American involvement in Syria: Theory or fact?

[Grieves]

Months ago, when I first discovered this site, I engaged in a discussion in regards to America's growing campaign, how the 'popular uprising' in Syria is actually a NATO/America-backed military campaign, with the US and other NATO forces directly funding, equipping, and colluding with terrorist organizations, funneling foreign fighters from Libya and other nearby nations into the country through Turkey. Back then it was just a conspiracy theory, that earned a fair bit of ridicule. How are we doing now, that all of these things are confirmed?

 

[Mick West]

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Like put up your original claim, the "ridicule", and the recent validation?

 

[Lost World]

I would say there has been some involvement, but probably not to the extent originally claimed by some when the conflict started.

At around the time of the Libyan conflict BBC Newsnight interviewed some US State dept guy on the wests involvement in 'encouraging' revolutions and coups, and he was quite candid and said that a fair amount of resource was allocated to training young people from Iran, Libya, Tunisia and Egypt on how to best use social networking media to spread anti regime ideas, and garner support for revolutionary movements. He stated it was always preferable certainly to democrat administrations to bring down undesirable regimes from within, with the support of the people, rather put together a clear military case based on national security concerns back home. It was certainly cheaper. The guest on Newsnight had been from the Bush Whitehouse. There has been no such candor from the Obama camp. I guess because they are now in power, his lot were not.

It's not unreasonable to assume there may have been a similar plan with regard to Syria, but the true and organic revolutionary movements in these countries should not be ignored. The Syrian uprising is different to say Egypt though, with more ruthless opposing factions fighting and foreign terrorist groups involved The attempted 'green revolution' in Iran in 2009 was by all accounts largely US funded and prompted. Of course that was quickly snapped down by the Iranian regime.

Obama's role in all of this is more ambiguous than his predecessors. The plans, in principle to take out these countries may have been suggested by a neo con think tank, prior to Bush being elected, but Obama knows there is little appetite for war on the home front. This is why he bypassed congress, went straight to NATO and the UN over Libya, and allowed Britain and France to appear to be leading the charge. Of course back then he needed to watch his step with a second term to fight for. That said, even now he appears quite reluctant to get involved militarily in Syria.

We're at a point where we're about to start arming these rebel groups, and I've said in the petrodollar thread, this is very dangerous. As soon as this conflict became an actual civil war I was saying that we would end up arming rebels, despite the claims at the time by the US and UK that that would not happen. So, who knows actual involvement on the ground is quite possible although not inevitable.

 

[Oxymoron]

Perhaps you could be a bit more specific? Like put up your original claim, the "ridicule", and the recent validation?

I think Grieves may be referring to this type of thing.

http://rt.com/shows/the-truthseeker/shocking-torture-footage-dictators-694/

Leaked new army manual: US troops are wearing "enemy uniform although Geneva Conventions prohibit this”. It comes as anti-Assad groups admit a “third force” sparked the war, while unexplained snipers triggered the coup in Egypt; Christof Lehmann tells The Truthseeker how the UN is the “instrument for warfare” preparing the ground for America's next colonies; shocking torture footage of the West's Arab dictators; and why the Saudis did 9/11.

Content from external source

See also topmost video on page.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline///shows/saudi/etc/script.html

Prince BANDAR BIN SULTAN: -the king of Saudi Arabia, telling him that, "Please, my brother, modernize. Open up your country. Make the schools mixed, women and men. Let women wear miniskirts. Have discos. Be modern, otherwise I cannot guarantee you will stay in your throne."

And the king of Saudi Arabia, King Faisal, used to write to the shah and say, "Your Majesty, I appreciate your advice. May I remind you, you are not the shah of France. You are not in the Elysee, you are in Iran. Your population is 90 percent Muslims. Please don't forget that."

NARRATOR: After a popular uprising tossed the shah off his throne in 1979, it was Islamic militants who took control. American diplomats seemed as surprised as the shah.

WILLIAM QUANDT, National Security Council, '72-'74, '77-'79: There was real anxiety that this was the beginning of a wave that would sweep across the Gulf and that Saudi Arabia might be next, or at least would be in line.

NARRATOR: William Quandt served on the National Security Council at the time.

WILLIAM QUANDT: It's bad enough to have Iran in turmoil, with the uncertainty there, but if it had spread further, it would have really been a disaster.

NARRATOR: The Saudis agreed to a huge arms build-up, based on sophisticated American weaponry. It coincided with an explosion in Saudi oil income. By 1981, Saudi oil revenues reached $116 billion a year.

The Saudi monetary agency had the daunting task of investing $4 million in oil revenue every hour, nearly a $100 million a day. Many of the petrodollars flowed to American construction and engineering firms, which cashed in on Saudi Arabia's rapid modernization.

WILLIAM QUANDT: The petrodollar explosion of the '70s, and then again in the early '80s, had a tremendous impact on the physical aspect of the country. All of the big infrastructural developments that one now associates with Saudi Arabia - the fancy hotels, the enormous airports, the fantastic road system - none of that existed 30 years ago. All of the infrastructure was radically rebuilt. It has physically transformed the landscape.

NARRATOR: The biggest purchases of all were military. It began with five advanced warning aircraft, or AWACS, and eventually a $5.6 billion "Peace Shield," a state-of-the-art command-and-control system for the Royal Saudi Air Force, with six underground command centers linking 147 defense-related sites. Since 1979, the sale of arms to Saudi Arabia has added up to more than $50 billion.

JAMES BAKER III, U.S. Secretary of State '89-'92: They buy our technology because it's the best. They buy our military equipment because it's the best. They buy from America because they want America present there, to the extent we can be in the kingdom, because we are their security.

Why are we their security? We're their security because we have a self-interest in making sure that those energy reserves in the Persian Gulf don't fall under the control of a- of an- of a country that is adverse to the United States.

Content from external source

 

[Boston]

The other day I had a few beers at the local pub. Talked to a guy who was military all the way, even pulled out a M&P 40. The guy said he was "sent home" from his 5th tour of duty in the middle east about two years ago and was looking forward to things heating up in Syria, said he had a lot of friends from his former unit already there and he really really wanted to join them. I've a long time friend who sounds just like him, although he's older and without a leg after his experiences in Viet Nam. He has the same "thrill of the kill" look as this guy did when discussing the issues of war and killing. I can say with all honesty I really hate what our military does to some people. although in this guys case the other day at the bar, they clearly deemed him unfit. Bloodthirsty does not make a good solder. In any case the part of our discussion about his desires to get to Syria came to mind when I read the recent post. I don't think this kid was lying about anything, he had a huge knowledge of weapons and military procedures ( I know a bunch of vets, although myself never joined up ) It seemed obvious he clearly said there were already guys from his former unit in Syria and it was obvious he knew of some avenue to request to reup with that specific unit, based, he said on his previous years of experience with them. Guy had a frightening gleam in his eye when he talked about various missions. Kinda sad actually but at least they got him out of there, I do hope he's getting some help so he can realize the importance of life again.

Cheers
B

 

[David Fraser]

Some ex military tend to give the impression they are akin to insider knowledge when they are not. I think it makes them feel part of something they are missing. I tend to take their comments with a pinch of salt.

 

[Pete Tar]

... How are we doing now, that all of these things are confirmed?

What has been confirmed? Is there a good timeline/overview of the situation that states the relevant facts?

 

[SR1419]

I think Grieves may be referring to this type of thing.

I am curious, OxyM, when you watch a video like that- do you believe it word for word? Or do you apply equal skepticism to that "report" as you would a BBC report?

Has anyone seen the "leaked army manual" in question? They supposedly hold a copy of it up but I cannot find it anywhere on the interweb. The only references to it appear to be referring to the report. They flash a "source" on screen during the report - "25shared.com" but that does not appear to be an actual website.

Can anyone find it?


As for Syria, I am sure the US is involved its just a question of to what extent and in what form.

 

[Oxymoron]

I am curious, OxyM, when you watch a video like that- do you believe it word for word? Or do you apply equal skepticism to that "report" as you would a BBC report?

Has anyone seen the "leaked army manual" in question? They supposedly hold a copy of it up but I cannot find it anywhere on the interweb. The only references to it appear to be referring to the report. They flash a "source" on screen during the report - "25shared.com" but that does not appear to be an actual website.

Can anyone find it?


As for Syria, I am sure the US is involved its just a question of to what extent and in what form.

Tricky. It was leaked. I'll have a go for you.

Here is one in same format but not the same document.

http://www.constcivmilitia.org/manuals/22556899SpecialForcesTrackingCounterTracking.pdf

Here is another... looks interesting... will give that a look. May even be the one. If not it's very similar.

http://www.al-akhbar.com/sites/default/files/pdfs/Special_Forces_Report.pdf

http://www.examiner.com/article/sec...anual-exposes-the-use-of-terrorism-techniques

It’s been described as “Americans handbook on state terrorism” by Russian foreign intelligence officials. It is basically a US military training manual used extensively by US Special Forces at Ft. Bragg, N.C. As such it is a secret manual not intended for the public. It carries an ominous warning:

Content from external source

According to a friend in Russia a copy sits in the library of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) Headquarters building in Moscow.

The manual details a list of approved terrorism techniques, including:

Enabling a resistance movement or insurgency entails the development of an underground and guerrilla forces..."

Page 7: Definition of Insurgency: "An organized movement aimed at the overthrow of a constituted government through use of subversion and armed conflict. Code: JP 3-05"

Section 1-22: "1-22. A genuine willingness to collaborate and cooperate with the United States must exist within the leadership of the indigenous force."

“Terrorism by any other name is still terrorism”, say Bill Pastor of Charlotte, N.C., when describing information found in a US military training manual. “It’s a playbook for how to over throw a government. What is interesting if these techniques where used in America against the federal government it would be termed terrorism”, he said.

A complete copy of the secret manual can be found at the website Public Intelligence:

http://info.publicintelligence.net/USArmy-UW.pdf

Content from external source

Did you like the 'other stuff' in the report. Fairplay to PBS doing an expose.

Edit: Yep it's on page 52.

Conventions typically entitle U.S. Soldiers to PO
W status. However, certain conduct may cause U.S.
Soldiers to lose that protected st
atus, primarily through concealing thei
r status as U.S. Soldiers using
nonstandard uniforms or civilian
clothing, or committing acts of
treachery or disloyalty. In a
noninternational armed conflict, under customary in
ternational law, Common Article 3 should entitle
U.S. Soldiers with its minimum protections. Howeve
r, SF units planning and engaging in UW operations
should understand the possibility that
, depending on their particular ci
rcumstances, a given nation may
subject them to ordinary criminal jurisdiction.

Content from external source

 

[xenon]

The past involvement will be debated long after the US/NATO drives Assad out of the country (or into the ground). The present Syria must fall, because it represents an alternative. There must be no alternatives.

And here is last weeks news:

Obama to move forward with plan to arm Syrian rebels
Brianna Kielar, Jessica Yellin and Tom Cohen, CNN
updated 6:56 AM EDT, Wed July 24, 2013

Washington (CNN) -- Reluctant approval from Congress for providing military support to Syrian rebels allows the Obama administration to move forward with plans first announced almost six weeks ago.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters on Tuesday that the goal of the military aid expected to include small arms, ammunition and perhaps anti-tank weapons is to keep the Syrian opposition going against forces aligned with President Bashar al-Assad's regime.

Noting al-Assad's forces have been helped by Hezbollah in Lebanon as well as Iran, Carney said Syrian rebels need the help of the United States and allied nations to withstand an increased assault...snipped more​

http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/23/politics/us-syrian-rebels

So whatever has happened, we're now arming the "rebels"

What do Libya and Syria (and Serbia) have in common? Answer that question and you will have the answer to why the US is now openly arming Syrian "Rebels" (who some say are Al Quida)

Syrian Rebels Tied to Al Qaeda Play Key Role in War - NYTimes.com
(requires nyt login)
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=...0XhWQ7BtK61r6KE8oHqFW7Q&bvm=bv.49784469,d.cGE
​

Cinnabon in Tripoli as Libya Opens Up to Foreign Business
After 42 years, the country formerly known as the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya is getting its first taste of consumer capitalism in an unlikely form: sweet, sticky cinnamon rolls. Cinnabon, the Atlanta-based bakery chain, is at the vanguard of a potential business boom in the North African country, which deposed dictator Muammar Qaddafi last year in a bloody civil war. In July the unit of Focus Brands became the first U.S. franchise to open since the revolution, with a two-level Tripoli outlet. It’s become a popular destination in a city with few diversions for residents...more snipped
http://www.businessweek.com/article...tripoli-as-libya-opens-up-to-foreign-business​

The process is called "Backing up Globalization with Military Might"
http://www.globalissues.org/article/448/backing-up-globalization-with-military-might

McDonald's Needs McDonnell Douglas to Flourish

An article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled "What the World Needs Now" tells it all. Illustrated by an American Flag on a fist it said, among other things: "For globalism to work, America can't be afraid to act like the almighty superpower that it is....The hidden hand of the market will never work without a hidden fist-McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps."

​

“The affirmative task we have now is to actually create a New World Order.”
— Vice President Joe Biden, April 5, 2013

 

[Boston]

Damn Xenon could you have possibly found a hotter girl to host that NWO hates Syria video.

 

[SR1419]

Tricky. It was leaked. I'll have a go for you.

Thanks- looks legit....unconventional warfare...ancient and thriving...

Curious though...you completely ignored the question put to you.

 

[mynym]

Damn Xenon could you have possibly found a hotter girl to host that NWO hates Syria video.

I've been trying to tell Ry Dawson and a few other Youtube types trying to analyze geopolitics to just have a girl sit next to them while they're talking. As far as educational videos go, it would work to draw in Team America, World Police. Just saying. Just look at the corporate media, where Katy Perry is basically doing recruitment videos for the military industrial complex/media ("Attention Walmart shoppers, there's a new war for you to buy into on aisle 9. Freedom fries available on aisle 11." Etc.).

Not to mention that she's probably about to have more fireworks shooting out of her boobs like a good patriotic girl and so forth.

But the reason people do that, it works. There are more than a few halfway decent philosophers and geopolitical analysts and so forth trying to educate people on the internet (in my opinion)... but there's still a sucker born every minute, mainly because we're mammals. So perhaps at some point people are going to have to take the marketing of their ideas into account, seems to me. Syria girl is able to take a short cut as far as the marketing goes but others can't.

 

[Cairenn]

And that is why I keep thinking government needs to be led by women. We are not ruled by hormones 24/7

But that is off topic.

I do wonder why the folks that dislike the US and UK government seem to excuse the dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad and others.

 

[mynym]

I do wonder why the folks that dislike the US and UK government seem to excuse the dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad and others.

Perhaps it's a hidden love affair with idealism and romanticism about democracy, so we like to think that our thugs and banksters/thieves and corrupt politicians should be different than other thugs and thieves. Plus our "Gangsters Inc." are often more powerful than other people's gangsters, so in some cases they're actually responsible or partly responsible for putting the other thugs and thieves in power in the first place. (E.g., someone that began as an apparent CIA asset like Saddam.)

I'm not crying myself to sleep over the decision to do away with Saddam later or the fact that "the base"/Al Qaeda are assassinated without trial if/when they reach the limit of their usefulness and so forth. To some extent, that's all just one gang of criminals, mercenaries and thieves vs. another. But there is a lot of "collateral damage"... perhaps more "collateral damage" and terror being created than other less refined and "base" gangs of thugs and thieves seeking power over others through terrorism being killed. (The real crime of "the base" seems to be a lack of refinement in the way that they seek to control others, unlike the banksters and so forth.)

Anyway, might as well try to stop "our" more refined gangsters and criminals or prevent their work from being done in my name by refusing to be incorporated into it. (And refusing to be incorporated into trying to find WMDs in Assad's underpants is not the equivalent of making excuses for Assad. Syria girl isn't even doing that, so far as I know.)

 

[mynym]

And that is why I keep thinking government needs to be led by women. We are not ruled by hormones 24/7

Sure they are, it's just a different type.

Would be interesting to go into that topic, maybe frame it or contrast it with the "hyper masculinity" typical to Islamist peasants and their mutilation of women... and then frame that as having something to do with the way that many have been headed to Syria to rape women and create conflict where there wasn't much. Once war is created, rape happens. It's like excrement in that way.

Nothing is ever really off topic, it's all connected. But... maybe we can pretend that heading off in that direction is off topic for the sake of keeping things organized in the bunker.

In any event, I hope Syria girl stays safe.

 

[Boston]

No shit, she's the first target of the terrorists/american operatives, the instant they find her. Brave girl if you ask me, and mind bending hot.

No GMO's and no IMF debt, no wonder the NWO is pissed off.

 

[Oxymoron]

I do wonder why the folks that dislike the US and UK government seem to excuse the dictators like Saddam, Gaddafi and Assad and others.

I wasn't aware that on this forum, critics of the 'western governments' excused such dictators in the general terms you imply. I would challenge you to quote me where you think I have, and would be very interested to see quotes from anyone else who has; as I must have missed them.

Much as you like to paint people on here who criticise the West as 'anti West' and 'anti capitalist', I do not find that to be the case and I strongly repudiate it on a personal level.

I agree very much with Mynym's post on it but to put it in baser words for disambiguation, I find it very telling that the tyrants, who you accuse people such as I of supporting, are the very people who powers such as the U.S/U.K trained, funded, supported and placed in positions of power in the first place; fully aware and silent on the vast excesses and crimes that they perpetrated against their own people. The Shah of Iran being a pretty well documented case in point, (despite the massive cover up and propaganda), but there are very many others, in fact most.

What makes it so terrible is the fact that the West is engaged in this whilst at the same time pretending to be holier than thou. A bit like the 'excesses' of the Church whilst raining down terror on the populace and claiming 'it is right and just and in Gods name'. I will challenge it in every way possible and do my best to ensure that when they break the ideals 'we' as a people have entrusted them to honour, it should not be overlooked.

I am curious, OxyM, when you watch a video like that- do you believe it word for word? Or do you apply equal skepticism to that "report" as you would a BBC report?

I question everything... it may not be to your timescale or liking but I assure you, it gets done to the limit of my capabilities.

 

[Oxymoron]

Thanks- looks legit....unconventional warfare...ancient and thriving...

Typical SR... try to discredit it... when you can't... (like the NSA spying), it means nothing. That type of propaganda may fly with some but fortunately not all. It is yet one more exposure of the corruption that the U.S Government is involved in, the regime changes and abuses and the total disregard of international law and conventions. But that's ok with you... you are 'exceptional' so it does not apply.

Curious though...you completely ignored the question put to you.

Likewise did you. I have addressed that now... perhaps you will reciprocate?

 

[SR1419]

Typical SR... try to discredit it... when you can't... (like the NSA spying), it means nothing. That type of propaganda may fly with some but fortunately not all. It is yet one more exposure of the corruption that the U.S Government is involved in, the regime changes and abuses and the total disregard of international law and conventions. But that's ok with you... you are 'exceptional' so it does not apply.


Likewise did you. I have addressed that now... perhaps you will reciprocate?

"discredit" what? I said it looked like a legitimate document. You are so hasty to confront that you fail to read for comprehension.

...it is in fact "unconventional" warfare....and thus would be found outside of any warfare convention. Tell me which Global combatants are adhering to international law and convention?

which government in the World is without corruption?

...and tell me where I said any of that was "ok"-

Yet again, you fail when you let your emotions get in the way of reasonable and rational dialog...instead you resort to attacking.

 

[Oxymoron]

I am curious, OxyM, when you watch a video like that- do you believe it word for word? Or do you apply equal skepticism to that "report" as you would a BBC report?

Has anyone seen the "leaked army manual" in question? They supposedly hold a copy of it up but I cannot find it anywhere on the interweb. The only references to it appear to be referring to the report. They flash a "source" on screen during the report - "25shared.com" but that does not appear to be an actual website.

To me the quote above is challenging the validity of the report... which I am not complaining about as it is perfectly reasonable to want to verify such a damning report. But I am sorry SR, I do see an overly defensive posture on your part which reaches far beyond this particular issue and appears to be a recurring theme in your posts. I understand and respect your loyalty to your Country but 'loyalty' should not be blind. Criticism of faults and failings are necessary as part of the checks and balances that improve our society. I accept 'improve' is a subjective view but I believe it is widely agreed that 'this type of action' is detrimental to the vast majority of people in the world, including Americans and the west in general. The same as torture and rendition is widely deemed a bad thing, (obviously not by all otherwise it would not go on).

"discredit" what? I said it looked like a legitimate document. You are so hasty to confront that you fail to read for comprehension.

And then went on with... "unconventional warfare...ancient and thriving...", as if it is no big deal, when clearly it is a big deal.

...it is in fact "unconventional" warfare....and thus would be found outside of any warfare convention. Tell me which Global combatants are adhering to international law and convention?

which government in the World is without corruption?

You are missing the point. It does go on and no Government is uncorrupted but that does not make it ok for 'the west/U.S' to blithely do it because others are. Where does it stop? As I have said before, 'we are supposed to be the good guys', leading by example etc. The moral ground is being lost more and more every day when these type of things go on.

I do not believe the so called 'War On Terror', will be won by becoming or behaving like terrorists. It simply means lost generations and suffering by the innocents.

I am not the enemy here SR and I am no pacifist but when 'we' foment insurrection/regime changes and set up puppet tyrants, when 'we' kill innocents and when we employ torture, (even by proxy), when we do not stand up and say... 'This is wrong'... we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting.

Sorry if it's a bit of a ramble but that's more or less how I see it.

 

[SR1419]

To me the quote above is challenging the validity of the report... which I am not complaining about as it is perfectly reasonable to want to verify such a damning report.

Then why mention it?

There were a lot of assertions in that report backed up by nothing more than random images and someone on the internet saying so.

I am sorry SR, I do see an overly defensive posture on your part which reaches far beyond this particular issue and appears to be a recurring theme in your posts.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion...even if its wrong.

You have repeatedly tried to pigeon-hole me as some blind flag waving patriot...when I am nothing of the sort. Just because I point out the bunk in your assertions and assumptions doesn't mean I think the US can do no wrong.

And then went on with... "unconventional warfare...ancient and thriving...", as if it is no big deal, when clearly it is a big deal.

Its no more a "big deal" than any other warfare taking place around the globe. The fact is this type of warfare has been going on for 1000s of years...and no doubt been actively pursued by the US military for decades or longer- and the release of some manual for it does not change any of that nor require feigned moral outrage to acknowledge it.

You are missing the point. It does go on and no Government is uncorrupted but that does not make it ok for 'the west/U.S' to blithely do it because others are. Where does it stop? As I have said before, 'we are supposed to be the good guys', leading by example etc. The moral ground is being lost more and more every day when these type of things go on.

You are welcome to this naive holier-than-thou philosophy...Whilst I never even hinted that corruption or war was "ok" -I am more of a realist. I would prefer no one fight. But if there is going to be fighting, I want to be on the winning team.

I am not the enemy here SR and I am no pacifist but when 'we' foment insurrection/regime changes and set up puppet tyrants, when 'we' kill innocents and when we employ torture, (even by proxy), when we do not stand up and say... 'This is wrong'... we are no better than the terrorists we are fighting.

"We" are not "better"...we are simply humans.

You do seem to be obsessive toward pointing out the US's shortcomings whilst ignoring the rest of the World's failings. I guess the top dog is always the easy target.

 

[Josh Heuer]

Then why mention it?

There were a lot of assertions in that report backed up by nothing more than random images and someone on the internet saying so.



You are certainly entitled to your opinion...even if its wrong.

You have repeatedly tried to pigeon-hole me as some blind flag waving patriot...when I am not nothing of the sort. Just because I point out the bunk in your assertions and assumptions doesn't mean I think the US can do no wrong.



Its no more a "big deal" than any other warfare taking place around the globe. The fact is this type of warfare has been going on for 1000s of years...and no doubt been actively pursued by the US military for decades or longer- and the release of some manual for it does not change any of that nor require feigned moral outrage to acknowledge it.




You are welcome to this naive holier-than-thou philosophy...Whilst I never even hinted that corruption or war was "ok" -I am more of a realist. I would prefer no one fight. But if there is going to be fighting, I want to be on the winning team.



"We" are not "better"...we are simply humans.

You do seem to be obsessive toward pointing out the US's shortcomings whilst ignoring the rest of the World's failings. I guess the top dog is always the easy target.

I think you're missing Oxy's point.

This snippet of one of recent posts kind of sticks out to me:

"I agree very much with Mynym's post on it but to put it in baser words for disambiguation, I find it very telling that the tyrants, who you accuse people such as I of supporting, are the very people who powers such as the U.S/U.K trained, funded, supported and placed in positions of power in the first place; fully aware and silent on the vast excesses and crimes that they perpetrated against their own people. The Shah of Iran being a pretty well documented case in point, (despite the massive cover up and propaganda), but there are very many others, in fact most.

What makes it so terrible is the fact that the West is engaged in this whilst at the same time pretending to be holier than thou. A bit like the 'excesses' of the Church whilst raining down terror on the populace and claiming 'it is right and just and in Gods name'. I will challenge it in every way possible and do my best to ensure that when they break the ideals 'we' as a people have entrusted them to honour, it should not be overlooked."

The point being that we live in a country that's just as bad or worse than what's out there (we fund terrorists and then fight terrorism etc) and there's corruption out there but in the far of all of this, our country tries to maintain the image of being the good guy. I personally think it makes us worse; very crooked indeed.

 

[SR1419]

I think you're missing Oxy's point.

No. OxyMoron's point was that I am supposedly an "overly defensive" flag waving patriot blind to the failings of the US government.

That is simply false.

if you want to moralize over Geo-politics- be my guest.

 

[Cairenn]

I think that Oxy and some others just dislike any authority other than theirs.

Have we supported nasty dictators? Yep we have. Have those opposed to us, supported equally nasty dictators? Yep. One HUGE difference, however, Americans and Brits have the RIGHT to speak out against that. The folks in the Soviet Union didn't have that right.

Folks DIED trying to leave Eastern Europe.

 

[Oxymoron]

I think that Oxy and some others just dislike any authority other than theirs.

Have we supported nasty dictators? Yep we have. Have those opposed to us, supported equally nasty dictators? Yep. One HUGE difference, however, Americans and Brits have the RIGHT to speak out against that. The folks in the Soviet Union didn't have that right.

Folks DIED trying to leave Eastern Europe.

Exactly... They didn't... now they do and it didn't take a war to do it.

What 'authority' do you possibly think I have exactly?

The reason why the U.S is getting criticised so much in particular, is because the U.S government is acting so badly NOW and is a military industrial complex run by banksters and the elite who are causing wars and unrest as well as poverty worldwide as well as poverty at home. It is rapidly turning into what the USSR, (maybe the Romans would be closer), used to be and then some. If you cannot see where it is headed, you must be blind.

Far from being on the 'winning side' as SR puts it, (which connotes if I am not mistaken, 'by any means and at any cost'), it is about as successful as the 'war on drugs'. All that is happening is more and more terrorists are being created because of the west's foreign policies. It makes us all less safe.

Recent events in Iraq (which had no Al Qaeda) attest to that, with the raid that released 500 political prisoners from 2 prisons.

I do not agree with this foreign policy and the unending wars with which the elite enrich themselves. It appears that you and SR do.

Much of your 'debunking' appears to be propaganda defending U.S foreign policy as well as giant corporations.

 

[SR1419]

Exactly... They didn't... now they do and it didn't take a war to do it.

Sure it did.

Forget your history already??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

 

[Josh Heuer]

Sure it did.

Forget your history already??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_War

Maybe YOU forgot your history.
From the same article...

The Cold War was so named because the two major powers—each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction—never met in direct military combat

Content from external source

It was military tension. Call it a war all you want but it was just name calling.

 

[SR1419]

Maybe YOU forgot your history.
From the same article...

The Cold War was so named because the two major powers—each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction—never met in direct military combat

Content from external source

It was military tension. Call it a war all you want but it was just name calling.

Name calling? Nice try.

You forgot the rest of the paragraph:

Instead, in their struggle for global influence they engaged in ongoingpsychological warfare and in regular indirect confrontations through proxy wars. Cycles of relative calm would be followed by high tension, which could have led to world war. The tensest times were during the Berlin Blockade (1948–1949), the Korean War (1950–1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban missile crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959–1975), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989), the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the "Able Archer" NATO military exercises(1983). The conflict was expressed through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to client states, espionage, massive propaganda campaigns, conventional and nucleararms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events (in particular the Olympics), and technological competitions such as the Space Race. The US and USSR became involved in political and military conflicts in the Third World countries of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. To alleviate the risk of a potential nuclear war, both sides sought relief of political tensions throughdétente in the 1970s.

Content from external source

 

[Josh Heuer]

Name calling? Nice try.

You forgot the rest of the paragraph:

Instead, in their struggle for global influence they engaged in ongoingpsychological warfare and in regular indirect confrontations through proxy wars. Cycles of relative calm would be followed by high tension, which could have led to world war. The tensest times were during the Berlin Blockade (1948–1949), the Korean War (1950–1953), the Suez Crisis (1956), the Berlin Crisis of 1961, the Cuban missile crisis (1962), the Vietnam War (1959–1975), the Yom Kippur War (1973), the Soviet war in Afghanistan (1979–1989), the Soviet downing of Korean Air Lines Flight 007 (1983), and the "Able Archer" NATO military exercises(1983). The conflict was expressed through military coalitions, strategic conventional force deployments, extensive aid to client states, espionage, massive propaganda campaigns, conventional and nucleararms races, appeals to neutral nations, rivalry at sports events (in particular the Olympics), and technological competitions such as the Space Race. The US and USSR became involved in political and military conflicts in the Third World countries of Latin America, Africa, the Middle East, and Southeast Asia. To alleviate the risk of a potential nuclear war, both sides sought relief of political tensions throughdétente in the 1970s.

Content from external source

Kind of splitting hairs here...the only actual fighting the soviets did in the Cold War had little to do with their right to speak out.

 

[Cairenn]

I think you find Russians disagreeing with that.

 

[mynym]

You are welcome to this naive holier-than-thou philosophy...Whilst I never even hinted that corruption or war was "ok" -I am more of a realist. I would prefer no one fight. But if there is going to be fighting, I want to be on the winning team.

Even from that perspective there isn't much of a "home base" or winning tribe and team to be on or come home to these days, though. And it's been this way for some time. For Americans, note the march of the bonus army and so forth all the way back after WWI. If they won the war... then what happened to the spoils? At least the ancients usually distributed the spoils and so forth, given what war is.

But in modern times apparently you can't win unless you're on the "team"/tribe/gang with the corrupt politicians and the banksters that are too big to fail?

You do seem to be obsessive toward pointing out the US's shortcomings whilst ignoring the rest of the World's failings. I guess the top dog is always the easy target.

America is one of the few nations where pointing out shortcomings might make a difference, the dog that's been put on a leash by the Constitution and the rule of law to some extent is not only an easy target... it's actually one of the few targets where saying something about shortcomings might make a difference due to the supposed existence of the rule of law.

Note those taking a more psychopathic or geopolitical perspective have tried to calculate things like that, from their perspective:

Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization. The Grand Chessboard

Content from external source

But back to your perspective... in what ways do you think that you're winning? Did the bonus army "win" the spoils of war... or were they actually still marching when they got home?

Their history:

Retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, one of the most popular military figures of the time, visited their camp to back the effort and encourage them.[1] On July 28, U.S. Attorney General William D. Mitchell ordered the veterans removed from all government property. Washington police met with resistance, shots were fired and two veterans were wounded and later died. Veterans were also shot dead at other locations during the demonstration. President Herbert Hoover then ordered the army to clear the veterans' campsite. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur commanded the infantry and cavalry supported by six tanks. The Bonus Army marchers with their wives and children were driven out, and their shelters and belongings burned. --Wikipedia

Content from external source

I could update the example to that of American soldiers coming back from war these days. They often try to grow drugs for free instead of using the psychotropics given to them by the military industrial complex and so forth... often wind up killing themselves, one way or another. Guess they didn't get the memo about being on the winning team. In the last case I read about the veteran was trying to grow some harmless drugs for free himself and then there was a SWAT Team raid on his house and all the rest of it, so then he wound up killing himself anyway. After all, there's no sense in being incorporated into the profits of Corrections Corporation of America in the land of the free.

Who is "winning" the wars being created by the moral degenerates of our ruling class and so... what does your philosophy or perspective of "I want to be on the winning team." really amount to in the end?

 

[Josh Heuer]

I think you find Russians disagreeing with that.

Please explain this.

 

[Cairenn]

This statement "Kind of splitting hairs here...the only actual fighting the soviets did in the Cold War had little to do with their right to speak out."

The Soviet military was very active during the Cold War.

The Mongolian People's Republic became involted in a border dispute with the Republic of China during the Pei-ta-shan Incident, Soviet Russian and Mongol forces attempted to occupy and raid Chinese territory, in response, a Chinese Muslim Hui cavalry regiment, the 14th Tungan Tungan Cavalry regiment was sent by the Chinese government to attack Mongol and Soviet positions.[15]...

Conventional military power showed its continued influence when the Soviet Union used its troops to invade Hungary in 1956 and Czechoslovakia in 1968 to suppress the democratic aspirations of their peoples and keep these countries within the Soviet regime. ...

This Sino-Soviet split erupted in 1967 when the Red Guard besieged the Soviet embassy in Beijing. Additional conflicts along the Sino-Soviet border followed in 1969. ...

his doctrine was used to justify the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979. In Afghanistan the Soviet forces met a fierce resistance from the Afghans who were supported by the CIA. Battling an opposition that relied on guerrilla tactics and asymmetric warfare, the massive Soviet war machine proved incapable of achieving decisive victories and the entire campaign quickly devolved into a quagmire not unlike that which the U.S. faced a decade earlier in the Vietnam War. After ten years of fighting at the cost of approximately 20 billion dollars a year (in 1986 United States dollars[16]) and 15,000 Soviet casualties, Gorbachev surrendered to public opinion and ordered troops to withdraw in early 1989.


Partisan wars in the Baltic States Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania Thousands of Baltic "forest brothers" wage a war of resistance against Soviet occupation. Major fighting ends in the late forties and early fifties. The last partisan, an Estonian, killed in 1974.


Hungarian Revolution Hungary The Red Army forcibly suppresses a Hungarian anti-Soviet revolt. Thousands of casualties—both civilian and military—are the result.


Sino-Soviet border conflict Sino-Soviet border A longstanding ideological feud between the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China] erupts into several occasions of inconclusive armed conflicts.

Content from external source

The Chinese committed several Air Regiments to Korea, and these were equipped with the Soviet-supplied MiG 15 fighters, however lack of training meant that the Chinese high command was anxious for Soviet pilots, some of whom were already in China tasked with training the pilots for the Chinese air force.[9] Frustrated by the quality and shortage of Chinese pilots, in April 1951, Stalin took the decision to involve Soviet airforce pilots in the war, flying under the markings of the Chinese People's Liberation Army Air Force (PLAAF) or North Korean Peoples' Army Air Force (KPAAF).

In addition to the widely known MiG-15 force of 64th Fighter Corps, there were also significant anti-aircraft gun, searchlight and technical units despatched to Korea as part of the same unit.[7]

Content from external source

 

[Josh Heuer]

Great, now please explain how those incidents have to do with Russians being able to speak out now.

 

[Cairenn]

So you think they can now? they can't, Have you heard about the group, Pussy Riot? I guess not.

 

[Josh Heuer]

I never said they could. here's how this all started:

Exactly... They didn't... now they do and it didn't take a war to do it.

To which you brought up people in Eastern Europe dying and SR backed you up using the Cold War as reference.
So what exactly are you arguing here? That it did take a war for people to have the right to speak out, and also that they don't have that right?


ps - topic =Syria, which we're on and off talking about supplying arms to rebel factions in

 

[Oxymoron]

So you think they can now? they can't, Have you heard about the group, Pussy Riot? I guess not.

What has Pussy Riot got to do with anything. They are complete nutters... have you ever heard their rantings? They could all have been set free if they had recanted. One did and is now free. The others haven't got long to go.

Like to see what would happen to them in the U.S if they went into a church and did what they did.

 

[Cairenn]

Maybe YOU forgot your history.
From the same article...

The Cold War was so named because the two major powers—each possessing nuclear weapons and thereby threatened with mutual assured destruction—never met in direct military combat

Content from external source

It was military tension. Call it a war all you want but it was just name calling.

We were responding to your comment that the Cold War was just a 'military tension'. Both sides used proxies to challenge each other, Korea and Viet Nam are good examples.

To Oxy, if someone like Pussy Riot did that in the US, they would be arrested for trespassing, maybe disturbing the peace. They would each pay a small fine and that's all.

I find it interesting that you seem to be excusing Putin, who a virtual dictator. You do that a lot. I wonder why?


http://occupiedstories.com/forgive-...st-outside-trinity-church-on-wall-street.html

Back to the Catholic Church Protest…

Sunday 9AM… as soon as we set foot on the city block owned by the church, the police came over to make sure that we knew all of the rules and followed them. We could not block people from walking on the sidewalk and we could not go on the private property. Everything else was pretty much common sense. As long as we stayed on the sidewalk they had no problem.

The police were very nice but 4 squad cars did seem like overkill. I guess they wanted to be ready if we decided to storm the castle. Maybe the police were there to protect us from the catholics :) .

Content from external source

http://www.skepticmoney.com/catholic-church-protest/

http://www.oregonlive.com/portland/index.ssf/2011/10/protesters_demonstrate_against.html

 

[Oxymoron]

We were responding to your comment that the Cold War was just a 'military tension'. Both sides used proxies to challenge each other, Korea and Viet Nam are good examples.

To Oxy, if someone like Pussy Riot did that in the US, they would be arrested for trespassing, maybe disturbing the peace. They would each pay a small fine and that's all.

I find it interesting that you seem to be excusing Putin, who a virtual dictator. You do that a lot. I wonder why?

I don't recall defending Putin. I would however suggest that he is no more a dictator than Bush or Obama, especially as there was less controversy around his election than Bush's. But no, he doesn't inspire me with any confidence but then again I can't really think of any that have other than Churchill, Maggie and Ron Paul. I did think that Obama would be good but he changed as soon as he gained office. Blair fooled me for a while but then showed his true colours. But that's just my opinion.