Comments 1 - 29 of 29 Search these comments
HydroCabron
2015 Jan 5, 12:36pm
Good to read.
Krauthammer is as insightful here as he was on the Iraq War.
FortWayne
2015 Jan 5, 3:40pm
Normalization has not advanced democracy in China or Vietnam.
Advance Democracy is a euphemism code word for "we want to bomb your country and take over it's government and resources."
Obama or the rest of our government doesn't actually care to advance "Democracy". Besides we are not even a Democracy, we are a Republic. Democracy is the last thing this government actually wants.
indigenous
2015 Jan 5, 6:48pm
Krauthammer is Nate the Neoconservative.
Krauthammer is not a neoconservative, he did advocate the Iraq war for reasons of stopping Sadam. I disagree with that. Other that he advocates nonintervention.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 5, 7:02pm
Oh? Just because of an article about Cuba? Because he denies that he is like all the other wrong losers do?
HydroCabron
2015 Jan 5, 7:07pm
Other that he advocates nonintervention.
He began to advocate nonintervention at 10 a.m. on January 21st, 2009.
Except when Obama was against intervention. Then Krauthammer was all for it.
Krauthammer is Nate the Neoconservative.
I see you are back excusing the Muslim/Arab world's massive dysfunction onto the Neocons and America again.
Speaking of which. This should be getting more headlines. Hope Egypt's al-Sisi can survive the Muslim Brotherhood as he speaks some hard truths about Islam's problems to a major audience.
But it will be too easy for many Muslims to believe (as you and Bgmall do?) that it's America and Israel's fault they are so backwards.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/egyptian-president-calls-for-religious-revolution-in-islam/
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 5, 7:11pm
I see you are back excusing the Muslim/Arab world's massive dysfunction onto the Neocons and America again.
Until we bomb Saudi Arabia, we're only taking cough suppressant for Lung Cancer.
Until we bomb Saudi Arabia, we're only taking cough suppressant for Lung Cancer.
I see. Until we bomb Mecca, we are going to rhetorically bomb America and Israel blaming them for wrecking the Muslim world?
That doesn't make much sense to me.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 5, 7:24pm
I see. Until we bomb Mecca, we are going to rhetorically bomb America and Israel blaming them for wrecking the Muslim world?
Why Mecca? I was thinking more like Riyadh.
Droning some dumb sheepF!ckers in the hills of Yemen don't do shit.
Natl. Review again! HA!HA!HA!
The best foreign policy, everyone has WMD.
Why Mecca? I was thinking more like Riyadh.
Droning some dumb sheepF!ckers in the hills of Yemen don't do shit.
Understood. Just curious why you would post cartoons essentially blaming Islam's dysfunction on Neocons.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 5, 8:19pm
Understood. Just curious why you would post cartoons essentially blaming Islam's dysfunction on Neocons.
Saddam certainly had a lid on Fundamentalists when he was in charge.
USG can't justify letting Mubarak skate scot free and back Sisi, while claiming getting rid of Saddam was somehow an important part of the GWOT.
Saddam certainly had a lid on Fundamentalists when he was in charge.
Right - instead of Jihadis busy killing each other in the Middle East as they have been doing since we responded after 9/11. The Jihadis were free to attack the WTC in 1993, blow up our embassies in Africa, almost sink the USS Cole, attack western tourists in Bali, Phillipines, Egypt........and ultimately pull off the biggest attack in US history on 9/11.
Saddam and the ruling Arab leaders certainly had a lid on the fundamentalists! They successfully projected Islam's dysfunction on to Western targets and kept their ruling families safe.
FortWayne
2015 Jan 6, 1:52pm
Saddam and the ruling Arab leaders certainly had a lid on the fundamentalists! They successfully projected Islam's dysfunction on to Western targets and kept their ruling families safe.
Well now, they all hate our guts and probably will for generations. I believe it all started with sanctions on Iraq, everything went down hill from there.
It's a stupid policy that we think sanctioning countries is going to hurt government, it only hurts people who as result eventually retaliate. We are making a lot of people very angry right now all over the world.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 1:53pm
Saddam and the ruling Arab leaders certainly had a lid on the fundamentalists! They successfully projected Islam's dysfunction on to Western targets and kept their ruling families safe.
Saddam involved with attacks? Let's see:
Let's see, WTC Bombing #1
Khalid Sheik Mohammed, Mastermind. Born Kuwait.
Ramzi Yousef - born Kuwait.
Mahmud Abouhalima - born Egypt.
Mohammed A. Salameh - born Palestine.
Abdul Rahman Yasin - born in the USA.
Ahmed Ajaj - born Palestine
African Embassy Bombings
Fazul Abdullah Mohammed - born Comoros Islands
Abdullah Ahmed Abdullah - born Egypt
Ayman al-Zawahiri - born Egypt
USS Cole
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri - Saudi Arabia
Qaed Salim Sinan al-Harethi - Yemeni
Fahd al-Quso - Yemen
Jamal Ahmad Mohammad Al Badawi - Yemeni
And of course, the big one, 9/11:
Osama bin Laden - born Saudi Arabia. Family is one of the richest, most powerful families in the Kingdom and the World.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks
socal2 says
Mostly Gulf Staters (esp. "Allies" Saudi Arabia and Kuwait), #2 Highest Recipient of US taxpayer aid for decades, the Egyptians, and some Yemenis. I see no Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc.
HydroCabron
2015 Jan 6, 1:58pm
Mostly Gulf Staters (esp. "Allies" Saudi Arabia and Kuwait), #2 Highest Recipient of US taxpayer aid for decades, the Egyptians, and some Yemenis. I see no Iranians, Iraqis, Afghanis, etc.
No, you don't get it: You see, Saddam forced their parents to not live in Iraq, so that they'd be born in other countries and grow up to be terrorists to attack the United States.
Saddam involved with attacks? Let's see:
I didn't say that. You were stating that Saddam kept a lid on the Fundamentalists.
Now why were we in Saudi Arabia before 9/11? Enforcing UN sanctions and the no-fly zones to keep Saddam from comitting more genocide against the Kurds and Shia.
Getting rid of Saddam allowed US troops to get out of Saudi Arabia.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 2:09pm
I didn't say that. You were stating that Saddam kept a lid on the Fundamentalists.
He sure did, he expelled Abu Nidal and never supported any attacks on the US. We gave him a pile of cash and arms in the 80s. Ghaddafi did as well - until we started supporting fundies to overthrow him. So did Assad.
Now why were we in Saudi Arabia before 9/11? Enforcing UN sanctions and the no-fly zones to keep Saddam from comitting more genocide against the Kurds and Shia.
Iraq attacked because Kuwait was Side-drilling, violating OPEC production quotas, and it was discovered Kuwait played both sides in the Iran-Iraq war. Saddam asked us if he could retaliate against Kuwait, and we gave a nebulous answer Saddam took as a "Green Light" Obviously, there was a "Failure to Communicate" since an invasion of all of Kuwait was unexpected.
http://middleeast.about.com/od/iraq/a/me071209c.htm
A big DC Lobbyist firm employed by Kuwait then invented stories about babies in incubators.
He sure did, he expelled Abu Nidal and never supported any attacks on the US. We
gave him a pile of cash and arms in the 80s.
First - Abu Nidal was found shot to death in Baghdad a few months before the 2003 invasion. Prior to that, he was free to roam around as a guest in Iraq.
Second - Abu Abbas (mastermind of the Achile Lauro terrorist attack) was also free to roam around Iraq and was ultimately captured by US troops in 2004. So was Zarqawi and numerous other Sunni jihadis.
Again, I am not saying that Saddam was behind 9/11. I'm just disputing your notion (from the cartoon) that everything in the Muslim/Arab world was just fine until the Neocons liberated Iraq from Saddam.
All the trends showed the Muslim/Arab world getting more and more radicalized over the last 3 decades. Islam is in a desperate need for some sort of reformation.
But that reformation will not happen if Westerners like you constantly give excuses for fundamentalists (or Saddam or Assad) blaming the Muslim/Arab world's problems on America.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 2:49pm
First - Abu Nidal was found shot to death in Baghdad a few months before the 2003 invasion. Prior to that, he was free to roam around as a guest in Iraq.
The Palestinians believe he was killed by Saddam. Saddam said he committed suicide in prison. Saddam expelled him in the early 80s as a token of appreciation for US Aid.
Second - Abu Abbas (mastermind of the Achile Lauro terrorist attack) was also free to roam around Iraq and was ultimately captured by US troops in 2004. So was Zarqawi and numerous other Sunni jihadis.
The latter entered Iraq to help the insurgents. The majority of foreign fighters - after much teeth pulling on the Pentagon - was revealed to be Saudi in Origin, with Egypt also high on the list. See a pattern here?
Abbas was in Iraq, sheltered from Italian justice. One guy isn't much of a big deal, and in the context of all Arabs believing the Palestinian cause is just, not much in the way of terror supporting.
However, none of these guys committed terrorism on orders by Saddam, and none of them were Iraqi nationals.
Contrast to Saudi Arabia, which funds Madrassahs worldwide - including textbooks in the US - that justify violence against infidels and consider Jihad against them a Duty, to the tune of billions, creating terrorist after terrorist.
All the trends showed the Muslim/Arab world getting more and more radicalized over the last 3 decades. Islam is in a desperate need for some sort of reformation.
The Reformation in Europe was followed by a hundred year's war of massive religious violence. Why should we expect Islam not to have to go through the same process? Let them kill each other until they exhaust themselves and embrace tolerance in desperation. Helping one side only gives all Muslim parties a common enemy.
As I mentioned previously, the Muslim Brotherhood elected government of Egypt was doing a fine job of making itself look ridiculous by itself. It promised the moon, but was as corrupt, inefficient, and couldn't do anything worthwhile than pass stringent religious restrictions Joe Average didn't want.
Had it fallen on it's own, it would be an internal Egyptian thing. Since we got ants in our pants and sponsored Sisi, we look like the foreign interfering bad guy again.
Whoever is on top at any given moment doesn't matter, since without selling oil to their #1 customer, they're screwed.
Saddam expelled him in the early 80s as a token of appreciation for US Aid.
Saddam expelled him in the 80's - yet Abu Nidal ends up dead in Iraq in 2003?
The Reformation in Europe was followed by a hundred year's war of massive
religious violence. Why should we expect Islam not to have to go through the
same process? Let them kill each other until they exhaust themselves and embrace
tolerance in desperation.
I agree. So why are you posting cartoons blaming their internal wars on the West or neocons?
As I mentioned previously, the Muslim Brotherhood elected government of Egypt
was doing a fine job of making itself look ridiculous by itself. It promised the
moon, but was as corrupt, inefficient, and couldn't do anything worthwhile than
pass stringent religious restrictions Joe Average didn't want.
Had it fallen on it's own, it would be an internal Egyptian thing. Since we
got ants in our pants and sponsored Sisi, we look like the foreign interfering
bad guy again.
Yes, we've seen how this plays out in reality. The Islamist nutters no matter how unpopular have all the guns and monopoly on violence and stay in power forever.
- Iranian Mullahs in power for over a quarter century
- Taliban in Afghanistan
- Saddam in power for 3 decades despite being hated by 2/3 of the Iraqis
- ISIS beheading their way into controling massive cities in Syria and Iraq.
Who is complaining in Egypt other than Muslim Brotherhood types?
IRT - this is some more good news thanks to Al-Sisi in Egypt.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2015/01/06/has-the-head-of-hamas-been-kicked-out-of-qatar/
FortWayne
2015 Jan 6, 3:25pm
Yes, we've seen how this plays out in reality. The Islamist nutters no matter how unpopular have all the guns and monopoly on violence and stay in power forever.
This wasn't the case, Iraq was a very prosperous state in the past without terrorism. Years of sanctions have crippled the region, and now it is what it is, and they all hate our guts.
This wasn't the case, Iraq was a very prosperous state in the past without
terrorism. Years of sanctions have crippled the region, and now it is what it
is, and they all hate our guts.
Who is "they"? The millions of Shia and Kurds (majority of Iraq) hate us for getting rid of their former slave master (Saddam)?
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/03/the-iraq-war-was-a-good-idea-if-you-ask-the-kurds/274196/
I know that many Iraqi Sunnis hate us for eliminating their dictatorial rule, but they are the minority population in Iraq and not too deserving of sympathy.
In terms of Iraq being prosperous - it was prosperous if you were a Sunni or part of Saddam's clan. Not so much for the majority Shia/Kurds who were getting gassed and ethnically cleansed by Saddam.
FortWayne
2015 Jan 6, 4:57pm
Who is "they"? The millions of Shia and Kurds (majority of Iraq) hate us for getting rid of their former slave master (Saddam)?
No, they hate us because their lives suck right now, due to constant bombings many of them live in a bloody stone age, and their local propaganda has easy time blaming us for all their problems.
When I talk to soldiers who return from there, they all say pretty much the same thing... even little children out there hate us. There are only a few places where they tolerate our presence and that's only if their locals can sell to us.
I don't think that is the outcome anyone wanted, but that's what it became. I do not believe there will be an easy way out of this for anyone.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 5:38pm
Saddam expelled him in the 80's - yet Abu Nidal ends up dead in Iraq in 2003?
Or, he invited him back in 2002, to kill him as a sign of submission in light of the long discussed potential invasion of Iraq.
I agree. So why are you posting cartoons blaming their internal wars on the West or neocons?
That cartoon above is about the neocon perception of reality.
Yes, we've seen how this plays out in reality. The Islamist nutters no matter how unpopular have all the guns and monopoly on violence and stay in power forever.
- Iran : Rural Hicks dominate. Too many people remember the Shah, who internally was more brutal than any Ayatollah.
- Taliban: Decades of letting the Pakis and Saudis direct their money - and ours - to their Pushtun friends. Afghanistan has never been modern. Waving the American magic Technoutopia Neoliberal wand won't fix it. Time will.
- Iraq: Saddam was a pretty damn secular ruler, who took control of the secular Ba'ath party (a similar party backed Assad) that included both Muslims and Christians, so this is a bad example.
- ISIS: Leadership and Money from Saudi Arabia. The whole of the insurgency was Wahabi-led and financed from the Gulf States. Pentagon and State keep it on the down low because Saudi money fuels US politics, probably 2nd only in power to the Israel lobby - maybe more powerful.
Sisi let Mubarak walk, who killed a shitload of democracy protesters, not all of them Muslim Brotherhood. I've already posted the video of Jen Psaki looking like an idiot trying to direct all questions to the Egyptian government and refusing to state any kind of position.
The US MSM may be subservient, but plenty of people around the world have noted the US support for the Shah, the US support for Bahrain crushing their protests, and of course the foundational intervention, the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadeq and replacing him with the shah in the first place.
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 5:48pm
Saddam expelled him in the 80's - yet Abu Nidal ends up dead in Iraq in 2003?
Or, he invited him back in 2002, to kill him as a sign of submission in light of the long discussed potential invasion of Iraq.
I agree. So why are you posting cartoons blaming their internal wars on the West or neocons?
That cartoon above is about the neocon perception of reality.
Yes, we've seen how this plays out in reality. The Islamist nutters no matter how unpopular have all the guns and monopoly on violence and stay in power forever.
- Iran : Rural Hicks dominate. Too many people remember the Shah, who internally was more brutal than any Ayatollah.
- Taliban: Decades of letting the Pakis and Saudis direct their money - and ours - to their Pushtun friends. Afghanistan has never been modern. Waving the American magic Technoutopia Neoliberal wand won't fix it. Time will.
- Iraq: Saddam was a pretty damn secular ruler, who took control of the secular Ba'ath party (a similar party backed Assad) that included both Muslims and Christians, so this is a bad example.
- ISIS: Leadership and Money from Saudi Arabia. The whole of the insurgency was Wahabi-led and financed from the Gulf States. Pentagon and State keep it on the down low because Saudi money fuels US politics, probably 2nd only in power to the Israel lobby - maybe more powerful.
Sisi let Mubarak walk, who killed a shitload of democracy protesters, not all of them Muslim Brotherhood. I've already posted the video of Jen Psaki looking like an idiot trying to direct all questions to the Egyptian government and refusing to state any kind of position.
The US MSM may be subservient, but plenty of people around the world have noted the US support for the Shah, the US support for Bahrain crushing their protests, and of course the foundational intervention, the overthrow of democratically elected Mossadeq and replacing him with the shah in the first place.
In terms of Iraq being prosperous - it was prosperous if you were a Sunni or part of Saddam's clan. Not so much for the majority Shia/Kurds who were getting gassed and ethnically cleansed by Saddam.
CDC and the "American Type Culture Collection" organization sent samples of Anthrax, gas gangrene, West Nile Cirus to Iraq in the 80s.
The exports were legal at the time and approved under a program administered by the Commerce Department.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/bal-te.bioweapons01oct01-story.html
The British built them a mustard gas factory, "Fallujah 2" in the 80s. Yep, the British gave Saddam the production plant for the gas they used on the Kurds and Iranians.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/mar/06/uk.iraq
A UN Resolution condemning the use of Chemical Weapons in Iraq has only one no vote - Uncle Sam
http://www.grassrootspeace.org/counter-dossier.html
Great timeline of US assistance to Saddam, including Chem/Bio and intel assistance.
http://www.casi.org.uk/info/usdocs/usiraq80s90s.html#seventeen
MisdemeanorRebel
2015 Jan 6, 5:58pm
Saddam expelled him in the 80's - yet Abu Nidal ends up dead in Iraq in 2003?
Or, he invited him back in 2002, to kill him as a sign of submission in light of the long discussed potential invasion of Iraq.
Which worked by the way:
in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)
http://www2.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/
Donald Rumsfeld shakes hands with Saddam, 1983.
There's an old Cold War joke — pre-pantyhose — that to defeat communism we should empty our B-52 bombers of nuclear weapons and instead drop nylons over the Soviet Union. Flood the Russians with the soft consumer culture of capitalism, seduce them with Western contact and commerce, love bomb them into freedom.
We did win the Cold War, but differently. We contained, constrained, squeezed, and eventually exhausted the Soviets into giving up. The dissidents inside subsequently told us how much they were sustained by our support for them and our implacable pressure on their oppressors.
The logic behind President Obama's Cuba normalization, assuming there is one, is the nylon strategy. We tried 50 years of containment and that didn't bring democracy. So let's try inundating them with American goods, visitors, culture, contact, commerce.
It's not a crazy argument. But it does have its weaknesses. Normalization has not advanced democracy in China or Vietnam. Indeed, it hasn't done so in Cuba. Except for the U.S., Cuba has had normal relations with the rest of the world for decades. Tourists, trade, investment from Canada, France, Britain, Spain, everywhere. An avalanche of nylons — and not an inch of movement in Cuba toward freedom.
In fact, one could argue that this influx of Western money has helped preserve the dictatorship, as just about all the financial transactions go through the government, which takes for itself before any trickle-down crumbs are allowed to reach the regime-indentured masses.
My view is that police-state control of every aspect of Cuban life is so thoroughly perfected that outside influences, whether confrontational or cooperative, only minimally affect the country's domestic trajectory.
So why not just lift the embargo? After all, the unassailable strategic rationale for isolating Cuba — in the Soviets' mortal global struggle with us, Cuba enlisted as a highly committed enemy beachhead 90 miles from American shores — evaporated with the collapse of the Soviet empire. A small island with no significant independent military capacities, Cuba became geopolitically irrelevant.
That's been partially reversed in the last few years as Vladimir Putin has repositioned Russia as America's leading geopolitical adversary and the Castros signed up for that coalition too. Cuba has reportedly agreed to reopen the Soviet-era Lourdes espionage facility, a massive listening post for intercepting communications. Havana and Moscow have also discussed the use of Cuban airfields for Russia's nuclear-capable long-range bombers.
This in addition to Cuba's usual hemispheric mischief, such as training and equipping the security and repression apparatus in Venezuela.
No mortal threat, I grant you. And not enough to justify forever cutting off Cuba. But it does raise the question: With the U.S. embargo already in place and the Castros hungry to have it lifted, why give them trade, investment, hard currency, prestige, and worldwide legitimacy — for nothing in return?
Obama brought back nothing on democratization, a staggering betrayal of Cuba's human-rights crusaders. No free speech. No free assembly. No independent political parties. No hint of free elections. Not even the kind of 1975 Helsinki Final Act that we got from the Soviets as part of detente, granting structure and review to human-rights promises. These provided us with significant leverage in supporting the dissident movements in Eastern Europe that eventually brought down communist rule.
If Obama insisted on giving away the store, why not at least do it item by item? We relax part of the embargo in return for, say, Internet access. And tie further normalization to serial relaxations of police-state repression.
Oh, what hypocrisy, say the Obama acolytes. Did we not normalize relations with China and get no human rights quid pro quo?
True. But that was never a prospect. The entire purpose was geopolitical and the payoff was monumental: We walked away with the most significant anti-Soviet strategic realignment of the entire Cold War, formally breaking up the communist bloc and gaining China's neutrality, and occasional support, in our half-century struggle to dismantle the Soviet empire.
From Cuba, Obama didn't even get a token gesture. Not even a fig leaf such as, say, withdrawal of secret police support in Venezuela. Or extradition of American criminals now fugitive in Cuba, including a notorious cop killer. Did we even ask?
Obama seems to believe that the one-way deal was win-win. A famous victory — the Cuba issue is now behind us. A breakthrough.
Indeed it is. You know how to achieve a breakthrough in tough negotiations? Give everything away. Try it. You'll have a deal by noon. Every time.
— Charles Krauthammer is a nationally syndicated columnist. © 2014 The Washington Post Writers Group
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/395606/nylons-nothing-charles-krauthammer?
#politics