« "A Ramble on Hillary" By Richard Sale | Main | 81% 0f Americans oppose the $38 billion military gift to Israel »

24 September 2016


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.



That's what the founders of the Republic thought.


Here is a much more pessimistic assessment of ongoing Syrian tragedy by Paul Craig Roberts:
It seems that he came to a conclusion that, with regard to human dignity, there is nothing too low for the US/Israel psychopaths-in-charge -- that the deceit, outright lies, betrayal, land grab, and mass murder will continue in Syria and beyond because they ensure a flow of money and power for the major war profiteers.

The Beaver

Yep and the joker from London BoJo is saying that Russia could be guilty of war crimes whilst it is OK for UK to sell arms to KSA and to meddle in Yemen.

Speaking out from both sides of his mouth.
Still waiting for Ayrault from France after the circus of Power and BoJo.


"The idiots running US foreign policy, ignorant of any subjects outside their narrow purview are oblivious to the limitations imposed on military operations by such things as logistics, geography and climate ..."

These idiots have been carefully selected for this particular task by parasitic Israel-firsters and such "natives" as dishonorable Rumsfeld and Cheney.
Money, power, and unaccountability make a strong witch brew. The Deep State' demented deciders have been leading the world to the precipices of another major war. But look, none has been punished for the $6.5 trillion waste and the murder & ruin in Iraq. And it does not seem that the criminal Clinton and her handler Nuland-Kagan (not vise versa) are going to answer for the devastation of Libya and breaking of Ukraine. The US has been captured by a parasitoid that uses the host by controlling a "deciding" apparatus of the US.


I came across this today. Does anyone here have thoughts on the accuracy of the statement by Air Force Col. John Dorrian and wind direction at the time of the barrage?
This is not the first time the US has been accused of using them in Iraq. I know they are not strictly forbidden, but they are when used near civilians or combatants. My interest stems from the fact that my paternal grandfather was wounded and was unconscious when the gas arrived in one of the last battles in the First World War.


Old Microbiologist

He could also win it with Colorado where she is weaker.


And yet America was allies with the Red Army in WW2.

Why? Because it was a good way to defeat the Nazi's. Destroying Germany was the main objective (the bigger evil). To do that we were willing to work with the Reds. We did not like them. We even had a little conflict with them after WW1. But by WW2 we needed them to make Germany fight on two major fronts.

If our goal is the destruction of ISIS/JN, the most efficient way to do that is to ally (for now) with Syria, Russia, and Iran. Set aside the goal of regime change in Syria for a latter date. First destroy ISIS/JN!


Babak Makkinejad

You might be right.

Green Zone Café

The Sanctimonious Banshee is speaking at the UNSC now. Complaining that Assad believes in a military solution, as if she doesn't.


"BTW, I'd love to know who dreamed up the idea that the Russians would appreciate "the prestige of eventually conducting joint military operations in Syria alongside the United States against terrorist groups.""

My bet would be on the Russian diplomats to salve the egos of their psychopathic counterparts.

I would also say that the Moderate Mujhids got the word that if you want to continue breathing it would be wise to join the Sultan's side.


"...people like Ashton Carter and Joseph Dunford are behaving..."

Since the former wasn't relieved of authority and the latter received an article 22, their behavior suggests they were following orders.

Obama's own behavior over the years shows that he would order an attack such as happened at Deir al Zor and then whine factions went against him to hide from his own complicity.

As for changing public opinion, keep in mind many won't reveal their true feelings in public.


Colonel, I mean what is in essence a hybrid permanant fighting force -- one composed of foreign fighters who act under the US command (generally via 'special' forces or CIA), trained and equipped by the US, and can be deployed to assist US warfighting across the globe.

Essentially a largely off-the-record version of the French Foreign Legion which. as with the Legion, doesn't require fighters to swear allegiance to the nation but to the Legion itself.

So - my guess is that they're creating an 'informal' formalization of the kind of military assistance the US provided to say, the Anbar tribes fighting AQ, Mujihadeen fighting the Soviets or the Northern Alliance fighting the Taliban. Only this 'American Foreign Legion' would be fungible -- able to be deployed beyond a specific conflict to virtually anywhere -- throughout the African continent and anywhere else where it's too expensive and politically unpalatable to deploy large numbers of regular US troops.

These troops have been fighting under mazes of laws and regulations that are intolerable given the kind of enemies they're pitted against, whose only code of ethics in war is winning. The French and Saudi militaries aren't putting up with this. My guess it that the Pentagon started asking, 'If war is to be unending, why should we?'

Chris Chuba

Babak, bringing up FDR's words of caution regarding the use of force makes me sentimental for the old Republic.
I am rather fond of how John Quincy Adams put it, "She has, in the lapse of nearly half a century, without a single exception, respected the independence of other nations while asserting and maintaining her own. ... She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. ... But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy...She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication...The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force.... She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."


A common refutation to the Founders of the U.S. is that we did not become a world power until we shed their naive ideals. I don't buy that, they provided the foundation for our country to grow into one.

To answer your question, we have lost our way and our current leaders are incapable of comprehending this.


He said he was going off line until after the election, it may have been for a long term traveling vacation with his SWMBO.


No I don't think the Russians "hesitate" or are delusional about the good will of the US.
They HAVE to play the theatrics about their "partners" knowingly for both worldwide public opinion and the UN crowd, but it does seem it's coming to an end.



The Russians diplomatically played the Obama administration to prove to the worldwide public the monster behind the mask.


Not to worry, Roberts is always (very) pessimistic and a bit conspirationist on the side but still a worthwhile read.



interesting but I don't think anything like that is happening. pl

Babak Makkinejad

OK, thanks.

Sam Peralta

Assuming Trump wins all the states won by Romney including North Carolina as well as Florida and Ohio. Then he will need to also win Colorado, Nevada and Iowa or Pennsylvania or Michigan and either Nevada, Colorado or Iowa.

An electoral college win for Republicans is always more difficult as several of the big states are reliably Democratic. Trump has at least the possibility of winning states like Michigan and Iowa which Romney lost in 2012.

David Lentini

I think this goes farther, to a group identified by Carroll Quigley in his books "Tragedy and Hope" and "The Anglo-American Establishment" as the heirs of Cecil Rhoades's "Round Table Group" and the Rothschild banking family. In the end, these people want to create the sort of "rationalized" world of Huxley's "Brave New World"—The New World Order.

To do this, national borders and cultures must be smashed to homogenize mankind culturally and religiously. So, smashing the Middle East, using the resulting chaos to wreck Europe, instituting "free trade" agreements among the industrialized nations that eviscerate national laws, using UN agendas to push global environmental and "human rights" by military interventions and financial sanctions, all further this goal. And those close to the center make huge fortunes enabling this to happen.

The problem is that Putin and Russia have had enough of that collectivist dystopian thinkging China is not interested in being the source of cheap global labor for Anglo-American bankers. So, the NWO is facing some serious resistance.

David Lentini

jld and Thomoas,

I agree. It seems to me that Roberts is overlooking some important factors that would keep the Russians playing the game for awhile:

1. U.S. Pressure on other fronts like Ukraine, Crimea, and along Russia's frontier;

2. Western financial pressure;

3. Time to deploy additional weapons and sensors; and

4. Developments with China.

Also, no one mentions the growing unrest in Europe. From what I've read and heard, there could be serious civil unrest in France, Germany, and Italy by the end of the year. All of that could easily wreck the EU and NATO.

And there's the US election too. A Trump win would likely change things for at least a year as the neocons regroup and plan their revenge. (Assuming Trump is allowed to take office, that is.) A Hillary win, of course is likely war.

But all that leaves me unsurprised that Russia will play Obama's game in the short term.


"the glorious Red Army" was definitely not as wicked as the Nazi's which is obvious if you look at the the number of civilians they killed. What is true is that the Soviets colonized Eastern Europe. Colonization is always a very bloody affair. In fact so bloody that i think you would agree with me that Stalin would win the contest of nicest colonizer with not even hundred-thousand killed between end of WWII and the fall of the wall

ex-PFC Chuck

Pepe Escobar had a post up at Sputnik a couple of days ago but in it was the following paragraph:

“The key here is Donald is receiving more publicity than Hillary, and by attacking him for being an America Firster his polls have risen dramatically. The public loves it so the Masters of the Universe are helping him. The military industries have to be repatriated as we no longer control the seas and this will require either currency adjustments or tariffs. Hence, Donald's correct calls for an end to currency rigging which had as part of their purpose the building up of Germany and Japan at the sacrifice of our industries. Absurd that we did that but that is how it was. That is ending now with Donald and the emergency situation of lack of control of the Pacific Ocean for the component transportation by sea for our military production. Japan and Germany will be cut loose.”

It was in italics and in quotes, but I didn't see any attribution. I've seenassertions of the need to repatriate manufacturing capabilities for militarily important technologies, but the justifications had to do with vulnerability to built-in sabotage capabilities, not that we no longer dominate the Pacific Ocean sufficiently to assure shipping in hostile times. Is this recognized in DC and environs as the current or soon-to-be situation? Or is Escobar far off base here?

ex-PFC Chuck

PS to my immediately previous comment. The link to the Sputnik/Escobar piece:

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad