----anyway it makes no difference to me whether someone is muslim or not--nor does it make any difference to me what sect they belong to (if they are) but it does mean something for those who have joined up with the IS and for them if you're Shia you should be exterminated. Iran is basically a Shiite muslim country--IS definitely now welcome there. Iraq has a very large Shia majority and especially in the south and in Baghdad there's the Mahdi army which follows Shia religious clerics.

>35 BruceCoulson: "...given Japan's long history with China."

Yeah... you have a point. There are still many Chinese who would love to get revenge for what Japan did to China in the '30s and '40s.

One Chinese man I talked to said: "I wish the Japanese hadn't surrendered so quickly (at the end of WWII)."

"Why?" I asked.

"Because then the Americans would have bombed them again."

Vietnam, yes, true, but again, a border region, hardly qualifying them as an expansionist power.

>39 RickHarsch: Such an odd statement. Isn't invading your neighbors practically the definition of an expansionist power?

#39

Try telling that to the Vietnamese... Or the Tibetans, for that matter.

I would gladly speak to a Vietnamese about the difference between China and the US. China, in fact, helped Vietnam significantly against both the French and the US. Much of Vietnam's fighting spirit and warrior lore was derived from making the Chinese regret trying to take Vietnam, so yes, there is an issue there of some 2000 years or more, preceding nationalism by the way. You also have to use a little imagination to grasp something of the history of such a faraway place so long ago. Were there no Vietnamese who wanted more of what China considered its shoreline?? Was the territory that became Vietnam always so clearly delineated?

Wilson, every once in a while you have obtuse attacks, as in 23; here I would say that you are simply being willfully stubborn having embarrassed yourself so recently. An expansionist power in this epoch, colonial and post-colonial, is hardly one with border issues. And China is an old imperial power that historically, as Madpoet says, has not been expansionist. That does not mean there are no exceptions in border areas. But part of what has shaped Chinese mentalite has been experience. They are, for multiple reasons, very leery of look to far from home. The the early 16th century they had the most magnificent fleets in the world, but after domestic crises the entire shipbuilding and foreign trading abroad (they decided foreigners should trade with them at home) was abandoned.

Perhaps its just a matter of definitions then? To me, expansionist conjures up a nation expanding its boundaries by absorbing its neighbors, like USSR or Imperial Japan. What you're describing sounds more like Imperialism.

And I understand the history of the Middle Kingdom, but you can't always rely on nations not changing their historical trajectory.

Well, there's a point--'you can't always rely on nations not changing their historical trajectory'--and well put, too, I might add.

It is more than definitions, though, because by definition of any kind China fails to measure up when it comes to power and expansion differential. Maybe that absurd formula, like WAR in baseball, might make the point best. The reason I say it is not a matter of definition is because expansionism is indeed an ism, a part of the defining essence of an empire. The colonials were madly expansionist. The US is the most expansionist entity the world has ever seen. Others, like the Chinese, are pussy cats, who often have even ACCEPTED DEFEAT on there borders.

Let us not praise China, though, overmuch, though the stories are true about how little they wanted a Korean fight to the extent that on first contact with USA soldiers they refused to kill, let the captured keep their weapons, and sent them back south.

In a world in which there is no "stasis" re "power," meaning when it "goes" from one it goes to another, I would agree that the United States "has a role" in the world that becomes indeed "inevitable" given its size and power.

I'd suspect that if ANY country (well north Korea excepted) had to "choose" between domination say by China or the US, the US is the "better" choice. Same same Russia.

Obviously the United States is NOT desiring "conflict" with either powers named above but it has to "defend" south Korea (China is not a "threat" there however; north Korea is) and then it has to defend the new NATO states in Europe.

It does NOT "have to defend" Ukraine but the dismemberment of such is not reassuring to the Europeans and not "irrelevant" to their future.

The "ISIS crisis" one can say has some singular unity and again the Obama administration is doing what I think is "unavoidable."

This is I admit a "liberal" view -- the Americans for Democratic Action say versus oh the Progressive party of 1948 to put it in historical terms that I think resonate, meaning that Harry Truman and not Henry Wallace was "right" about the Soviet Union and how to "deal" with it.

Wallace was not nor were even many American communists like Paul Robeson for example "traitors" because they thought differently, more idealistically, but they WERE "wrong" as uh well to use the Marxian term "history" proved.

Yes I think MANY countries want the United States "active" in the world and I think given the world's imperfect nature that "activity" is often necessary and beneficial...

I think it is safe to say that Spalding has retreated, incapacitated (shot himself in the foot to get out of the war, which I admire on one level), and does not belong in Middle Eastern discussions. The hypocrisy is too plain. He has an ideological and limited view and accuses others, who speak plainly, of being unthinking ideologues. Unfortunately, I believe he retreats ungraciously to return another day, only to retreat again.

Michael, I believe you are drifting toward a cold warrior point of view and urge you to rethink what you are saying. You are not taking the long view. The US put itself in this position, which is an absolutely qualifying point. They have forced upon literally billions of people devilish choices. This is indeed their world, but though we may fear a Chinese hegemony, perhaps the Chinese would have developed a more sensible world.
Essentially your argument redounds to this, which the US made, is what we got, and it's best that we keep letting the US do as it wishes--given the options US hegemony has left us with.

I think you would profit from going back, say, 55 years, and counting the victims and the enemies the US has made.

As for your remark about Robeson being wrong as history 'proved', I would argue that no, the US won, and that is all. Your view is as deterministic as the Marxian view.

I'll erase the remark I made re Spalding because it's not relevant to Rick's criticism of me.

I don't know that Maoist China "would have developed a more sensible world" view -- that's speculation not based upon the history of China under Mao.

Neither do I think Stalin was going to be any more "reasonable" than he had to be. The "problem" in the 1930s was not that the British and the Americans were inordinately belligerent re Hitler but that they weren't -- and Stalin thought he had to "make a deal" in light of that. Maybe HE was "right" at THAT time.

I just don't see how US power would not be challenged by the Sovs and the Maoists -- in fact it was. The US maintained a "free" western Europe without starting WWIII but I have already said that the Vietnam war was a mistake and I feel the same re Guatemala and Iran BUT I understand the paranoia.

"Communism in power" did very little for anybody but those IN POWER and the detrimental results were catastrophic for millions of people. This wasn't "all America's fault" or Britain's or "capitalists'." Central and eastern Europe were not an altogether "better" place under Soviet domination. And I don't think to be more contemporary that the middle east would be "better off" under ISIL-ISIS-IS dominance.

I'm not trying to be a "cold warrior" per se and I think that MANY "mistakes" were made by "US" during that time but I think the overall perception re the Soviet and the Chinese was essentially correct. Robeson for example WAS "wrong" about the "nature" of the Soviet Union but I don't believe he was some kind of "fool" or "traitor" because he thought so -- I just think he was "wrong"...

You aren't dated, as your views continue to...evolve?, maybe some of them...I'm not sure. Think back to your Guatemalans and their luck under US hegemony.

See above please...

I did not mean to bracket the conversation to the cold war and what led up to it. The world the US made was being made, and much was already finished long before the first world war. I think the combination of industrial technology and capitalist thought essentially deranged mankind, to put it shortly and starkly. I therefore believe that Marx's writings were a misbegotten yet humane response to an astonishing and utterly mad development in human history. Mao, I think, saw history as plastic and attempted to create a more humane world with something like the craftiness of a giant infant making buildings out of mud. At least befoe he went utterly insane. Stalin and Mao, in this view of mine, were czars, emperors, yet more deranged, though often acting along typically imperial lines. This comports with my thoughts on Korea, which I think was deranged north and south by the overlaying of utterly alien machineries on agrarian Confucian societies as I said above (I think it was this thread).

I'm not exactly a "capitalist" (whatever that is anymore) and I can't say that I find the "industrialized world" all that attractive although I can't say that the agrarian-feudal world that preceded it attracts me either. (Maybe it's because my mother was born and raised on a farm and NEVER presented me with an "idealistic" or nostalgic view of it.)

I "prefer" all the attempts to "humanize" industrialism, therefore unions, "granges," James Weaver and the "populists," certainly Debs and Norman Thomas and of course the "Square Deal," "New Deal" and all the other "deals." I see all the latter as "progress" (i. e., "progressive") and I think it's obvious that MILLIONS have benefited from these "movements."

It is not so clear to me that "millions" have benefited from the bolshevik takeover or the victory of Mao and the gang -- in fact the opposite: MILLIONS have died as the result.

Is it "better" today to live in south Korea or north Korea? I think if one is not say Dennis Rodman the answer should be obvious.

I think that Marx made cogent criticisms of capitalism but he of course had no real "alternative" to it but some "inevitable" progression to "socialism" and then "communism." The REAL "alternative" is to be "humane" indeed and more altruistic and empathetic -- I think that's the essence of a "liberal" or "progressive" attitude. I also don't see an alternative to a representative form of government as per western Europe and the US etc. And I think some in Hong Kong RIGHT NOW would prefer the British back than Beijing's current "hegemony."

I respect "the left" and always will but I still don't want to live in Vietnam or Cuba...

What is a good government?

1. A good government allow the better and energetic natures among her
people to fulfill their promise, while ensuring that these people shall not tyrannize over the mass of other people.A form of government is one in accord with the traditions and perspectives ways of its people. Going on the same mainstream with the people.
No special treatment to any racial groups or status.
Meritocracy have to be established at all level of population, as all men are not born equal. You can be rich or poor, the laws of the country apply to all.

2. Impose fair justice, law and order in the country'

3. Democracy.

4. One Man, One Vote.

5. Human Rights.

6. Free Election after a fixed period of years.Elected government.

7. Transparency and Accountability in all areas of governmental's undertaking and business.Checks and Balances.

Does Communism still works?

China is now becoming a "capitalist state", communism" is diminishing.

Most of the China's population dream to be rich!

New China. New Rich.

I think it is safe to say that Spalding has retreated, incapacitated (shot himself in the foot to get out of the war, which I admire on one level), and does not belong in Middle Eastern discussions. The hypocrisy is too plain. He has an ideological and limited view and accuses others, who speak plainly, of being unthinking ideologues. Unfortunately, I believe he retreats ungraciously to return another day, only to retreat again.

Or I was camping in the woods with my son.

Hardly. Amy Goodman was against intervention, which was the obviously correct humanitarian and political position.

Goodman, and much of the left, believed that the Iraq invasion an oil grab, designed to enrich American oil companies. It has certainly not turned out to be. The Iraqi government, despite being a "puppet government," has somehow failed to enrich US companies, allow true private ownership of oil fields, become an unregulated free market paradise, etc. Rather, it set up very strict leases, with minimal profit, and then gave most of them to Chinese companies. Some US oil technology companies have made money, but it's a drop in the bucket.

I don't feel compelled to respond to the rest of your confused and splenetic posts. One can't fight along an entire ideological front. Indeed, I have no desire to open new skirmishes. I merely responded to your belief that the war as about "scarcely shared grotesque profit." It was not.

Political views can help make predictions about the future. But the future arrives. And when it does, we have to adjust to it. If there are any out there who maintain that Saddam had chemical weapons in 2003, they have failed to make that adjustment. The same applies here.

I would argue that the invasion of Iraq did indeed enrich quite a few companies. But the source of that money was not Iraqi oil, but American tax dollars.

The invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a "mistake" because it was unnecessary; Saddam had nothing to do with 9-11 and was NOT promoting terrorism internationally -- only "nationally" eh.

However -- ONCE it was done it's "done" eh and yes the US has "obligations" re Iraq and "interests" that include oil of course (how can it not) but the "big question" is how to effect some stability in the mideast as its current religious warfare continues?

It's not by going home and pulling the covers over our uh collective head and wishing "Hitler" away. And ISIS after all is well financed with purloined oil (that "oil" thing again) smuggled over especially the Turkish border and moreover it "runs" parts of Syria and Iraq and certainly "threatens" to take more of such if no one (read the US) is willing to help stop them.

In the 1930s folks on the left blamed Britain and the US for Franco's victory over the Spanish republic -- "it's none of our business" it was said but obviously the conflict encouraged Germany and Italy and provided both with a "laboratory" for their increased military hardware and "exercise" for their armed forces. (Stalin gave the republicans some assistance -- but at a price, their gold reserves.) And the very year Franco's forces secured Madrid -- 1939, a GREAT year for American movies but not so "great" for its desire for peace -- WWII began...

"We illegally invaded your country, killed thousands (maybe hundreds of thousands, but who's counting; we sure aren't) of your soldiers and citizens, wrecked your infrastructure and destroyed your government; but now that we've done all of that, we now have an obligation to remain and fix all that damage."

Ungrateful wretches; why are so many of them resisting our further help?

Sigh! They don't have to "love 'US'" to "hate" ISIS. They only have to "observe"...

Yes; but maybe they're really not interested in our further 'help' in the matter. The Kurds might be, since they finally (after years of broken promises) got a pseudo-nation all their own, and they want to keep it; but I can see the average Iraqi not seeing that much of a difference between ISIS and the US.

I don't know why everyone is forgetting that we have spent a decade in that region with a large number of troops trying to control the situation and nearly as soon as we left it fell apart. Why will our getting involved again result in a different outcome this time?

Perhaps the problem is our presence and not the lack of it. ISIS would dearly love to have more Americans within their reach for them to kill, and the beheading of the American journalists could be a ploy to goad America into coming back.

Instead of the US leading the fight, I'd rather see it take a more low-key approach using technical and economic aid to bolster the more democratic forces in the area.

Those that don't see a difference between the US and ISIS are "condemned" to experience the latter -- I guess.

"Technical and economic aid" is likely to fall into the hands of those who've got the guns I'd say. We can whistle past their "graveyard" -- I guess...

I can see the average Iraqi not seeing that much of a difference between ISIS and the US.

I can see no difference between a lightbulb and a piece of dark velvet if I put my eyes out with a broach.

Let's review:

* The majority of the population of Iraq is Shiite.
* ISIS considers Shiites to be apostates, liable to execution for their unbelief, their holy places liable to destruction.
* They have carried out their beliefs, with executions and destruction of shrines, where they rule and show ever desire to do so where they do not.

No, the average Iraq does not equate the US and ISIS.

The Spalding is back answering selectively with a selective response about Amy Goodman, who is basically irrelevant to the post, though she knows far more about the Middle East than Spalding.

'I merely responded to your belief that the war as about "scarcely shared grotesque profit." It was not.' Yes, it was, and if I had too much to say that you cannot argue, well be honest and say so, don't pull that dishonest bullshit 'One can't fight along an entire ideological front.' You were, aside from my splenetic touches, none of which you CAN respond to honestly because you took the first dishonest step of posing as a non-ideologue, also simply asked to answer a question phrased thusly:

'So, Spalding. What is the interest of the United States of America in doing what Dick Cheney was so determined not to do in the first Iraq war, knowing the results would be disastrous?'
I guess it you cannot answer that you have no substance to your lame and frankly embarassing 'It was not.' Yes, again, it was. That much is obvious. The rest, the oil, the functions of oil and politics, is all rather complex of course, but you are entirely wrong about all that. So you simply refuse to argue, come out looking like a man who should be out camping rather than discussing politics.

>64 RickHarsch:

I pointed out why I was selective. If you claim A and I can show it's wrong, I will do so. That you now want to talk about X, Y, Z, P, D, Q, which are not logically related to A, is not my problem.

To you larger question, I think the answer is a complex one. The war had a number of proponents, whose motives and arguments differed. I don't think the administration's motives were primarily about corporate gain, with all the national security arguments merely smokescreen for enriching some investors. Indeed, I think that's a rather childish and conspiratorial thing to believe. That does not mean oil was unimportant to national security arguments.

Now on to the worthy enough to discuss with:

Coulson: '...but I can see the average Iraqi not seeing that much of a difference between ISIS and the US.' You've been given a literal answer that refuses to acknowledge there is no such thing as an average Iraqi. I believe your point is clear: Iraqis can't be anything but horrified by what the US has done to them over the last two decades and more. Comparisons with Isis are beside the point in this regard. But what the brittleligentsia (brittle plus intelligentsia) who merely count there Shia and Sunni refuse to consider is that IS is not possible without US intervention (go back to the Cheney interview that no fascists here will confront).

Wilson: Again, the Cheney interview. The falling apart was obviously inevitable. The hope was that a more malleable Saddam could be found and put into place Mobutu Sese Seko like. It was a grotesque miscalculation. Islam is not as tribal as any other religion, nor does any other religion (now that Christianity has been bought off) transcend international boundaries as Islam does (of couse SOME Saudis and the like have indeed been bought off, we have seen from events turn of the century on that the poor of even the wealthier Islamic regimes take offense at US actions.

Welch:

This is a more difficult argument to counter, though I agree with Bruce, yet I, too, would hate to see the Kurds get fucked yet again. But, to try to simplify this to fit a short space, I see your argument as rational and pragmatic to a tremendous fault--that of repeating the same errors. It is indeed time for the US to step out and certainly time for the US to stop thinking they are the only people in the world who care enough to do something. More accurately, others in the world are fucking sick of the US dicking around to the extent that horrors are piled on horrors and they are, as humane folk, unable to turn away...

Your response is, okay, then who will save the Kurds (And the Christians and the rest...)? My answer is that I have no idea and should not be forced to have to answer the question. If the US creates these situations and then, for you logically, must step in thunderously to resolve them, the real evil here is the US. Perhaps this is the world that you believe Marx failed to understand, the one which did not do what he so desperately wanted, stop the arrogance and primacy of the monied destroying life. What we do know is that whatever intervention is engaged in now will come back to haunt someone (the US included) and wherever the manifestation is, the US will 'have to' solve the problem.

Comparisons with Isis are beside the point in this regard.

That's a good dodge when the whole point was the comparison.

Again, you say X. I point out that X is absurd. You say it's not important, and Y, Z, P, D, Q.

So, being killed by Americans is preferable to being killed by ISIS? One group hates you; the other is completely indifferent; but you're dead either way.

Well I don't think it's ALL "our fault," i. e., the US', but yes we stuck ourselves amid these Islamic religious wars and don't know how to get out I guess.

I have to hope that SOMEONE will attempt to "save" the Yazidis, Kurds, Christians and various hapless smokers and those who forget to drop to their faces five times a day or women who reveal a "wrist" or a "nose" (to be sliced off perhaps!) in public! And I tend to think that neither say the Saudis nor the Qataris are "in on this" if'n the US ain't. So who does the "rescuing"?

I also think Marx understood the world pretty well but what he believed was "inevitable" precluded the fear of the "capitalists" re "class war" -- no war is a "good war" if it actually DESTROYS your "system" and where are the "workers" if they're all dead or in prison (a Soviet "problem" as it turned out). "Compromise" was necessary.

And I believe the Obama administration spent some time "waiting and watching" and probably hoping all this would somehow "go away" and it really didn't have to "do" anything but this ISIS thing has a lot of folks (not JUST Americans eh) upset and maybe a bit worried.

It might actually be quite an "experiment" to "let it be" and SEE what happens huh. Does ISIS take Baghdad? Does it matter? Will Iran invade? Will ASSAD invade? I mean the Israelis are probably willing to "watch" too but then they've got THEIR nukes.

Maybe I'm wrong and Ron Paul (not Rand!) for instance is right -- I can't REALLY think so but sure "we" can't/shouldn't "DO EVERYTHING" so maybe "we" oughtn't do this either.

It's tempting -- and would be for the American people as well who are hardly as "thrilled" as they were in '03 say.

Well to use another of my repetitive cliches -- stay tuned!?...

Scale and subjects matter. US actions resulted in a lot civilian deaths in Iraq. But inter-communal violence killed far more, even when the US was still in Iraq. (Intercommunal violence ebbed considerably in part because of the surge, of course, but let's ignore than for now.) Recently, with the US long gone, and inter-communal has become outright civil war.

You can get some idea of the the scale of the thing from Iraq Body Count. That I would cite them on this goes to show how clear the case is, for Iraq Body Count is an anti-occupation advocacy organization as well as a record-keeping one.



The fact is that ISIS is a much greater danger to Iraq lives than US forces ever were. The US fought initially to disable the Iraqi army, and then later to hurt an insurgency. We also put people in prison and, to our great shame, tortured some. But ISIS's goals are larger, their targets far more expansive (including, ultimately, the majority of the population), and their methods are far more indiscriminate.

Now, one may ALSO claim that the US is ultimately responsible for all of it, including ISIS. There's a good deal of truth to that. If we hadn't invaded, and Saddam had clung to power until today, overall deaths would certainly have been less. This is not, however, necessarily an argument against stopping ISIS now.

I believe as I've said the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was "unnecessary" and a "mistake."

However I don't believe (I don't think anyone REALLY does) EVERY war is a "mistake," e. g., the US civil war, WWs I & II although I recognize that they MAY have been avoided "if only" etc.

But then one IS "stuck" with uh "Fort Sumter" or "Pearl Harbor" and what exactly "to do" NOW eh...

>71 timspalding: This is not, however, necessarily an argument against stopping ISIS now.

No, but what is such an argument is the fact that in 10 years where we had boots on the ground we weren't able to wipe out this group so what makes you think we can do so now, especially with no boots on the ground.

68 Spalding, you are lying outright.

"Comparisons with Isis are beside the point in this regard.

That's a good dodge when the whole point was the comparison. (You are lying because you know it was not a dodge, but a rather a statement made as part of a defense of what the man was saying, making the argument that the substance of his statement goes beyond the comparison.)

Again, you say X. I point out that X is absurd. You say it's not important, and Y, Z, P, D, Q."

I use words. You spout crap and I dispute in words. Your response is to say you did something you didn't in letters such as these. It's childish.

65

Just saw this post and its:

'Indeed, I think that's a rather childish and conspiratorial thing to believe. That does not mean oil was unimportant to national security arguments.'

But you start the post with:

'I pointed out why I was selective. If you claim A and I can show it's wrong, I will do so. That you now want to talk about X, Y, Z, P, D, Q, which are not logically related to A, is not my problem.'
As I said above, resorting to this is childish--perhaps it is better to say it is lazy, self-serving, avoiding the generally preferred work of writing sentences and actually pointing out where you were right. You've done that twice in a short span and you call one of my sentences a dodge. Add hypocrisy to lying.

Here is the rest of your paragraph:

'The war had a number of proponents, whose motives and arguments differed. I don't think the administration's motives were primarily about corporate gain, with all the national security arguments merely smokescreen for enriching some investors. Indeed, I think that's a rather childish and conspiratorial thing to believe. That does not mean oil was unimportant to national security arguments.'

I don't mind being told my thoughts are 'conspiratorial', for any government that behaves as the US government does, invading to enrich a small elite, coercing more often than invading, of course, is definitely conspiratorial. But I am not limiting it to a few boys in a room. It is the structure of US economics and foreign policy. The US bullies on behalf of its multinationals, its so-called military industrial complex, its wealthy. This is very basic and I am surprised any adult who thinks or claims to think would deny that this is true.
But to summarize your description of the motive of the US for invading Iraq:
Well, actually I can't because you gave none. You said the motive was not primarily about corporate gain, and suggested, seemingly, that something about national security was actually involved. But you actually said nothing, made no argument. And that national security was legitimately involved would be a laughable claim, as is the notion that US foreign policy abuses are not guided by the profit motive.

Dear Onlookers, I realize my disgust with Spalding might seem a bit much, maybe boring, at times, but I particularly hate the blood spilled by the US, and I therefore hate dishonest support of US policies, hypocrisy, crypto-fascism.
I left the US, the motives beginning with a sort of sickening feeling associated with having been brought up with the nonpareil propaganda that is uniquely USAmerican. Europeans generally find it hard to believe that the people of the US genuinely believe that they are better, really better, than people throughout the world, but the vast majority in of people in the US actually do, it's so deeply imbedded. I suppose that encourages the emotionalism of some of my responses to arrogance and pseudo-intellectual posturing, evasive, holier than thou bullshit.

I try to avoid "personal" arguments but I suppose all arguments are "personal" in some way. MY "difference" with Rick may have to do with not being disgusted so to speak with American "exceptionalism" but just trying to be a bit wary of it.

Then I've always "lived" in the US and only been a "tourist" outside it, no matter my motivation, so I hardly can claim to know what "the world" thinks of "US" but I can understand its skepticism.

At the same time I actually LIKE this country with its faults -- it's part of having lived here so long and becoming "familiar" with its uh "peccadilloes." I admit getting uh "emotional" when I hear "The Star Spangled Banner" but I'm not a flag waver -- I don't even own a flag for that.

Obviously I read A LOT of American history and not just the "pageantry" aspects and I admit too I find that history fascinating. With anyone "outside" this nation I think I'm polite at least and not so defensive but I can't join in the disparagement although I can admit "mistakes."

Maybe some "ancient Romans" wrote the same about "the empire" and would have thought in the movie "Ben Hur" (with me of course there's ALWAYS a "movie" eh) that Messala was more "reasonable" than Judah -- at first -- and Judah "overstated" things when he says that "the day Rome falls there will be such a shout of 'Freedom!' as the world has never known!"

It didn't exactly turn out that way but then both Judah Ben Hur and Messala the tribune were LONG dead by then eh...

No, but what is such an argument is the fact that in 10 years where we had boots on the ground we weren't able to wipe out this group so what makes you think we can do so now, especially with no boots on the ground.

ISIS was a small part of the Iraqi civil war. It declined, along with similar organizations, because of a combination of US force and Iraqi political change—Sunni tribal leaders and other worthies threw their lot in with the US and Iraqi government against the jihadis. It came back because of the withdrawal of US forces and, with the withdrawal of US interest, the renewal of sharply sectarian government in Baghdad, and become of a changed situation in Syria.

ISIS's power today stems in large part from a surprising surge, which met a dramatic collapse of the Iraqi army. (The collapse of the Iraqi army was in large part about sectarianism and corruption too. Malaki did what Stalin did—decimate his officer corps right before they were needed.) They acquired a reputation for success and for butchery that multiplied their power considerably. Their invisibility is now over—they've lost some of their gains—and their brutality has backfired, with each new beheading video moving public opinion in the west against them still further.

It's clear that ISIS filled a vacuum and took advantage of a sectarian crisis. But there is little doubt that Sunnis do not want a protected war against everyone, so long as they aren't forced to live as second-class citizens.

Meanwhile, ISIS is on everyone's shit list. There hasn't been such an impressive lining up of adversaries in decades. They have a million enemies and no friends.

So, yeah, I think there's some chance of success.

maybe boring, at times

Well, I know it's boring to me.

'Well, I know it's boring to me.' With arrogance and lack of independent thought, one such as you is easily bored, I would imagine.

Maliki did what Stalin did...what had the US done to the Iraqi army? Willful ignorance on your part or more lying?

Maliki did what Stalin did...what had the US done to the Iraqi army?

Indeed, that was one of the biggest mistake the US committed in Iraq--firing the army. But over time the army recovered a good deal--indeed, many former officers rejoined. Some ethnic rebalancing was necessary—Sunnis comprised more than 50% of the officer corps under Saddam, despite representing less than 20% of the population. The US helped during the surge by making a lot of Sunni Awakening leaders spots in or associated wigh the the army. But Malaki became progressively more sectarian in his approach, and after the US left, the Iraqi army has become an almost exclusively Shiite institution again. Since the rise of ISIS, that has gotten even worse, with Iraqi soldiers recruited on sectarian Shiite messages.

The comparison with Stalin is, of course, that Stalin destroyed his officer corps in the purges of the 1930s, leading to an army staffed by timid yes men without professional experience. Thus, Mosul and the German invasion of Russia share a common element--the collapse of an army with leadership picked for political rather than military reasons.

Willful ignorance on your part or more lying?

You're somewhat obsessed with the concept of lying--that I and others are always "lying" when we discuss politics. Here's a tip for you: People who aren't politicians with a job to protect don't "lie" when they discuss politics. I may be self-deceived, but I am not lying. The things I say may be stupid, but I'm not deliberately misrepresenting things I think or know. That would be a waste of time, and very un-fun. Frankly, it would never occur to me to accuse you of lying. I think your politics is ghastly and your store of facts empty, but I trust that you believe what you say you believe.

As I said, just a tip.

#78

re ISIS: "They have a million enemies and no friends."

I don't think this can be true. Wars cost money; even wars fought with less modern weapons cost a fair bit. I don't think ISIS could rob enough people to get enough money to conduct their campaigns. So, someone(s)must be backing them financially (albeit covertly).

There has been some effort to shut off money from the usual extremist Saudis, but ISIS captured a lot of territory, expropriates all property from minorities who leave, took hold of significant money in the national bank in Mosul(1), smuggles oil through Turkey and inherited huge quantities of weapons and stores from the disintegration of the national army in the north. And that's only Iraq. They've got significant resources to draw on. (Then again, they're also running a much more expensive and complicated operation than, say, Al-Qaeda.)

The good news is that they've expanded as far as they can go in Sunni-dominated areas. There are good reasons to believe they won't be able to take a hold large Shiite or Kurdish areas, especially against enemies with air support. But they've got a lot, and are now hunkering down to hold it. Air strikes in Syria aren't going to do much good now that they've repositioned their forces into heavily populated areas.

---

1. Initial reports from the regional governor had them taking hold of some $425M, but I think I saw there was some doubt about that.

Looting hasn't been able to keep an army in the field since the Middle Ages. Even if all of the ISIS fighters are willing to forego pay for the glory of the cause, there's the logistics of supplying ammunition, food, maintenence, etc. all of which incur significant costs.

If they're smuggling, then they have support, even if it's only buyers of the oil. But I suspect that's not the whole answer either.

Well, the other trick is moving the money, and paying for stuff. These day there isn't just "money."

I think I've made myself clear why I selectively respond to you. But I shall be clearer: Your posts are a mess. You throw around ideas, accusations, false facts and what-not like they were simultaneously the most important thing you've ever done and of no consequence whatsoever, because your posts won't stay focused on them. Your posts are a firehose of drivel, with a lot of spleen thrown in. They are exhausting, and they're boring.

Now and then I notice a nugget that I think debatable by rational people in a rational setting, with a fair chance of arriving somewhere. Usually it's a simple assertion which (I believe) is demonstrably false and upon which much of your view seems to hang. This procedure is perfectly defensible because, if you actually stand by an argument, you ought to stand by it piece-by-piece as well as all together. In this context, I find your whining about my refusal to engage everything you say everywhere rather childish.

> 85

Ricky Bobby - why can't you be nice - e.g., like me?

Utopianism is a religion to which anyone is entitled, sure, if that is his or her thing, but whaling on others for falling short of YOUR personal moral standards is counterproductive.

Time to take a pill and cut back on the caffeine.

86 Another lie. The last thing I was persistent about was the motive for US military engagement in Iraq. So I am not 'whining' about your refusal to engage everything I say everywhere. Your posts are arrrogant, selective, and dishonest, to keep it short. You do not support your arguments when they are challenged--you refuse to engage, and if I am persistent enough, you lie. This lie mentioned here is a fact, a favorite word of yours. And one can go up this post and through a bit of content analysis prove that you are, again, lying.

88 is not flaggable according to the TOS because the lie present above and is easily found.

More importantly, Iraq and oil. Spalding says the war could not have been about oil at all because look who has the oil. I discussed my objections to that line of thought.

Here is an easier one: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2011-04-23/surprise-surprise-iraq-war-was-abou...

I will quote the very beginning to get to the most pertinent points:

'Surprise, surprise! Iraq war was about oil
by Ray McGovern, originally published by CommonDreams | APR 23, 2011
Afghanistan may be the graveyard of empires, but Iraq is home to a graveyard sense of humor. Iraqis wonder aloud whether the U.S. and Britain would have invaded Iraq if its main export had been cabbages instead of oil.
However obvious the answer, a remarkable array of American pundits and pseudo-savants have resisted giving the oil factor any pride of place among the motives behind the U.S./U.K. decision to invade Iraq in 2003. To this day, the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) continue to play the accustomed role as government accomplice suppressing unwelcome news.
So, if you don’t tune in to Amy Goodman’s Democracy Now Link or read the British press, you will have missed the latest documentary evidence showing that Great Britain’s Lords and Ladies lied about how big oil companies, like BP, lusted after Iraqi oil in the months leading up to the attack on Iraq.

Oil researcher Greg Muttitt’s new book Fuel on Fire: Oil and Politics in Occupied Iraq presents that evidence, since Muttitt had better luck than American counterparts in getting responses to his Freedom of Information requests.
After a five-year struggle, he obtained more than 1,000 official documents which — how to say this — do not reflect well on the peerage, the captains of the oil industry, and the government of Tony Blair.
On April 19, the British Independent published a major story about these disclosures, which America’s FCM have avoided like the plague. "Secret memos expose link between oil firms and invasion of Iraq"
Quoting the released British documents, the Independent showed BP salivating over an expected windfall of Iraqi oil, with the saliva politely sponged up by Foreign Office functionaries. From the Independent:
“The Foreign Office invited BP in on 6 November 2002 to talk about opportunities in Iraq ‘post regime change.’ Its minutes state: ‘Iraq is the big oil prospect. BP is desperate to get in there.’ …
“Whereas BP was insisting in public that it had ‘no strategic interest’ in Iraq, in private it told the Foreign Office that Iraq was ‘more important than anything we’ve seen for a long time’ … it BP was willing to take ‘big risks’ to get a share of the Iraqi reserves, the second largest in the world.”'

86, Finally, Spalding, Which post is a mess, where is it a mess, and how do you come to the determination?

87, I agree about utopianism, and I admit to some strain of it tainting my views. I especially am prone to that utopian sunshiny wishful thinking of a world without babies killed by expensive and powerful weapons dropped from great distances by people who shouldn't be involved in their (the dead babies') parts of the world.

As for the morals of others, I am not sure what you mean. My objection is Spalding's lie in the case above. It is there for you to see. I insult with more flair, while your CEO postures like Rand Paul on Quaaludes. I argue before dismissing. The arrogant object of my ire dismisses before arguing.

At any rate, I would like the discussion to go beyond my personal responses to Spalding, but he has to stop lying first.

Or others can just go on with the discussion--that would be even better.

You decide what were the real motives for the invasion of Iraq by US, some ten years or a decade ago.

http://www.lobelog.com/iraq-war-motives-ten-years-later/

'Payback' makes 0 sense; if that were a motivation, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia (where most of the 9/11 attackers came from) or Pakistan (where they were trained).

Democracy makes even less sense; at no point in modern U.S. history has the U.S. government been concerned about 'democracy' in other nations; in fact, the U.S. has acted to PREVENT democracy on some occasions.

Oil and/or greater control of the region are the only motivations that make any rational sense.

I don't think payback can be entirely dismissed, because once the attacks on the US ocurred the president was virtually destined to go to war and quickly. Thus Afghanistan. After Afghanistan, there was a perceived opeing to obtain more. So revenge was certainly not a direct motive, but insofar as it was part of the motive for attacking Afghanistan it became a sort of vestigial motive for the attack on Iraq.

The problem with the Iraq for oil argument is that it is too simplistic, but in rather simply forums like this it is not so egregrious to take such shortcuts. I think most readers of #93 would understand 'Oil and/or greater control of the region' to be rather standard aspects of general US foreing policy motivations, business and its many requirements for 'success'. (And of course democracy elsewhere is not the best climate for US business success.)

#94

I don't follow your reasoning on payback. Criminals from Saudi Arabia, trained in Pakistan, commit a horrendous crime in the United States, and so the U.S. invades.... a completely uninvolved 3rd party. (It would make as much sense to invade Mozambique for the payback reasoning...) Afghanistan produces: pomegranates, heroin, and tribal warriors who have been the foundation for the secondary title for Afghanistan, 'the graveyard of empires'. None of those three things make the country worth invading.

Please don't confuse my argument or reasoning with my belief in right and wrong, especially in this instance. What I mean to say is that the attack on Afghanistan was revenge (payback), and it opened the door to the nonsense in Iraq, gave momentum to the US power elite's warmongering wing. I certainly agree with your presumption that it was absurd, and I think it is of profound importance that so many were from Saudi Arabia--without understanding that, it's impossible to learn from the event. The only thing I would quibble with is that though much support came from Pakistan I believe most of training in the run up to the attacks was done in Afghanistan. The other part of my argument was that it was inevitable, if wrong, that the US was going to war once the attacks occurred. So, I believe revenge was involved, but as with other reasons innate to the US empire it should not have led to either war in any way.
I don't know which is more ridiculous at this point, the US kowtowing to the Saudis, or bombing Pakistan at will without declaration of war.

>55 timspalding:
http://readersupportednews.org/news-section2/308-12/16561-focus-cheneys-hallibur...

This wasn't a war for "American" profit...it was a war for "personal" profit. BIG difference. We allowed the criminals to run the show and they made out pretty nicely.

I suppose "profit" from the Iraq war can be defined by some American's differently than others. Most of us, we lost far more than monetary wealth. We lost our faith in government, a sense of pride in not "starting" wars for "profit", the moral high ground in regards to torture and, we now live with the fact that though we mourn the loss of 4000 some American lives, we cost far more lives in the extensive "collateral" damage done to Iraqi citizens.
We allowed ourselves to become "afraid" and we are heading down the same path. No consequences for war criminals ? Why not ?

>96 RickHarsch:
Indeed. We could have dealt with Bin Laden in exactly the way he was dealt with, without all of the cost, both in lives and wealth. But, then, Bin Laden wasn't the point. He was the distraction.

War = Personal Profits + Unnecessary Death

Number of Death in all US wars.

http://www.militaryfactory.com/american_war_deaths.asp

+ listing of weapons used in all wars.

Just imagine the massive profits made.